The U.S. 600 Ship Navy - Mid 90's (Cold War Not Ending)

[Ironmiked]

Question. What would have the 600 Ship Navy looked like in the Mid-90's had the Cold War not ended?

There are obvious things like more Nimitz Class carriers replacing CV's, more Aegis ships (CG's & DDG's) coming into service replacing older escorts etc. But assuming Soviets programs continued unabated (more Akula, Oscar, Kirov, Slava, Sovremenny and Udaloys etc.), how would the overall complexion of the US Navy changed? Would the Iowa Class received a modest or more extensive upgrade? Could the Sea Wolf Class be accelerated? Would the Wasp Class LHDs be purchased to replace the Iwo Jima Class LPHs on a one for one basis? Many older ships were retained to reach the 600 ship goal, but could have they been replaced with new construction to maintain force structure? With the Soviets now building carriers and more heavy combatants, do the Des Moines CA get reactivated, so the Navy six (4 BBGs + 2 CAs) Surface Action Groups? Is 15 deployable carriers still adequate? Does the goal of 100 SSNs and 24 SSBNs increase? I'm curious what fleet would have looked like. Any thoughts?

 

[isayyo2]

I wouldn't bet on Des Moines re-entering service after the Iowas. By the late 80s you have VLS equipped Spruance, Ticonderoga, and Burkes entering service en masse. Expect at least 3 DDG-51s laid down per year to replace the Farragut and Charles F Adams DDGs.

I believe there were several FF(X) proposals to replace all the steam-powered Frigates with a common "cheap" design during the 80s.

Carriers could be bolster past 17 depending on how many Kuznetsov and Ulyanovsk are built. Expect full SLEP's on the Forestalls and Kitty Hawks, while new CVNs replace the Midway and Coral Sea. It's possible the Lexington could squeeze out a few more years of service as a training carrier, up to you really. I'd be curious if more Supply AOEs could be acquired as well.
Carrier Aviation would be a bit more exciting with proper funding: more F-14Ds! Ideally in the "Quickstrike" mod to take over for the A-6s. Grumman in Long Island would be chugging along nicely through the 2000s.

Though not glamorous, new Destroyer & Submarine Tenders + repair ships would need to be acquired as well.

 

[apparition13]

The production schedule planned for Burkes was 4-5 per year. The max achieved in a year was 6, compared to 8 for Spruances and 4 for Ticos, with OHPs hitting 11 one year. By the way, one carrier every three years would result in 15 carriers assuming a 45 year lifespan.

There was a 1990 or so Flight III Burke design with 128 vls and an amidships hangar for two helicopters. It didn't go anywhere, but might in this scenario.

The full 29 class Seawolf would probably be funded. Maybe even more. The LA class ran to more boats than expected.

I suspect by 2000 we would be seeing something along the lines of one of the COEA cruiser designs with 256 vls as the eventual replacement for the Ticos. Speaking of which, there may be more Ticos in the meantime, unless the CGBL design goes into production, to replace the older cruisers. Although it's likely the full New Threat Upgrade program would happen before this does.

A new frigate - no idea. I quite like the Brandenburg for a general purpose design though. At least until Absalon and Iver Huitfeld come along.

It might be too late for the F-14. But with the pressure of a continued Cold War I suspect the A/FX program would continue, and the Navy would not join the CALF program. On the contrary, the carrier air wing would be mostly A/FX, with the CSA program continuing to develop a common airframe to replace the E-2, S-3, ES-3, tanker, and COD missions.

With regards to the Supply class, one was cancelled, but more might be good. I also think it would be the ideal platform for an Arsenal Ship/BMD cruiser etc. There were actually an umber of Auxiliary ships that had classes curtailed following the end of the Cold War.

 

[Tzoli]

In case of the Iowas, after the Gulf War experience, some changes to the Phase II varianrs are to be expected especially regarding the effects of the 16" cannons and the new sensor equipent. The USS New Jersey was scheduled for BBV Harrier reconstruction in the Phase II programme, Iowa's 2nd turret being damaged might be a good reason for the AEGIS Phase II conversion creating basically a proto-Arsenal ship. The 2 other Iowas might be considered only for a moderate Phase II refit as the marines demand a strong fire support task force.
Some of the FSS - Fire Support Ship - studies might be chosen for construction as well.

 

[that_person]

This is a little something I’ve been working on with a friend of mine. Credit where credit is due, this is mostly my friend’s work, and not mine. I’m very happy with it regardless. It is however based on 3 critical assumptions:

1. The Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc, and their economies survive into the 21st century. They also expand their influence into a limited number of client states. They create a lose alliance not united by socialist ideals, but rather they’re all just looking for money and power.

2. Both the US and Soviet Union transition from primarily land powers and bruh bf throwing huge amounts of money at their respective Navies. This gives the Soviets a true blue-water carrier fleet, capable of holding their own, if not defeating the USN.

3. The Cold War continues uninterrupted.

The Iowas will go around the same time, they’re expensive to operate in terms of manpower, and bring nothing to the fleet that any of the 31 Spruances couldn’t. Des Moines brings even less to the table, for about the same price. Thats an instant no.

Nimitz production still caps out at about 10 ships by 2009, but we keep the 12 carrier fleet. The only thing of note is that I’d expect a carrier to be based in Singapore, to cover the Middle East and India (both of which would stir up trouble in WW3). Other than that, not much changes there.

For the helocarriers, there’s some changes but it’s nothing drastic. The biggest change comes in the way they operate. As a 15 carrier fleet becomes to expensive to operate, helocarriers will take up the slack. They’ll operate behind the CVBGs as support vessels, providing additional aircraft and ASW coverage. I also forsee ~4 bring forward deployed to global hotspots (one to Spain to cover the Med, one to the UK to support Norway, another to Guam to cover Taiwan, and one with to Subic Bay to South China Sea). They’ll be leading dedicated SAGs to cover locations that don’t require a carrier, or need something to be surged quickly. The Tarawas stay a bit longer, and the first few Americas trade their well decks in for additional avaition facilities and additional speed.

Seawolf production would wrap up around 2019, with 1.5-2 hulls per year. There would be various different improvements installed in the class, giving you about 3 different Blocks. I’d expect another Carter-type boat too.

NSSN largely stays the same, although you see the extended length VPM boats a lot earlier to carry hypersonics. As the VMF expands, the area that CVBGs can operate in moves West, so you need longer range munitions. The Forward Maritime Strategy is revised from outright destroying the Soviet Fleet to instead targeting key facilities and vessels that are critical to the VMF’s operation.

Surface combatants are where things get interesting. The 1988 SCFRS study divided surface combatants into 2 groups, frontline Battle Force Combatants to escort carriers into the Barents Sea, and second line Protection of Shipping vessels to cover convoys and UNREP groups. The study also concluded there would be no need to build new frigates post-Perry, as old BFCs could simply be put on convoy duty post-SLEP.

