Recommissioned US Navy ships

[swaghauler]

My only question with recommissioning these ships is, where's the fuel they will burn coming from? I think any surviving Nuclear powered vessel would be worth it's weight in gold. The big aircraft carriers could be pressed into service as transports once their aircraft were expended. They can travel "Across the Pond" at will AND haul huge quantities of material while still being able to defend themselves from most remaining threats. I think the Navy would be concentrating on big container ships that were "upgunned" in order to move as much cargo as possible in a single trip. Patrols would be carried out with the smallest most economical ship that could perform the mission (including sailboats) in order to save any remaining fuel for the big container ships.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

There's also the potential for nuclear powered vessels to act as tugs. Hauling a barge gives them increased capacity but they could effectively double/triple the capacity of a barge by towing a cargo ship instead.

Not saying it would be a common practice but if you're in a relatively safe area it's an alternative to trying to find fuel for all the diesel ships, particularly if you need cargo moved now instead of later.


Edit: There's a decent list of nuclear powered surface ships on the following link (it's just a matter of figuring which ships survived!)
http://www.radiationworks.com/nuclearships.htm

[Olefin]

Remember a lot of the older ships had engines that could burn very dirty fuel - ie basically unrefined oil. That kind of fuel is still going to be available because you don't have to go thru the effort of refining it - thus the older ships are actually the best ones they would have to use from a fuel standpoint compared to modern ships.

Let alone the older ships have less complex fire control and weapons systems - especially in a post TDM America (as in Last Submarine) where they were lucky to scrape up a half dozen modern torpedoes - whereas I doubt there is any shortage of 5 inch naval gum ammo.

[WallShadow]

Warning: here be snippage

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

Asheville Class Motor Gunboat

PGM-85 USS Gallup – Decommissioned in 1977 and placed in reserve, transferred to Naval Research Center Carderock, MD as a parts hulk in 1992

PGM-90 Canon - Decommissioned in 1977 and placed in reserve, transferred to Naval Research Center Carderock, MD as a parts hulk in 1992

PGM-86 USS Antelope - Transferred to the Environmental Protection Agency 17 January 1978, Active as of 2001

PGM-88 USS Crockett - Transferred to the Environmental Protection Agency 17 January 1978, and scrapped in 1994

PGM-92 Tacoma – Sold to Columbia on 4 December 1995, Active

PGM-93 Welch – Sold to Columbia on 12 April 1995, Active

PGM-94 Chehalis - Converted to a Research Vessel and renamed R/V Athena, still active Homeport is Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City FL

PGM-96 Benicia – Sold to South Korea on 2 October 1971, returned to the US in 1991, scrapped 1998


PGM-97 Surprise – Sold to Turkey 11 June 1973, Active

PGM-98 Grand Rapids - Converted to a Research Vessel and renamed R/V Athena II, still active Homeport is Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City FL

PGM-100 Douglas Rapids - Converted to a Research Vessel and renamed R/V Lauren, still active Homeport is Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City FL, Sunk as a target in 2008.

As you can see there are only six boats left in the US and two of those are been used a part hulks, but five of them are still US Navy and could brought back to active duty. The sixth boat is with the EPA and would like require a fair bit of modication as most of lab and other Science equipment would have to be removed.

Apparently PGM-96 USS Benicia was returned to the US Navy and stayed in Korea, where it was scrapped in 1998. In mid-90's, it would take a lot of fuel to return it to CONUS or even further to Europe or the Middle East.

If you'd care to stretch things a bit, the two sales to Colombia (effective Late 1995) might be cancelled with international conflict on the rise, and perhaps the scrapping of PGM-88 USS Crockett, might have been delayed, but only if you take into account the resurgence of the Hardline Communist Soviet Union post 1990 in the V2 timeline. "Scrapping" doesn't mean "Immediately Broken Up" necessarily. That would make up to 8 ships with a possible 2 more if extreme efforts were made to bring back the parts hulks to full function.
Depending what sorts of equipment the EPA boat has aboard, it might behoove them to leave it in place, if it's still working post-EMP.

PGM-97 USS Surprise, the one of the two PGMs sold to Turkey that didn't burn up may be salvageable or just in need of repair/fuel somewhere on the Mediterranian/Black Sea coasts. Mediterranian Cruise sideshow perhaps?

