The US Navy in version 2.2

[swaghauler]

I simply have trouble imagining that EVERY modern vessel of the US Navy is at the bottom of an ocean (or sea). I began thinking about how much of the Navy would survive and I decided about 20% seems right. I also wanted to consider how a weakened Russia could possibly challenge NATO on the high seas. MY ANSWER (and this is just MY OPINION here folks) was to allow the "drawdown" that actually happened to the US Navy after the fall of the old Soviet Union. The list below is taken from the US Navy archives in 1999 and represents the total ACTIVE DUTY strength during that year. But first, some thoughts based on the "real world drawdown." These thoughts come from a number of different people and try to explain why the Navy retired/sold the ships that they did.

The Carriers: ALL of the Super Carriers (8 CVN and 4 CV) are still in service in 1999. All of the smaller carriers were "mothballed" for cost reasons (the Wasp class helo carriers are listed with the Amphibious Assault ships). The CVs were used in the Med and the Gulf (where sailing distances were shorter) and as training ships. I would roll 1D10 for a roll of 1 for a Carrier to have survived. 2 Ships would be the imposed limit on surviving Carriers. Gas-powered CVs would be nearly impossible to fuel based on the sheer quantity needed (I've heard 20 9000-gallon tanker trucks to fuel a single carrier).

The Battleships: As these were all "mothballed" during the 90's, I would see the Navy having trouble getting enough qualified personnel to man them before the Exchange occurs. They are TOUGH though, so I don't think that they would be easily sunk unless they were subjected to aerial bombardment during an amphibious landing. I would roll a 1D20 for each of the 4 with a roll of 4 or less indicating activation for the first ship, 3 or less for the second ship, 2 or less for the third ship and 1 on D20 for the fourth ship to survive through the Exchange. Fuel for these behemoths would be hard to come by.

The Nuclear Cruisers: With crews of 600+ many of whom were highly paid specialists and with HALF the nuclear cruiser fleet coming up to either a refuel or a midlife upgrade (most cruisers were built in the 50's and 60's), the decision was made to retire them because they cost a LOT to operate. They were ALL placed into the reserve fleet by the end of 1996. For those of you who have followed my posts, you know I don't have the US involved in ANY conflict until AFTER the November 1996 elections.
The USS Long Beach WAS decommissioning before the start of the Twilight War and the USS Bainbridge and USS Truxton were ready to decommission. I'd roll a 1 on 1D20 to reactivate these cruisers before the Exchange.
The four Virginia Class Cruisers were in the Reserve Fleet and could reactivate and survive the War on a 1 on 1D10.
The USS California and USS South Carolina were still on the roster until early 1999 so I would allow them to survive on a roll of 1 on 1D6.

The Conventional Cruisers: The Navy also retired ALL of her Vietnam-Era cruisers by 1999 (there were several in the reserve fleet) but had EVERY one of the 27 Ticos still in service. 5 of these Ticos are "Flight I" variants with the twin MK26 Dual-Arm Launchers. These ships are almost 50ft shorter than the "Flight II" Ticos and are used for training in 1999. There is a 1 in 6 chance the "Flight I" Ticos survive the Exchange. The "Flight II" Ticos are the longer MK41 VLS Launcher equipped version (128 Launch tubes per ship). ALL 22 of these ships are STILL IN SERVICE TODAY (the 5 "Flight I's being used as "parts ships" to keep the "flight II's running), this is the importance of these ships to the US Navy. A "Flight II" Survives the Exchange on a roll of 1 on 1D10. The maximum number of Ticos that can survive the Exchange is 5.

The Destroyers: The US Navy had 52 Destroyers of THREE different classes still in service in 1998-1999.

The last Charles F. Addams Destroyer was still sailing as a testing ship. This ship is STILL moored with the Mothballed Fleet in the Philadelphia Naval Yard. I can see this ship being used to support landings as it has TWO 5" guns, Two MK13 Single Arm Launchers, NO Helo, and is the cheapest to operate and lowest tech destroyer still in use. It was also MUCH more reliable than either the "Spru-Cans" or the "Admirals" were. The "Burkes" were too sophisticated and costly to risk in supporting landings. I give a roll of 1 on 1D10 for the CF Addam's to survive the Exchange.

