RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-09-2011, 11:59 PM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default Aircraft carriers in and after the Twilight War

Carriers have been discussed several times of course but how many of them would have been truly available remains open to question. Here is my take based on v1.0. First, the USA

CVL28 "Cabot": after serving until 1989 with the Spanish Navy as the Dedalo, the ship was returned to the US to become a museum ship. When the private organization which had taken over the ship proved unable to pay its creditors, it was taken over by the navy. Given it's relative good shape and growing international tensions, it is again modernized by the US Navy, put back into commission carrying a small group of AV8B and sent to the Carribean to serve with the reestablished but painfully weak 4th Fleet.

CV16 "Lexington" The official training carrier of the US Navy, the tensions had forced to postpone its replacement and the ship is still operating by 1995. He is then, again, fitted with a number of weapon systems (in fact phalanx AD systems) and remains the dedicated trainer carrier of the US Navy. It's only after the Barent's Sea disaster that it is fully commissioned to the Atlantic. Unable to operate the most modern aircrafts, its group is operating refurbished A4 Skyhawk operated by USMC pilots and a number of S3 Viking. It performs escort missions and participate in the large chase of still very active soviet submarines taking place.

CVB41 "Midway"
CVB43 "Coral Sea"
CV59 "Forrestal"
CV60 "Saratoga"
CV61 "Ranger"
CV62 "Independence"
CV63 "Kitty Hawk"
CV64 "Constellation"
CVN65 "Enterprise"
CV66 "America"
CV67 "JFK"
CVN68 "Nimitz"
CVN69 "Dwight D. Eisenhower"
CVN70 "Carl Winson"
CVN71 "Theodore Roosevelt"
CVN72 "Abraham Lincoln"
CVN73 "Georges Washington"
CVN74 "John C. Stennis"

CVN75 "Harry S. Trumman" While work on this ship had been started in 1993, it accelerated significantly by 1994 and the ship was commissioned prior to the operation in the Barent's Sea. It is, then, lost within the Barent's Sea when, security malfunctions result in the crew being unable to save her.
CVN76 "Ronald Reagan" Although never commissioned work on this Ship had started in 1994 and it was launched in late 1996. It was almost ready for commission when the exchange took place and now lay where it was, slowly rusting as nobody has the means to take it over.

Last edited by Mohoender; 09-10-2011 at 12:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-10-2011, 12:30 AM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Second USSR

I don't consider Moskva and Leningrad to be carriers but I would count 8 aircraft carriers for the Soviet Union by 1995 if it had not collapsed at all. Work on an additional one could have been started but, as someone pointed out, these were never intended for offensive purpose. While their defensive capability is respectable, their offensive power is much weaker than that of US carriers.

2 Ulyanovsk-class Nuclear Carriers carrying 27 Su-33, 10 Mig-29K (added only after the war started), 10 Su-25, 4 Yak-44 and 15-20 kamov
Ulyanovsk
Kremlin


2 Kuznetsov-class Carriers carrying 12 Su-33, 10 Mig-29K, 10 Su-25, 4 Yak-44 and 15-20 Kamov (air group augmented to its war level)
Kuznetsov
Varyag


4 Kiev-class Carriers carrying 20 Yak-141 and 12 Kamov (Air component deployed as initially planned. Moreover, Yak-141 have replaced Yak-38 by 1995, seriously boosting these ships capabilities) with the exception of Baku which has been modernized under project 11430 and now carries 24 Mig-29K, 2 Yak-44 and 5-6 Kamov.
Kiev
Baku
Minsk
Novorossiysk
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-10-2011, 12:54 AM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Third and last, the Others

UK still only has its 3 Invincible-class aircraft carrier but with an augmented airgroup which is now composed of 18 Harrier and 10 helicopters.
Invincible
Illustrious
Ark Royal


Given the global situation of 1995, steel cuts had started by 1997 to produce two major aircraft carriers but it didn't go any further.

By the year 2000, France operates 4 aircraft carriers and has, by far, the most powerful surviving carrier complement.
2 Clemenceau-class Aircraft Carriers both carrying 40 aircraft and helicopters. On Clemenceau the aircraft complements is composed of 8 Rafale M, 15 Super Etendard, 4 Etendard IVP, 8 Alizé and 4-5 helicopters but on Foch it remains 8 Crusaders (an additional 9 remain in reserve for eventual replacements until more Rafale M can be produce; since Foch operates in the Mediterranean, priority for Rafale deliveries is currently given to the Armée de l'Air), 15 Super Etendard, 4 Etendard IVP, 8 Alizé and 4-5 helicopters.
Foch
Clemenceau

2 Charles de Gaulle-class Nuclear Carriers both carying 18 Rafale M, 12 Super Etendard, 4 Etendard IVP (E2C had never been delivered) and 5-6 helicopters
Richelieu
Charles de Gaulle


Italy
Garibaldi

Spain
Principe de Asturias
Dedalo
Obviously, this is not the original Dedalo but the carrier that should have become Chakri Naruebet. Work on the ship had started in 1994, it was launched in 1996 and ready by the early 1997. Insteed of being delivered to the Thai Navy, the ship is taken over by the Spanish navy which, then, receives a few additional harriers from the USA.

