US NAVY ORDER OF BATTLE

by Craig Paffhausen

Webmaster's note: This order of battle has been posted by permission by Craig Paffhausen, and is based on the Harpoon WW3 database storyline, which in turn was written by Michael D. Staley. This OOB is hypothetical in nature -- that is, some of the ships listed were fictionally "activated" or "un-scrapped" for the purposes of inclusion into the database and are noted as such by the author, below.

Class Name / Number of ships

CVN Enterprise Class 1
CVN Nimitz 3
CVN Roosevelt 7

TOTAL 11

CV Kennedy 1
CV Kitty Hawk 3
CV Forestel 3
USS Forestel is Training carrier and dosn't count toward OOB
Total 7

BBG Iowa class 4
Total 4

CGN Long Beach 1
CGN Bainbridge 1
CGN Tuxtrun 1
CGN California 2
CGN Virginia 4
CGN Massachusetts 4
Total 13

CG Leahy 9
CG Belknap 9
CG Ticonderoga 5
CG Bunker Hill 2
CG Antietam 19
TOTAL 44

DDG Charles Adams 2
DDG Farragut 9
DDG Burke 22
DDG Mahan 6
DDG Austin 13
DDG Kidd 4
TOTAL 56

DD Spraunce 31
Total 31

FFG OH Perry 51
FFG Borda 4
FFG Brooke 6
TOTAL 61

FF Knox 33
FF Garcia 3
TOTAL 36

Surface Combatant Totals: 263 Ships

Ok on the Surface combatants nothing glaring except that 1 Forestal class
(CV-59 Forrestal) is now AVT Forrestal a training ship. The Massachusetts
CGN is an improved Virginia equipped with VLS, Longer hull, AEGIS 160Cell VLS
and two 8"MCLWG turrets. Two of the Charles F Adams Class DDGs were to be
kept as test hulls but were re-activated for the War with Reserve crews.
Ditto for most of the OHPerry class FFGs. A few Knox class FFs and Garcia
Class FFs were transfred while the US Navy put back into service the Brooke
class FFGs. All Knox, Garcia, and Brooke class have the MK 57 SLS (Slanted
launching system) replaceing the old ASROC launcher and magazine. SLS
carries the Sea Lance Anti Sub missile. The Boorda Class FFG was a program
started to add a NEW FFG to replace the out going OHAPs. Unfortunatly for
the program the US DoD Vetoed all thransfers of OHAPs and the Boorda was
then cancled after 4 hulls were built. Rumor has it that the US Navy may be
seeking funds to add 25 new Boorda Hulls to inventory for the 2000 Year
construction program. Two new Standard missiles were added to inventory
(Again an origional planned program but cancled due to end of cold war) The
RIM-66G SM3MR Active Standard missile (No guidance radar required to launch)
and RIM-67C SM3ER Active Standard. Both have a new radar analogus to the
Pheonix radar that allows for autonomous homeing on targets. Also both have
an IR sensor.

US NAVY Submarine forces

Class Name Total

SS 774 Scamp 10
SSN 594 Permit 14
SSN 673 Sturgon 37
SSN 671 Narwal 1
SSN 688 Los Angels 30
SSN 719 Providence 8
SSN 751 San Juan 24
SSN 21 Seawolf 10
SSN 27 Sealion 4
SSN G Lippscomb 1
TOTAL Attack Boats 139

Attack Boat notes: First off the US Navy introduced in 1998 a 10 boat class
of Conventional SS of the Scamp class. These boats are designed as Anti
Submarine Submarines and an emphasas on Manoverabilty and stealth was
applied over range or speed. Oviously here there is no Virginia Class SSN
as the Seawolf class was never cancled. The Sealion class is a modifed
Seawolf with a VLS system (only 4 were built as a pseduo-SSGN). The
Glennard P Lippscomb was placed back into full operational service (after
serving as a propulsive test sub). The Threasher(Permit) class was given an
additional lease on life by haveing surplus BQQ-5B Sonar systems backfitted
in lieu of the BQQ-2 origionaly fitted. These sonars came from the Early
Los Angles/Sturgon classes when they recived updated sonars in 1997-2000.

Class Name TOTAL

SSBN 616 Layfette 22
SSGN 640 Benjamin Franklin 9
SSBN 726 Ohio 17
TOTAL 48

Balistic Boat Notes: The Franklin subclass of SSBNs were all converted to
SSGN by fitment of a new 4Cell VLS in place of each balistic missile tube.
The time involved to convert these hulls is ovious and there is no way to
ecconomicaly conver them back to SSBN form (part of the Ill fated RNF treaty
of 1995). They carry a mix of VL Harpoons and Tomahawks. The Ohio class
can perform yeoman SSN work due to their extream quietness. However it is
not suggested for a Fleet commander to task them with Anti Ship strike or
multi threat Anti Sub strike missions due to their low mobility and low
warshot magazines.