destiple
Banned
and their nuke SAMs were active until the late 80s as in this TL?Older USN ships(pre-VLS) had Terrier and Talos, both had nuclear versions
and their nuke SAMs were active until the late 80s as in this TL?Older USN ships(pre-VLS) had Terrier and Talos, both had nuclear versions
and their nuke SAMs were active until the late 80s as in this TL?
I'm thinking one (or perhaps a few) more or less intact CVBG surviving isn't entirely out of the question. Reportedly the USN could be quite adept at dodging Soviet Survaliance, some Soviet assets may be destroyed before they can launch nukes etc..Just for context, I think the only ships that will survive will those on detached duties and other out of the line of fire positions. Any task force within range will at least have a nuclear attack attempted on them, causing vast damage so I doubt intact CBGs will be pulling into Australia after the nukes fly, more likely single frigates or whatever.
If NATO ceases to be an entity after an exchange, wouldn't it be up to whoever ended up in the Presidential line of succession? If no contact could be made at all with the US or Presidential authority is ambiguous, I'm assuming the mutual defense portions of the ANZUS treaty would mean that at least the US ships would come to port in Australia or New Zealand and regroup or at least find a place to base.
Yep... Initally I could see a surving USN CVBG sending an oiler with a few escorts to Australia to re stock their fuel and provisions if that was the closest and safest source of supplies.Australian allies might well come here as a matter of course to refuel and provision while attempting to contact their own governments. Australia isn't about to sieze a USN CBG, they'd be welcomed as allies in need.
While the smaller ships can use a lot of ports, the larger ports in the USA, especially those associated with naval facilities or potential naval facilities, will most assuredly be targets. Carriers require a channel of significant depth and width, and a port that could take a destroyer won't do for a carrier. In a pinch you can load stores using the crew to hump stuff even with limited port cranes. You can refuel ships as well, however filling up a tanker is another matter.
I could see some smaller combatants going to a smaller port, preferably one not downwind of a lot of fallout, and even staying there as a nucleus of some order and rebuilding. The problem is that a full blown exchange in the 1980s is not going to leave much maritime infrastructure in the USA or Europe, and all of the infrastructure that survives on the US east coast is going to be downwind of a lot of fallout. To the extent possible, IMHO Australia and New Zealand will be the destinations of choice. While South Africa is relatively developed and has good facilities, and unlikely to have had major hits, apartheid is not going to be attractive for the sailors and officers of the USN. BTW note that Suez and Panama Canals are gone so voyages will be around the Cape of Good Hope or Cape Horn.
If Israel does not get hit, it may be at least a temporary stop for any survivors in the Med - however I expect not much bigger than a frigate other than subs would survive in the Med.
Suppose there is a build up to the war (ie, no Able Archer gone hot). The fleet's home port has been nuked. But the sailors don't know if their families have left the city to look for safety in smaller towns, or even the wilds. As far as they know, their wives, children, siblings, parents and friends may have survived, but they are in serious trouble and desperately need help. They are facing anarchy, the environment, maybe radiation, they may be lacking food or water. And they go to sleep every night hoping their husband, father, brother or best friend is alive and coming to their rescue.My guess:
Depends on how much is left of the Navy.
I haven't ordered my books about nuclear strategy, but I could imagine that the Soviets would liberally use nukes to destroy NATO fleets.
If the NATO fleets are mostly broken, it would probably be a free for all situation. Every surviving ship makes an individual decision.
If the Navies survive somewhat intact, things get interesting.
My guess is that pre-war plans aren't going to matter long. In the late 80s probably everyone sailors and officers knew and/or loved is dead or dying.
This leaves deeply traumatized men, in a broken worls, with enough firepower to do whatever they like. Survival would be the immediate concern. Securing a steady stream of food, clean water, oil, spare parts and ammounition.
I assume that the surviving officers could retain control. So we would probably, at least formally, see NATO navies subordinating to surviving "Western" governments after the initial scramble to secure bases and materials.
After that it would be "gunboat policy in a world gone mad". And a slow decay of the ships, there is no way that the remains of the global economy could support the now insanely expensive fleets.