The Greek Navy in Twilight

[dragoon500ly]

The Hellenic Republic Navy in Twilight 2000

Personnel: 19,500 total.

Naval Aviation: 4 Alouette III ASW helos; 16 Agusta-Bell AB-212 ASW helos. The Air Force operates 16 HU-16B Albatross amphibians for maritime reconnaissance, these are to be replaced by 6 P-3A Orions transferred from the U.S. in 1995.

4 Type 209/1100 Diesel-Electric Submarines
S 110 Glavkos; S 111 Nereus; S 112 Triton; S 113 Proteus
Displacement of 1,100/1,207 tons. Speed of 11.5kts/22kts. Crew of 31. Armament consists of 8 533mm torpedo tubes. In the process of being modernized with updated fire control, sonar and the ability to launch Sub-Harpoon. Scheduled to be completed by 1996.

4 Type 209/1200 Diesel-Electric Submarines
S 116 Poseidon; S 117 Amfrititi; S 118 Okeanos; S 119 Pontos
Displacement of 1,185/1,285 tons. Speed of 11.5kts/22kts. Crew of 31. Armament consists of 8 533mm torpedo tubes. In the process of being modernized with updated fire control, sonar and the ability to launch Sub-Harpoon. Scheduled to be completed by 1996.

1 ex US Guppy III-class Diesel-Electric Submarine
S 115 Katsonis
Displacement of 1,975/2,540 tons. Speed of 17.2/14.5kts. Crew of 86. Armament consists of 10 533mm torpedo tubes (6 fwd, 4 aft). Conversion of WWII Gato-class submarine. Employed for training and slatted to be discarded in 1996.

1 ex US Guppy IIA-class Diesel-Electric Submarine
S 114 Papanikolis
Displacement of 1,870/2,440 tons. Speed of 18kts/13/5kts. Crew of 85. Armament consists of 10 533mm torpedo tubes (6 fwd, 4 aft). Conversion of WWII Gato-class submarine. Employed for training and slatted to be discarded in 1996.

1 + 3 ex US Charles F. Adams-class Guided Missile Destroyers
DDG 218 Kimon
Displacement of 4,825 tons. Speed of 31.5kts. Crew of 339. Armament consists of one single Mk13 w/Standard MR/Harpoom, two single Mk42 5in/54 guns, one eight-cell ASROC ASW launcher, two triple 324mm ASW torpedo tubes. The big “What Ifs”, if the USN makes the decision to retain its Adams-class for its own use, then these will not be transferred to the Greek navy in 1991-1993. US hull numbers are DDG-15, DDG-16; DDG-18 and DDG-24.

6 ex US Gearing-class FRAM I-class Destroyers
D 212 Kanaris; D 213 Kontouriotis; D 214 Sachtouris; D 215 Toumbazis; D 216 Apostolis; D 217 Kriezis
Displacement of 3,500 tons. Speed of 30kts. Crew of 274. Armament consists of: DD 212 & 215: two twin Harpoon SSM launchers, two twin 5in/38 guns, one single 76mm OTO Melara gun, one single 40mm AA gun, one eight-cell ASROC ASW launcher, two triple 324mm ASW torpedoes, one depth charge rack. DD 216 & 217: two twin 5in/38, one single 76mm OTO Melara gun, one single 40mm Bofors AA gun, one eight-cell ASROC ASW launcher, two triple 324mm ASW torpedo tubes. Undergoing modernization with updated sonar, radar and fire control, to be completed by 1994.

1 ex-US Gearing FRAM II-class Destroyer
D 210 Themistocles
Displacement of 3,500 tons. Speed of 30kts. Crew of 269. Armament consists of threee twin 5in/38, two single 20mm AA guns, two single 12.7mm HMGs, two triple 324mm ASW torpedo tubes, 1 AB-212 ASW helo. Slatted to be retired with the arrival of the Adams-class destroyers.

1 ex US Allen M. Summer-class Destroyer
D 211 Miaoulis
Displacement of 3,320 tons. Speed of 30kts. Crew of 274. Armament consists of three twin 5in/38, two single 40mm Bofors AA guns, two single 20mm AA guns, two single 12.7mm HMGs, two 24-tube Hedgehog ASW mortars, two triple 324mm ASW torpedo tubes, 1 AB-212 helo. Slatted to be retired with the arrival of the Adams-class destroyers. The four Greek Fletcher-class destroyers have all been retired and are slatted for disposal in 1994-95.