To echo a previously mentioned concern: where will the fuel for the gas turbines come from for the Ashevilles? Or will the turbines be removed and the weight replaced with more functional and necessary items?

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by WallShadow

Warning: here be snippage


Apparently PGM-96 USS Benicia was returned to the US Navy and stayed in Korea, where it was scrapped in 1998. In mid-90's, it would take a lot of fuel to return it to CONUS or even further to Europe or the Middle East.

If you'd care to stretch things a bit, the two sales to Colombia (effective Late 1995) might be cancelled with international conflict on the rise, and perhaps the scrapping of PGM-88 USS Crockett, might have been delayed, but only if you take into account the resurgence of the Hardline Communist Soviet Union post 1990 in the V2 timeline. "Scrapping" doesn't mean "Immediately Broken Up" necessarily. That would make up to 8 ships with a possible 2 more if extreme efforts were made to bring back the parts hulks to full function.
Depending what sorts of equipment the EPA boat has aboard, it might behoove them to leave it in place, if it's still working post-EMP.

PGM-97 USS Surprise, the one of the two PGMs sold to Turkey that didn't burn up may be salvageable or just in need of repair/fuel somewhere on the Mediterranian/Black Sea coasts. Mediterranian Cruise sideshow perhaps?

To echo a previously mentioned concern: where will the fuel for the gas turbines come from for the Ashevilles? Or will the turbines be removed and the weight replaced with more functional and necessary items?

Yes I agree you could stretch it game play, but in reality the USN doesn’t really need them for the upcoming conflict so why keep them, yes they are great small boats for game play but of what use could USN have for them? The where built after the Cuban Missile Crisis for use in the Caribbean but then ended up going to war in Vietnam. The US transfers some to South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Thailand at the end of the war. This was done because the USN wanted out of the Brown water business. I am guessing that it saw all Soviet Shipping building of Capital Ships and figure they better catch up.

Yes maybe they could used in Caribbean, but how good a boat designed for small craft interception going to be against a Soviet Sub? Granted that both Turkey and Greece have Ashville’s but in small number and used as auxiliary craft and combat craft and I don’t think they would survived the Turks and Greeks going head to head.

There a few small boats that you could use a CONTUS base campaign

Asheville-Class Gunboat

PGM-85 USS Gallup – Transferred to Naval Research Center Carderock, MD as a parts hulk
PGM-90 Canon - Transferred to Naval Research Center Carderock, MD as a parts hulk
PGM-86 USS Antelope - Transferred to the Environmental Protection Agency
PGM-88 USS Crockett - Transferred to the Environmental Protection Agency awaiting scrapping at a reserve fleet location

PGM-94 Chehalis - Renamed R/V Athena, Homeport NSWC, Panama City FL
PGM-98 Grand Rapids - Renamed R/V Athena II, Homeport NSWC, Panama City FL
PGM-100 Douglas Rapids - Renamed R/V Lauren, Homeport NSWC, Panama City FL

Patrol Craft Fast (PCF)

PCF-1- In Storage at Naval Historical Center Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C
PCF-2 – Renamed R/V Matthew F. Maury operated by Tidewater Community College in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

United States Coast Guard Point-Class Cutters

There would about 48 of these boats still active service most with the coast guard.

Patrol Boat, River or PBR

There are five boats in use at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado to support special warfare training

[Olefin]

Did some research and the USS Trout was in a lot better shape than I thought - she was retained at Key West until 2003 and was not only in fully usable shape but could still dive (300 feet or less depth) and was capable of bottoming

http://www.submarinesailor.com/Boats.../helptrout.htm

From the site - the speed numbers are under remote control FYI

The Trout was sold to the Shah of Iran. She was rebuilt in 1979-1980 and restored to near perfect condition. Restoration included $26 million in upgrades, new engines, three sets of batteries, and all systems totally reconditioned. Before the transfer could take place the Iranians seized American hostages and the vessel was seized by the US along with other Iranian assets. The vessel lay at Inactive Ships Facilities in the Philadelphia Shipyard while legal and diplomatic efforts ensued.

The USS Trout was sold at scrap value to the Program Executive Office for Undersea Warfare (PEO USW) in 1994 and moored at Newport, Rhode Island. The vessel was then acquired by the NAWCAD Key West Detachment as an underwater acoustic target for ASW research and development, operational testing and training requirements for the US Navy.

