The USS Ronald Reagan

[savage]

So back to the Reagan. I just picked up "Final Countdown" from Best Buy $10. For those interested. Seems to me that the best way for it to work is to take the Reagan in and out of the Twilight campaign probably the asian campaign...then it saves the day. Leave the players behind.

 

[MR TEK]

I still think that aif the captain realizes his position fast enough the Reagan could find a sourse of High octain jet fuel left over somewhere. After all, once the first rounds of fighting dies down, there arn't jets left around, but somewhere on the planet there would certainly be a refiery with tanks full of crude waiting for someone to come along and claim it. And as it's fighters wore down, I am sure they could locate a back water air base somewhere that had enough jets that could be fitted out to keep them the strongest force left on the planet.

They can get an AWACS, (a converted 707, if I recall) onto and off of the deck, I am sure with enough time and motivation they would turn up enough aircraft from some sorse to keep fighting.

And again, I believe that once they have made a mark, other units in the vicenity will join them, either for protection, or to join in what they think is a rising star, or both.

THe senario of a surviving ship is too unlikly. Not only does it suffer the same deficits, but becuase it has been around, unless it was hidden, and pops up suddenly, it is already exausted and already has it's supporters, and would not be a rallying point.

(man I GOTTA stop these long posts...)

After six months, the Reagan would no longer be recognizable to someone from our time line, but it would have at least a couple of planes airworthy, at least some ammo left for it's secondary guns, and likly the ONLY long range rader operational on the planet. As key as a modern carrier group is for force projection today, imagine what it could do, even with GREATLY reduced strenght if there is
A: no force left on the planet that can threaten it, and
B: no force that can project force, so there is no one to compeat for it's attention. Even if she ends up with old biplaes with tommy guns, there will simply be no force left to stop it.

Anyway, it has been an interesting concept.

Peace

Mr tek

 

[savage]

Tek,

Interesting thoughts. Lets not forget that the american navy still mounted an evacuation of european forces. The Navy has an operational sub...
the russians have a boomer... Reagan is not the only force in the world. However, I'd agree that it would take a quick downturn.


Savage

 

[vutpakdi]

The RDF Sourcebook provided an oil and operating vehicles (including aircraft) rich environment including an LPH or LPA acting as the sole remaining "carrier."

I don't think that they ever got a 707 on a carrier. They did get a C-130 on a carrier once though.

Ron

 

[PBI]

I think the aircraft Tek is thinking of is the naval version of the AWACS, the E2C Hawkeye. It's smaller, obviously, and is, IIRC, a dual turbo prop.

 

[savage]

From memory (ithout opening it) RDF is set in the middle east. I'm suggesting that a better environment is the Pacific...say vs hundreds of chineses planes.

 

[getamungstit]

The "RDF" aka CENT COM in the Middle East has its own carrier or at least a LHD Gator-Carrier. Which with its float on float off dock and general cargo space would be a far more practical weapon system in the 1998+ environment.

A CVN and its air group wouldn't be a very powerful system in the post Twilight War simply because it is optimised for high intensity combat. Are you going to use Harpoon missiles to blast sailing boats and inshore barges etc. (about as sophisticated shipping in post 2000). What land targets are you going to attack with your large air group? A bunch of marauders or enemy infantry that look the same as refugees? You’d use up all your fuel and precious cache of spare parts just trying to find the enemy or like in Vietnam drop thousands of tons of bombs for every casualty inflicted on the enemy. Which with just one CVN and its basic load is not a very smart strategy.

On paper a CVN in Twilight 2000 looks pretty good but you would be better off if a civil war cavalry brigade appeared in a time warp. Frankly they would have more combat power in the type of warfare and be far more sustainable.

If I was the local Mexican brigade commander in South California and the USS Ronnie Reagan materialised from alternate 2004 I wouldn’t be so worried. My boys are hardened, tough nuts, who have been living off the land in an irradiated, no civilisation environment for the past 4-5 years. I hardly think a nice shiny, clean lump of steel that couldn’t even find us in the ruins of LA if it tried.

PS on the whole topic of going off topic:

I’m not exactly a card carrying member of the KGB however I will in terms of talking about the alternate history of the Twilight War have to make a few statements about the Soviet Union, the capability of their armies, economy, etc. I don’t need a lecture as to how bad they, the Soviets, are. For example if we were discussing WW2 and the merits of the Tiger and Panther tanks do we need a post on the evils of Nazism? No – not really its a given. But one thing is clear no matter how evil Nazism or Stalinist “communism” was that still doesn’t mean that these states aren’t able to fight and win wars.