0 + 4 Ydra-class MEKO 200 Mk3-class Frigates
F 452 Ydra; F 453 Spetsai; F 454 Psara; F 455 Salamis
Displacement of 3,100 tons. Speed of 31.75kts. Crew of 173. Armament consists of two quad Harpoon SSM launchers, one 16-cell VLS for NATO Sea Sparrow SAM, one Mk45 5in/54, two K15 Phalanx CIWS, tro triple 324mm ASW torpedo tubes, 1 AB-212 helo. First built in Germany and in service in 1992, last three to be built in Greek shipyards with service dates of F 453
(1996); F 454 (1998); F 455 (2000). Design is also used by Portugal and Turkey.

2 ex Dutch Kortenaer-class Frigates
F 450 Elli; F 451 Limnos
Displacement of 3,876 tons. Speed of 30kts. Crew of 199. Armament consists of two quad Harpoon launchers, one eight-cell NATO Sea Sparrow launcher, two single 76mm OTO Melara guns, two Mk15 Phalanx CIWS, two twin 324mm ASW torpedo tubes and 1 AB-212 helo.

0 + 3 ex US Knox-class Frigates
Makedonia
Displacement of 4,260 tons. Speed of 27kts. Crew of 270. Armament consists of one single Mk42 5in/54, one Mk15 Phalanx, one eight-cell ASROC/Harpoon launcher, two twin 324mm ASW torpedo tubes, a AB-212 helo. Like the Adams-class destroyers, this planned purchase of FF 1015, FF 1056 and FF 1068 may not come about as the USN scrambles to get enough warships for their needs.

4 ex US Cannon-class Frigates
D 01 Aetos; D 31 Hierax; D 54 Leon; D 67 Panthir
Displacement of 1,750 tons. Speed of 19kts. Crew of 150. Armament consists of three single 3in/40 guns, three twin 40mm Bofors AA guns, seven twin 20mm AA guns, two triple 324mm ASW torpedo tubes, one 24-barreled Hedgehog ASW mortar, 8 depth charge racks. Maintained in their original WWII configuration and used as patrol ships. Slatted to be discard in the 1994-97 time frame.

2 Osprey-class Guided Missile Corvettes
P 18 Armatolos; P 19 Navhamos
Displacement of 515 tons. Speed of 24.7kts. Crew of 36 + 25 marines. Armament consists of one single 76mm OTO Melara gun, two single 20mm AA guns. Similar ships are operated by Morocco and Senegal as well as Denamrk and Burma.

2 + 3 ex German Thetis-class Corvettes
Displacement of 658 tons. Speed of 23.5kts. Crew of 48. Armament consists of one twin 40mm Bofors AA guns, one four-tube 375mm ASW mortar, four single 533mm torpedo tubes, two depth charge racks. The Thetis P 6052 and Najade P 6054 are slatted for transfer in 1993 with three more in 1994-95. Like the Adams-class and Knox-class ships, this may not acquire in any build-up pre to the outbreak of the Twilight War.

10 Combattante IIIN-class Guided-Missile Patrol Boats
P 20 Antipliarchos Lascos; P 21 Antipliarchos Blessas; P 22 Antipliarchos Troupakis; P 23 Antipliarchos Mykonios; P 24 Simaiforos Kavalouthis; P 25 Antipliarchos Kostakos; P 26 Ipopliarchos Deyiannis; P 27 Simaiforos Xenos;
P 28 Simaiforos Simitzopoulous; P 29 Siaiforos Starakis
Displacement of 385 tons (447 tons in P 24-29). Speed of 36.5kts (32.6kts in P24-29). Crew of 43. Armament consists of P 20-23: two twin MM38 Exocet launchers, two single 76mm OTO Melara guns, two twin 30mm AA guns, two single 533mm torpedo tubes. P 24-29: six single Penguin SSM launchers, two single 76mm OTO Melara Compact guns, two twin 30mm AA guns, two single 533mm torpedo tubes. First group built in France, second group built in Greece with less expensive weapons, sensors and propulsion systems.

4 Combattante II-class Guided-Missile Patrol Boats
P 14 Ipopliarchos Arliotis; P 15 Ipopliarchos Anninos; P 16 Ipopliarchos Konidis; P 17 Ipopliarchos Batsis
Displacement of 255 tons. Speed of 36.5kts. Crew of 40. Armament consists of two twin MM38 Exocet, two twin 35mm AA guns, two single 533mm torpedo tubes. Built in France.