That’s not a terrible idea, but with the mass exodus of the old ASROC frigates, the Perrys and Spruances are moved to POS duty. But those won’t last forever, plus the removal of Spruances means the CVBGs have no dedicated ASW escorts, so something needs to replace those.

The solution is a 40-50 hull interim design being produced from the mid-90s to about 2016. It won’t be NFR-90, it will be closer to the Constellation-class (but without AEGIS and instead a hull sonar and some form of NTU and eventually COMBATSS-21).

The Spruances themselves undergo a giant modernization in the early 2000s, giving them ESSMs, COMBATSS-21, AGS (which unfortunately still happens), and I foresee there being a switch to ARH missiles earlier, meaning you don’t need huge illuminators. I propose making a ship-launched version of the AIM-152 and hooking it up to the ESSM interface. This gives ESSM ships SM-2 equivalents without the need for directors. Spruance herself goes in 2015, with the last hull in 2019ish. They’re officially listed as BFCs to keep Congress happy, but they really operate wherever they’re needed.

The Spruances are replaced by DD(X), which is very similar to SC-21 3C1, but a bit bigger. They’re extremely automated to bring down manpower requirements. I think we’ll end up switching to centerline mounted Mk57s in order to support larger missiles too. They use SPY-3s and later flights get SPY-5 (a modernized, lighter version of SPY-3) and SPY-6. They also get a new blue-water sonar. There’s a total hull count of about 56 vessels, with the first unit enters service in 2008 to replace the Spruances, then as the old short-hull Perrys are replaced (the same time frigate yards finish their work), an extra 25 hulls are ordered from those yards. The result is 31 ASW-orientated BFCs (with the same AAW capabilities as the early Burkes), and 25 high-end POS vessels. The last hull is ready by 2025.

I forsee about 8 trans-Atlantic convoys. While they won’t come under direct threat from Soviet attack, as the frontline is moved closer to closer to the GIUK Gap (the capitulation of Norway becomes increasingly certain in the 21st century, or at least the Soviet’s ability to hold their newly acquired territory), US high command will start sweat and the Soviets may actually have the ability to attack them. That said, I see convoys being less by old AAW combatants. At first, these are NTU Belknaps and Kidds, followed by the earlier Ticos in the early 2020s, and eventually the early Burkes around 2027. The decade gap is held up by the modernized Spruances with SM-2 equivalents. The long-hull Perrys see Australian-like modernizations with Mk41s, RAM, Mk38s, their own SM-2 equivalents, and a modernized Mk92 FCS. They go between 2015 and 2019, similar timeline to the Spruances. The short-hulls however, serve as proto-LCS until a dedicated replacement can arrive. They get the Mk13 removed (unlike the long-hulls), so they’re virtually useless. They chase druggies and shit.

The LCS will basically be an upgunned Independence. As Iran tries to close the Strait of Hormuz and threaten NATO oil shipments, India sorties to close the Strait of Malacca, China makes a land grab in the South China Sea, and Cuba raises hell in the Caribbean, something needs to cover them. Because of their operating area, which is far from friendly ports, they’ll need speed and range. The best hull choice for this is trimaran. There’s not enough “traditional” warships to go around, nor would they perform well that close to land. Our LCS uses the proven Dutch(?) STANFLEX system, because that’s guaranteed to work. It has 8 slots or so. I’m thinking 15-24 hulls, most of which are forward deployed. Their job is to escort larger warships through chokepoints and hold down the fort where we can’t spare carriers or SAGs. If for some reason that’s not needed, they can always be equipped with VDS and helos for POS duty.

In terms of other LSCs, CG(X) still happens. It’s a giant conventionally powered monohull, some 16000 tons. Since they’re double the size of a Burke, they’ll take forever to build, and are super expensive. These replace the Ticos 1:1. They have giant 19’x19’ SPY-6 arrays, as well as SPY-5s (X-band illuminator, modernized SPY-3). The first hull enters derive in 2019, build rate of 2.33 hulls per year, last one in 2031. The Ticos are retained into the 2030s to carry extra missiles, they’re cannon fodder.

52 Burkes are divided into 4 Flights. The first 2 are unchanged. The third, which comes in around 1999 or so, is the 1988 Super Burke. It’s lengthened by 52 feet to accommodate 128 total cells, a single large hanger, an AWC, and an extra generator. There’s 11 of those built, before Flight IV, which is just a Flight III but with a new electronics suite (SPY-3 and 4, see the old AMDR X-Band photos for the arrangement) are constructed. There’s 13 of those, the last hull in 2009. DDG(X) comes in during 2028, just a year after the first Burke goes to POS duty.

 

[Stealth_Phoenix]

Well, the reality is that the Soviet Navy likely wouldn’t have expanded all that much during the 1990s. Even without the actual downfall of the Soviet Union, it was not doing well economically. It had been on a downward trend since Brezhnev really. And, besides relationships were warming under Gorbachev. Germany reunified in 1989 and START was signed in 1991. Sure, that was maybe because Soviet Union was dying but it also had to do with the nature of Gorbachev himself.

That being said, the Ulyanovsk likely would’ve been completed for the sake of principle and as a PR piece, not unlike Kuznetsov. However, despite the questionable tactical relevance of the Soviet Carrier aside, the US would likely produce an extra 5 Nimitz to maintain the 15-carrier requirement, but it’s doubtful we’d expand beyond that. Alternatively, the GRF-class would’ve been accelerated to start replacing ships sooner. USS America would’ve certainly undergone SLEP instead of being decommissioned and sunk. Enterprise would’ve been held onto for a tad bit longer, or replaced by a Nimitz. In fact, most of the conventional carriers would’ve had their retirement dates adjusted. I have a GAO report laying around somewhere from ~1987 that outlined the approximate replacement/SLEP schedule of the CV fleet that I should find.

The Des Moines were not making a come back for the same reason they weren’t tapped in the 1980s- they lacked the reserve buoyancy necessary to install modern systems. Besides, the Newport News had its center gun of turret #2 blow up in ‘72 off Vietnam. Add to that Iowa’s turret explosion in ‘89, I doubt the Navy was in a rush to reactivate more ships firing 60-70y/o munitions. Considering they were just a (relatively) cheap stop gap Missile barge with excellent propaganda value, they weren’t needed long term. By 2008 at the absolute latest, I’d say the last of the Iowa’s are mothballed or decommissioned. If the spare parts even lasted that long. That would also probably extend to the NTU ships and nuclear cruisers by 2008-2010 aswell.

As far as Submarines go- the Seawolf-class would’ve continued production and would likely still be built to this today. Considering the multi-year gap in production, the we’d likely have a good ~30-35 Seawolfs by now. Keep in mind the USN is already pumping them out as fast as they can, the SSN fleet is arguably the most in demand assets in the Navy, and they’re running their boats to the breaking point to reach mission requirements.
However, the Ohio-class would remain 100% unchanged unless START didn’t happen.

