User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/7/2003 8:47:07 PM EDT
[#1]
Nooooooooooooooooo!
We still need nuke subs! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2003 8:48:44 PM EDT
[#2]
Actually only about half the Tridents are getting this conversion. And its more like 20 tubes for Tomahawk-they have to put the airlocks for SEAL access somewhere. The 36" diameter Trident tubes seem to be a good choice for conversion into airlocks and access tunnels to a swimmer delivery vheicle garage pod.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2003 8:50:44 PM EDT
[#3]
its 22x7=154
the other 2 tubes are for Seal equipment and a scuba chamber(whatever that is) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2003 8:53:04 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: Nooooooooooooooooo! We still need nuke subs! ... That's what we have the [b]Seawolf[/b] for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2003 8:54:07 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Nooooooooooooooooo! We still need nuke subs! Tomahawks cary nukes too... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2003 9:04:17 PM EDT
[#6]
I thought the Ohio subs had 24 tubes. I very well might be wrong.
I posted this before the piece ended, they're converting only 3 subs to the Tomahawk/SEAL version. The rest stay on duty. I agree we need Ohio boomers, but I find the conversion plan a good idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2003 9:10:33 PM EDT
[#7]
No you are correct Raven, they have 24 missile tubes. But 2-4 of them are going to be replaced by underwater access trunks for swimmers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2003 9:20:26 PM EDT
[#8]
According to the submarine listings at [url=http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/]Haze Gray and Underway[/url] they're converting the first 4 Ohio-class SSBNs. And the nuclear-armed version of Tomahawk was withdrawn from service back in the late-80s or early-90s I recall. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2003 9:26:47 PM EDT
[#9]
We dont have any nuclear armed TLAMS assembled, but it would only take a few days to swap out the conventional warheads for the nuclear ones-which still exist, just are not installed in missiles-and refield the NTLAM
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2003 9:27:43 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: its 22x7=154 the other 2 tubes are for Seal equipment and a scuba chamber(whatever that is) That would be a compression/decompression chamber. When deep sea diving, different breathing gasses are used, and you are functioning in a high pressure environment. You can stay alive under both sets of conditions, but if you transition from one to the other too quickly you will die. The chamber allows you to undergo controlled changes in atmospheric pressure that your body can handle. If you go from a high pressure to normal pressure too quickly, the gasses in your bloodstream will in effect "boil" causing what is known as the "bends", bubbles in the blood. Also if there is an underwater accident, the chamber can keep you alive while you are transported for rescue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 4:34:43 AM EDT
[#11]
We still have plenty of BOOMERS undersea to split the EARTH in half. [coffee]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 5:16:36 AM EDT
[#12]
I caught a snipet of this on the news this morning. I think it was FNC, but was flipping channels so I'm not sure, but they did say that only 2 of the subs were being converted.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 5:18:02 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Nooooooooooooooooo! We still need nuke subs! I assume you mean boomers since all USN subs are nukes. The real reason they're being pulled out of Trident service is the START treaty. We have [i]too many[/i] Ohio boomers for the treaty and therefore some are being converted to frankly more useful configurations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 6:20:53 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Quoted: Nooooooooooooooooo! We still need nuke subs! ... That's what we have the [b]Seawolf[/b] for. The Seawolf is an attack sub, not an SSBN. Screw the treaty, if I were running things I would commission twice as many SSBNs. This is the doing of that prick Klinton. [pissed] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 6:28:27 AM EDT
[#15]
I remember writing a paper about this back in 1989 or so while I was at the Boat School.