2 Kelefstis Stamou-class Guided-Missile Patrol Boats
P 286 Kelefstis Stamou; P 287 Diopos Antoniou
Displacement of 115 tons. Speed of 30kts. Crew of 17. Armament consists of four single SS-12 ATGMs, one single 20mm AA guns, two single 12.7mm HMGs. Originally ordered in Cyprus, but acquired in Greece.

2 ex US Asheville-class Patrol Boats
P 229 Ori; P 230 Tolm
Displacement of 240 tons. Speed of 40kts. Crew of 24. Armament consists of one single Mk34 3in/50, one single 40mm Bofors AA gun, two twin 12.7mm HMGs. Sisters serve in Turkish, South Korean and Colombian navies.

5 ex German Type 141-class Torpedo Boats
P 50 Esperos; P 53 Kyklon; P 54 Laiaps; P 55 Scorpios; P 56 Tyfon
Displacement of 221 tons. Speed of 42.5kts. Crew of 39. Armament consists of two single 40mm AA guns, four single 533mm torpedo tubes.

4 ex Norwegian Nasty-class Torpedo Boats
P 196 Andromeda; P 198 Kykonos; P 199 Pigassos; P 228 Toxotis
Displacement of 76 tons. Speed of 40kts. Crew of 20. Armament consists of one single 40mm Bofors AA gun, one single 20mm AA gun, four single 533mm torpedo tubes.

2 Aktion-class Minelayers
N 04 Aktion; N 05 Amvrakia
Displacement of 1,100 tons. Speed of 13kts. Crew of 65. Armament consists of four twin 40mm Bofor AA guns, six single 20mm AA guns, 300 mines. Former ex US LSM-1 converted into minelayers.

9 ex US MSC 924-class Coastal Minesweepers
M 211 Alkyon; M 213 Lkio; M 214 Avra; M 240 Pleias; M 241 Kichli; M 242 Kissa; M 246 Aigli; M 247 Dafni; M 248 Aedon
Displacement of 394 tons. Speed of 13kts. Crew of 31. Armament consists of one twin 20mm AA guns, Built as part of the Military Aid Program in 1964-68. All are in the process of being re-engined and having a new sonar fitted.

5 ex Belgian, ex US Adjutant-class Coastal Minesweepers
M 202 Atalanti; M 205 Antiopi; M 206 Phedra; M 210 Thalia; M 254 Niovi
Displacement of 402 tons. Speed of 13kts. Crew of 31. Armament consists of one twin 20mm AA guns.

1 ex US Cabildo-class Dock Landing Ship
L 153 Nafkratoussa
Displacement of 9,375 tons. Speed of 15kts. Crew of 254 men + 250 troops. Armament consists of two quad 40mm AA guns, four single 20mm AA guns. Carriers 18 LCMs.

0 + 5 Jason-class Tank landing Ships
L 200 Chios; L 201 Samos; L 202 Lesbos; L 203 Ikaria; L 204 Rodos
Displacement of 4,400 tons. Speed of 17kts. Crew of 108 + 303 troops. Armament consists of one single 76mm OTO Melara gun, two single 40mm Bofors AA guns, two twin 20mm AA guns. Helicopter deck supports 2 Sea King helos, carries 2 LCVPs.

2 ex US Terrebonne Parish-class Tank landing Ships
L 104 Oinoussai; L 116 Kos
Displacement of 6,225 tons. Speed of 12kts. Crew of 115 + 395 troops. Armament consists of three twin 3in/50, three single 20mm AA guns. Carries 4 LCVPs.

5 ex US LST1-class Tank landing Ships
L 144 Syros; L 154 Ikaria; L 157 Rodos; L 171 Kriti; L 172 Lesbos
Displacement of 4,080 tons. Speed of 11.6kts. Crew of 95 + 300 troops. Armament consists of two twin and four single 40mm AA guns, two twin 20mm AA guns. These are the last of the active duty WWII LSTs, to be discarded when the Jason-class is completed.

4 ex US LSM 1-class Medium Landing Ships
L 161 Ipopliarchos Grigoropoulos; L 163 Ipopliarchos Daniolos; L 164 Ipopliarchos Rousen; L 165 Ipopliarchos Krystallidis
Displacement of 1,095 tons. Speed of 12.5kts. Crew of 60. Armament consists of one twin 40mm Bofors AA guns, four single 20mm AA guns.

