Challenge: Build the 600 Ship Navy......and keep it!

[Dilvish]

One idea I like. Alaska and Guam are kept in mothballs like the Iowas. They get reactivated in the 1980's, perhaps getting a missile cruiser makeover like their sister Hawaii.

Have there be a naval threat, real or preceived, to US ports. This could encourage the operation of more minesweepers, ASW trawlers and cutters, and gunboats/missile boats. As a bonus, the same could work to increase Canada's fleet.

 

[Gridley]

Have there be a naval threat, real or preceived, to US ports. This could encourage the operation of more minesweepers, ASW trawlers and cutters, and gunboats/missile boats. As a bonus, the same could work to increase Canada's fleet.

Or just have the NATO powers refuse to take responsibility for mine warfare in overseas ops. The Dutch had more minecraft in 1989 than the USN (as did most of the major NATO naval powers) because that was the deal: the US provides the carriers and the NATO provides the small boys and the sweepers.

 

[Riain]

3 things happen between 1956 and 1963;

Britain and France persevere at Suez in spite of no US support. Britain gets the shits with the US and turns to France and Europe for its key comercial and military relationships. Britain and Fracne enter into a very close nuclear sdharing arrangement after France tests it's first nuke in 1960.

China turns to Britain and France for weapons in the wake of their split with the Soviets, justifying it politically by comparing the socialistic welfare state programmes with communism. During the following decade European weapons and other technologies flood into China, reorienting China's armed forces more toward the Europeans style rather than Soviet style.

Soviet deception concerning the deployment of nuclear missiles to Cuba is almost fully successful. By the time the US learns of the deployment it is established fact, 12 SS5s, 36 SS4s and Il28s are deployed in Cuba.

The US metaphorically shits itself and builds a 600 ship navy.

 

[TheMann]

Hmm, it could work these days with drone aircraft. Looking back at the Cold War, a possibility would be arming the airship with missiles. Or using the airships as ASW ships.

Using the airships as missile carries doesn't make much sense because they are too slow - if you want to use that as a defense, use a supersonic airplane that can carry such missiles. A stretched F-111 with a couple extra hardpoints and bigger fuel tanks would be ideal for this role. ASW might be a more promising role, as modern subs don't have AA weapons AFAIK.

 

[Riain]

There was a sub launched SAM for use against helicopters, based on the Blowpipe. I think Israel may also have something.

 

[TheMann]

One idea I like. Alaska and Guam are kept in mothballs like the Iowas. They get reactivated in the 1980's, perhaps getting a missile cruiser makeover like their sister Hawaii.

One of the ideas I had in mind was to have the last few gun cruisers (Des Moines, Newport News, Salem, Bremerton, Los Angeles and St. Paul) be refitted for providing the fire support duties in the early 1960s, including adding a plastic coating to their hulls for durability and corrosion prevention, and replacing the engines with effectively half the powerplants of the Kitty Hawk-class carriers, reducing maintenance complications and costs. In the early 70s, these are refitted with Sea Sparrow missile launchers and computerized engine controls, which along with other changes and improvements, which reduce the crew size from 1,150 (WWII) to about 700 by the early 1970s. Reagan's massive upbuild sees the two Alaskas rebuilt in the early 1980s, with them being designed as the Marines' "Cruiser Divisions" flagships. These were fitted with 6 Foster-Wheeler boilers and GE steam turbines, along with the computer-controlled boilers that became de rigeur on US steam-powered warships in the 1970s and 1980s, boosting their power to 210,000 shp. This massive additional power, however, was largely used to massively increase the ships' electrical generating capacity.

As of 1988, there are two of these, Cruiser Division One in the Atlantic, based at Norfolk (made up of Guam, Des Moines, Salem and Bremerton) and Cruiser Division Two in the Pacific, based in San Diego (made up of Alaska, Newport News, Los Angeles and St. Paul). The five Albany class cruisers (Oregon City and Rochester are also converted with Albany, Columbus and Chicago) are extensively refitted in 1979-81 to use the same engines as the gun cruisers, fitting them with the Mk-26 twin-rail missile launchers of the Ticonderoga and Kidd class vessels and outfitting them with Tomahawk cruise missiles, Harpoon anti-ship missiles and the Phalanx CIWS. In a smart piece of planning, among the developments for the AEGIS system was a system allowing the AEGIS-equipped vessels to transfer data to those without the AEGIS combat system but with the missile systems capable of intercepting air targets. All five of the cruisers are fitted with these electronics. Standard practice with the refitted Albany class ships was to pair one of them with an AEGIS cruiser, giving the ability to have two ships shooting at airborne targets.

