/k/ builds a navy for Texas

>>32395723
Converted civilian ships as there are no naval construction yards in Texas.

>>32395723
considering its reliance on the oil industry any fleet would probably need to be very escort based

>>32395723

It would likely just be a local brown water style navy.

You need something to patrol the offshore oil rigs, as they would be an important part of Texas' lifeblood oil supply. Also sufficient forces to break a blockade. Something like Australia's naval force would be perfect IMO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Australian_Navy

They're focused on patrolling their coast for the most part.

>>32395733

I'm assuming we would buy what we need. Most likely American equipment due to proximity and familiarity with it.

>>32395739
>>32395793

This does seem to be the most likely setuo, but what would be the most likely ships to use for it?

>>32395851

I would go same setup as the Aussies, since I doubt the US would want to sell to a breakaway state. In that scenario it limits all your ships to ones made by non-NATO states, so China, Russia, Sweden, Brazil, North Korea would be the manufacturers.

File: Zelenodolsk_Design_Bureau_ZPKB_Trimaran_Vessel_Concept_1.jpg (29KB, 640x369px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 640x369px

>>32395723
An American/Texas~ized version of this..

I believe it's called an LCS?

File: Zelenodolsk_Design_Bureau_ZPKB_Trimaran_Vessel_Concept_2.jpg (37KB, 640x429px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 640x429px

>>32395901
Other saved render.

>>32395723
First question is simple: What's the purpose of your texan navy? What political goals is it supposed to help fulfill? What kind of enemies is it supposed to fight against?

You can't even start planning anything before you answer those questions.

>>32395944

This

>>32395723
buy a bunch from the friendly state of The Federation Russia

10 Iowas renamed to Lone Star class battleships.

One aircraft carrier for long range bombers and their escorts
Another carrier to essentially be a mobile helipad like the japs use

Atleast one hospital ship and the rest od the support boats.

Primary bulk of the fleet should be patrol boats and a few anti (narco) sub destroyers.


Texas would probably have frequent encounters with Mexico and south america as well as cuba. Keeping the Panama canel under friendly terms would be Paramount for asian markets for the oil fleet.

I don't think they would have much competition on the seas, they'll probably swallow up LA and OK.

FL will probably be underwater in a few years to be any concern

>>32395944

I imagine the new government to be isolationist at first. So the main goal would be protection for the border as well as per facilities. Also as others have mentioned they'll want to have decent patrol capability to protect offshore oil facilities.

I figured this thread would focus on a peaceful spilt from the US, so offensive or force projection capabilities wouldn't be needed.

So a brown water navy, possibly needing to be bought from non NATO countries.

>>32395723

I think it could be happy with the following set-up:

6xDD (Any)
12xFrigates (Mostly asm)
28xPatrol Ships (new design: under 1,500tonnes, fast, small, patrol gulf)
4xLanding Ship Deck (to operate in the caribbean)
8xNuclear SSBM
8xAttack SS

I concur, no need for carriers

>>32396461

>per

Should have been "offshore oil"

Stupid phone.

>>32396479

>8xNuclear SSBM

For what purpose? Also I doubt the US would allow Texas to split AND let them developed nuclear weapons. There are a few nuclear plants in the state but I don't know if they are capable of enriching to weapons grade material.

Also for the patrol craft, would you imagine issuing some sort of cutter or a different class?

>>32396509

Well, for nuclear deterrence.
It would be to ensure continued sovereignity of Texas.

I doubt too that Texas 1) will split from USA 2) will do it in a peaceful context 3) will maintain close and friendly relationship with USA

But since the above hypothesis was the foundation of the thread, I think they would be useful as a nuclear deterrent

>>32396509

>Also for the patrol craft, would you imagine issuing some sort of cutter or a different class?

I was thinking something like these ones:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comandanti-class_patrol_vessel

>>32396542

That's pretty unrealistic, but I guess this is a fantasy thread anyways.

Short of some sort of mass nuclear boomer mutiny + weakened federal govt, there isn't a way Texas gets nukes enough to arm 8 SSBMs, let alone one. Maybe enough for a handful intercontinental missiles like the Norks.

>>32396646

Seems a reasonable objection. Scratch the nukesubs then

>>32395723
I have a spreadsheet for this.
One second.

>>32395723
>>32396954
Assuming Texas' GDP remains the same (1.6 Trillion dollars) and it spends about 5% of it's GDP on defense, thats about $82 Billion.

Lets assume that its defense contracts are spread over 20 years, and all date from this year.

Lets also assume that there are no restrictions on sources for weapons (i.e. Russian FFgs are available, as are South African Artillery).


Or next question is, what is the over all mission of our new military?
Who are our likely adversaries?

Would anyone like to opine before I start looking at purchases? First up will be naval forces.

>>32397050
So first up are Surface ships.

DDG options are limited, so Frigates will be the way to go.
A few options.

PF 4921: Variant of the USCG Legend Class National Security Cutter with CEAFAR radar, 12 cell VLS, Harpoons, and other military improvements.

$735 Million per ship. Expensive, but capable multi purpose vessels. Could be licensed produced domestically.

Pr 1166.1 Class FFG. Russia built, heavier ASuW punch than the Patrol Frigate, but less AAW capability and ASW capability. 225 Million.