The Kidd Class: These were ALL sold to Taiwan by 1998, but I keep them around. They were experiencing "reliability issues" in real life, so the Navy sold them. The Kidds were some of the most powerful destroyers in service in 1997. They had ASW, AA, two 5" guns AND helicopter hangers (missing on "Flight I" Burkes), but they were NEVER upgraded with regards to their weapons or sensors due to power and hull weight restrictions. I would allow a roll of 1 on 1D10 for each of the 4 Kidds. I would limit survival of the Kidds to ONE ship as they were on the front lines off of China.

The Spruance Class: In 1999 the "Spru-Cans" were the MOST numerous Destroyers still in operation. These ships were the most versatile Destroyers the Navy had. As such, they were deployed individually more often than any other class. The 4 "Flight I" Spruances still had their 8-Round ASROC Launchers (with 24 reloads), 2 X 4-Round Harpoon Launchers (between the front and rear stacks) and either an 8-round Sea Sparrow Launcher on the fantail or the 21-round RAM Launcher (1 on 1D6) in place of it. The "Flight I Spru-Cans" were used for training and survive the Exchange on a roll of 1 on 1D10.
The "Flight II" Spruances had the 60-Round (first generation) MK41 VLS Launcher in place of their ASROC Launcher. They augment this with the 2 X 4-Round Harpoon Launchers between the stacks. They also replace the 8-Round Sea Sparrow Launcher with the 21-Round RAM Launcher on a roll of 1 on 1D6. They may also have 2 X 4 Tomahawk Launchers on either side of the superstructure BUT this requires the DELETION of the fantail AA Launcher due to hull weight restrictions. The 24 "Flight II" Spruances were used individually or as detachment leaders, because they had a good mix of firepower with the 60-Round VLS Launchers, a hanger for helos (for ASW) and multiple guns. Their only weakness was poor reliability due to age and a large number of deployments under their belts. They survive on a roll of 1 on 1D10. The total number of Spruances that survive CANNOT exceed 6 hulls.

The Arleigh Burke Class: There were 21 "Flight I" Burkes (and the first hanger-equipped "Flight II" undergoing construction) in service by 1999. These Burkes had the first generation MK41 Launchers (a 30-round launcher in front and a 60-round launcher in the rear) and NO helicopter hanger (although they have a landing pad and RAST gear). These ships were assigned primarily to Carrier Task forces and often paired with Perry class Frigates to make up for a lack of ASW helicopter facilities. The Burkes survive on a roll of 1 on 1D10 with the total surviving NOT TO EXCEED 6 hulls.

The Frigates: The only Frigates the US Navy still had on active duty in 1999 were the Oliver Hazzard Perry Class. The 37 still active "Perrys" were both TOUGH and cheap to operate (the Coast Guard and Naval Reserve operated these as well). At this time, they still had their MK13 Single Arm Launchers (with 36 Standard AA missiles and 4 Harpoon missiles) but had added two waist-deck mounted MK38 25mm cannon (the unstabilized variant) behind the triple torpedo tubes. I could see the Navy adding Hellfire II launchers to the OHP but they are limited by their available surplus power AND hull-weight restrictions. The Perrys only have about 30 tons of extra weight capacity after adding the MK38s and extra munitions for their Helos. Perrys were often paired with Burkes to make up for the Burkes lack of helicopter facilities. They were also deployed singly in lower threat areas. The Perrys survive on a 1 or 2 on 1D10 with a maximum of 7 hulls surviving.

The Cyclone Class Patrol Cruisers: The 14 PCs (originally intended to support Navy Seals) Still had 13 ships on the registry with one ship transferred to the Phillippine Navy. I see these ships headed to the Gulf just like they are today. The Cyclones can transit the Littorals and even rivers so I see them taking several casualties. The chance of survival is 1 on 1D6 with a maximum of 4 hulls surviving.

Minewarfare Ships: The 18 ships still in service in 1999 would be prime targets and are also lightly armed. I see survival on a 1 on 1D10 with a maximum of 4 hulls surviving.

Amphibious assault Ships: This includes several classes such as the Wasp Class, the Raleigh Class, The Tarawas, and so forth. The total number of Amphibious Assault ships in 1999 is 41 vessels. I see these surviving on a 1 on 1D10 with 8 vessels TOTAL surviving.

Auxilliary Ships: The 57 Auxilliarys include Tankers, Ammo Supply ships, Bulk Haulers, and "Transfer Docks" for assaults. These ships survive on a roll of 1 on 1D10 with a maximum of 12 hulls surviving.