The big “What if?” in this scenario is if 9/11 happens. Even in this alt-history universe, that would have a profound impact on the state of the world. Hard to say if Soviet Union would outright support Al Qaeda like we supported Mujahideen just 15 years prior. I’d lean towards no, but who knows. But considering the Soviet Union would still be a threat, I don’t think Bush would’ve commit to Iraq.

Speaking of Bush and Iraq, let’s talk about his awful VP. Realistically, Grumman will still be chugging along. I don’t know why Cheney had such a hate boner for Grumman, but he would not be able to cut the F-14 as early as he did while the USSR is around. I think by now the F-14 would likely be retired, but far more recently then 2005. And instead of being replaced by ugly terrible no good bloated “super” Hornets*, greater emphasis would’ve been placed on the NATF & A-12. Especially considering the construction of the Ulyanovsk.

*I hate Hornets like Cheney hates Tomcats.

I also doubt the LCS program would exist. It was drafted during a time when the US Navy didn’t really know who it’s enemy was, and it reflects that. If the USSR never disappeared, I’d say they’d probably order a more conventional frigate design.

Overall, would we ever achieve 600 ships? Maybe briefly, but still doubtful. Unless the Soviet Union and US were in a old fashioned Naval arms race, which the USSR couldn’t afford in the 90s, the US just doesn’t currently have the military shipyards necessary to pump out ships faster then we are retiring them. And the older ships, while sure pad the fleet number, will just come to hog the budget while adding little actual value.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Even in the context of a continued Cold War maybe the A-12 Avenger II is just too flawed a program to continue with. The MDD/GD team seemed in over their heads and none of the previous stealth experience gained on other programs was shared with them. Perhaps it's better to restructure with the A-X program as happened historically and continue from there. Maybe NATF continues separately so an expanded "fighter" requirement isn't added into A-X.

 

[James1978]

That being said, the Ulyanovsk likely would’ve been completed for the sake of principle and as a PR piece, not unlike Kuznetsov. However, despite the questionable tactical relevance of the Soviet Carrier aside, the US would likely produce an extra 5 Nimitz to maintain the 15-carrier requirement, but it’s doubtful we’d expand beyond that. Alternatively, the GRF-class would’ve been accelerated to start replacing ships sooner. USS America would’ve certainly undergone SLEP instead of being decommissioned and sunk. Enterprise would’ve been held onto for a tad bit longer, or replaced by a Nimitz. In fact, most of the conventional carriers would’ve had their retirement dates adjusted. I have a GAO report laying around somewhere from ~1987 that outlined the approximate replacement/SLEP schedule of the CV fleet that I should find.

The Des Moines were not making a come back for the same reason they weren’t tapped in the 1980s- they lacked the reserve buoyancy necessary to install modern systems. Besides, the Newport News had its center gun of turret #2 blow up in ‘72 off Vietnam. Add to that Iowa’s turret explosion in ‘89, I doubt the Navy was in a rush to reactivate more ships firing 60-70y/o munitions. Considering they were just a (relatively) cheap stop gap Missile barge with excellent propaganda value, they weren’t needed long term. By 2008 at the absolute latest, I’d say the last of the Iowa’s are mothballed or decommissioned. If the spare parts even lasted that long. That would also probably extend to the NTU ships and nuclear cruisers by 2008-2010 aswell.

I'd be interested in the title of that GAO report on the CV fleet.

Re. the CGNs, IIRC, they had a planned lifespan of 40 years.
So they should decommission as follows:
- 2001 - Long Beach CGN-9
- 2002 - Bainbridge CGN-25
- 2007 - Truxton CGN-35
- 2014 - California CGN-36
- 2015 - South Carolina CGN-37
- 2016 - Virginia CGN-38
- 2017 - Texas CGN-39
- 2018 - Mississippi CGN-40
- 2020 - Arkansas CGN-41

 

[Stealth_Phoenix]

That being said, the Ulyanovsk likely would’ve been completed for the sake of principle and as a PR piece, not unlike Kuznetsov. However, despite the questionable tactical relevance of the Soviet Carrier aside, the US would likely produce an extra 5 Nimitz to maintain the 15-carrier requirement, but it’s doubtful we’d expand beyond that. Alternatively, the GRF-class would’ve been accelerated to start replacing ships sooner. USS America would’ve certainly undergone SLEP instead of being decommissioned and sunk. Enterprise would’ve been held onto for a tad bit longer, or replaced by a Nimitz. In fact, most of the conventional carriers would’ve had their retirement dates adjusted. I have a GAO report laying around somewhere from ~1987 that outlined the approximate replacement/SLEP schedule of the CV fleet that I should find.

The Des Moines were not making a come back for the same reason they weren’t tapped in the 1980s- they lacked the reserve buoyancy necessary to install modern systems. Besides, the Newport News had its center gun of turret #2 blow up in ‘72 off Vietnam. Add to that Iowa’s turret explosion in ‘89, I doubt the Navy was in a rush to reactivate more ships firing 60-70y/o munitions. Considering they were just a (relatively) cheap stop gap Missile barge with excellent propaganda value, they weren’t needed long term. By 2008 at the absolute latest, I’d say the last of the Iowa’s are mothballed or decommissioned. If the spare parts even lasted that long. That would also probably extend to the NTU ships and nuclear cruisers by 2008-2010 aswell.

I'd be interested in the title of that GAO report on the CV fleet.

Re. the CGNs, IIRC, they had a planned lifespan of 40 years.
So they should decommission as follows:
- 2001 - Long Beach CGN-9
- 2002 - Bainbridge CGN-25
- 2007 - Truxton CGN-35
- 2014 - California CGN-36
- 2015 - South Carolina CGN-37
- 2016 - Virginia CGN-38
- 2017 - Texas CGN-39
- 2018 - Mississippi CGN-40
- 2020 - Arkansas CGN-41

I found it- https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/cbo/doc20b-entire.pdf

It's not a GAO study, but rather a CBO study from 1987 regarding future navy plans. It's been a minute since I read the whole thing, but I think it's a relevant document to OP's question. I think it's pretty clear that the Navy didn't plan to expand beyond 15 carriers, and there was some discussion about reducing to a 13-carrier force. It also discusses a bunch of projects from the 80s- the V-22, the ATA program (A-12 Avenger), and the ATF program.

Anyway, the relevant info regarding replacement is located on page 87 of the PDF. Coral Sea, Midway, and Forrestal all had direct Nimitz-class CVN expected to replace them. However, we wound up retiring 7 Carriers during the 1990s (5 more than planned), while only building 3. Hard to directly link replacement carriers, but I did my best to approximate which Nimitz-class ultimately replaced which carrier.

