US Navy Ships of the Twilight War

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

I really think that the lack of seapower has more to do with lack of fuel and munitions than serviceable ships.

The typical medium-sized fishing vessel (think of the SMALLER crabbers in the deadliest catch) will burn a METRIC TON of fuel oil to sail around 50km at 12 knots. The OH Perry Class frigates would only go 16km per metric ton of fuel consumed due to their thirsty gas turbines. These are the same engines used by the Tico Class Cruisers, and the Burkes. I just don't see many ships making the crossing from America to Europe based solely on the fuel needed to do it.

Agreed. I appreciate the stats you posted to reinforce this point.

Originally Posted by swaghauler

This brings me to my second issue with RAW Twilight. The idea that 80% of the fleets were sunk. The fleets (all combatants) are well dispersed with between 1/3rd and 1/2 of the fleet at sea during a given moment. The ocean is a big place and I simply find it hard to swallow that 8 in every 10 ships is resting at the bottom of it.

You're probably right, but after a couple of Red Storm Rising-style Backfire strikes on carrier battle groups, a couple of large fleet actions (at least one is mentioned in canon- Norwegian Sea, IIRC), tactical nuclear strikes on naval ports and vessels at sea (inferred), plus attrition of convoy escorts, naval strength on both sides would be seriously curtailed. If Harpoon taught us anything, it's that there are dozens, if not scores, of scenarios for naval battles in WWIII. Total attrition probably wouldn't come close to 80%, I agree, but as several of us have pointed out, after the oil dries up or goes up in flames, 90+% of surviving vessels (i.e. non-nuclear powered ones) would be next to useless. So, higher warship numbers c. 2000 are pretty much moot.

Originally Posted by swaghauler

I also remember when in '91 the Coalition was predicting the loss of 800 to 1000 aircraft on the first day of the air war (with 2,250 total aircraft in the theater). We lost 75 aircraft during the WHOLE campaign.

I see what you're getting at but, to be fair, the Iraqis were mostly incompetent. It's an apples to oranges comparison. I don't think the Soviets, especially with a couple of years of high-intensity modern warfare under their belts (China) would roll over as quickly as Saddam's bullies and conscripts. I don't want to belabor this point here because we have a whole thread devoted to it.

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=897

Originally Posted by swaghauler

The second thing I think would happen is that our NUCLEAR Subs and Carriers would end up being used for SEALIFT operations. You may not have enough aircraft or jet fuel to put a hundred aircraft into action, but a Nimitz Class Carrier can carry a buttload of equipment WITHOUT THE NEED FOR FUEL. Use a couple of LA Class SSNs for escorts and you have a "convoy" with tremendous lifting capacity and UNLIMITED RANGE. This is how I see the Navy using existing CVNs once the fuel and ordinance run out.

This is a really good point and could go a long way to explaining OMEGA and the subsequent transfer of troops to the Middle East. It also reminds me of the "raft" from the novel, Snow Crash. Sealift and power generation are two very useful things CVNs and SSNs could still do when the missiles run out.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Raellus

You're probably right, but after a couple of Red Storm Rising-style Backfire strikes on carrier battle groups, a couple of large fleet actions (at least one is mentioned in canon- Norwegian Sea, IIRC), tactical nuclear strikes on naval ports and vessels at sea (inferred), plus attrition of convoy escorts, naval strength on both sides would be seriously curtailed. If Harpoon taught us anything, it's that there are dozens, if not scores, of scenarios for naval battles in WWIII. Total attrition probably wouldn't come close to 80%, I agree, but as several of us have pointed out, after the oil dries up or goes up in flames, 90+% of surviving vessels (i.e. non-nuclear powered ones) would be next to useless. So, higher warship numbers c. 2000 are pretty much moot.

My point is that I personally don't see any surviving factions expending large amounts of resources to bring museum ships back into service when there are modern ships sitting in port for a lack of fuel and munitions. Why rehab a WW2 Cruiser that will require just as much "bunker" (the naval term for fuel) as a modern ship?

The ships that would be sailing either don't require those resources (like actual sailing vessels that don't need fuel) or are small enough to actually fuel (like smaller 40 to 60 foot powered vessels used as patrol vessels). The average 50ft powered boat will have a range around 500km. This is a decent range for setting up a regional campaign.

This is an advantage for most GMs because it is much easier to run a scenario using small boats armed with RPGs and MGs than to include a large Frigate or Destroyer in that fight. Most small vessels can also be manned by a two-man crew which better suits Twilight2000's smaller unit tactics too.

I STRONGLY suggest that any GMs looking at naval adventures in coastal areas or the various littoral regions take a look at sailboat listings from such sources as The Moorings Group or Boat Trader. A good 40ft to 60ft sailboat is the ideal floating base for a small group of PCs. They also make good pirate vessels when equipped with MGs. I have a strong preference for Catamarans myself.