 

[Eurofed]

I agree - getting 600 is easy, but keeping it is the hard part. I was thinking that such a scenario would be Mao winning in China and the Red Army joining in on the Korean War.

Direct Soviet intervention in the Korean War almost surely ends in the USA nuking the Soviet Union till it glows. In 1950, America had a 640 to 5 warhead advantage.

 

[TheMann]

Direct Soviet intervention in the Korean War almost surely ends in the USA nuking the Soviet Union till it glows. In 1950, America had a 640 to 5 warhead advantage.

The people who advocated using nuclear weapons didn't do so for long, as historians know. If China's involvement didn't cause a nuclear war, the USSR's wouldn't either, particularly with the American land army being fully able to handle whatever the USSR would likely be able to toss at them.

 

[TheMann]

I'm thinking of this for the Fleet, circa January 1990:

Capital Ships - 22
5 Nimitz class aircraft carrier
Nimitz, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Carl Vinson, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln
1 Enterprise class aircraft carrier
Enterprise
1 John F. Kennedy class aircraft carrier
John F. Kennedy
3 Kitty Hawk class aircraft carrier
Kitty Hawk, Constellation, America
4 Forrestal class aircraft carrier
Forrestal, Saratoga, Ranger, Independence
4 Iowa class battleship
Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, Wisconsin

Cruisers - 53
16 Ticonderoga class
4 Virginia class
2 California class
1 Truxtun class
9 Belknap class
9 Leahy class
1 Bainbridge class

Destroyers - 86
4 Kidd class
31 Spruance class
10 Farragut class
23 Charles F. Adams class
18 Forrest Sherman class

Frigates - 103
51 Oliver Hazard Perry class
6 Brooke class
46 Knox class

Missile Submarines - 37
10 Ohio class
12 Benjamin Franklin class
10 James Madison class
5 Lafayette class (1 being converted SSN)

Attack Submarines - 101
41 Philadelphia class (OTL's Los Angeles class)
37 Sturgeon class
13 Thresher class (1 - USS Thresher - lost)
5 Skipjack class (1 - USS Scorpion - lost)
2 Ethan Allen class (converted SSBNs)
3 Barbel class

Amphibious Warfare Vessels - 45
1 Wasp class Amphibious Assault Ship
5 Tarawa class Amphbious Assault Ship
7 Iwo Jima class Landing Platform Ship
2 Blue Ridge class Command Ship
5 Charleston class Amphibious Cargo Ship
3 Raleigh class Amphibious Transport Dock
12 Austin class Amphibious Transport Dock
5 Anchorage class Dock Landing Ship
5 Whidbey Island class Dock Landing Ship

Armed Hydrofoils - 6
6 Pegasus class armed hydrofoil

Auxillary Vessels - 69
4 Yellowstone class Destroyer Tender
2 Samuel Gompers class Destroyer Tender
7 Kilauea class Ammunition Ship
3 Nitro class Ammunition Ship
3 Sirius class Combat Stores Ship (ex-Royal Navy)
7 Mars class Combat Stores Ship
2 Mercy class Hospital Ship
8 Algol class Vehicle Cargo Ship
9 Henry J. Kaiser class Oiler
5 Cimarron class Oiler
4 Sacramento class Fast Combat Support Ship
4 Vulcan class Repair Ship
4 Safeguard class Salvage Ship
2 Hunley class Submarine Tender
2 Simon Lake class Submarine Tender
3 Emory S. Land class Submarine Tender

My Additions
2 Essex class anti-submarine aircraft carrier (Intrepid, Oriskany)
2 Alaska class battlecruiser (Alaska, Guam)
3 Des Moines class heavy gun cruiser
3 Baltimore class heavy gun cruiser
5 Albany class missile cruiser
2 Paul Revere class attack transport ship
1 Tulare class amphbious cargo ship

My ships total up to 522, so I know I'm missing a few, but whatever. With the vessels I added on, plus a number of new destroyers/frigates to escort the new vessels, it would probably move 588 to about 650. Then you add on more minesweeper vessels and new tanker/supply ships to provide to these battle groups.