• 1992 - Coral Sea - Actually retired 1990, 2 Years Early.
• 1997 - Midway - Actually retired 1992, 5 Years Early.
• 2000 - Forrestal - Actually retired 1993, 7 Years Early.
• 2001- Saratoga - Actually Retired 1994, 7 Years Early.
• 2002 - Ranger - Actually Retired 1993, 9 Years Early. Replaced by USS George Washington CVN-73
• 2004 - Independence - Actually Retired 1998, 6 Years Early. Replaced by USS Harry S Truman CVN-75
• 2006 - Kitty Hawk - Actually Retired 2009, 3 years late. Replaced by USS George H.W. Bush CVN-77
• 2006 - Constellation - Actually Retired 2003, 3 years early. Replaced by USS Ronald Reagan CVN-76
• 2006 - Enterprise - Actually Retired 2017, 11 years late. Replaced by USS GRF CVN-79
• 2010 - America - Actually Retired 1996, 14 Years Early. Replaced by USS John C Stennis CVN-74
• 2013 - John F Kennedy - Actually Retired 2007, 6 Years Early.

When the Soviet Union fell in 1991, the only carriers which hadn't completed SLEP were USS America and USS John F Kennedy. That was a pretty big reason why America retired so early. John F Kennedy received a cheaper complex overhaul instead. Apparently, there were plans during the mid-2000s to keep her until 2019 to be replaced by CVN-79 but I can't validate that with Gov. documents, at least not yet.

The Cruisers are interesting, but I'm not sure even if the Cold War was still raging if the Navy would keep them around, just because the AEGIS ships were just so much more capable than the NTU. Even tho they were relatively young, they were still obsolete. The Long Beach might be exempt since I know there were plans to retrofit her with AEGIS. But, I don't know how realistic that was. Plus, it doesn't solve the issue of VLS.

 

[Tzoli]

Long Beach's AEGIS Conversion was from the late 1970's when the CSGN was still under consideration. That plan was abandoned and she too received the New Threat Upgrade in the 1990's. I don't know if the navy had any other plans for her after that.
By the way what is SLEP?

 

[Arjen]

Service Life Extension Programme

 

[apparition13]

Even in the context of a continued Cold War maybe the A-12 Avenger II is just too flawed a program to continue with. The MDD/GD team seemed in over their heads and none of the previous stealth experience gained on other programs was shared with them. Perhaps it's better to restructure with the A-X program as happened historically and continue from there. Maybe NATF continues separately so an expanded "fighter" requirement isn't added into A-X.

The MD-GD design was fatally flawed with an estimated price tag that was way too low and not remotely realistic. The Northrop design would have worked. On the plus side, Northrop used it's experience with the B-2 to come up with a design that would work, with a price that was realistic*. Unfortunately the Navy didn't like the price.

To make the A-12 work you'd have to choose the Northrop design despite not meeting the price limit. For the NATF, you'd need to keep the original 72 ATF and 48 NATF per year production schedule. This can only happen if the USN and Congress understand the capability is needed and the cost has to be accepted to get that capability.

*This is one of the problems I have with the doubts raised about Northrop's ability to build on time and budget that worked against the YF-23. The have contemporary experience based on the B-2 experience, which means they have learned lessons to improve production of the next aircraft, and have a much better estimate of actual costs of program development and production. I'm fairly confident Northrop would have brought the F-23 in much earlier and cheaper than Lockheed did with the F-22.

 

[Desertfox]

Did the USN ever consider monitors using the Iowa's turrets? That would be a way to keep the guns around for Marine use,without having to keep the expensive Iowas around.

 

[Tzoli]

Did the USN ever consider monitors using the Iowa's turrets? That would be a way to keep the guns around for Marine use,without having to keep the expensive Iowas around.

Yes they have. Check the Iowa/Alaska thread:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/iowa-and-alaska-class-conversion-projects.7220/

 

[that_person]

As much as I don't like Cheney (the man himself, his decisions, and his politics), I have to agree with him on canceling the A-12. The program was a money pit. As an alternative, I propose the F-22 (however, the end result would look much more like FB-22-4), to serve as both an F-14 and A-6 replacement. You can share parts with the AF too to ease logistical and cost issues.

 

[Desertfox]

The right approach would have been to cancel the A-12, go with the F-14 Quickstrike in the interim, and then pull an YF-17 and replace the F-14 with a F-23N.

 

[that_person]

The right approach would have been to cancel the A-12, go with the F-14 Quickstrike in the interim, and then pull an YF-17 and replace the F-14 with a F-23N.

It’s probably worth building ST21s in the interim, but overall I’d agree. The one thing I’m skeptical of however is the size of the Tomcat in relation to the A-6. You’d be trading for a more capable aircraft but in lesser numbers due to size restrictions.

 

[Archibald]

A-6F. Definitively. With AMRAAM capability to bolster fleet defense. Also some kind of Super Tomcat. NATF was a non starter, a bloated monster - a naval VG F-22 ? what a sick joke.

And if you want an almost perfect Superbug / NATF combo at lower cost, I'm tempted to say: just invent a naval Boramae in the mid-1990's.
That is: a miniature, naval F-22 with F414 engines ! Way to go: not compromised by tri-service like the F-35, and not a bloated monster like NATF.

KF-21 Boramae is proof that a miniature F-22 can be build with Super Hornet engines.


Would be funny to have a TL where the USN invents a naval Boramae in the mid-1990's and calls it... F-21.

Yeah, I kind of like this. What if A/F-X created that baby ?

The A/F-X, initially known as the Advanced-Attack (A-X), began in 1991 as the USN's follow-on to the Advanced Tactical Aircraft (ATA) program for an A-6 replacement; the ATA's resulting A-12 Avenger II had been canceled due to technical problems and cost overruns in 1991. In the same year, the termination of the Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF), a naval development of USAF's ATF program to replace the F-14, resulted in additional fighter capability being added to A-X, which was then renamed A/F-X.

 

[Hood]

• 1992 - Coral Sea - Actually retired 1990, 2 Years Early.
• 1997 - Midway - Actually retired 1992, 5 Years Early.
• 2000 - Forrestal - Actually retired 1993, 7 Years Early.
• 2001- Saratoga - Actually Retired 1994, 7 Years Early.
• 2002 - Ranger - Actually Retired 1993, 9 Years Early. Replaced by USS George Washington CVN-73
• 2004 - Independence - Actually Retired 1998, 6 Years Early. Replaced by USS Harry S Truman CVN-75
• 2006 - Kitty Hawk - Actually Retired 2009, 3 years late. Replaced by USS George H.W. Bush CVN-77
• 2006 - Constellation - Actually Retired 2003, 3 years early. Replaced by USS Ronald Reagan CVN-76
• 2006 - Enterprise - Actually Retired 2017, 11 years late. Replaced by USS GRF CVN-79
• 2010 - America - Actually Retired 1996, 14 Years Early. Replaced by USS John C Stennis CVN-74
• 2013 - John F Kennedy - Actually Retired 2007, 6 Years Early.