Based on ASW fleet input, NAWCAD felt there existed a need for an underwater acoustic target. The US Navy has had a difficult time obtaining required test and training time on realistic ASW acoustic targets.

It was thought the USS Trout II could provide necessary and timely services as a dedicated asset. It could allow unrestricted active search, with no standoff required. It can operate in less than 300 feet of water and is capable of bottoming. It will operate at one to three knots and will allow torpedo terminal homing algorithm testing.

With a crew she was capable of 16 knots and still had crew quarters and accommodations

From a 2003 appeal to try to save the sub

This boat is a virtual time capsule, with the majority of her systems not only intact, but operational. Even her batteries are brand-new (without electrolyte)

Thus the Navy would have access to a fully operational diesel boat - i.e. she isnt a fast attack but she is capable of diving, has fresh batteries and still had her torpedo tubes and she can fire the Mark 48 - the Trout was actually the primary firing ship for the evaluation of the Mark 48 when it was first introduced into the fleet

One possibility for her may be that she is part of the Sea Lord's forces - i.e. he dispatched a ship with fuel to man her and take her up to Jacksonville

[Raellus]

I visited the USS Midway museum in San Diego yesterday. If you ever get a chance to go, I recommend it. I asked the docent giving the bridge tour, "So, this is probably kind of a weird question, but if the US got into another world war, how long would it take to recommission the Midway?"

His reply, "Never. Her hull's OK- obviously, she still floats- but too much stuff has been removed and technology's changed a lot since '92...

"Guess how long it took to build the Navy's newest carrier, the Gerald Ford? 9 years!"

Me: "So you'd think it'd make more sense to try to put the Midway back into action than to start building a brand new carrier that probably wouldn't be completed before the war was over."

Docent: "Yeah, I just don't see that [Midway returning to action] happening. They've done too much to her since decommissioning."

The docent wasn't a naval engineer or anything like that, but it makes me wonder how viable returning a museum ship to combat service condition would really be.

-

[cpip]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I visited the USS Midway museum in San Diego yesterday. If you ever get a chance to go, I recommend it. I asked the docent giving the bridge tour, "So, this is probably kind of a weird question, but if the US got into another world war, how long would it take to recommission the Midway?"

His reply, "Never. Her hull's OK- obviously, she still floats- but too much stuff has been removed and technology's changed a lot since '92...

"Guess how long it took to build the Navy's newest carrier, the Gerald Ford? 9 years!"

Me: "So you'd think it'd make more sense to try to put the Midway back into action than to start building a brand new carrier that probably wouldn't be completed before the war was over."

Docent: "Yeah, I just don't see that [Midway returning to action] happening. They've done too much to her since decommissioning."

The docent wasn't a naval engineer or anything like that, but it makes me wonder how viable returning a museum ship to combat service condition would really be.

-

Not very, in most cases. In many cases the ships haven't had engine maintenance (if they still have engines at all), for instance, and probably would need extensive work.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by cpip

Not very, in most cases. In many cases the ships haven't had engine maintenance (if they still have engines at all), for instance, and probably would need extensive work.

Absolutely, but doesn't rebuilding an engine seem like it would be a lot more expedient than building an entirely new vessel from the keel up?

-

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Absolutely, but doesn't rebuilding an engine seem like it would be a lot more expedient than building an entirely new vessel from the keel up?

-

Having been responsible for sourcing parts on much smaller old vehicles, not necessarily. It's very likely parts will be obsolete, which means sourcing both the right material (which may not be commercially available) and someone who can take old drawings and make a part from them (which may or may not work if modifications to the design never made it into the drawing). Repeat that process a few hundred or thousand times for a large assembly, and pretty soon you're edging towards a case where it's quicker, easier, and cheaper to just make something new.

[Panther Al]

If you are up for a little YouTubing: The BB New Jersey channel did a video about this a few months ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcxYQBA7Uus

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Vespers War

Having been responsible for sourcing parts on much smaller old vehicles, not necessarily. It's very likely parts will be obsolete, which means sourcing both the right material (which may not be commercially available) and someone who can take old drawings and make a part from them (which may or may not work if modifications to the design never made it into the drawing). Repeat that process a few hundred or thousand times for a large assembly, and pretty soon you're edging towards a case where it's quicker, easier, and cheaper to just make something new.

