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

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]

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 doesnt 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 Ashvilles but in small number and used as auxiliary craft and combat craft and I dont 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/SS566Trout/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]

Not Happening

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]

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]

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]

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/watchv=TcxYQBA7Uus

[Raellus]

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]

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.