 

[PBI]

A full-fleged carrier would be a very good asset to have, as long as it could get the fuel and spares. If it was deployed in the RDF area where there still is large-scale combat going on, all those goodies would pack a considerable punch if used correctly.

 

[TKalbfus]

A. Gubler said,

A CVN and its air group wouldn't be a very powerful system in the post Twilight War simply because it is optimised for high intensity combat. Are you going to use Harpoon missiles to blast sailing boats and inshore barges etc. (about as sophisticated shipping in post 2000). What land targets are you going to attack with your large air group? A bunch of marauders or enemy infantry that look the same as refugees? You’d use up all your fuel and precious cache of spare parts just trying to find the enemy or like in Vietnam drop thousands of tons of bombs for every casualty inflicted on the enemy. Which with just one CVN and its basic load is not a very smart strategy.

Since when is it a good strategy to always fight fair? So if the enemy doesn't have his own air craft carrier does that mean you can't use your own? So what if the maurauders only has single action rifles, should the marines put away their combat rifles so they can fight on their enemy's level?

Also what if the maurauders attack somebody and then pretend to be refugees and then they attack someone once again? Well you kill the refugees that behave this way. Also without a civilian commander, the people onboard the USS Ronald Reagan don't have to worry as much about political implications. If some marauders pose as refugees and then continue to be maurauders resuming their role as refugees every time a plane flies overhead and the local population buys it, too bad, they get bombed anyway. Their just a bunch of refugees with AK47s, rocket launchers and hand grenades. These are tactics used in the middle east. Everybodies innocent when threatened by a superior force and when that superior force goes away out come the guns and bombs and rocket launchers and they attack, the planes come back and they stuff them under their cloaks once again. The airmen and marines won't be fooled by this forever even if local civilians are, and if 60% of the local populace supports the maurauders in the first place how innocent could they be? What if it was 70% of 80% of the population which supports these outlaws, at what point can the airmen freely bomb them? what if it was 99% of the population and only 1% was innocent? What if that 1% actually consisted of hostages taken by the other 99% of the guilty, does the RR avoid attacking them always for the sake of the innocent? The outlaws need to be delt with otherwise they will victimize other people, so other considerations besides the safety of that 1% within that group needs to be considered, otherwise they might as well raise the white flag and surrender because following that code of conduct would prevent them from fighting.

 

[PBI]

Tom, Gubler's point, and I think you know this, was that the high-tech, maintenance-intensive toys would become less and less useful because of the inability to replenish with stocks of ammo, fuel, and spares. It does seem somewhat paradoxical at first, but he's right, unless a high-tech force could position itself close to supplies. That's why I said that a carrier would be a very limited asset unless it was stationed in the Persian Gulf or Romania where it could get fuel and lubricants for its aircraft and itself. Even then, the air wing would eventually run out of bombs, though I imagine that folks would get sufficiently industrious and inventive that some sort of weapons systems could be rigged. The air wing would never have the same firepower as pre-war, but it would still have quite a lot compared to other contemporary forces. The trick would be in not using the air wing for the small stuff.

 

[TKalbfus]

The Air wing would be good for a battle or two, and that's what's important. An airwing would increase the effectiveness of an attacking force of ground troops by dropping precision bombs on enemy defensive positions. This should allow the US to take some territory back from Mexico while the air wing and the carrier is in good working order. Afterwards, you fortify those positions with troops and assuming the enemy doesn't have similar air capabilities, you can make it very difficult for the enemy to retake the territory. If both sides are equal in numbers and in equipment, then attack is always harder than defense. If you are the defender, you have control of the battlefield before the battle starts and you can do things to the terrain that can cost an attacking force dearly. There should be plenty of land mines left over from World War III, land mines last a very long time if left undisturbed.

 

[PBI]

Assuming the carrier appeared fully-equipped, sure, assuming a level of combat similar to that seen at the start of the war. By 2000, though, combat will have devoleved into small-unit actions or small bounds by large units (a few days) then a pause of a week or two (minumin) to distill fuel, unless a force has access to petrol, like the armies used to defeat the last NATO offensive had.