 

[Sachyriel]

Is it actually possible to refuel modern aircraft from airships?
What with the aircraft doing hundreds of mph and the airships doing about 50?

(Genuine question, I haven't a clue)

The Aircraft have to be able to hover like a Harrier or Helicopter, honestly yeah that;s a big problem I wasn't gonna mention it because my only technical solution around the slow blimp was a slow plane that goes fast later. directional thrust gives us this, the ability to hover for some time. Refuelling could take place during this period.

But drop tanks solve one problem...

^ mmmeee0 is out of luck if he thinks those would work. Modern aircraft are too heavy for airship carriers to work at all. About the only purpose I could see rigid airships in a Navy for are as observation platforms, and even then, they are sitting ducks if an enemy gets frisky.

The airship doesn't carry the airplane or helicopter while refuelling, merely uses a series of tailing tubes to 'feel' the plane and then instead of pumping fuel through a tube to the planes fuselage (as in OTL air-to-air refuelling) the airship computers install new drop tanks onto the hardpoints on the wings, a modern design that allows for extended range without needing to hold the plane in sync with the airship for an unreasonable period of time in my theoretical airship.

I assumed he was trolling.

Takes one to know one.

1. Idea is technically impractical (I won't say impossible).

Did I not just walk into a thread that said "Build the 600 Ship Navy"? It is more impractical to make a 600 ship navy than my idea, which has military benefits in keeping the deck of a carrier more organized.

2. Idea ignores the cultural history of the USN (an inflatable aircraft that spends most of its time on someone else's deck isn't going to be classified as a ship).

Airships get to go over land, which more than makes up for the fact that they're stuck on a ship, like how airplanes being "stuck" on an aircraft carrier aren't planes but ship-launched missiles.

3. The USN can already fit aircraft with 'buddy store' tanks, and used to have designated tanker aircraft.

"Oh its one, two, three strikes you're trolling..."

Tanker Aircraft aren't exactly inflatable airships, two different aircraft with different mission profiles. You don't need an M1 Abrahams when your mission calls for a M1911, yaknamean?

Hmm, it could work these days with drone aircraft. Looking back at the Cold War, a possibility would be arming the airship with missiles. Or using the airships as ASW ships.

Or AWACS.

Using the airships as missile carries doesn't make much sense because they are too slow - if you want to use that as a defense, use a supersonic airplane that can carry such missiles. A stretched F-111 with a couple extra hardpoints and bigger fuel tanks would be ideal for this role. ASW might be a more promising role, as modern subs don't have AA weapons AFAIK.

But missile carriers in the sky that can reload planes would be great for keeping planes off the carrier runway in order to launch other planes, which allows it to be used in order to receive aircraft more quickly. Valuable time in a worthless war.

 

[KillerT]

Easy way to get to the 600-build 120 mine warfare vessels and also full integration of USCG into USN after all the RN is essentially both the Navy and Coast Guard (as it possesses all major UK patrol assets and FP units a function that in the US is done by USCG).

 

[HMS Warspite]

The numbers game is not what the Reagan Administration wanted, as it wanted a technological superiority over anyone else on Naval issues, so old crap ships dating back from a time long gone were not considered to be allowed full commissioning, appart from a temporary mean to await the inflow of realy powerfull new additions.

So the choice of refitting the obsolete and far to expensive to run fuelhoggs of the Iowa class was only a stopgab for the missing numbers of the more powerfull and more economical Ticonderoga class Cruisers. By commissioning the even more expensive to operate (and to refit) Alaska's, the Navy would be left with too few ships for the money needed to operate them, making it a waist of money, even more than with the refitting of the Iowa's. At best, these old battlewagons could be sold to musea and states to serve as monuments, not realy use them as fighting ships, as they needed too much resources to do their job.

