Recommissioned US Navy ships

[dragoon500ly]

There is also something else to consider when bringing mothballed ships back into service. Many of these ships date to WWII/Korea and are very manpower intensive, something that the modern navy has moved away from.

Another factor to consider is the time and cost of refitting these ships. The best example is, of course, the recommissioning of the four Iowa-class Battleships.

The New Jersey (BB62) was commissioned 23 May 1943 and deactivated 30 June 1948. She was reactivated 21 Nov 1950 and deactivated 21 Aug 1957. She was reactivated on 6 April 1968 and deactivated again on 17 Dec 1969. She was reactivated again on 28 Dec 1982. She was refitted for each of her activations, losing her 20mm and most of her 40mm batteries for the Korean War, the remaining 40mm for the Vietnam War and then her final configuration (fitted with Tomahawk/Harpoon/Phalanx) for her "modern" deployment. Her cost for her latest refit was $332.7 million.

The Iowa (BB61) was commissioned 22 Feb 1943 and deactivated 23 Mar 1949. She was reactivated 25 Aug 1951 and deactivated again on 24 Feb 1958. Her final activation took place on 28 April 1984. Her refit cost came to $348.7 million.

The Missouri (BB63) was commissioned 11 June 1944 and she was deactivated on 26 Feb 1955. She was reactivated 10 May 1986. Her cost came to $473.3 million.

The Wisconsin (BB64) was commissioned 16 Apr 1944 and she was deactivated 1 July 1948. She was reactivated again on 3 May 1951 and deactivated 8 Mar 1958. She was reactivated on 1 Aug 1986. Cost for her refit came to $503.1 million.

As you can see, the longer the ship is out of commission, the more expensive her rebuild.

Going with accelerated production with the Sino-Soviet War and tensions with the Soviet Union, I really don't see a lot of the older (WWII/Korea/Vietnam-era) mothballed warships being brought back into service. It really would be a case of not enough return on the investment, not to mention recruiting and training sailors on equipment that really is old enough to draw Social Security.

[Legbreaker]

Something else to remember is that right up until the Germans stepped over the Polish border in late 1996, NOBODY was looking at having to fight a European war, and likely were very keen to stay out of any conflict they absolutely did not need to be in.
Construction and refurbishment of warships could have been seen by potential adversaries as a prelude to attack and may have invited a pre-emptive strike of some kind. Given that, and the immense cost involved, it just doesn't seem probable a large scale buildup would even have been considered, let alone put into practise.

This isn't to say a couple of new ships couldn't have been started - every nation is constantly updating vessels as a matter of course. However, activity outside this normal maintence of the fleet could be seen as very provocative in some circles.

[Mohoender]

I agree with all your objections but one :"It's no longer T2K, but "the US tromps all over everything""

I'm not the one who chose to have CA139 Salem as flagship of the US fleet in the Persian Gulf. Then, as I agree with everything you say and as I consider that won't be an isolated case, I assume that more ship had been put back into service (again with v1.0, with v2.2 they had been scrapped).

About naval battle involving 40+ year old ship that might not be so much the case. You simply forget that these ships have certainly not been put back on the sea to carry their original missions. They would probably carry out transport, landing, long range coastal patrol and escort missions for the transport ships (probably led by coast guards officers and manned by civilian sailors). I don't even consider that these ships still had their original weapons.

By the way, you still had countries using ships that were 50+ years old in the early 2000's.

[Mohoender]

Something else. When you read what you find in the USS Basilone website, you learn that she entered the FRAM program on July 1963 and work had been completed on April 1964. Therefore, in about 9 month and that is no minor modification taking place during peace time (even if it was the cold war). You can't make me believe that US naval industry in the early 1990's and in war time would no longer be that capable.

I tend to have older ships put back into commission while I divide the time to commission all ships ordered from 1994 to 1996 by two. IRL, the last Arleigh Burke destroyer to be commissioned by 1997 was DDG71 Ross. In T2K, iy would have at least been DDG82 Lassen and more porbably DDG84 Bulkeley. When it comes to the Nimitz-class, the last to be commissioned would be CVN75 Harry S Trumman. You can even expect to have a number of San Antonio being pressed into service before the nukes fall.

http://www.uss-basilone-dde-dd824.org/history.shtml

[ArmySGT.]

Are you playing Twilight 2000 or Harpoon

[Legbreaker]

I'm not the one who chose to have CA139 Salem as flagship of the US fleet in the Persian Gulf.

Granted, the Salem is in the canon material, however I'd say it's the exception rather than the rule. It may be one of the only ships that was recommissioned and given the poor state of the fleet it's the flagship for, work probably wasn't completed before it was sent off to war - still, it floats and has a few guns so it's better than about 98% of the rest of the US navy...

By the way, you still had countries using ships that were 50+ years old in the early 2000's.

Too true, however virtually every one of them hadn't been sitting mothballed for much of that time but instead had seen constant use, and more importantly, continuing maintenance. Those that hadn't have been in the hands of 4th rate navies which barely rate the name.

[Mohoender]

As I said Leg I agree with your points but the ships in question might not have been refited for the US Navy in the first place but, as an exemple, for China. Then, with the evolution of the war they are taken over by US Navy.