Command and Control Ships: The 4 C&C Ships were such high-value targets that I see them surviving only on a roll of 1 on 1D20.

The SSBMs: The "boomers" were another high-value target but we know at least ONE survived. I rate the 18 SSBMs as surviving on a roll of 1 on 1D10 with a minimum of ONE hull and a maximum of 3 hulls surviving the Twilight War.

The Subs: The US Navy had 57 nuclear subs in service in 1999. There were 2 Sea Wolf subs in service and the rest appear to be LA Class SSNs. I would roll a 1 on 1D10 to survive with a total of 10 hulls for the LA class. I would roll a 1 on 1D6 for the two Sea Wolf hulls to survive.

Those were the real-world hulls in service in 1999. Please Feel free to add or modify my list accordingly. The list also DOES NOT include the Reserve or Mothball Fleets.

[jimbo4795]

Great Post. Great ideas. I could easily see the BB's moored at Norfolk and Pearl with just enough manning to keep 1 boiler running to power the generators and keep the main guns manned for harbor defense.

[mpipes]

That is roughly what I came up with as far as operational ships, with about an equal number surviving but not operational for one reason or another.

I have almost all the Ohios surviving however. I don't think the Soviets could really track them in 1996-1998 time frame, and you could have paired each Ohio with an escorting Sturgeon to keep the survival chances high. 62 Los Angeles were in commission by the start of the war.

A good number of Sturgeons were still commissioned in 1994, when I think the brakes would have been applied to reducing the force and steps begun to expand as much as possible. Only a handful had been de-commissioned by 1994 (7-8). Surprisingly, all of the Skate class and most Permits were still kicking around and had not been scrapped (was shocked to discover that!). None of the updated Poseidon boomers had been scrapped either, and I think there were even 4 or 5 that had not been updated with Trident Is still available.

I still wonder how effective the Soviet surface force would have been. From what I understand, only a handful of surface units really concerned the navy and many thought they would break down in any long term war. It was that large submarine fleet that seemed to worry the Navy the most.

[Olefin]

The interesting thing about a V2.2 version is it predicates that the NATO drawdown happened - but if the same thing happened on the Russian side then frankly the US Navy should be in very good shape - the Russian navy was in very bad shape by 1996 - and even if they tried to put a lot of money into putting it back into fighting shape it was not the navy that would have been encountered in a V1 war

[Enfield]

One issue with the NATO fleets is, of course, fuel and maintenance. They require infrastructure for support, including drydocks, machine shops, and there is the matter of armaments. Even if not using the most modern vessels, the main armaments are missiles. So I have a few questions:

1. How many useful ports would still be in operation?

2. How many vessels would it be possible to keep maintained and fully functional?

3. Would MEUs still support the USMC in the Persian Gulf and between Korea-Japan?

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Enfield

One issue with the NATO fleets is, of course, fuel and maintenance. They require infrastructure for support, including drydocks, machine shops, and there is the matter of armaments. Even if not using the most modern vessels, the main armaments are missiles. So I have a few questions:

1. How many useful ports would still be in operation?

2. How many vessels would it be possible to keep maintained and fully functional?

3. Would MEUs still support the USMC in the Persian Gulf and between Korea-Japan?

I question how many missiles would be left. One of my co-workers served in the Navy in the 1980's. According to him, in those days, a ship would come in from deployment and all its missiles would be offloaded, serviced, and placed on an outbound ship. There simply weren't enough missiles to equip all the ships at once. This supposedly ended in the Early 90's. I did a little research and this is what I found out through The Navy Fact Files, Wikipedia, FAS, and ALL my reference works (Janes was a big help here). I have no idea how accurate these numbers are. Most of them are the product of a Wiki search (and those are questionable). Today I'll post the Navy's SAMs.

Ship-Launched SAMs:

The US Navy used the following ship-launched SAMs in 1997 (when I have my War getting "HOT");

RIM 66E Standard: This was the main replacement for the Tartar and is commonly employed by the MK13 "One-Armed Bandit" and the "Standard Launcher" (still found on the USS California and USS South Carolina). It can also be fired from the MK26 Twin Armed Launcher and the MK41 VLS Launcher. The RIM-66E has a range of 74km is semi-actively guided to the target (requires target illumination by the firing ship) and CANNOT hit surface skimming missiles. 3,000 missiles were made for service with the US Navy.