Good insight. It sounds like trying to return the Midway- and most other floating museum ships, for that matter- to active service would be a case of diminishing returns, if I'm using that term correctly.

If it took 9 years to build the Ford, I wonder how quickly a supercarrier could be constructed in a total war scenario. It's crazy to think that Essex class carriers could be built in a year or two during WW2. I don't think construction times could be anywhere near that pace given current construction tech (or 1990s tech). Video bro says "at least half-a-decade" to construct a Ford class.

@Panther Al: Good find. Thanks.

-

[Adm.Lee]

Given that time frame-- years to build or rebuild a carrier-- what's it going to fly? After 1998, the USN may have more carrier decks afloat than working air wings, or fuel for aircraft and escorts.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Good insight. It sounds like trying to return the Midway- and most other floating museum ships, for that matter- to active service would be a case of diminishing returns, if I'm using that term correctly.

If it took 9 years to build the Ford, I wonder how quickly a supercarrier could be constructed in a total war scenario. It's crazy to think that Essex class carriers could be built in a year or two during WW2. I don't think construction times could be anywhere near that pace given current construction tech (or 1990s tech). Video bro says "at least half-a-decade" to construct a Ford class.

@Panther Al: Good find. Thanks.

-

There is something to be said for the will to get it done. I read someplace that from the time they decided to build to when it was done and first occupied was 18 months for the Pentagon. Fixing it after 9/11 took almost as much time (16 months).

[Ursus Maior]

Building cosntruction isn't carrier technology though. First of all, you have a lot more construction workers than yard workers and second, while the Pentagon will need special infrastructure and security, specialists for that should be easier to come by than all the specialists involved in (re)building a super-carrier: Nuclear, radar and weapons technicians were not or hardly needed when (re)constructing the Pentagon.

And then there was only one Pentagon to reconstruct of course. In a war, you need to refit, repair, rebuild multiple carriers and construct new ones at the same time. That alone puts the US in a precarious position, since yard slots (i. e. large dry docks and even moorings) are hard to come by. That was already a problem during the Second World War.

[Olefin]

Keep in mind its one thing to bring USS Midway back now - i.e. you just went on the tour - its another to bring her back in 1997 when most likely she was still pretty close to her original equipment

Its the reason that they came close to bringing back the heavy cruisers - they were still shipshape and ready to go versus trying to bring back the sole survivor today nearly 25 years after the timeline war start

Thus the four battleships and two heavy cruisers are definitely in the Twilight War of the mid-90's versus what would happen if the Twilight War was fought today

Thats why many of the ships based in Kenya are there - a lot of them (including the Edwards) came out of long term storage and the boneyards because they were still in condition to do so - for those that still survive today most likely even during wartime it couldnt be done in the time they had

and the canon shows that some ships were pulled out of the boneyards/storage areas - the destroyers with the Virginia in her last fight were all older ones that had been pulled out of the storage areas/boneyards if I remember correctly

[rcaf_777]

Carriers By the Numbers

Active Duty

Kitty Hawk

USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63)
USS Constellation (CV-64)
USS America (CV-66)
USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67)

Enterprise Class

USS Enterprise (CVN-65)

Nimitz Class

USS Nimitz (CVN-68)
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69)
USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70)
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71)
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)
USS George Washington (CVN-73)
USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74)
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75)
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) - Under Construction

12 Active Duty +1 Under Construction

Held in Reserve

Forrestal Class

USS Forrestal (CV-59) - In Storage at Naval Station Newport, Newport, RI
USS Saratoga (CV-60) - In Storage at Naval Station Newport, Newport, RI
USS Ranger (CV-61) - In Storage at Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility, Bremerton WA

Midway Class

USS Midway (CV-41) - In Storage at Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility, Bremerton WA
USS Coral Sea (CV-43) - In Storage at Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility, Philadelphia PA

5 Held in Reserve

Out of Service

Independence Class

USS Cabot (CVL-28) - Decommissioned for preservation at New Orleans

Essex Class

USS Yorktown (CV-10) - Museum Ship Mount Pleasant, SC
USS Intrepid (CV-11) - Museum Ship New York City, NY
USS Hornet (CV-12) - Museum Ship, Alameda Ca
USS Lexington (CV-16) - Museum Ship, Corpus Christi Tx
USS Bennington (CV-20) - Hulk only Port Angeles, Wa
USS Oriskany (CV-34) - Hulk only Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo Ca

7 Out of Service

The number will higher if you count Amphibious Assault Ships

[Brit]

Obviously, will look myself... new project...

