San Diego Based Article?

[kalos72]

I assume all these missiles would run out sooner or later. I doubt they are capable of manufacturing them at this stage of the war.

So then its all about the guns?

[Olefin]

Its interesting but in some way the 2001 naval world would look much like the one you see in the The Seventh Carrier series of books - with missiles and torpedoes almost all gone you are back to guns - meaning that navies with old WWII ships still afloat would have a very big advantage - imagine what New Jersey would do against a bunch of modern DD's and missile cruisers who are out of missiles and now its their one or two 5 inch guns against ten 5 inch and 9 16 inch guns?

[stormlion1]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Its interesting but in some way the 2001 naval world would look much like the one you see in the The Seventh Carrier series of books - with missiles and torpedoes almost all gone you are back to guns - meaning that navies with old WWII ships still afloat would have a very big advantage - imagine what New Jersey would do against a bunch of modern DD's and missile cruisers who are out of missiles and now its their one or two 5 inch guns against ten 5 inch and 9 16 inch guns?

Missiles and Torpedoes running out would be an issue but modern cruisers and destroyers and the Kirov class have an advantage over a Iowa. There's a lot more ammunition for them than the Iowa's. Plus fuel as the Iowa is dependent on a larger supply chain to keep running. If there not able to get missiles and Torpedoes then Fuel will be right out as well. Short term the Iowa Class Battleships would be unstoppable until there fuel runs low and ammunition stockpiles run out. Then its a harbor defense ship.

Same goes for Carriers, the need for fuel for the aircraft, ammunition for them, and replacements make there own supply situation tenuous at best. Sure the ship can cruise around the world buts useless if there are no aircraft or they can't get stockpiles in the continental US out to the carriers. In the right situation all the big ships will be in port and the small Cruisers and Destroyers will become the prevalent warships on the seas because there is stockpiles of ammunition for there guns and there nuclear. At which point the Kirov becomes a match for the Ticonderoga's running around.

[Olefin]

Sorry but the Iowa and her sisters had plenty of ammo

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

11) A 1981 inventory of naval ammunition storage facilities found that there were 15,500 HC projectiles, 3,200 AP projectiles and 2,300 practice rounds in stock.

And given that they stayed in service there were new projectiles in development for those guns that may have increased that total

Even divided by four thats 3800+HC and 800 AP projectiles per ship - and with the radars installed on them during the 1980's they basically would be on target from the first salvo

or to say it another way - each ship had enough ammo allocated to basically sink most of the Soviet surface fleet all by itself

[stormlion1]

Its not the shells that are the issue. Its getting the shells to the ships that become an issue and in the scenario were looking at shipping just isn't available after the first few months. In many ways the Iowa's are a liability in a supply situation due to there long supply chain.

Also wasn't there an issue with the powder the Iowa's used that came to light during Beirut?

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Sorry but the Iowa and her sisters had plenty of ammo

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

11) A 1981 inventory of naval ammunition storage facilities found that there were 15,500 HC projectiles, 3,200 AP projectiles and 2,300 practice rounds in stock.

And given that they stayed in service there were new projectiles in development for those guns that may have increased that total

Even divided by four thats 3800+HC and 800 AP projectiles per ship - and with the radars installed on them during the 1980's they basically would be on target from the first salvo

or to say it another way - each ship had enough ammo allocated to basically sink most of the Soviet surface fleet all by itself

For someone who prides himself on being able to find stuff on the internet, I literally have never been able to find what the Ammo load of a New Jersey Class ship was. I see from your link it was about 130 rounds per gun. Thanks for that.

Does anyone know the standard breakdown or HE and AP? I'm pretty sure it would be HE heavy.

[Olefin]

Yes there was but it was fixed

From the NY TImes

WASHINGTON, June 2— As part of an effort to bring its recommissioned World War II battleships into the modern era, the Navy has begun an extensive program to improve the accuracy of their guns.

A recent study by the General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, concluded that although the battleship New Jersey accomplished her 1983 mission off Lebanon by silencing the fire of the Syrian-backed forces near Beirut, the accuracy of her 16-inch guns was less than desired. A researcher for the Congressional agency, speaking on condition that he not be identified, said the problem arose largely from the use of powder dating to the Korean War.

The Navy said some of the money from its gunnery program would be used to improve the bags of powder that propel the 2,000-pound shells.

Powder Bags Being Refilled

For many decades powder bags were made of silk. But silk bags are no longer in the military inventory and the rayon bags that replaced them have not been approved for use at sea. The Navy is to remove the powder from the silk bags and refill them with powder judged to be in superior condition.

The superior powder was manufactured from 1932 to 1946, the Navy said, and the powder currently used was made from 1941 to 1956. Both powders consist almost entirely of the explosive nitrocellulose.

A Congressional source who received the General Accounting Office's briefing said the New Jersey's crew improved accuracy off Lebanon by selecting powder charges that had not chemically deteriorated. After the powder change, the gunfire was 10 times closer to the target, he said.