When they were initially discussed for the FY88-89 budget CVN-74 (to become John C. Stennis) was to replace USS Midway and CVN-75 (to become Harry S. Truman) was to replace one of the Forrestals, presumed at that time to be Saratoga.

As initially planned Enterprise was to undergo her "complex overhaul" (which was effective a SLEP for the CVN fleet) during 1993-96 taking 42 months.

The SLEPs for America and John F. Kennedy were scheduled for April 1996-May 1999 and January 1999-February 2002. Interestingly their planned decommissioning dates of 2010 and 2012 gives a 10-year life extension rather than 15 of the earlier SLEPs, I guess due to general material condition at that stage of their lives.

Ranger's SLEP always seems to have been in doubt, tied up with the decision to go with replacements every three years with new construction (the CVN-74 and CVN-75 order).

As to cruisers, the Virginias should have completed their NTU upgrades by FY1995, as we know the decision was taken not to do this and decommission instead. The NTU work for these ships would have been upgrades to Mk 74 MFCS and SPG-51D, improvements to the Mk 26 launchers and replacing SPS-40B with SPS-49. Long Beach should also have completed her NTU by FY95, with updated SPG-55D and Mk 10 launchers and SPS-48E added. It seems that it was the refuelling costs that influenced the decision to decommission these ships because the NTU work was relatively minor given the other prior weapon and systems updates already made to these vessels.

There were tentative plans (under pressure from Congress) to begin a SLEP programme for the Knox-class from 1989 but I don't think that this was ever begun.

The two Raleigh-class LPDs were to have been modernised to extend their lives to 1997-98 but this never happened either and they were decommissioned in 1991-92.

As to support ships, it had been planned to build 15 Supply-class AOEs, one per carrier, but this never happened and only 4 were completed.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

The A/F-X, initially known as the Advanced-Attack (A-X), began in 1991 as the USN's follow-on to the Advanced Tactical Aircraft (ATA) program for an A-6 replacement; the ATA's resulting A-12 Avenger II had been canceled due to technical problems and cost overruns in 1991. In the same year, the termination of the Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF), a naval development of USAF's ATF program to replace the F-14, resulted in additional fighter capability being added to A-X, which was then renamed A/F-X.

Lockheed's entry into the A/F-X competition was a development of the F-22-based NATF design.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I'm a bit more doubtful about the prospects of the NATF-23 design than I would be with Lockheed's NATF-22 and this comes from someone who loves the F-23 and wishes it had been put into production. The USN has never been very fond of delta or canard-delta layouts, just look at what happened with both Lockheed's and Boeing's CALF/JAST/JSF.

 

[Stealth_Phoenix]

• 1992 - Coral Sea - Actually retired 1990, 2 Years Early.
• 1997 - Midway - Actually retired 1992, 5 Years Early.
• 2000 - Forrestal - Actually retired 1993, 7 Years Early.
• 2001- Saratoga - Actually Retired 1994, 7 Years Early.
• 2002 - Ranger - Actually Retired 1993, 9 Years Early. Replaced by USS George Washington CVN-73
• 2004 - Independence - Actually Retired 1998, 6 Years Early. Replaced by USS Harry S Truman CVN-75
• 2006 - Kitty Hawk - Actually Retired 2009, 3 years late. Replaced by USS George H.W. Bush CVN-77
• 2006 - Constellation - Actually Retired 2003, 3 years early. Replaced by USS Ronald Reagan CVN-76
• 2006 - Enterprise - Actually Retired 2017, 11 years late. Replaced by USS GRF CVN-79
• 2010 - America - Actually Retired 1996, 14 Years Early. Replaced by USS John C Stennis CVN-74
• 2013 - John F Kennedy - Actually Retired 2007, 6 Years Early.

When they were initially discussed for the FY88-89 budget CVN-74 (to become John C. Stennis) was to replace USS Midway and CVN-75 (to become Harry S. Truman) was to replace one of the Forrestals, presumed at that time to be Saratoga.

As initially planned Enterprise was to undergo her "complex overhaul" (which was effective a SLEP for the CVN fleet) during 1993-96 taking 42 months.

The SLEPs for America and John F. Kennedy were scheduled for April 1996-May 1999 and January 1999-February 2002. Interestingly their planned decommissioning dates of 2010 and 2012 gives a 10-year life extension rather than 15 of the earlier SLEPs, I guess due to general material condition at that stage of their lives.

Ranger's SLEP always seems to have been in doubt, tied up with the decision to go with replacements every three years with new construction (the CVN-74 and CVN-75 order).

As to cruisers, the Virginias should have completed their NTU upgrades by FY1995, as we know the decision was taken not to do this and decommission instead. The NTU work for these ships would have been upgrades to Mk 74 MFCS and SPG-51D, improvements to the Mk 26 launchers and replacing SPS-40B with SPS-49. Long Beach should also have completed her NTU by FY95, with updated SPG-55D and Mk 10 launchers and SPS-48E added. It seems that it was the refuelling costs that influenced the decision to decommission these ships because the NTU work was relatively minor given the other prior weapon and systems updates already made to these vessels.

There were tentative plans (under pressure from Congress) to begin a SLEP programme for the Knox-class from 1989 but I don't think that this was ever begun.

The two Raleigh-class LPDs were to have been modernised to extend their lives to 1997-98 but this never happened either and they were decommissioned in 1991-92.

As to support ships, it had been planned to build 15 Supply-class AOEs, one per carrier, but this never happened and only 4 were completed.

I find it hard to believe that Saratoga was the Forrestal-class destined to be replaced by CVN-75. The Navy briefly planned to (and to a degree did) have USS Forrestal replace Lexington in the training carrier role in 1992. I think she only served this role briefly for a few months before this plan was scrapped. I think she was redesignated, and even showed up to Pensacola but nothing happened beyond that. Kinda curious if this plan had gone thru if she’d still be in-service today.
I assume the post-SLEP lifespan for the American and JFK were conservative estimates based on a belief Nimitz-production would catch up to replace them. Considering what we know now, especially in regards to what happened to USS Enterprise and is happening to USS Nimitz, I wouldn’t be surprised if America was decommissioned in ~2015, and if JFK wasn’t decommissioned until ~2020. Not needing nuclear refueling would make them prime candidates to extend their lifespans, hell I think that’s the main reason JFK and Kitty Hawk sat so long in mothballs. The main question I think revolves around what CVN construction between 2010-2020 would’ve been. Would we have built more advanced Nimitz-class like the Bush, or would the GRF-class be less…ambitious in its design goals, leading to fewer delays and issues?