RIM 66H Standard (ER): This is an extended-range version of the basic Standard with low-level attack capability and only needing active guidance in the "terminal phase" of the attack. This allows an AEGIS-equipped ship to control multiple missiles at once, even against multiple targets. This missile is MUCH LONGER than the RIM-66E and WILL NOT FIT in the rotary "ring magazine" of the MK13/Standard Launcher (which can only handle 5m long missiles). The range of this missile is 167km and the Navy had 2000 in inventory at the turn of the Century. The Standard ER also demonstrated a capability to hit ships too.

RIM 162 Evolved Sea Sparrow: This was a ground-launched, enhanced ranged variant of the old active radar-homing Sparrow missile (replaced by the AMRAAM on Navy aircraft). It must be actively guided to the target and has moderately good performance against sea-skimming missiles. The issue with it is that the launcher/ship MUST guide the missile to the target. This limits the number of targets that can be engaged. This missile can be fired from the MK29 8-round Launcher, as a quad-packed (4 missiles per cell) subassembly in the MK41 VLS or as a "stand-alone" 2-round Launcher in the MK48 VLS. The range of the Evolved Sea Sparrow is 50km and the Navy had 2,000 in stock by 2000ad.

RIM 116 Rolling Airframe Missile: This is essentially a Sidewinder Missile with an improved FM-92 Stinger Missile's Seeker head fitted to it. It can sense BOTH IR radiation AND zero in on radar emissions. This optically-tracked system will follow a target until the missile "has a lock," at which point the operator (or computer in the SEARAM) can fire a missile. The missile will "self-track" and the operator (or SEARAM computer) can then lock another target. This system is often "ripple-fired." This involves shooting TWO missiles about 2 seconds apart so hit probability is increased. The range of the RAM is 9km and the US Navy either purchased them or converted older Sidewinders to RAMs. There are roughly 1,200 in service during the Twilight War. The RAM can be had in a stand-alone 11-round launcher paired with the Phalanx's radar and computer controller (the SEARAM), a 21-round launcher (MK-144), or a compact 8-round German-made launcher (MK2 SDS).

The Mk41 Vertical Launch System: The VLS came in two versions. The first version is a 30-round unit with 5 extra missiles in a "strike-down canister" that must be loaded manually by the crew. This launcher is divided into FIVE 6-round launch tube units. A 6-round unit has to have the same missile installed (and is programmed for the missile in question). It can launch one missile per second and can handle missiles up to 7.5 meters long.
The "strike-down container" was problematic due to the crew being unable to access the missiles in it in most sea states and an improved MK41 version holding FOUR 8-round launch units (for 32 missiles) and deleting the "strike-down container" emerged. This is the current MK41 unit in use today. The evolution continued with a quad-packed launch container for the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile. This means that an 8-round unit will hold 32 ESSM Missiles (greatly increasing a ship's firepower).

I'll post the ASROC, Harpoon and Tomahawk tomorrow.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Olefin

The interesting thing about a V2.2 version is it predicates that the NATO drawdown happened - but if the same thing happened on the Russian side then frankly the US Navy should be in very good shape - the Russian navy was in very bad shape by 1996 - and even if they tried to put a lot of money into putting it back into fighting shape it was not the navy that would have been encountered in a V1 war

I was surprised to see that "president Clinton" (I so want to refer to him as "slick willy" right now) reduced the Navy's strength to around 55% of its Cold War strength. In addition, he also reversed ALL of the Division 86 Protocols (these were the protocols that added heavy combat brigades, light brigades and increases the size of artillery units from 6 gun batteries to 8 gun ones in the US Army).

This is important because it rationalizes why a weakened Russia could oppose NATO. The US got its "Peace Dividend" through Force Reduction. When you combine this with the NUMEROUS "peace-keeping operations" we were involved in (in my alternate history, they ALL happened), it is easy to see WHY the US was spread "paper thin" around the Globe. When the Twilight War goes hot, the US has troops in:

Asia (East Timor, and Korea)
Western Europe (Poland, Germany)
Eastern Europe (Kosovo)
Africa (Rwanda, Nijer, Kenya, Cameroon)
South America (mostly revolutionary or DEA related in Peru, Guatemala, Colombia, Mexico)
The Arabian Peninsula (Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait)

They are simply spread too thin after absorbing the Force Cuts of the Peace Dividend.