India
Viraat
Vikrant


Brazil
"Minas Gerais" Fully operational by 1997 but solely performing anti-submarine duties and lacking any jet aircrafts.

Argentina
"Veinticinco de Mayo" confined to port since 1986 and unable to go to sea.

Last edited by Mohoender; 09-10-2011 at 01:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-10-2011, 06:29 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,883
Default

Looks like you caught all of the serviceable decks, good work!

Only issue that I see is the air group for the USS Lexington, the Essex/Hancock-classes flight deck is too small to support the S-3. Most likely the ASW group whould have been SH-2, SH-3 or SH-60 helos only. I would also see the Lady Lex's training mission to be of more importance than bringing a marginal flight deck up to combat speed. Of course, after the nukes start being tossed around, that would rapidly change.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-10-2011, 12:16 PM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragoon500ly View Post
Looks like you caught all of the serviceable decks, good work!

Only issue that I see is the air group for the USS Lexington, the Essex/Hancock-classes flight deck is too small to support the S-3. Most likely the ASW group whould have been SH-2, SH-3 or SH-60 helos only. I would also see the Lady Lex's training mission to be of more importance than bringing a marginal flight deck up to combat speed. Of course, after the nukes start being tossed around, that would rapidly change.
I wouldn't have expected that, thanks for the info. Then, I would tend to replace them with refitted S2 Tracker. Might not be ideal in term of realism but I always loved the Tracker and Canada might have been willing to sale his fleet back to US. Or may be they are serviced by Canadian crews.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-11-2011, 03:57 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender View Post
I wouldn't have expected that, thanks for the info. Then, I would tend to replace them with refitted S2 Tracker. Might not be ideal in term of realism but I always loved the Tracker and Canada might have been willing to sale his fleet back to US. Or may be they are serviced by Canadian crews.
I don't know about the Tracker reentering US service. This is from the 14th edition of The Ships and Aircraft of the US Navy.

"The last US Navy S-2 series Tracker ASE aircraft was discarded in March 1986. The last US Navy Tracker was an ES-2D configured as a range support aircraft. The last ASW variant was an S-2G retired from VS-37 in August 1976."

According to the 13th edition, that ES-2D was one of four surviving aircraft. So there would not be a lot of type-qualified pilots or ground crew remaining by the time the war kicks off.

The only issue I see with the Canadians returning their Trackers is, just what will they replace the aircraft with? Production of the Aurora would not be enough to cover the gap left by removing these aircraft.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-12-2011, 11:19 AM
rcaf_777's Avatar
rcaf_777 rcaf_777 is offline
Staff Headquarter Weinie
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Petawawa Ontario Canada
Posts: 1,104
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender View Post
I wouldn't have expected that, thanks for the info. Then, I would tend to replace them with refitted S2 Tracker. Might not be ideal in term of realism but I always loved the Tracker and Canada might have been willing to sale his fleet back to US. Or may be they are serviced by Canadian crews.

I have thinked the the Canadain trackers would flying out of there old base at Summerside PEI. they would good to fly ASW patrol in around the St Laurent basin
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-11-2011, 08:03 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,883
Default

Since A-4s were brought up, here is what the USN/USMC actually had in service as the Twilight War approached.

The Navy had 4 Fleet Composite Squadrons:
VC-1 with TA-4J; VC-5 with A-4E and TA-4J; VC-8 with TA-4J and VC-10 with TA-4J. A fleet composite squadron was assigned the duties of dissimilar air combat maneuvering; noncombat aerial photography; aerial target services; radar calibration and transport. A variety of additional aircraft are operated by the VC squadrons. VC-1 and VC-10 were the only ones assigned combat missions being tasked with air defense of the Hawaiian Islands and Guantanamo Bay respectively. These four squadrons operate some 24 A-4s all told.

2 Fighter Squadrons:
VF-45 and VF-126 are equipped with the TA-4J. Both provide adversary training (Top Gun) at NAS Miramar and NAS Oceana respectively, (12ac each)

6 Training Squadrons:
VT-7, VT-21, VT-22, VT-24, VT-25 and VT-86 provide strike and advanced night flight operations training for Navy, Marine Corps and goreign pilots. They are equipped with TA-4J. These are the aircraft that USS Lexington supports in its training role (there are 16 ac in each sqn).

2 Air Test and Evaluation Squadrons:
VX-4 with TA-4J and VX-5 with A-4M/T and TA-4J. These squadrons test and evaluate aerial weapon systems. VX-4 is stationed at NAS Point Mugu and VX-5 is stationed at NAS China Lake. The VX squadrons operate a variety of aircraft (it is estimated that some 10 A-4s are operated by these 2 sqns)

The 4th Marine Aircraft Wing (Marine reserves) operate all of the remaining USMC A-4 squadrons, these are VMA-124, VMA-131, VMA-133, VMA-134, VMA-142 and VMA-322 (12ac each).