Of course, it would still be possible to design an adventure or mini-campaign away from the remaining sources of oil where the carrier would be able to contribute a limited number of hammer-blows before becoming useless. That'd take care of the problem of introducing such a powerful unit to the overall campaign.

I wouldn't like to play in a Twilight campaign that had the sci-fi feel to it that the Final Countdown-ish scenario would give it, but that's my own personal taste.

 

[savage]

Agreed PBI, the carrier has limits. But the carrier is not completely useless. It still has repair facilities, a fresh naval grp of 5000+ people, radar, satellite uplink (if there are sats), and numberous other benefits. It has power to run a city for years. It'd be a good base ...Morrow Projects Alpha Complex.

Savage

 

[PBI]

Oh, I never said it'd be totally useless If nothing else, having a "Naval Infantry" 'division' suddenly show up would be nice all by itself.

 

[getamungstit]

I think the most interesting time travel scenario would be what if a Nathan Bedford Forrest and a brigade or two of Civil War cavlary showed up?

They would be hugely powerful in the post Twilight War. They could also link up with New America...

 

[TKalbfus]

PBI said,

Of course, it would still be possible to design an adventure or mini-campaign away from the remaining sources of oil where the carrier would be able to contribute a limited number of hammer-blows before becoming useless. That'd take care of the problem of introducing such a powerful unit to the overall campaign.

I wouldn't like to play in a Twilight campaign that had the sci-fi feel to it that the Final Countdown-ish scenario would give it, but that's my own personal taste.

Well if you are to use an air craft carrier, you have to use it right away, you can't save it for later. The reason why? The Pilots need to maintain their skills, and in order to do that, they have to fly their planes. If they fly their planes they are going to wear them out anyway outside of battle, and if they don't fly their planes they'll get out of practice and won't be as skilled at flying them if saved for a later battle. The contribution an aircraft carrier makes has to be immediate before the planes wear out and before the pilots lose their skills.

As for Sci Fi, you could always use the USS Nimitz instead. Perhaps the government has a sectet facility that the other side did not know about. The Nimitz could be based in Japan for instance.

 

[PBI]

Yes, pilot skill will degrade somewhat if the pilots don't fly on a regular basis, but they're not going to forget how to fly, so why not hold them in reserve? Having actual, functioning, aircraft at half efficiency is a lot better than no aircraft, or using up full-efficiency aircraft in operations that aren't critical. We're talking about combat in an era where a well-equipped division might have 30-50 tanks and where a single heavy artillery piece (or medium, for that matter) can spell the difference between victory and defeat.

 

[TKalbfus]

True, but it is a slippery slope. How long do you want to hold off using the carrier? 6 months? a year? Two Years maybe? Your going to have to keep the Pilots around as well as the maintenance engineers and so forth. They'll have to know how to do their jobs when you finally decide to use them, and if you wait to long, they might make some mistakes because their lives will have moved on to something else, and they'll have to recall how they did their old jobs. With something as complex as a super carrier and its attendant aircraft , this is not likely to be easy. the Nukes have stopped falling however, there is likely to be some talented engineers and pilots who survived World War III and be able to reverse engineer the components and systems of the aircraft carrier. Eventually others will be built. A base can be contructed for the carrier if all the bases were destroyed. Some kind of dock could be set up in protected waters that are deep enough for the Aircraft carrier to pull up along side. the reactor could prove quite useful for a nearby community, it can power system on land. The carrier has plenty of computers and office equipment that might otherwise be unavailable.

 

[PBI]

No argument on how useful the other goodies a carrier would bring to a T2K setting; I never said otherwise. As for keeping the air wing in reserve, why not? I doubt very much the crew would have moved on; they simply wouldn't be allowed to. It doesn't matter how long the aircraft sit, as long as maintanence can be kept up. Oh, sure, if they sit around for 5 or 6 years, the machines might get a bit dodgy and after 20 or so, the pilots would be barely worthy of the name, but look at what they're up against. They don't have to be as good as they were before and during the war, they just have to be good enough to make a difference.

 

[savage]

If it gets to stick around, and not leave like Final Countdown, use it quick. Assuming basic infrastructure was severly damaged, it could slap the chinese and make for Los Angeles. An excellent harbor with the remnants of battleship row, it also has a unique feature that is relatively distributed. Oil Production.

A carrier in SoCal could stabilize Baha to Washington state in a relatively short time period.

Savage