I think I read - Challange? Forum? Website? - that in T2K old / re-used Landing Craft would take over duties that helicopters would have done delivering cargo, etc, where they had access. I have seen photos of ones - ex-WWII - being converted with accomodation and landing pads in Indo-China (French?) and Vietnam (US?).

Are any preserved in The USA? They may not be 'glamourous' enough but are smaller, i.e. take up less space than an Aircraft Carrier!

(In The UK there are still some vessels in use that took part in the Dunkirk Evacuation).

Any LCAs, etc, in private hands, i.e. like DUKWs are?

Thanks.

[Brit]

Apologies if not interesting or whatever... but ... make your own Landing Craft:
http://vintagewargaming.blogspot.com...hur-north.html

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

Building cosntruction isn't carrier technology though. First of all, you have a lot more construction workers than yard workers and second, while the Pentagon will need special infrastructure and security, specialists for that should be easier to come by than all the specialists involved in (re)building a super-carrier: Nuclear, radar and weapons technicians were not or hardly needed when (re)constructing the Pentagon.

And then there was only one Pentagon to reconstruct of course. In a war, you need to refit, repair, rebuild multiple carriers and construct new ones at the same time. That alone puts the US in a precarious position, since yard slots (i. e. large dry docks and even moorings) are hard to come by. That was already a problem during the Second World War.

This is true, but what I was saying is that when the need is great, in the past people have found a way to get it done.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

Carriers By the Numbers

Active Duty

Kitty Hawk

USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63)
USS Constellation (CV-64)
USS America (CV-66)
USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67)

Enterprise Class

USS Enterprise (CVN-65)

Nimitz Class

USS Nimitz (CVN-68)
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69)
USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70)
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71)
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)
USS George Washington (CVN-73)
USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74)
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75)
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) - Under Construction

12 Active Duty +1 Under Construction

Held in Reserve

Forrestal Class

USS Forrestal (CV-59) - In Storage at Naval Station Newport, Newport, RI
USS Saratoga (CV-60) - In Storage at Naval Station Newport, Newport, RI
USS Ranger (CV-61) - In Storage at Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility, Bremerton WA

Midway Class

USS Midway (CV-41) - In Storage at Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility, Bremerton WA
USS Coral Sea (CV-43) - In Storage at Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility, Philadelphia PA

5 Held in Reserve

Out of Service

Independence Class

USS Cabot (CVL-28) - Decommissioned for preservation at New Orleans

Essex Class

USS Yorktown (CV-10) - Museum Ship Mount Pleasant, SC
USS Intrepid (CV-11) - Museum Ship New York City, NY
USS Hornet (CV-12) - Museum Ship, Alameda Ca
USS Lexington (CV-16) - Museum Ship, Corpus Christi Tx
USS Bennington (CV-20) - Hulk only Port Angeles, Wa
USS Oriskany (CV-34) - Hulk only Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo Ca

7 Out of Service

The number will higher if you count Amphibious Assault Ships

FYI you left out USS Independence CV-62 - she was still in commission when the war started in any version of the V1, V2 or V4 timelines


USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) – even though V4 has her ready to go for the war start I don’t see that happening – given her launch date most likely her commissioning is pushed forward as quickly as possible – the question is more does she leave before Norfolk gets nuked during the TDM or is she there?

USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) – most likely never laid down and parts that had been ordered used for war repairs

As to the rest

USS Forrestal (CV-59)

V1 – She would have 100% been in commission as the USN training carrier replacing the Lexington.

V2 if she decommissioned as in our world she would have had two anchors transferred to John C. Stennis and her four new bronze propellers installed on Harry S. Truman.

So, the question would be more do they stop work on the Harry S. Truman and get Forrestal deployed? Or would they use the propellers and anchors that had been ordered for Ronald Reagan? And would the TDM have caught her being refitted in Philly or Newport or would she be somewhere else?