In Congressional testimony last year, Navy officials said the New Jersey had attained accuracy of within 250 yards or so of a target from a range of 10 to 12 miles. $15 Million Asked for Gunnery For the fiscal year 1986, beginning Oct. 1, the Navy seeks $15.9 million for research and development to improve gunnery. Congress approved a total of $9.7 million for 1984 and 1985. Pentagon budget documents show that the Navy plans to seek $21.9 million for this purpose for 1987.

[stormlion1]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Yes there was but it was fixed

From the NY TImes

WASHINGTON, June 2— As part of an effort to bring its recommissioned World War II battleships into the modern era, the Navy has begun an extensive program to improve the accuracy of their guns.

A recent study by the General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, concluded that although the battleship New Jersey accomplished her 1983 mission off Lebanon by silencing the fire of the Syrian-backed forces near Beirut, the accuracy of her 16-inch guns was less than desired. A researcher for the Congressional agency, speaking on condition that he not be identified, said the problem arose largely from the use of powder dating to the Korean War.

The Navy said some of the money from its gunnery program would be used to improve the bags of powder that propel the 2,000-pound shells.

Powder Bags Being Refilled

For many decades powder bags were made of silk. But silk bags are no longer in the military inventory and the rayon bags that replaced them have not been approved for use at sea. The Navy is to remove the powder from the silk bags and refill them with powder judged to be in superior condition.

The superior powder was manufactured from 1932 to 1946, the Navy said, and the powder currently used was made from 1941 to 1956. Both powders consist almost entirely of the explosive nitrocellulose.

A Congressional source who received the General Accounting Office's briefing said the New Jersey's crew improved accuracy off Lebanon by selecting powder charges that had not chemically deteriorated. After the powder change, the gunfire was 10 times closer to the target, he said.

In Congressional testimony last year, Navy officials said the New Jersey had attained accuracy of within 250 yards or so of a target from a range of 10 to 12 miles. $15 Million Asked for Gunnery For the fiscal year 1986, beginning Oct. 1, the Navy seeks $15.9 million for research and development to improve gunnery. Congress approved a total of $9.7 million for 1984 and 1985. Pentagon budget documents show that the Navy plans to seek $21.9 million for this purpose for 1987.

Thanks, I knew I had read this somewhere before. I was also reading that they experimented and produced Nuclear shells for Iowa class Battleships. And while I could see that being an issue with landing forces, nuclear shells would be devastating if used against Russian warships. Particular thin skinned ones.

[Olefin]

They are mentioned in that link I put up I think Storm Lion - not sure if there were any left by the 90's but would have been one hell of an addition to an Iowa's armory - and her guns sure had the range to deliver one safely

[stormlion1]

Well they were produced in the 50's but I have never read of any being used. Even for test firings and weren't withdrawn from service until 1991. And only were withdrawn due to a tit for tat treaty with the Russians. Something that wouldn't have happened in this universe. So I'm guessing the Iowa's would have had several nuclear shells for use onboard in each turrets magazine. Even a near miss might devastating if the shell exploded.

[Olefin]

One of those shells would definitely be enough to ruin most Soviet fleet admiral's days - or one heck of a wake up call for a North Korean division

[stormlion1]

Well like I said use during a landing or shore bombardment would be political suicide early in a war while after the nukes have been used there wouldn't be an issue unless someone wanted to use the land they just fired at. Against a Russian ship though I could see them pretty much devastating a target. Hit a Kirov? Punches through a few decks. Then it explodes in a nuclear fireball. A single round could potentially be any ships killer. But the question is, are they contact detonated or Timed?

[kalos72]

What about a throwback to the old PT gunboats perhaps? Those would do well against a ship without missiles I would think.

[Wolf sword]

Originally Posted by kalos72

What about a throwback to the old PT gunboats perhaps? Those would do well against a ship without missiles I would think.

Well for the fact almost all of the WW2 era PT boats were wrecked at the end of the war. I know of 1 working ww2 pt boat this was restored in 2012 or 13 by a bunch of pt boat vets.
I think the navy would have grab the coast guard boats to make a squadron of "modern PT" raiders (and I don't see that going over to well with the coast guard, this could be a plot point for a defection of the coast guard over to CivGov)

[stormlion1]

Actually the Navy would probably just go into a Marina and seize speedboats and arm them and then make use of a superyacht or a small tanker to keep them fueled. Just bolt on a 50 cal and maybe a mortar and pack a few Stingers below decks. Easy almost ready made PT Boats. No torpedos though, but there another issue altogether.

[kalos72]

My groups is under the believe that an organized cantonment should be able to make 40-50's tech on a small scale by 2001. So some Mark 14's or something should be possible, albeit few of them to start.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by stormlion1

Well like I said use during a landing or shore bombardment would be political suicide early in a war while after the nukes have been used there wouldn't be an issue unless someone wanted to use the land they just fired at. Against a Russian ship though I could see them pretty much devastating a target. Hit a Kirov? Punches through a few decks. Then it explodes in a nuclear fireball. A single round could potentially be any ships killer. But the question is, are they contact detonated or Timed?