Another point is the standardisation, which is meaning the centering on a few certralised designs only, to ease refitting and maintenance. The thinking on this was that the newest destroyer in the 80's: the USS Spruance and their offshoot of the Kidd class were almost identical in general layout to the newer Ticonderoga class cruiser and the later Arliegh Burke class DDG's, making this hull the choice for the massproduction of all newer surface warships. This would seriously reduce costs and allow the older designs of smaller classes and the obsolete WW2 veterans to move away, reducing costs even more. Only conventional propoulsion would be used, since the nuclear powered surfaceships were too expensive to run and maintain. Only Aircraft Carriers and submarines would need nuclear propulsion, given their roles in the fleet and demands.

Lesser vessels could also be reduced severely in types, as minesweepers and patrollvessels could be standardised as well in one or two main types, deleting all other smaller classes as much as possible.

 

[Gridley]

The airship doesn't carry the airplane or helicopter while refuelling, merely uses a series of tailing tubes to 'feel' the plane and then instead of pumping fuel through a tube to the planes fuselage (as in OTL air-to-air refuelling) the airship computers install new drop tanks onto the hardpoints on the wings, a modern design that allows for extended range without needing to hold the plane in sync with the airship for an unreasonable period of time in my theoretical airship.

Riiiiight. So you're planning to attach a tank to a hardpoint on a strike aircraft that is going past you at, say, 50 knots. This is supposed to be superior to refilling the bird's internal tanks how?

Takes one to know one.

Yes, posting details of the USN by type in 1989 is EXACTLY like positing a completely hypothetical airship design with no technical details.

Did I not just walk into a thread that said "Build the 600 Ship Navy"? It is more impractical to make a 600 ship navy than my idea, which has military benefits in keeping the deck of a carrier more organized.

As my post, and others, illustrated, the USN came very close to a 600 ship navy in OTL. You've yet to demonstrate any knowledge of carrier deck operations (where, BTW, would this inflatable airship be laid out so as not to hinder launching or recovery?).

But missile carriers in the sky that can reload planes would be great for keeping planes off the carrier runway in order to launch other planes, which allows it to be used in order to receive aircraft more quickly. Valuable time in a worthless war.

USN carriers don't have "runways". They have catapults and arresting gear. Aerial refueling by fixed-wing aircraft is a mature technology used by every branch of the US military and dozens of other nations. NO ONE in the entire world tries to re-arm aircraft in the air. Show me a technical drawing of your brilliant invention to make this possible and I'm sure Lockheed, Boeing, and half a dozen other companies will make you a rich man.

 

[Sachyriel]

Riiiiight. So you're planning to attach a tank to a hardpoint on a strike aircraft that is going past you at, say, 50 knots. This is supposed to be superior to refilling the bird's internal tanks how?

Because you just have to drop them onto a plane as it REDUCES speed to attach them when you drop them onto the wings hardpoints.

Yes, posting details of the USN by type in 1989 is EXACTLY like positing a completely hypothetical airship design with no technical details.

Mine isn't copypasta, it's original content, and that has to start somewhere. This is alternatehistory.

As my post, and others, illustrated, the USN came very close to a 600 ship navy in OTL. You've yet to demonstrate any knowledge of carrier deck operations (where, BTW, would this inflatable airship be laid out so as not to hinder launching or recovery?).

You have a separate ship to carry the airship, called the "Air Tender", which is much smaller and with a smaller crew than an Aircraft Carrier. The Air Tenders job is to reduce plane time on a carriers deck and I've already tried to add that into the idea before.

USN carriers don't have "runways". They have catapults and arresting gear. Aerial refueling by fixed-wing aircraft is a mature technology used by every branch of the US military and dozens of other nations. NO ONE in the entire world tries to re-arm aircraft in the air. Show me a technical drawing of your brilliant invention to make this possible and I'm sure Lockheed, Boeing, and half a dozen other companies will make you a rich man.