These 226 A-4/TA-4 are all that is left of the total production run of 2,960
A-4s in US service.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-11-2011, 09:39 AM
raketenjagdpanzer's Avatar
raketenjagdpanzer raketenjagdpanzer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,261
Default

What about Thailand's carrier? Either rusting away or now a key element in regional alliance with Australia, Japan, Korea, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-11-2011, 09:53 AM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer View Post
What about Thailand's carrier? Either rusting away or now a key element in regional alliance with Australia, Japan, Korea, etc.
Pressed into Spanish service and operating in the Atlantic or the Mediterranean. I named it Dedalo but its name can be whatever you want. It never reaches the Pacific
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-11-2011, 02:42 PM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,883
Default 1993, Morskaya Aviatsiya

Soviet Maritime Aviation in 1993 had fallen in strength from its Cold War days.

It had in service:

1,136 fixed wing, including:

117 Reconnaissance: 50 Tu-95 Bear D, 55 Tu-16 Badger A/C/D/E/F, and 12 Su-24 Fencer E

94 Electronic Warfare: 77 Tu-16 Badger H/J, 14 Il-20 Coot A, 5 An-12 Cub

295 bombers: 150 Tu-22M Backfire B/C, 145 Tu-16 Badger A/C/G

380 attack fighters: 170 Su-17/20 Fitter A/C/D, 50 MiG-23 Flogger B, 5
MiG-29 FulcrumD, 5 Su-27K Flanker, 50 Su-25 Frogfoot and 100 Su-24 Fencer E

50 Aerial Tankers: 50 Tu-16 Badger A

200 ASW/Maritime Patrol: 65 Tu-95 Bear F, 45 Il-38 May and 90 Be-12 Mail

425 helicopters including:

275 ASW Helos: 75 Ka-25 Hormone A, 100 Ka-27PL Helix A and 100 Mi-14PL Haze A

25 target designation: 25 Ka-25 Hormone B

25 mine countermeasures: 25 Mi-14PL Haze-A

100 miscellaneous including Hook, Hip-C, Helix B/D, Haze B, Hormone C

and finally there are some 480 fixed wing and helicopters (training, transport, experimental, etc.) available.

All of the Tu-22 Blinders have been removed from service and the large numbers of Tu-16 Badger variants are being removed from service due to their age.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-11-2011, 02:56 PM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Dragoon, you are absolutely right but we are talking Twilight and in Twilight it would have been strengthen insteed.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-12-2011, 08:42 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,883
Default

As capable as the Kuznetsov and Kiev-class carriers are, IMHO, they really pretty much a dead end. In the power projection role, they simply do not match the capability of US carriers. Their air groups are geared to air and ASW defense. The addition of massive batteries of SSM/SAMs instead argue that their real role is to supress Allied aviation long enough to get within range of their SSM battery.

The real surprises in the Soviet fleet are not their carriers. Rather it is the development of the Kirov and Slava-class cruisers and the Sovremennyy-class destroyer. Now these designs, in an anti-carrier role, are downright SCARY!!!

Take the latest Kirov, the Admiral Nakhimor for example. A battery of 20 Shipwreck SSMs (reloadable!), as well as 96 SA-N-6, 40 SA-N-4 and no less than 256 SA-N-9 and 192 SA-N-11 SAMs! This is a ship that can take on a carrier air wing and survive long enough to get within range of the carrier!

The Slava cruisers are a threat to the carrier escorts. A battery of 16 Sandbox SSMs and protected by 64 SA-N-6 and 40 SA-N-4 SAMs and for close-in work a twin 130mm "automatic" mount and 10 533mm torpedo tubes. This is a ship designed to go toe-to-toe with any Bunker Hill-class cruiser.

And last, but by no means least are the Sovremennyy-class destroyers. Easily a match for any Spruance-class destroyer! They have a battery of 8 Sunburn SSMs and 40 SA-N-7 SAMS, two twin 130mm automatic mounts and 4 533mm torpedo tubes. Just picture the impact one of these would have if it was shadwoing a carrier battle group during "peacetime"...

And to give a better feel for their ability to "reach-out-and-touch-someone"...

The Shipwreck SSM can carry a nuclear or conventional warhead out to 300 nautical miles. The Sandbox SSMs can also carry a smaller nuclear or conventional warheads out to 300 nautical miles and the Sunburn SSMs carry a conventional warhead out to 50 nautical miles.

Given a decent shot at a carrier battle group, these may be what the Soviets are really counting on to nail a carrier.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-12-2011, 09:07 AM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Dragoon

I agree with everything you say and I think that the Soviet carriers would have been used to protect the main strike force: Kirov, Slava, Sovremmeniy and Oscar submarines.

About the Bears, they should be kept in service. Production line were reopened shortly before the fall of USSR and more new ones would have been fielded to replace the older ones. All current Bears had been built only 20 years ago. They are fairly recent aircrafts, in fact.

If the Twilight War had occured, these would have been among the newest soviet aircrafts.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.