Also, I forgot about Ranger. Her SLEP was for 1993 according to my source, with a retirement of 2002. Which, to your point is surprisingly short. If any Forrestal-class would be retired, I’d assume it’d be her. But hell, the Midway wasn’t expected to be retired until 1997. Would be hard to justify retiring Ranger before Midway.
As far as the cruisers go, I want to believe in this alternate scenario that Long Beach received AEGIS upgrade. Is this realistic? Probably not, but it’s like the hypothetical 1944 HMS Hood refit (have you seen Tzoli’s designs? Ugh. So good). Sure it wasn’t going to happen, but damn I wish it did just for the cool factor.

As far as the other cruisers go- considering how immensely successful the Arleigh Burke-class turned out to be, I still consider a strong possibility that the other CGN are retired early. I don’t have an exact quote atm about annual operating costs, but iirc they cost twice that of the Arleigh Burke. Why dump resources into operating expensive NTU nuclear cruisers, when the Arleigh Burke-class is cheaper and more capable. Hell, that’s ultimately what befell the LCS program. The Burke is just such a good effing design.

As far as the air wing conversation goes- I’ve never read that deeply into the ATF/A-12 Avenger program. I know it was an expensive program, but I personally believe that was just the nature of developing stealth aircraft especially in the 1990s, rather then mismanagement on behalf of Grumman. And I think if the USSR built Ulyanovsk plus a 5th Gen Fighter (maybe derived from MiG 1.44?), Congress would be more inclined to support a stealth attack aircraft.
Like I mentioned before, I have a personal bias against the Super Hornet. I think the F-14 platform was far more capable. It our timeline, an updated F-14 would be comparable to the F-15E which has enjoyed a particuarly long lifespan. However, it’s arguable that the F-15 has only had such a long lifespan because of the early cancellation of the F-22 which only occurred because of the collapse of the USSR. So it’s likely that the F-15 would’ve been phased out in this alternate universe, and so to would the F-14.

The Navy didn’t wind up getting a stealth platform until the F-35C entered service in the 2010s. If the USSR was still around, I’d argue a further emphasis would be placed on developing a stealthy naval air superiority aircraft to replace the F-14. The Sea Raptor is the most obvious candidate, but who knows. Regardless of the specific winner, I’d argue that a stealthy naval fighter would’ve been a higher priority and entered service in the mid-00s.

I do want to pivot some of the conversation towards hypotheticals following September 11th. The War on Terror completely changed our procurement, and I’m curious to hear some discussion regarding what people would consider to be most likely in a world where the USSR still existed. Robert Gates made some god awful decisions, mostly due to a perceived lack of geopolitical adversary. However, by 2001, the Soviet Union may have been able to economically recover from its recession and entering a resurgence.

The most obvious change that I can think of would be the F-22 procurement not being cancelled. But Naval wise, I’m curious what you guys think would happen? LCS never happen? Zumwalt?

 

[uk 75]

A lot depends on the way in which the Soviet Navy develops in the 1990s. Whether you want a new thread for this or are happy to have the Opfor shown here.
The biggest threat posed by the Soviet Navy would continue to be new classes of submarines and long range strike aircraft designed to kill US carriers.
The new carrier programme is sonewhst harder to assess. Kiev class ships were due to get the new Yak 141. But this may have been difficult to operate.
No analogue design to US nuclear carriers seems likely so about three catobar ships with Su Flankers.
The Nimitz class would have replaced conventional ships at a faster rate.
More AEGIS class cruisers would have been needed.
Replacement of the Spruance and Perry class would have needed new designs.
The Burke class would have replaced Leahy, Belknap, Coontz and Adams classes.

 

[Stealth_Phoenix]

No analogue design to US nuclear carriers seems likely so about three catobar ships with Su Flankers.

Bit confused by this part.

Beyond the Project 1158 and Project 1160 from the ~70s/80s, I’m not aware of any Soviet CATOBAR designs. And neither of those projects got very far, and certainly weren’t in consideration by the 1990s.

I think it’s likely that during the 1990s the Kuznetsov (which would probably keep its originally name Tbilisi) and Varyag would be completed. And depending on your definition of “US supercarrier analogue”, the Ulyanovsk is a good contender. It’s smaller at ~75,000t, 68 aircraft tho I suspect that is because the Soviets wouldn’t make use of permanent deck parking like the US Carriers do.

(Sidenote: is the Ulyanovsk-class considered CATOBAR? It did have 2 Waist Catapults to launch Yak-44, but other aircraft would operate from a ski ramp. Bit of a weird hybrid, not really sure what to call it)

However, I’m considering the overall state of Soviet affairs. If you want to stay more true to real life, the 1990s would be a very tough time economically for the USSR. I doubt they would/could build the second planned Ulyanovsk-class, and if they did it would be over an incredibly long period.

Personally, I’d love the see an extensive overhaul of the Kiev-class in the same vein as Vikramaditya (or more realistically, Project 1143.42) just because I personally love the look of the Vikramaditya but I’m skeptical if the Soviets would invest in converting them. Especially if the Yak-144 managed to pan out.

As far as submarines go, I could see a similar slowdown in production. I don’t think it’d be the 20 odd years we saw IRL, but I think the Soviets would have a very difficult time replacing submarines 1 for 1 with the Yasen-class SSN. (Personally, I am also a bit curious about what the Soviets planned for the Sierra III sub they had under-construction. Info on that boat is super difficult to find.)

Overall, unless we ignore a devastating 1990s recession, I don’t see a vast build up of Soviet Naval Procurement during this time outside of what was already developed/under construction in real life.

I can see the US Navy taking that time during a weak Soviet Union to restructure itself a bit, divest itself of expensive assets like the CGNs, and invest in production of the Seawolf and Arleigh Burke class.

I also agree that they would need more AEGIS cruisers. The Frigate replacement would be interesting, as I highly doubt the LCS would be developed. I wonder if the US Navy had designs for a potential AEGIS OHP-class successor..

 

[Yellow Palace]

There was already some discussion of establishing 5th Fleet to take command of the naval forces in the Middle East, taking the load off of 7th Fleet which was commanding a very large area. I'd imagine that in an extended Cold War this takes place earlier than in OTL.

Actual planned deployments for the 15-carrier fleet in wartime were:

	Carrier battle group	Battleship group	Underway replenishment group
2nd Fleet (Atlantic)	4	1	3
3rd Fleet (Eastern Pacific)	2	-	1
6th Fleet (Mediterranean)	4	1	2
7th Fleet (Western Pacific)	3	1	3
7th Fleet (Middle East)	2	1	1

One of the carriers in the Mediterranean might 'swing' into the Atlantic depending on the situation.

Looking at the distribution of forces, it's pretty much 50/50 between the US East Coast and West Coast, so I imagine the same would apply to the amphibious forces, with 2 MEB of lift in each ocean, plus prepositioned equipment - 1 MEB ashore in Norway, and 1 MEB afloat in each of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans.

