New World Order Navy (major surface combatants)

Love the fish names too, might be a bit hypocritical of me, given that I do have a TL similar to this in planning stages, where fish names come back, but the USN there would probably have to fight a heck of a lot less for its budget than in your TL

Pretty much any surface ship the US would build for Green Water ASW would be fit for Blue Water ASW, so long as it had the seaworthiness and endurance, and adding these is the cheapest in monetary terms

SSK for coastal ASW is one of those things I am ambivalent on, could go either way, I don't really want to argue one way or another for the 1990-2020 period, post 2020 I prefer the French sort of SSKish SSN approach

I'd like to see your TL on this subject. I'm basically done thinking about Navy stuff at this point and once the last Marine post is done I'm going back to the Army part of the New World Order TL.
 
Also, if the Seawolves and the Tangs are both fish named, the 12 other names are going to be:

USS Seawolf
USS Harder
USS Trigger
USS Drum
USS Jack
USS Gudgeon
USS Boarfish
USS Albacore
USS Cavalla
USS Darter
USS Dace
USS Growler
USS Grunion

That's 13 and not 12 but I just love my diesel powered fishy bois
 

SsgtC

Banned
Also, if the Seawolves and the Tangs are both fish named, the 12 other names are going to be:

USS Seawolf
USS Harder
USS Trigger
USS Drum
USS Jack
USS Gudgeon
USS Boarfish
USS Albacore
USS Cavalla
USS Darter
USS Dace
USS Growler
USS Grunion

That's 13 and not 12 but I just love my diesel powered fishy bois
Throw a Nautilus in there too, especially if it's a Seawolf. That would be fitting, seeing as the first two nuke boats in the USN were Nautilus and Seawolf
 
Sounds semi-similar to my TL (assuming the 200 hours war is an alternate Gulf war)

Wait, I guess not, if the Soviet Union fell in 1993.
Eh I think I'm going in a different direction, 200 hour war is an *Gulf War, but mine would have an early 1920's POD that doesn't effect much until the late 1970's at which point butterflies start flapping. Your focus seems to be the US military reorienting itself to enforce the New World Order through low intensity action, mine would be about it finding a new high intensity purpose, while still having to deal with greater low intensity needs

Of course I have a pre 1900 military procurement focused TL in a much readier state of development, once I get my 3 week buffer finished it goes up
 
I apologize for reviving this thread, but I stumbled upon something very interesting.

So I happened to be looking up information on the SC-21 program, which was the precursor to the Zumwalt program and CG(X), and found that they actually came up with a pretty wide array of designs. We can ignore the concept 1 stuff for this, but here's what they came up with:

  • 2A : newbuilds of Arleigh Burke Flight IIA
  • 2B : further update of the Burke design
  • 3A : Power Projection Ship, Aviation Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser – most had 256 VLS cells and amphibious capability
  • 3B : Littoral Combatant - Affordable multimission ship with 128 VLS; similar to Improved Spruances
  • 3C : Maritime Combatant, Armed Supertanker, Agile Maritime Patrol Ship, Small ASW Combatant, Focused Mission Local Area Combatant - 8-64 VLS
  • 3D : Expeditionary Force Support Ship, Tailored Maritime Support Ship and other vessels with modular "mission packs".
Of particular note is 3B1: 9400 tons, 2 64-cell VLS, and 2 5" guns on a conventional hull. Sounds like something that can be reworked into a more versatile ocean-going Spruance/Tico replacement when the requirement for a heavy littoral ship evaporates, especially if AN/SPY-3, AN-SPY-4, and the fire-control radars for ESSM can be fitted.

3C, meanwhile, would likely have the Perry-replacement somewhere in there.

*sighs* Well, add Friedman's US Navy destroyer book to the list of his books that I need to get.
 
Top