About Mothballed ships you are also right and a certain Kanimbla class perfectly illustrate your point as far as I know at least.

[Legbreaker]

China There's something I hadn't thought about, but I'm not convinced. The Soviet-China war looks to be mainly a land affair, although the Soviets may have tried implementing a naval blockade of Chinese ports. I can't see that working too well though as there's a number of overland options for supply routes into China from it's neighbours, many of which could be very happy to help throw mud in the Soviets eyes. The Soviet navy may be big, but it's hard to blockade an entire continent. At best I think they'd concentrate on the Chinese ports meaning that while supplies could still get in, they'd take weeks longer.

[LAW0306]

I sat down about 2 years ago with chico and Jason wiser and we spent a weekend on what ships would come back and why. I think Rae and Flamingo were on conferance calls at some time. I had alot of ships on the rolls ...this will be published under chico someday.

I drive by the NFR fleet here in hawaii once a week. I have talked to the Manager of the fleet. They say it will take about 3 months to come on line for most of the ships. Tuged over to ship yard. Manning is easy. About 30K to 40K sailors leave the US Navy a year. They have a 4 year contract as reserve, that gives me 120k to 160K men and women that could be back in uniform in a month. plus the old timers begging to get in. happens every war.

[Legbreaker]

...and then the war turns nuclear and NOBODY in the right mind will be found anywhere near a potential target...
I'm sure there would be plenty of volunteers in a conventional fight, but once the shit really hits the fan and areas the size of small countries start to glow in the dark, that supply of manpower will dwindle to a trickle. Desertions will be a massive problem and you can bet those who haven't yet been called up will be making it very hard for the military to find them for reactivation.
Besides, when you're talking 40+ year old ships, there will be a need for retraining of crew. This could be condensed down to a third (perhaps less) of peacetime, but it's still a bottleneck to overcome with reactivating ships.

And don't forget that if the US can reactivate ships and crews, there's little stopping the opposition from doing the exact same thing, perhaps even faster if they have less concern about training quality and small issues such as crew safety and comfort.

Even if the ships could be reactivated in 3 months, crewed and put to sea, we have the small issue of canon stating that the last major fleet in being was put on the bottom in mid 1997. That to me says right there that the best of the reactivated ships are absolutely sunk and it's only the ships which were deemed unimportant or too much trouble/expensive that are still sitting in their probably radioactive storage areas post nuke.

[Mohoender]

.
And don't forget that if the US can reactivate ships and crews, there's little stopping the opposition from doing the exact same thing, perhaps even faster if they have less concern about training quality and small issues such as crew safety and comfort.

Actually, they did. The Soviet destroyer in sattelite down is of an old type that was dcommissioning even before 1989 and the Riga-class frigates you find in the Caspian Flotilla had been, for the most part, decommissioned in the early 1980's.

I definitely agree with your point when things go nuclear and you might be right about things going too fast. Still its fun to have these old rusted bucket around.

[Legbreaker]

Actually, they did. The Soviet destroyer in sattelite down is of an old type that was dcommissioning even before 1989 and the Riga-class frigates you find in the Caspian Flotilla had been, for the most part, decommissioned in the early 1980's.

Well there you go then. My point is made that there doesn't need to be any real changes to canon for the outcome to be exactly the same - a balance of opposing forces, both beaten down into little more than a scorched and ash covered shadow of their prewar power.

There's simply no need to justify a US navy being stronger than it is in the books, as quite simply, that seriously unstablises the game world to the point of absurbity. Sure, those who are interested can play about with what ships were activated when, and how they reached their final watery graves, but the outcome must remain the same to keep the balance.

The same principle applies to ground and air forces. Make any significant changes and it's no longer T2K but something entirely different.

[LAW0306]

Once again.Its mine or who ever's game to make it! as you have said before its only a game what does reality have to do with it! If Mo wants more ships in his god bless him. if you want less god bless you. its only a game have fun. They do say Fleet right That means Fleet. The united states had many numbered fleets...That means to me they operate at the task force level.like they do today. from our talks with the game designers they just did not have the raw numbers for all the ships and did not know what to do with them. They wanted a land centric game so they said the fleets are gone. so they made a simple decision for the game. no harm no foul. now that we know more about the ships (IE Internet) we flesh it out. if you want to use it cool. if not cool too. lets all just have fun. remember its just a game.

[Legbreaker]

Actually, I don't recall Mo ever saying anything about a fleet. He was I believe talking about individual ships in numbers insufficient to have a great impact on the balance of the world. He also brought up the existence of refurbished/recommissioned Soviet ships as well, as illustrated in Satellite Down, which would maintain the balance.

There's nothing to say some ships can't/weren't recommissioned, but care must be taken to avoid turning the whole thing into a one sided joke.

[Isochron]

Spruance Class DDs

Although most of the Spruance Class DDs were decommissioned and in real life disposed of in a permanent manner (mostly sank for target practice and weapons testing) that was around 94-96. If there had been heightend tensions starting with Able Archer then they would have kept most available for recommissioning, if needed.

The Spruance DDs were the same as the Tico Class cruisers except with no Aegis missile system and different launch systems. They carried 8 tomahawk missile.

Having served on one I can tell you they were a rock solid class of ship.