USS Saratoga (CV-60)

V1 – She would be in active reserve and would have been put back into commission during the war

V2 – She would have been in the process of being stripped to help the active carrier fleet as the war broke out between Russian and China. Most likely that process may have been stopped or reversed in time to get her ready for war.

USS Ranger (CV-61)

V1 – Ranger would have gone thru a refit in 1994 and would have been just finishing it up when the war started. Thus she would have probably missed the initial battles and may have rejoined the fleet after the huge losses in 1996/1997.

V2 – She is in storage at Bremerton but wasn’t stripped like Saratoga and Forrestal - but was in worse physical shape. Thus they may have stripped her to get either Forrestal or Saratoga able to be recommissioned.

Midway Class
USS Midway (CV-41) - In Storage at Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility, Bremerton WA

USS Coral Sea (CV-43) - In Storage at Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility, Philadelphia PA

The two Midway class carriers would have long ago been stripped of what was needed to activate them and would have taken a hell of a lot of effort to get them back into commission. If they were brought back it probably would have been as either aircraft transports or helicopter carriers as their arresting gear and catapults would have been long gone most likely. They could possible be used by the US after the war (if they have the fuel to do so) as towed aircraft transports to try to bring back jets and helicopters from Iran and Korea.

Essex Class

USS Lexington is a museum in Corpus Christi - she went there after Red Star/Lone Star was written - so either she got nuked along with the rest of the city (and would make a great addition to that module) or the Navy tried to use her after the huge losses they took in 1996/1997 - but got me as to what shape her engines are in


Independence Class
USS Cabot has had extensive discussions here on its own thread. There is a very good chance it could have been put back into service as either an aircraft transport or helicopter carrier given the fact that her engines still worked and her gear had not been stripped (i.e. it arrived in New Orleans in working condition)

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by Brit

Obviously, will look myself... new project...

I think I read - Challange? Forum? Website? - that in T2K old / re-used Landing Craft would take over duties that helicopters would have done delivering cargo, etc, where they had access. I have seen photos of ones - ex-WWII - being converted with accomodation and landing pads in Indo-China (French?) and Vietnam (US?).

Are any preserved in The USA? They may not be 'glamourous' enough but are smaller, i.e. take up less space than an Aircraft Carrier!

(In The UK there are still some vessels in use that took part in the Dunkirk Evacuation).

Any LCAs, etc, in private hands, i.e. like DUKWs are?

Thanks.

I am almost certain none of these are in running order, but the US Army Transportation Museum has a LARC, a BARC, and the last surviving Bell SK-5. The Wikipedia articles claim there are ~100 LARC in private hands and that the BARC was in service until 2001.

There are also a few surviving Landing Ship, Tank, including the New London to Orient ferry MV Cape Henlopen (ex-MV Virginia Beach, ex-USS Buncombe County, ex-LST-510).

I'm sure there are others, but I don't personally know of them.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Brit

Obviously, will look myself... new project...

I think I read - Challange? Forum? Website? - that in T2K old / re-used Landing Craft would take over duties that helicopters would have done delivering cargo, etc, where they had access. I have seen photos of ones - ex-WWII - being converted with accomodation and landing pads in Indo-China (French?) and Vietnam (US?).

Are any preserved in The USA? They may not be 'glamourous' enough but are smaller, i.e. take up less space than an Aircraft Carrier!

(In The UK there are still some vessels in use that took part in the Dunkirk Evacuation).

Any LCAs, etc, in private hands, i.e. like DUKWs are?

Thanks.

What's wrong with the US Army's "Navy?"

https://youtu.be/juyqJBVEi30

https://youtu.be/dx1_0y3E-oA

https://youtu.be/VKHbTZlwnvw

[swaghauler]

God only knows how many small privately built landing craft would be "drafted" by the US or Canada. These bad boys are all over the Great Lakes region and VERY common in both Alaska and the Bayou.

https://youtu.be/vMHAj9T_2-Q

https://youtu.be/bRn1UyfAVbY

Probably the most popular COMMERCIAL version. I see these everywhere they are working for oil, logging, or fishing around the Great Lakes

https://youtu.be/VuY96xEHP_E

[Brit]

One in Alaska from a certain TV series...

https://kilchercountry.com/uploads/i...s/IMG_6269.jpg

[rcaf_777]

Again how hard can it be these guys make it look easy?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iGp8D9832Y