Russia:

I have the "Rogue State" of Russia (after the Coup of course) searching for revenue. In real life, the US lent Russia money AND bought up huge quantities of her nuclear materials to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. As a result, Russia "behaved herself" throughout the 90's.

Once that US "intervention" is removed, there is NOTHING to stop Russia from selling the only things of value they have in great quantity... WEAPONS.
Russia sells T55Ms with the Volna fire control, T62s, and even MODERN T72s (with powered traverse and reactive armor) to IRAQ. They sell technology (including nuclear tech) to North Korea and Iran. They sell small arms and RPGs to South American drug lords and AL-QAEDA. They give AFVs to the Serbs, Libya, and The Congo. They sell tech to India and EVEN China before the Twilight War. By doing this, the Russians are able to build more modern weapons such as the T90, upgraded T80s, and newer weapons systems. Even the Navy benefitted from this. Russia only suffers a 30% to 40% degradation to her Naval force structure. She lost bigger units like her carriers (to pay the upkeep on her other capital ships) but kept the ships she could use as "surface raiders" as well as most of her subs. She also kept her small surface combatants like the Paulk Class ASW corvettes and the Tarantul Class corvettes.
Combine this with Russia playing "cat and mouse" with NATO (raiding commercial shipping but running from enemy combatants), explains why there aren't enough ships to take care of all the mission tasking.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by mpipes

That is roughly what I came up with as far as operational ships, with about an equal number surviving but not operational for one reason or another.

I have almost all the Ohios surviving however. I don't think the Soviets could really track them in 1996-1998 time frame, and you could have paired each Ohio with an escorting Sturgeon to keep the survival chances high. 62 Los Angeles were in commission by the start of the war.

A good number of Sturgeons were still commissioned in 1994, when I think the brakes would have been applied to reducing the force and steps begun to expand as much as possible. Only a handful had been de-commissioned by 1994 (7-8). Surprisingly, all of the Skate class and most Permits were still kicking around and had not been scrapped (was shocked to discover that!). None of the updated Poseidon boomers had been scrapped either, and I think there were even 4 or 5 that had not been updated with Trident Is still available.

I still wonder how effective the Soviet surface force would have been. From what I understand, only a handful of surface units really concerned the navy and many thought they would break down in any long term war. It was that large submarine fleet that seemed to worry the Navy the most.

I didn't even consider Reserve Fleet or Mothballs units. For those who don't know, the Reserve Fleet are units pretty much kept at sailing readiness but NOT officially crewed or armed. The Mothballs are laid up (and would require MONTHS to be "combat ready") in one of FOUR major places:

The Philidelphia Naval Yard
The James River VA
Suisan Bay CA
Brownsville TX

You should YouTube these places as they are REALLY COOL.

I did want to address one more thing I did find out. The reason the count is 55 LA Class subs is because one sub had an "engineering casualty" that sidelined it for 18 months, and 6 of the "flight I" subs (which can be identified by the diving planes positioned on their conning towers instead of on their bows) were undergoing their "midlife upgrades." Those upgrades involved digital fire controls, newer sonars that were flooded to give better acoustics, and newer reactor cores that produced more power. This upgrade takes between 24 and 36 months to do. The 3rd Seawolf was also completed but didn't enter service until 2000. This would probably be "expedited" as war loomed on the horizon. ALL of the other subs, the USS California, and the USS South Carolina were ALSO in the Reserves at this point. The Virginias were not active but not decommissioned yet. The Long Beach WAS decommissioned and both the Bainbridge and the Truxton were decommissioning. The 15 Perrys that are missing were with either the Coast Guard or the Active Reserves BUT they had lost their MK13 "One Armed Bandits" (the term Navy crews used for the MK13 Launcher).

I would like to point out two good book resources I have that have made my life MUCH easier researching these ships. The first is Modern Naval Combat (1988 ISBN 0-517-61350-6). The second book is The Encyclopedia of World Sea Power (1988, ISBN 0-517-65342-7) which is more a reference than a proper book (with explanations in it). It also lists and describes the various weapons these ships used. I also recommend The Federation of American Scientists (FAS). Their World Equipment Guide is almost as good as Paul's site. ALMOST...