2 + 2 German Type 520 Utility Landing Craft
Displacement of 403 tons. Speed of 11kts. Crew of 17. Armament consists of one twin 20mm AA guns. Cargo of up to 237 tons.

6 ex US LCU 501-class Utility Landing Craft
Displacement of 309 tons. Speed of 8kts. Crew of 13. Armament consists of two single 20mm AA guns. Slated to be discarded.

2 ex British LCT(4)-class Utility Landing Craft
Displacement of 640 tons. Speed of 8kts. Crew of 12. Armament consists of two single 20mm AA guns. Carries up to 350 tons of cargo.

11 ex German Type 521-class Landing Craft
Displacement of 168 tons. Speed of 10.6kts. Crew of 7 + 60. Unarmed.

11 ex US LCM(6)-class Landing Craft
Displacement of 56 tons. Speed of 10kts. Crew of 5. Unarmed. Carries cargo of 30 tons.

7 LCVP-type landing craft
Displacement of 13 tons. Speed of 8kts. Crew of 3. Unarmed. Carried 36 troops of 3.5 tons of cargo.

34 ex US LCVP-type Landing Craft
Displacement of 13 tons. Speed of 9kts. Crew of 3. Unarmed. Carries 36 troops or 3.5 tons of cargo.

1 Wooden Trireme Rowing Galley
Olympias
Displacement of 56 tons. Speed of 9-12kts. Crew of 180. Armament consists of one ram. Built for historic research and to commemorate the Greek naval tradition. As rowers are volunteers, whips are unnecessary.


Source is the “Combat Fleets of the World: 1993”

[Olefin]

Very good post - I would say that the following ships depend on what timeline you are using

V1 - Soviet Union never falls and its a continuation of the Cold war

1 + 3 ex US Charles F. Adams-class Guided Missile Destroyers - all are kept as part of the USN Reserve Fleet then brought into active status as the war breaks out

2 ex Dutch Kortenaer-class Frigates - never sold by the Dutch

3 ex US Knox-class Frigates - all stay active duty with the USN

V2 or V2.2 - most likely all of them are part of the Greek Navy

[dragoon500ly]

Like you said, it all depends on the timeline.

For the USN, it depends on if they push for earlier deployment of additional Burke-class destroyers, then case can be argued that the will release the Adams-class, if only to free up trained crew and remove an older, less capable system.

As for the Knox-class, I'm undecided on this, true the Knoxes are as old as the Adams, but were always intended as cheap convoy escorts. With the decision to not build any more Perrys, the case can be argued that the Knoxes will be maintained on the Navy's list.

An interesting thought is if Greece bought ships from Israel, South Korea, maybe even Japan.

[Olefin]

I can see the navy retaining the Adams class in reserve and not selling them to Greece with the original timeline even if they do try to speed up the Burke's - and with the losses they take early in the war pulling those out and getting them back up to speed would be a huge priority

Actually the whole V1 versus V2 and V2.2 really would change many nations orders of battle and not just for ships - the agreement to reduce forces that is part of V2.2. means a lot of equipment goes to countries that otherwise never would have got it - so the potential lineups of multiple countries really changes if you decide for the later timeline

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Olefin

I can see the navy retaining the Adams class in reserve and not selling them to Greece with the original timeline even if they do try to speed up the Burke's - and with the losses they take early in the war pulling those out and getting them back up to speed would be a huge priority

Actually the whole V1 versus V2 and V2.2 really would change many nations orders of battle and not just for ships - the agreement to reduce forces that is part of V2.2. means a lot of equipment goes to countries that otherwise never would have got it - so the potential lineups of multiple countries really changes if you decide for the later timeline

Source material is the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet, 14th Edition by Norman Polmar.

The major problem with the Adams-class is that they are outdated. The first ship, DDG-2 Charles F. Adams was launched 8 Sep 1959 and commissioned 10 Sep 1960. The "youngest" is DDG-24 Waddell, launched 26 Feb 1963 and commissioned 28 Aug 1964.

They were considered to be highly capable destroyers for their relatively small size, although the lack helicopter facilities. They are based on an improved FORREST SHERMAN arrangement, with a Tarter missile-launching system (later upgraded to Standard-MR) in place of the SHERMAN's aft-most 5-inch gun.