Type 54A. Chinese built, well balanced, best AAW of the three, ASW is the weakest. $500 Million.

>>32396479
You're a fucking retard who's just picking stuff because you think it sounds cool to have

How does this sound

2 DESRONs made up of 1 DDG and 2-3 FFGs.

2 to 4 small SSBKs.
<10 SSKs.

i dunno about coastal patrol ships

File: well.png (20KB, 560x407px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 560x407px

>>32396479
How are you going to crew them all?

File: Formidable-class-frigate-1024x731.jpg (160KB, 1024x731px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1024x731px

>>32395723
In terms of GDP and fleet, etc, Texas could easily afford a navy on par with Chile, Israel, or Singapore's.

All it needs to be is a powerful brown water navy to enforce it's oil and fishery rights, and since it's coast borders on an EXTREMELY protected little postage stamp of not-so-open ocean, I'd say less is more.

I picture them purchasing a half dozen or so modern frigates, probably FREMM's or whatever else they can get a good deal on, with a ragtag fleet of smaller support vessels purchased either new or secondhand from other small-ish navies.

The big ticket items would likely be subs, and I'd imagine that they would need at least as many subs as frigates to enforce their territorial waters, but given the size of the Gulf of Mexico, anything beyond a type 212 or Gotland derivative (or whatever Barracuda-based SSK France is hocking) would be utter overkill.

>>32397050
>>32397179

So we have the following naval forces.
8 x PF 4921
20 x Buyan class Patrol Corvettes
8 x Korvette 130

$14 billion over the next 20 years and a yearly cost of $114 Million (not counting crew)

Subs next.

File: cast.jpg (32KB, 470x400px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 470x400px

>>32397050
5% is too much, not enough welfare for brown people who are now chimping out and destroying your infrastructure.

File: texas naval forces1.png (26KB, 2082x312px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 2082x312px

>>32397359
Subs are easy.
6 Type 212 Class.


Current yearly cost for the navy is $163 Million. Keep in mind this will go up as more units enter service and maintenance costs increase.

>>32397418
Take it to /pol/

File: IvarHuitfeldt.jpg (299KB, 925x617px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 925x617px

>>32395723
Can i join the party?

>>32397462
Naval Aviation is simple.
Purchase the mothballed S-3Bs from the US.
about 29 million to get them to shape, and that gives Texas about 90 capable ASW and MPA aircraft.

File: fuckthat.jpg (223KB, 700x1034px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 700x1034px

>>32397462
5% is still too much, try 2% split between Army and Air Force as well.

File: Texas Land Based Aviation.png (12KB, 2057x212px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 2057x212px

>>32397493
5% is about what Russia Spends on Defense, and we are standing up an entire military from whole cloth.
5% is in line with Us defense spending in the Cold War as well.

Land based aviation next.
ATR 72 for Airborne Early Warning
KC-767 for tanking duties (might be superfluous)
Super Tucano for light attack
MiG-29SMT for fighters.

Land Systems next

>>32397552
>buying MiGs when F-16s are built in Fort Worth
>buying KC-767s when the Navy would already have S-3Bs

>>32397625
We are assuming that the Federals are keeping federal property, right?

MiGs are less expensive than the F-16s in flyaway cost and in maintenance.

File: Texas land systems.png (36KB, 2064x321px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 2064x321px

>>32397552
And land systems. This is all about $40 Billion over the next 20 years, so manageable with the current budget.

Next we will look at the yearly costs at 5 and 10 years.

Have you considered Arada 234s and nuking Atlanta in a show of force?

File: all systems in service.png (5KB, 400x169px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 400x169px

>>32397751
Done.
Thanks 4th gen warfare.


So the results of 10 years on.
All systems are in service. Costs 5.5% of the entire Defense budget.

>>32397493
So yes, even accounting for payroll and new systems we can lower the %of GDP

File: H2OEXnTerraWind.jpg (49KB, 640x466px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 640x466px

>>32395733

>muh cummins powered militia fleet
>WHUD WHUD WHUD WHUD WHUD
> SHEEEEEEEEEE-IIIT

>>32397729

I think it'll be much more likely that US equipment would be bought for the simple fact that that is what the soldiers, sailors and airmen would be familiar with.

>>32398158

While it certainly would be easier, the OP didn't specify whether Texas is hostile with the federal govt or not, so the ability to purchase or procure US equipment might be limited to whatever production facilities are in Texas and immediate territory it might be able to grab. The purchase of surplus S-3Bs like >>32397488 mentioned, or KC-767s like >>32397552 mentioned might not be feasible then.

>>32395723
The Texas Navy must receive either a North Carolina, South Dakota or Iowa Class Battleship, refitted with modern equipment, possibly replacing one entire turret's worth of canons with railguns.
>the battleship gets a nice aft flight deck and a whole squadron of maroon crops vtol f-35es

File: image.gif (2MB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x320px

>we reactive the USS Texas, which is currently a museum ship in Texas, just because Texas

>>32399155
>Texas immediately goes bankrupt
It would be cheaper to just build a new one...

File: 1477623342948.png (831KB, 1280x1381px) Image search: [Google]

831KB, 1280x1381px

>tfw you'll never remove illegals in a PBR on the Rio Grande

why even live?

>>32399155

Might as well reactivate the Lexington as well.

>>32399177

I know man, I know....but it'd be neat