[Olefin]

Now that the East Africa sourcebook is official V2.2 canon with the update you can add the following officially to ships listed in Twilight 2000 canon - US, French and Kenyan

TF 212 - Kenya

CG 50 Valley Forge, SH-60 F Seahawk (flagship)
DDG 996 Chandler, SH-2F Seasprite
DDG 46 Preble
FF 1058 Meyerkord, SH-2F Seasprite
FFG 9 Wadsworth
DD 950 Richard S. Edwards
FF 1064 Lockwood (harbor defense)

TF 212.2 Patrol Group - Kenya

USCGC WMEC 725 Jarvis
PC 11 Whirlwind
MCM 7 Patriot
MHC 56 Kingfisher

TF Stryker - Kenya

LST-1190 Boulder (flagship)
LST-1185 Schenectady
LSD-32 Spiegel Grove
Alexander Bonnyman (ex-BDK 14 Mukhtar Avezov)
John Basilone (LCT-1037 Polnochny-B class)
LCU 2031 New Orleans
LCU 1619, 1643 (LCU 1610 class)
LCM 6 – ten
LCM 8 – six
LCAC 90

TF 233 - Kenya

AD 43 Cape Cod (flagship)
T-A0 146 Kawishiwi
AE 22 Mauna Kea
AOE 7 Rainier
AR 8 Jason
YTB-820 Wanamassa
T-ATF-172 Apache
Solstar (Salvage Tug)

Kenyan Navy - HQ Mombasa

P3126 KNS Nyayo (Missile Boat) – six functional Otomat missiles
P3127 KNS Umoja (Missile Boat) – missile system non-functional
P3123 KNS Harambee (Missile Boat)- five functional Gabriel missiles
L39 KNS Tana, L38 KNS Galana (Medium landing ships)
Small River Patrol Boats P943-P947

French Indian Ocean Squadron

Djibouti

A631 Somme (Fleet HQ)
A69 type Sloop F789 Lieutenant de vaisseau Le Hénaff
LCM CTM24, CTM25
EDIC Landing Ship Sabre

Reunion

Frigate F730 Floreal, AS 565 Panther
Frigate F732 Nivôse, AS565 Panther
Austral Class Patrol Ship F681 Albatros
BATRAL class Landing Ship L9034 La Grandiere
Naval Oiler C1GH22
P400 class P690 La Rieuse
Light Repair Ship A617 Garonne
RV Marion Dufresne II, AS350 B3

Mayotte

Patrol Boats P763, P790, P721
P400 class P683 La Boudeuse
LCM CTM18

[Raellus]

More evidence that modern naval vessels are vulnerable to fire.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...into-the-night

This and other recent instances of accidents at sea resulting in sinking or extended time in dry dock, plus numerous stories about how submarines- especially 70s and 80s-vintage diesel boats- have "sunk" US and NATO aircraft carriers during exercises demonstrates, IMHO, that attrition in a full-scale, modern naval war would be extremely high- perhaps, as high as the canon authors wrote it.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by Raellus

More evidence that modern naval vessels are vulnerable to fire.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...into-the-night

This and other recent instances of accidents at sea resulting in sinking or extended time in dry dock, plus numerous stories about how submarines- especially 70s and 80s-vintage diesel boats- have "sunk" US and NATO aircraft carriers during exercises demonstrates, IMHO, that attrition in a full-scale, modern naval war would be extremely high- perhaps, as high as the canon authors wrote it.

So your saying that because a amphibious assault ship (not an Aircraft Carrier) that caught fire in port, (not a missile or torpedo strike) could catch fire and sink?

Well that interesting, but stinking a carrier at sea during any exercise is a lot different that sinking one at sea. So is a fire in port where all your hatches are open and no one is battle stations and no damage control parties are ready for a fire.

Maybe if I put wings on my grandmother she be a B-52?

[Raellus]

Not constructive, not civil, rccaf_777. It's fine to disagree, but sarcasm and condescension are totally unnecessary (and contrary to our forum guidelines).

-

[pmulcahy11b]

Just an aside -- was Bonhomme Richard active during the Twilight War? Anybody know enough about the ship to make up something off-the-cuff?

[cawest]

Originally Posted by Raellus

More evidence that modern naval vessels are vulnerable to fire.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...into-the-night

This and other recent instances of accidents at sea resulting in sinking or extended time in dry dock, plus numerous stories about how submarines- especially 70s and 80s-vintage diesel boats- have "sunk" US and NATO aircraft carriers during exercises demonstrates, IMHO, that attrition in a full-scale, modern naval war would be extremely high- perhaps, as high as the canon authors wrote it.

remember she only had a small crew on board, not a full crew and at battle stations. Now if the ship was in port and took a missile or trop? that might be different. the problem if fighting ship fires is that once the take hold, they are hard to put out. its like the golden hour for combat wounded, but for ships.