The Navy had planned to modernize the 23 ships of this class, adding an additional 15 years beyond their nominal 30 year life span. This modernization was planed for fiscal years 1980-1983. But, however, increasing costs and congressional interest in new destroyer construction lead to a cut back in the modernization program, first to the last ten ships, and then only to three ships (DDG-19, 20 and 22, upgraded 1981-1985).
----

The primary weakness in the Adams-class lies in their electronics suites. Only the three modernized ships have 'modern' radars and fire control suites. These would have to be replaced, the problem being of having updated systems to replace the older units with. Time frame wise, some of my Navy buddies have 'guessmated' anywhere from 4 to 12 months depending upon how much rewiring would need to be completed.

Soooooo...

Realistically, if the USN brought the Adams back into regular service, IMHO they would have been regulated to convoy escort instead of fleet support, most likely paired with a Perry-class frigate to take advantage of their more modern systems.

[Olefin]

I can see them brought out of Reserve status after the first few months of the war with the USN trying to replace their losses even though the ships were far less capable than what they had lost. Considering the losses the Soviets had taken even though they were older ships they would have still been good convoy escorts especially against Soviet commerce raiders that were still going after US convoys.

I dont see them as day one ships - they are "ok what can we get out of the Reserve fleet that can still do the job?" ships after the USN adds up the losses and realizes how long it would take to have new construction come on line during war time

[Legbreaker]

Given the lack of opposing naval forces after the 1996 GIUK sea battles, I'm less than convinced much effort would be made to immediately attempt rebuilding the US navy. Production priorities re steel, electronics, manpower, etc are more likely to be redirected towards AFV production and raising ground force units (with perhaps a slightly lesser emphasis on air power).
As Olefin indicates, reserve ships should probably suffice for the foreseeable future from a 1996 viewpoint at least with more modern designs and production halted until the expected end of the war in a year or two (at the time NATO was doing very well and it seemed like only a matter of time before the PACT was defeated - then they used nukes...).
What resources were allocated to naval forces would probably be directed towards repairs and upgrades at that time. Come late 1997 however those decisions may well have been regretted, but regardless, it would seem quite improbable that more than a handful of new ships would have been built, even if the decision to do so had been made early enough.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Olefin

I can see them brought out of Reserve status after the first few months of the war with the USN trying to replace their losses even though the ships were far less capable than what they had lost. Considering the losses the Soviets had taken even though they were older ships they would have still been good convoy escorts especially against Soviet commerce raiders that were still going after US convoys.

I dont see them as day one ships - they are "ok what can we get out of the Reserve fleet that can still do the job?" ships after the USN adds up the losses and realizes how long it would take to have new construction come on line during war time

I agree, I simply see the Adams being restricted to secondary roles, mainly convoy escorts and perhaps limited ASW. As the USN suffers losses in their front line ships, then the Adams would be shifted into the carrier support role, but I also expect these ships to suffer higher losses due to their outdated systems.

While there would by some attempts to update them, the will also be a bottleneck in getting the replacement equipment to the shipyards. Between repairing the damaged, but more capable warships, the need to keep DDGs with the key battleground and additional losses to enemy action, it would be reasonable to expect the Adams to be kept at sea for as long as possible.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Given the lack of opposing naval forces after the 1996 GIUK sea battles, I'm less than convinced much effort would be made to immediately attempt rebuilding the US navy. Production priorities re steel, electronics, manpower, etc are more likely to be redirected towards AFV production and raising ground force units (with perhaps a slightly lesser emphasis on air power).
As Olefin indicates, reserve ships should probably suffice for the foreseeable future from a 1996 viewpoint at least with more modern designs and production halted until the expected end of the war in a year or two (at the time NATO was doing very well and it seemed like only a matter of time before the PACT was defeated - then they used nukes...).
What resources were allocated to naval forces would probably be directed towards repairs and upgrades at that time. Come late 1997 however those decisions may well have been regretted, but regardless, it would seem quite improbable that more than a handful of new ships would have been built, even if the decision to do so had been made early enough.

The big question is just how active the administration became when the Sino-Soviet war broke out, how many bills were laid down, but more importantly, how much of the vital electronics and weapons were ordered and placed in production. Even assuming the shipyards start working 24/7 shifts, and every available hard starts laying down hulls, no more than a dozen or destroyers/frigates would be completed within a year. Going by WW2 stats, it would take up to 2 years just to get to completing warships within 90 days, and these would be far simpler ships than today's high tech wonders.