It's a great idea, provided we don't draw down the SSBN force to a point where the deterrence effect is reduced. I'm not sure how effective an Ohio SSBN would be for SEAL ops. Yes, the sub is as quiet as a hole, but it's a HUGE platform. Getting into tight spots and maneuvering would be a problem. Oh, well. The experts know what they're doing, and if there's one thing we in America know how to do, it's build weapons platforms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 6:55:39 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: We still have plenty of BOOMERS undersea to split the EARTH in half. [coffee] So knocking California off shouldn't be a problem then? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 7:05:20 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: I remember writing a paper about this back in 1989 or so while I was at the Boat School. It's a great idea, provided we don't draw down the SSBN force to a point where the deterrence effect is reduced. I'm not sure how effective an Ohio SSBN would be for SEAL ops. Yes, the sub is as quiet as a hole, but it's a HUGE platform. Getting into tight spots and maneuvering would be a problem. . They're going to put berths for two mini-subs at the aft-most missile tubes the boomer will carry with it to take the SEALs inland. The Navy conceives the Ohio as being a giant stand-off base from where SEALs can operate for weeks if need be, with enormous fire support available at a moment's notice from the Tomahawk arsenal [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 7:14:13 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: They're going to put berths for two mini-subs at the aft-most missile tubes the boomer will carry with it to take the SEALs inland. The Navy conceives the Ohio as being a giant stand-off base from where SEALs can operate for weeks if need be, with enormous fire support available at a moment's notice from the Tomahawk arsenal [:D] There's no doubt it will be an impressive platform. I imagine, however, that they will likely remove the 4 aft missile tubes in order to fit the SDV docking bay. I imagine they won't want to have to moor the SDV vertically! We'll see. Another interesting thing: if we assume 20 tubes at 7 TLAM's each, we have a total of 140 TLAM's per boomer. That's more than is carried by a modest Surface Action Group. THAT'S FIREPOWER, BABY! Mental note: Buy stock in the manufacturer of TLAM's! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 8:44:47 AM EDT
[#19]
This is the most collossal waste of money I have ever heard of. There is not much these ships can do compared to other means of delivering weapons or special forces.
Argueably, we have no need for SSBNs at all. These ships are EXTREMELY expensive to build, maintain, and crew. The Navy scrapped ALL of the nuclear cruisers for this reason. This is a pork barrel project gone wild. -Po (ex-navy, nuclear power, sub qualified, 1983 - 89) go |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 8:51:59 AM EDT
[#20]
X-navy, Nuke, Submariner, fast attack, USS Tucson, SSN 770.
Cool idea. We need to worry about the little guys now. M.A.D. is outdated.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 9:00:27 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: This is the most collossal waste of money I have ever heard of. There is not much these ships can do compared to other means of delivering weapons or special forces. Name me another platform on earth that can simultaneously deliver SEAL teams in a covert manner, strike with more firepower than any surface ship afloat, and defend itself par excellance? Argueably, we have no need for SSBNs at all. I suppose China and North Korea (and probably France pretty soon) all having nukes pointing at us isn't reason enough? These ships are EXTREMELY expensive to build, maintain, and crew. They're already built, as you know. The Navy scrapped ALL of the nuclear cruisers for this reason. No, the reason the nuke cruisers were scrapped was because they were old and expensive to maintain [i]when compared to the new classes of destroyers and cruisers[/i]. There is nothing in the arsenal to compare with a converted SSBN as described above. This is a pork barrel project gone wild. Oh, please. - Zaphod (USNA '91, Enlisted Submarine Qualified, SWO, CDO) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 9:29:20 AM EDT
[#22]
There has been alot of dissapointment here in CT, and particularly at the Electric Boat Shipyard that all this work will go to the yards in Va. and Washington state. They are looking for experienced sub builders to move to these two areas.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 9:33:18 AM EDT
[#23]
OHIO Class Guided Missle Submarines Displacement: 18,750 tons submerged
Dimensions: 560 x 42 x 36.25 feet/170.7 x 12.8 x 11 meters Propulsion: 1 S8G reactor, steam turbines, 1 shaft, 35,000 hp, 25 knots Crew: 140 + 66 SEALs Sonar: BQQ-5E(V)4 passive suite (bow array), TB-23 towed array Fire Control: CCS Mk 2 combat system, Mk 98 missile control, Mk 118 torpedo control EW: WLR-8(V)5 suite, 8 countermeasures launchers Armament: 154 vertical launch Tomahawk missiles, 4 21 inch torpedo tubes (Mk 48 torpedoes) Concept/Program: The first four SSBNs will be removed from strategic service starting in 2003 and will undergo a major conversion to combined guided missile/special operations submarines. Ohio has recently completed her final patrol as a ballistic missile submarine and is now awaiting SSGN conversion. The Trident missile tubes will be replaced by launchers for Tomahawk cruise missiles, and Dry Deck Shelters for SEAL equipment will be installed on deck. Builders: General Dynamics/Electric Boat, Groton, CT. Conversions by Puget Sound NSY (first two), Norfolk NSY (second two). Number Name Year FLT Homeport Group Notes SSBN 726 Ohio 1981/2007 (PAC) (Bangor) Pending conversion SSBN 727 Michigan 1982/2007 (PAC) (Bangor) Pending conversion SSBN 728 Florida 1983/2008? (ATL) (King's Bay) Pending conversion SSBN 729 Georgia 1984/2008? (ATL) (King's Bay) Pending conversion |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 10:38:37 AM EDT
[#24]
I would love to see data on what it costs to keep an Ohio class sub at sea. Any nuclear powered ship, compared to the conventional alternative.