Here's a little gem: the 600 ship navy was the scaled down version. Durin the development, the general war plans for the principal Commanders-in-Chief were reviewed - each had assumed that in the event of general war, forces would be borrowed from other theatres to support their needs. Taken as a whole, the three plans combined required 22 carrier battle groups and seven Marine Expeditionary Forces.

 

[Stealth_Phoenix]

That is certainly fascinating, what is your source for this? I’d love to read more.

The one thing I find somewhat ironically optimistic about this plan (and most strategic cold war plans) is that if full-fledged war broke out, it wouldn’t immediately result in Nuclear Armageddon.

Also, I’m trying to figure out the whole 22-carrier thing. Are you saying that the Navy thought it needed 22 carriers to meet operational requirements in the event of the war turning hot (but not nuclear)? Or that the Navy would need 22 carriers, but would in reality be moving assets around constantly to meet operational needs with the 15 carriers it had.

Considering Nimitz-class is limited to Newport News only, and had a 3-year turnaround (at least in Peace Time), the only way I could see the Navy being able to get close is by reactivating all mothballed Essex-class. 1987, Oriskany is obviously the top candidate, but the Navy still had Lexington, Bennington, Bon Homme Richard, and Hornet. (and Shangri-La, she wasn't scrapped yet) in inventory. I'm pretty sure they were being kept around for spares for Lexington, and only Oriskany was the only one seriously considered for modernization.

That'd boost carriers to 21 Overall (if you include Shangri-La). I'm sure that it isn't practical but unless the Navy wanted to restart conventional carrier production and order from not-Newport News, I don't know how else they would've been able to get to 22 in a pinch. And I guess by 1987, they could operate F/A-18C. Not 100% sure the SCB-125 Essexs could handle Hornets, but I know when Oriskany was being considered for reactivation, she would've gotten an air wing of A-4M.

 

[Yellow Palace]

That's all based on Newport Paper 33: US Naval Strategy in the 1980s.

https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=newport-papers

22 carriers comes from summing the three regional command CINC's plans for general war. Each of them was supposed to assume that no reinforcements from other regions were available, but in fact each of them assumed that the others would provide reinforcement. The Atlantic and Pacific commands each assumed the other would send them three carriers. Southwest Asia didn't have any carriers, but wanted three.

Taken as a whole, the CINCs had produced war plans that required 22 carriers to support, at a time when the US Navy only had 13 - and realistically, only 11, because one would be down for overhaul on either coast. Where the additional carriers would come from was presumably filed under Somebody Else's Problem.

 

[apparition13]

Well, here is the relevant page:


The total number of CVBGs needed for Eur/Lant is 20, and PAC is 16. On the diagonal the total is 22, but if you take the max in each column you would need 25, 10 for Europe/Atlantic and 6 for SWA from the first column and 9 for PAC from the third.

The real question is do they all need to be full sized carriers? If you compare this to the 1958 plan, in that document there were 24 carriers, 12 attack carriers, 9 ASW carriers, and 3 training carriers. If some of the CVBGs in the 1982 presentation could be centered on smaller convoy escort and/or ASW specialized carriers (CVV, SCS) then 22 or 25 might be achievable. Although 600 ships is going to be too few; the 1958 plan had 928, which was in line with the actual deployment numbers for the time.

 

[Yellow Palace]

The total number of CVBGs needed for Eur/Lant is 20, and PAC is 16. On the diagonal the total is 22, but if you take the max in each column you would need 25, 10 for Europe/Atlantic and 6 for SWA from the first column and 9 for PAC from the third.

You're reading the table back-to-front: the columns are the theatres, and the rows are the CinC who developed the plan. Note that all three rows have 13 CVBG and 4 MAF (ish - CinC SWA landed on 3 MAF and 2 MEB, which technically leaves a spare MEB).

Since each of the three plans is making assumptions about the deployment of 13 existing ships, I'd imagine that less capable carriers wouldn't be a 1-for-1 exchange.

You can reverse-engineer the force calculations for the 600-ship fleet to arrive at a 22-carrier navy needing the following additional ships:

• 43 DDG-51 (since the CG-47 and DD-963 runs were over)
• 15 FFG-7
• 7 AOE
• 15 AO
• 7 or 8 AE
• 5 AFS

Possibly a few extra SSNs and support ships as well, taking you to a 700-750 ship navy. It's reasonable to assume that 7 MAFs would entail some increase in assault shipping (and associated escorts) but that isn't specifically identified.

 

[apparition13]

That makes more sense. Corrected.

 

[PMN1]

There was already some discussion of establishing 5th Fleet to take command of the naval forces in the Middle East, taking the load off of 7th Fleet which was commanding a very large area. I'd imagine that in an extended Cold War this takes place earlier than in OTL.

Actual planned deployments for the 15-carrier fleet in wartime were:

	Carrier battle group	Battleship group	Underway replenishment group
2nd Fleet (Atlantic)	4	1	3
3rd Fleet (Eastern Pacific)	2	-	1
6th Fleet (Mediterranean)	4	1	2
7th Fleet (Western Pacific)	3	1	3
7th Fleet (Middle East)	2	1	1

One of the carriers in the Mediterranean might 'swing' into the Atlantic depending on the situation.

Looking at the distribution of forces, it's pretty much 50/50 between the US East Coast and West Coast, so I imagine the same would apply to the amphibious forces, with 2 MEB of lift in each ocean, plus prepositioned equipment - 1 MEB ashore in Norway, and 1 MEB afloat in each of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans.

Here's a little gem: the 600 ship navy was the scaled down version. Durin the development, the general war plans for the principal Commanders-in-Chief were reviewed - each had assumed that in the event of general war, forces would be borrowed from other theatres to support their needs. Taken as a whole, the three plans combined required 22 carrier battle groups and seven Marine Expeditionary Forces.

What business would the 2 carrier groups have in the Eastern Pacific?

I do recall reading, in the Economist, that 600 ships was thought to be the most that could be gotten away with.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Prior to doing research for the ALT-1960s USN thread I thought that President Reagan inherited an Amphibious Warfare Force that could lift 1.15 MAF and the 0.15 was to cover refits so the actual lift was 1.0 MAF. However, from reading editions of Jane's from the middle 1970s to early 1980s the Amphibious Force actually had the ability to lift one-and-a-third MAF when the 5 Tarawa class LHA were completed.

Furthermore, I'd also though that the goal of the "Reagan Navy" was to increase the lift from 1.0 MAF to 1.0 MAF & 1.0 MAB (which equals one-and-a-third MAF) by the late 1990s. However, editions of Jane's from the early 1980s say that the short-term goal was 1.5 MAF and the long-term goal was 2.0 MAF with the latter to be reached by the late 1990s.