It's an interesting discussion, but I'm afraid the Navy's would be able to maintain a high operational tempo for maybe 4-6 weeks before exhaustion and lack of munitions kick in.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Source material is the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet, 14th Edition by Norman Polmar.

The major problem with the Adams-class is that they are outdated. The first ship, DDG-2 Charles F. Adams was launched 8 Sep 1959 and commissioned 10 Sep 1960. The "youngest" is DDG-24 Waddell, launched 26 Feb 1963 and commissioned 28 Aug 1964.

They were considered to be highly capable destroyers for their relatively small size, although the lack helicopter facilities. They are based on an improved FORREST SHERMAN arrangement, with a Tarter missile-launching system (later upgraded to Standard-MR) in place of the SHERMAN's aft-most 5-inch gun.


The Navy had planned to modernize the 23 ships of this class, adding an additional 15 years beyond their nominal 30 year life span. This modernization was planed for fiscal years 1980-1983. But, however, increasing costs and congressional interest in new destroyer construction lead to a cut back in the modernization program, first to the last ten ships, and then only to three ships (DDG-19, 20 and 22, upgraded 1981-1985).
----

The primary weakness in the Adams-class lies in their electronics suites. Only the three modernized ships have 'modern' radars and fire control suites. These would have to be replaced, the problem being of having updated systems to replace the older units with. Time frame wise, some of my Navy buddies have 'guessmated' anywhere from 4 to 12 months depending upon how much rewiring would need to be completed.

Soooooo...

Realistically, if the USN brought the Adams back into regular service, IMHO they would have been regulated to convoy escort instead of fleet support, most likely paired with a Perry-class frigate to take advantage of their more modern systems.

The issue is which timeline is used. In the real world, ALL BUT 2 Adams were sold by 1994. The sad thing is that they were much lighter and more cost efficient to operate than Burkes (being Half the displacement at 4500 tons). I doubt you could pair them with a Perry though because the Navy ended up pairing Burkes with Perrys and there wouldn't be enough left. It is ironic that the Perry's best trait was that it was the only ship in the fleet that carried TWO helos and had the RAST gear to launch and recover in sea state 4. The Ticos carried two helos but were not equipped with RAST until after the Perrys demonstrated its usefulness. Why the Flight I and Flight II Burkes were NOT equipped with hangers is beyond me. The Navy really tripped up there.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

I agree, I simply see the Adams being restricted to secondary roles, mainly convoy escorts and perhaps limited ASW. As the USN suffers losses in their front line ships, then the Adams would be shifted into the carrier support role, but I also expect these ships to suffer higher losses due to their outdated systems.

While there would by some attempts to update them, the will also be a bottleneck in getting the replacement equipment to the shipyards. Between repairing the damaged, but more capable warships, the need to keep DDGs with the key battleground and additional losses to enemy action, it would be reasonable to expect the Adams to be kept at sea for as long as possible.

One advantage of the Adams that is often overlooked is their usefulness in a shore bombardment role. With a 4.6 meter draft, they could sail into the littorals much more safely than a Tico (with 2 5" guns) or a Burke (with 1 5" gun). They were armed with TWO MK42 5" cannon which had a higher rate of fire (30 rounds a minute/1 round per 2 seconds on average) than the Tico's/Burke's MK45 (20 rounds a minute/1 round per 3 seconds). The Adams was also more durable than a Burke and cost a lot less if lost in the Gunfire Support role. I can see the Adam's Class being used to support landings in shoal areas (where the Iowas could not sail).

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

The big question is just how active the administration became when the Sino-Soviet war broke out, how many bills were laid down, but more importantly, how much of the vital electronics and weapons were ordered and placed in production. Even assuming the shipyards start working 24/7 shifts, and every available hard starts laying down hulls, no more than a dozen or destroyers/frigates would be completed within a year. Going by WW2 stats, it would take up to 2 years just to get to completing warships within 90 days, and these would be far simpler ships than today's high tech wonders.

It's an interesting discussion, but I'm afraid the Navy's would be able to maintain a high operational tempo for maybe 4-6 weeks before exhaustion and lack of munitions kick in.