Either one. You designate that when you arm the fuse. Low altitude air burst is the most effective method of generating a "Nominal Yield," but a ground burst would be more effective in damaging a bunker. Most naval engagements would use an airburst. Between the blast and secondary tidal/shock wave, there wouldn't be many survivors in a fleet hit by one. The "Nominal Yield" of an 8" airburst artillery round was around 20kt. A 16" round would probably do 50kt to 75kt.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by stormlion1

Actually the Navy would probably just go into a Marina and seize speedboats and arm them and then make use of a superyacht or a small tanker to keep them fueled. Just bolt on a 50 cal and maybe a mortar and pack a few Stingers below decks. Easy almost ready made PT Boats. No torpedos though, but there another issue altogether.

I agree. They would probably just pull an Iran. Iran had speed boats (SeaRays mostly) with mines, SA-7s, and RPG-7's/Recoilless Rifles mounted on them. They did cause a number of problems for commercial shipping in the Gulf during the 80's.
Let's not forget that there are a number of large (50ft+) "Pleasure Trawlers" out there. The first one that comes to my mind would be the Grand Banks line of trawlers. These ships can only do 12 knots but they have an endurance of around 5000 Nautical Miles and a significant deck space. Just go to the Grand Banks website to see what one of these trawlers look like. There are hundreds of them just in the US alone. They could easily be used to support an "expedition."

[stormlion1]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

I agree. They would probably just pull an Iran. Iran had speed boats (SeaRays mostly) with mines, SA-7s, and RPG-7's/Recoilless Rifles mounted on them. They did cause a number of problems for commercial shipping in the Gulf during the 80's.
Let's not forget that there are a number of large (50ft+) "Pleasure Trawlers" out there. The first one that comes to my mind would be the Grand Banks line of trawlers. These ships can only do 12 knots but they have an endurance of around 5000 Nautical Miles and a significant deck space. Just go to the Grand Banks website to see what one of these trawlers look like. There are hundreds of them just in the US alone. They could easily be used to support an "expedition."

I didn't want to say it but the Iranian Navy was what I was thinking of.

[rcaf_777]

Iranian Navy Boats and Navy Aircraft

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by stormlion1

Actually the Navy would probably just go into a Marina and seize speedboats and arm them and then make use of a superyacht or a small tanker to keep them fueled. Just bolt on a 50 cal and maybe a mortar and pack a few Stingers below decks. Easy almost ready made PT Boats. No torpedos though, but there another issue altogether.

Don't forget DEA, armed customs craft. The USCG would have been rolled into the navy like WWII.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by .45cultist

The USCG would have been rolled into the navy like WWII.

Kind of. There's still an independent USCG in one of the Last Submarine modules, but most of their larger combat-capable ships have been taken by the Navy.

[rcaf_777]

Here are some chart in ref to the Iowa class I found them here

http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/military_service/


Good Info to life in US Navy 1980's to 1995

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

Here are some chart in ref to the Iowa class I found them here

http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/military_service/


Good Info to life in US Navy 1980's to 1995

Nice post. Most people don't realize that your top speed in a "displacement hull" (planning hulls are different) is a function of waterline length. There is an inverse to this advantage though; Turning Speed/Area Required for Turns. This is why the real pirates of The Caribbean used smaller ships with shoal drafts. They would "out turn" the larger Naval ships and run for the cover of any nearby shoals. The larger Naval vessels could not enter the Pirate's strongholds due to their deeper draft.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Targan

Kind of. There's still an independent USCG in one of the Last Submarine modules, but most of their larger combat-capable ships have been taken by the Navy.

As far as I know, The Coast Guard has one very important mission in the event of war that would keep it "local." It is tasked with long range patrol, convoy protection and coastal ASW in the event of war.

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

As far as I know, The Coast Guard has one very important mission in the event of war that would keep it "local." It is tasked with long range patrol, convoy protection and coastal ASW in the event of war.

I'd give the DEA boats to the USCG then to free up assets or utilize any "Greybeards" amongst the locals.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by .45cultist

I'd give the DEA boats to the USCG then to free up assets or utilize any "Greybeards" amongst the locals.

DEA doesn't have any boats that the Coast Guard can use. DEA boats are "undercover" seized pleasure boats. The Coast Guard provides "military capable" boats to ALL civilian LE. Coast Guard boats are small and designed for "heavy weather." This requirement precludes taking their boats for naval operations (they don't have the "legs," and there are no civilian replacements to use). The Coast Guard's larger cruisers (augmented by the "retired " Oliver Hazard Perry class Destroyers) would already be engaged in convoy escort to "deep water" where the Navy (probably using the 10 USN Reserve Perry Class Destroyers) would then take over. The one exception would be her Icebreakers. These are often called up for Navy service. The Coast Guard was already in a "reduced strength" condition in the early 90's. You couldn't cut much more from them without endangering their mandate to provide emergency assistance to commercial shipping/fishing.