Hahaha, you believe in corporations willingness to take ideas from random proles like me. Heeheehee, what is there a mobile number for this sort of thing?

Technical drawing is for standardized wimps. Real inventors use napkins in the middle of an afternoon! And in this day and age I can use a virtual napkin... and... hold on...

*annoying ringtone* Yes, hello? Oh not now! *click*

Sorry, virtual phone. Right, virtual napkin.... can you use Paint.NET?

 

[Gridley]

Because you just have to drop them onto a plane as it REDUCES speed to attach them when you drop them onto the wings hardpoints.

Mine isn't copypasta, it's original content, and that has to start somewhere. This is alternatehistory.

Hahaha, you believe in corporations willingness to take ideas from random proles like me. Heeheehee, what is there a mobile number for this sort of thing?

Technical drawing is for standardized wimps. Real inventors use napkins in the middle of an afternoon! And in this day and age I can use a virtual napkin... and... hold on...

Yes, you're going to drop an object from one aircraft and have it land EXACTLY where it needs to land on another aircraft to lock into place. BTW, have you noticed that the hardpoints on military aircraft are generally on the BOTTOM?

I didn't copy-paste. I grouped the data on a spreadsheet I made. If I'd pasted it would look like this:

Nimitz Nimitz CVN68 PA CVW9 Dwight D. Eisenhower Nimitz CVN69 AA CVW7 Carl Vinson Nimitz CVN70 PA CVW15 Theodore Roosevelt Nimitz CVN71 AA CVW8 Abraham Lincoln Nimitz CVN72 C Nov11 Enterprise Enterprise CVN65 PA CVW11 Kitty Hawk Kitty Hawk CV63 SLEP Constellation Kitty Hawk CV64 PA CVW14 America Kitty Hawk CV66 AA CVW1 John F. Kennedy Kitty Hawk CV67 AA CVW3 Forrestal Forrestal CV59 AA CVW6 Saratoga Forrestal CV60 AA CVW17 Ranger Forrestal CV61 PA CVW2 Independence Forrestal CV62 PA Midway Midway CV41 PA CVW5 Coral Sea Midway CV43 AA CVW13

Boeing takes ideas from a prole like me, so why not you? Of course, I went to the trouble of getting an engineering degree and applying for a job here...

And I'm glad to see that you're continuing to troll. I, however, am done responding to you on this thread. Good luck finding other marks.

 

[Sachyriel]

Yes, you're going to drop an object from one aircraft and have it land EXACTLY where it needs to land on another aircraft to lock into place. BTW, have you noticed that the hardpoints on military aircraft are generally on the BOTTOM?

This is what computers were made to do man, crazy stunts like this the mind can't handle. Or we could just use something like a Harrier which can hover and do it the old fashioned way.

I didn't copy-paste. I grouped the data on a spreadsheet I made. If I'd pasted it would look like this:

Nimitz Nimitz CVN68 PA CVW9 Dwight D. Eisenhower Nimitz CVN69 AA CVW7 Carl Vinson Nimitz CVN70 PA CVW15 Heylookhere Roosevelt Nimitz CVN71 AA CVW8 Abraham Lincoln Nimitz CVN72 C Nov11 Enterprise Enterprise CVN65 PA CVW11 Kitty Hawk Kitty Hawk CV63 SLEP Constellation Kitty Hawk CV64 PA CVW14 America Kitty Hawk CV66 AA CVW1 John F. Kennedy Kitty Hawk CV67 AA CVW3 Forrestal Forrestal CV59 AA CVW6 Saratoga Forrestal CV60 AA CVW17 Ranger Forrestal CV61 PA CVW2 Independence Forrestal CV62 PA Midway Midway CV41 PA CVW5 Coral Sea Midway CV43 AA CVW13

You're right.

Boeing takes ideas from a prole like me, so why not you? Of course, I went to the trouble of getting an engineering degree and applying for a job here...

Engineering Degree isn't exactly the level of uneducation we're talking about here. Proletariat as in the guy who works minimum wage using a plasma gun to ward off threats to the public with a robotic buddy. I mean dishwasher.

And I'm glad to see that you're continuing to troll. I, however, am done responding to you on this thread. Good luck finding other marks.