In a V2.2 timeline, you wouldn't even see that number. By 1995, most medium to small shipyards in the US had closed as the Pacific Rim took over building the majority of merchant vessels. This left only the primary Navy shipyards capable of building warships.

It takes 18 months to build a Burke, and even the new LCS classes are taking about 15 months to build. I do not think you would see more than 2 Burkes (one from Bath and one from Ingalls/Huntington), 2 Independence Class LCS sized vessels (Austel), and 4 Freedom Class LCS sized vessels (Marten/Marietta) being produced per year. This will be especially true if damaged ships are being repaired at the same time. The US was not in a position to mass produce ships after the "Clinton Peace Dividend" took effect.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

The issue is which timeline is used. In the real world, ALL BUT 2 Adams were sold by 1994. The sad thing is that they were much lighter and more cost efficient to operate than Burkes (being Half the displacement at 4500 tons). I doubt you could pair them with a Perry though because the Navy ended up pairing Burkes with Perrys and there wouldn't be enough left. It is ironic that the Perry's best trait was that it was the only ship in the fleet that carried TWO helos and had the RAST gear to launch and recover in sea state 4. The Ticos carried two helos but were not equipped with RAST until after the Perrys demonstrated its usefulness. Why the Flight I and Flight II Burkes were NOT equipped with hangers is beyond me. The Navy really tripped up there.

There is also the push by the Navy to have its surface combatants powered by gas turbines rather than the older steam turbines. While I understand the advantages of using similar power plants, it also places the older ships at a disadvantage, the Navy isn't trying very hard to recruit the "black gang" to man the turbines, neither are they maintaining the spare parts necessary.

During its day, the Adams was an efficient class, but entering the 80s and 90s, time is catching up.

As for the decision to halt production of the Perry-class, I'm afraid the Navy dropped the ball. A simple, low cost and effective ship for convoy escorts was and is badly needed.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

One advantage of the Adams that is often overlooked is their usefulness in a shore bombardment role. With a 4.6 meter draft, they could sail into the littorals much more safely than a Tico (with 2 5" guns) or a Burke (with 1 5" gun). They were armed with TWO MK42 5" cannon which had a higher rate of fire (30 rounds a minute/1 round per 2 seconds on average) than the Tico's/Burke's MK45 (20 rounds a minute/1 round per 3 seconds). The Adams was also more durable than a Burke and cost a lot less if lost in the Gunfire Support role. I can see the Adam's Class being used to support landings in shoal areas (where the Iowas could not sail).

No argument here, I simply see the Adams being pulled from the carrier escort mission and being assigned to secondary roles.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

In a V2.2 timeline, you wouldn't even see that number. By 1995, most medium to small shipyards in the US had closed as the Pacific Rim took over building the majority of merchant vessels. This left only the primary Navy shipyards capable of building warships.

It takes 18 months to build a Burke, and even the new LCS classes are taking about 15 months to build. I do not think you would see more than 2 Burkes (one from Bath and one from Ingalls/Huntington), 2 Independence Class LCS sized vessels (Austel), and 4 Freedom Class LCS sized vessels (Marten/Marietta) being produced per year. This will be especially true if damaged ships are being repaired at the same time. The US was not in a position to mass produce ships after the "Clinton Peace Dividend" took effect.

I used to work with several Navy pukes and the question of wartime production would always lead to lots of arguments. It was the general opinion that the real bottleneck would not be the hulls but the electronics, weapons and munitions. Many of the defense contractors have only a couple of production facilities and you can see the logjam that a war will cause.

As for the hulls, you would often hear that the shipyards will simply to go 24/7 production, what was left unanswered was where the trained personnel were going to come from.

IMHO, one of the unanswered questions of any timeline is when the U.S. started to ramp up production of its armament industry to support its needs.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

I used to work with several Navy pukes and the question of wartime production would always lead to lots of arguments. It was the general opinion that the real bottleneck would not be the hulls but the electronics, weapons and munitions. Many of the defense contractors have only a couple of production facilities and you can see the logjam that a war will cause.

As for the hulls, you would often hear that the shipyards will simply to go 24/7 production, what was left unanswered was where the trained personnel were going to come from.

IMHO, one of the unanswered questions of any timeline is when the U.S. started to ramp up production of its armament industry to support its needs.

I do remember that the reason there were only TWO Ticos and TWO Burkes built per year throughout the 80's and 90's was that only 4 Aegis radars could be built in a year.