At one time 11 Wasp class LHD were planned, which with the 5 Tarawa class LHD would have made a total of 16 ships of the LHA/LHD type. This requirement for 16 Helicopter Assault Ships goes back to the late 1950s because as I wrote in the ALT-1960s thread USN thread 16 Iwo Jima class LPH were planned in the Autumn of 1958 and in the late 1960s 9 Tarawa class LHA & 7 Iwo Jima class LPH were wanted, which adds to 16 ships. Also more than the 4 Harpers Ferry class LSD were wanted. From memory I think that 12 were wanted at one time in the 1980s.

For example this quote from Page 650 of Jane's 1982-83.

AMPHIBIOUS WARFARE FORCES​

The amphibious lift of 60 active and six NRF ships is sufficient for one and one-third Marine Divisions (excluding ships in overhaul). All ships are capable of 20 knots or higher sustained speeds and have helicopter facilities.

A MAF (consisting of three reinforced battalions (MAB) is a division/aircraft wing team and their supporting elements with a total of 45,000 troops and 6,300 US Navy personnel. The Reagan Administration plans an early increase of the US Navy’s lift capability to 1.5 MAFs and to 2 MAFs by the late 1990s. Although the MAF lift capability is used as a measurement criteria for US Navy amphibious ships by defence officials, a more realistic consideration is the number of reinforced battalions which can be maintained afloat in forward areas, primarily the Mediterranean and Western Pacific. The US Navy is now able to keep two reinforced battalions continuously afloat in “West Pac” and one in the “Med”. In addition, a reinforced battalion in intermittently deployed in the Atlantic. NRF assignments are at the end of section.

Although I think three reinforced battalions (MAB) is a typo for 3 reinforced brigades (MAB).

The table of ships at 01.03.82 on Page 580 says:

Active: 2 LCC, 5 LHA, 5 LKA, 12 LPD, 7 LPH, 13 LSD and 20 LST - Total 64.​

Building/Reactivating: 1 LSD - this was LST-41 Whidbey Island.​

In Reserve: 3 LST these were 3 De Soto County class.​

In Conversion: None.​

The List of Ships that follows the preamble on Page 650 has:

• 2 Blue Ridge class LCC.
• Amphibious Assault Docks (LHD). It didn't say how many were wanted. It only said that it was to replace the Iwo Jima class LPH, which if it's one-to-one means 7 LHD were planned..
  • LHD-01 long-lead in FY 83 and construction funds in FY 84.
  • LHD-02 in FY 87
• 5 Tarawa class LHA.
• 7 Iwo Jima class LPH.
• 12 Austin class LPD including AGF-11 to revert to LPD-11 when AGF-3 returns to duty.
• 2 Raleigh class LPD.
• 0 + 1 + 9 Whidbey Island LSD for a total of 10 to be approved as follows:
  • FY 81 – 1 LSD-41 approved.
  • FY 82 – 1 LSD-42 approved.
  • FY 83 – 1 LSD-43 proposed.
  • FY 84 – 1 LSD-44 proposed.
  • FY 85 – 2 LSD-45 & 46 proposed.
  • FY 86 – 2 LSD-47 & 48 proposed.
  • FY 87 – 2 LSD-49 & 50 proposed.
  • In the end 8 were built (LSD-41 to 48) plus 4 Harpers Ferry class (LSD-49 to 52).
• 5 Anchorage class LSD.
• 8 Thomaston class LSD.
• 20 Newport class LST including 2 in the NRF which were transferred as follows:
  • 01.12.80 Boulder to NRF
  • 15.01.81 Racine to NRF
• 3 De Soto County class LST in Reserve and scheduled to be transferred to foreign countries in 1982.
• 5 Charleston class LKA - 4 out of 5 were in the 4 NRF and were transferred as follows:
  • 21.11.79 Charleston
  • 01.10.79 Durham
  • 01.09.80 Mobile
  • 01.03.81 El Paso
• If AGF-11/LPH-11 is included that is a total of 66 active ships including 6 NRF.
  • However, she wasn't converted back to an LPH after Coronado AGF-3 returned to duty, which makes a total of 65 ships including 6 NRF.

The list of deleted ships on Page 590 includes

Amphibious Cargo Ships​

- 1981 – 1 Aug Tulare (LKA 112) (transfer to Massachusetts Maritime Academy as training ship pending).​

- Except she wasn't and returned to duty as an LKA with the NRF and served in that role until the middle 1980s.​

​

Edit 27.04.23: Her entry on Navsource says:​

- Decommissioned, 31 March 1986.​

- Laid up in the Pacific Reserve Fleet.​

- Struck from the Naval Register, 31 August 1992.​

 

[Yellow Palace]

What business would the 2 carrier groups have in the Eastern Pacific?

Quoth the document: The Third Fleet has responsibility for operations off Alaska, the Bering Sea, the Aleutians, the Eastern Pacific, and the Mid-Pacific region. In wartime, there would be considerable overlapping and trading back and forth between the Seventh and Third fleets. This happened in the Pacific during World War II. To cover that vast area, we must assign two carrier battle groups and one underway replenishment group.

Reading some other stuff, I believe that Third Fleet was expected to provide air cover to convoys, and to conduct some offensive operations against (e.g.) Petropavlovsk.

It seems that what the Joint Chiefs really wanted to fulfil their wartime missions was an 800-ship navy, per this document, but the funding situation in the 1970s was on track for a 500-ship navy, at which point Western control of the seas was considered to be at risk.

One thing that starts to jump out is that the 1980s Maritime Strategy that led to the 600-Ship Navy isn't actually that different, conceptually, from the plans of the early Cold War for Allied carrier task forces to operate directly against the Soviet Union.

 

[PMN1]

What business would the 2 carrier groups have in the Eastern Pacific?

Quoth the document: The Third Fleet has responsibility for operations off Alaska, the Bering Sea, the Aleutians, the Eastern Pacific, and the Mid-Pacific region. In wartime, there would be considerable overlapping and trading back and forth between the Seventh and Third fleets. This happened in the Pacific during World War II. To cover that vast area, we must assign two carrier battle groups and one underway replenishment group.

Reading some other stuff, I believe that Third Fleet was expected to provide air cover to convoys, and to conduct some offensive operations against (e.g.) Petropavlovsk.

It seems that what the Joint Chiefs really wanted to fulfil their wartime missions was an 800-ship navy, per this document, but the funding situation in the 1970s was on track for a 500-ship navy, at which point Western control of the seas was considered to be at risk.

One thing that starts to jump out is that the 1980s Maritime Strategy that led to the 600-Ship Navy isn't actually that different, conceptually, from the plans of the early Cold War for Allied carrier task forces to operate directly against the Soviet Union.

I did wonder if Alaska and the Aleutians would feature.

 

[Yellow Palace]

There's actually some mention somewhere of the Pacific Fleet(s), including the Marines, seizing the southern Kurils to open up the Sea of Okhotsk for US Navy operations.