I'm probably going to be sorry after posting some of the other remarks in this thread if you leave, especially that whole CVW15 Heylookhere Roosevelt thing you might have missed in the list I misquoted you on.

But I whole-heartedly apologize for my behavior, and promise you that inbetween trying to draw this picture and talking to you, I've come to one last question:

Help me out with some of this idea? Just give me something positive I can work with and we can go from there into building this 600 ship navy into like, 750 ships or something, you know?

 

[Sachyriel]

Hastily drawn napkin.

 

[Wolfman]

One of the ideas I had in mind was to have the last few gun cruisers (Des Moines, Newport News, Salem, Bremerton, Los Angeles and St. Paul) be refitted for providing the fire support duties in the early 1960s, including adding a plastic coating to their hulls for durability and corrosion prevention, and replacing the engines with effectively half the powerplants of the Kitty Hawk-class carriers, reducing maintenance complications and costs. In the early 70s, these are refitted with Sea Sparrow missile launchers and computerized engine controls, which along with other changes and improvements, which reduce the crew size from 1,150 (WWII) to about 700 by the early 1970s. Reagan's massive upbuild sees the two Alaskas rebuilt in the early 1980s, with them being designed as the Marines' "Cruiser Divisions" flagships. These were fitted with 6 Foster-Wheeler boilers and GE steam turbines, along with the computer-controlled boilers that became de rigeur on US steam-powered warships in the 1970s and 1980s, boosting their power to 210,000 shp. This massive additional power, however, was largely used to massively increase the ships' electrical generating capacity.

As of 1988, there are two of these, Cruiser Division One in the Atlantic, based at Norfolk (made up of Guam, Des Moines, Salem and Bremerton) and Cruiser Division Two in the Pacific, based in San Diego (made up of Alaska, Newport News, Los Angeles and St. Paul). The five Albany class cruisers (Oregon City and Rochester are also converted with Albany, Columbus and Chicago) are extensively refitted in 1979-81 to use the same engines as the gun cruisers, fitting them with the Mk-26 twin-rail missile launchers of the Ticonderoga and Kidd class vessels and outfitting them with Tomahawk cruise missiles, Harpoon anti-ship missiles and the Phalanx CIWS. In a smart piece of planning, among the developments for the AEGIS system was a system allowing the AEGIS-equipped vessels to transfer data to those without the AEGIS combat system but with the missile systems capable of intercepting air targets. All five of the cruisers are fitted with these electronics. Standard practice with the refitted Albany class ships was to pair one of them with an AEGIS cruiser, giving the ability to have two ships shooting at airborne targets.

AFAIK, the gun cruisers (the CA Los Angeles was, AFAIK, not built) were all but worn out by the time Reagan took office...

 

[TheMann]

AFAIK, the gun cruisers (the CA Los Angeles was, AFAIK, not built) were all but worn out by the time Reagan took office...

That's quite true. But I had them get major overhauls at the end of the Vietnam war - they needed them - which replaces their engines, does a lot of repairs and upgrades, improves weapon systems, repairs faults and does all the other work needed to get the ships returned to excellent working order, thus giving them the ability to work for some time longer.

And FYI, USS Los Angeles (CA-135) was one of the last of the Baltimore class completed, commissioned in July 1945, decommissioned in 1948. Reactivated to fight in Korea and stayed in commission until November 1963.

 

[Gridley]

But I whole-heartedly apologize for my behavior, and promise you that inbetween trying to draw this picture and talking to you, I've come to one last question:

Help me out with some of this idea? Just give me something positive I can work with and we can go from there into building this 600 ship navy into like, 750 ships or something, you know?

Fine. Skip the refueling/rearming airships. If you want airships, find a mission they can do as well or better than heavier than air craft. Not much comes to mind, but AEW might have possibilities, along with surveillance somewhere like the Somali coast where the AA threat is minimal to non-existent.

The USN experimented with rigid airships in the inter-war period. Someone (Lockheed?) is currently experimenting with an airship concept for some obscure logistic niche. Look at those, and pay particular attention to the things the navy had already tried and decided didn't work.