They are not cheap, and the money might be better spent on additional C-17's, a C-130 deployable armored force, or something else that helps deliver force where needed. A converted 747 cargo plane will carry a huge number of Tomahawks too. It just seems to me that the ability to covertly land SEALs from these subs is not worth billions of dollars. A pork barrel project gone wild. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 10:46:20 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: I would love to see data on what it costs to keep an Ohio class sub at sea. Any nuclear powered ship, compared to the conventional alternative. They are not cheap, and the money might be better spent on additional C-17's, a C-130 deployable armored force, or something else that helps deliver force where needed. A converted 747 cargo plane will carry a huge number of Tomahawks too. It just seems to me that the ability to covertly land SEALs from these subs is not worth billions of dollars. A pork barrel project gone wild. Yeah, a 747 can carry the missiles, but can't launch it, it cant lurk undetected for months on end off an enemy coast. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 10:53:54 AM EDT
[#26]
A 747 couldn't carry half as many missiles as an Ohio as CARGO, leave alone as deployable weapons.
The fact is that the U.S. Navy does not have a SINGLE conventional submarine because the fact that they have to snorkel periodically to recharge batteries negates their stealthiness and limits them to near-friendly-shore operations. Nukes have no such restrictions. Carriers are nukes mainly because all the space saved as compared to a conventional plant are then used for planes, weapons, and jet fuel, which is what the carrier's there for in the first place. That's another reason the nuke cruisers went away. Nuke plants on traditional ships provide no legitimate benefit in comparison to the costs/risks. Subs and carriers are the opposite. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 11:48:21 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: A 747 couldn't carry half as many missiles as an Ohio as CARGO, leave alone as deployable weapons. The fact is that the U.S. Navy does not have a SINGLE conventional submarine because the fact that they have to snorkel periodically to recharge batteries negates their stealthiness and limits them to near-friendly-shore operations. Nukes have no such restrictions. Carriers are nukes mainly because all the space saved as compared to a conventional plant are then used for planes, weapons, and jet fuel, which is what the carrier's there for in the first place. That's another reason the nuke cruisers went away. Nuke plants on traditional ships provide no legitimate benefit in comparison to the costs/risks. Subs and carriers are the opposite. the USS Dolphin is a diesel sub |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 12:09:00 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Quoted: A 747 couldn't carry half as many missiles as an Ohio as CARGO, leave alone as deployable weapons. The fact is that the U.S. Navy does not have a SINGLE conventional submarine because the fact that they have to snorkel periodically to recharge batteries negates their stealthiness and limits them to near-friendly-shore operations. Nukes have no such restrictions. Carriers are nukes mainly because all the space saved as compared to a conventional plant are then used for planes, weapons, and jet fuel, which is what the carrier's there for in the first place. That's another reason the nuke cruisers went away. Nuke plants on traditional ships provide no legitimate benefit in comparison to the costs/risks. Subs and carriers are the opposite. the USS Dolphin is a diesel sub She is still in service? Also I thought she was classed as a auxillary now, a AGSS? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 1:28:54 PM EDT
[#29]
I think the US brought up developing a cruise missile 747 variant during one of the SALT treaty talks. The Russians were as scared of that as we were with the Backfire bomber.
I am not questioning the utility of deploying large SEAL units, or launching huge waves of Tomahawks without warning. What I question is the massive cost of outfitting and operating Ohio class subs to do this. Those ships are enormously expensive to operate, crew, and maintain. It was not such an issue during the cold war when cost was no object with these ships, but now it is. Can that money be better spent on other programs? I think so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 1:33:56 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: I think the US brought up developing a cruise missile 747 variant during one of the SALT treaty talks. The Russians were as scared of that as we were with the Backfire bomber. I am not questioning the utility of deploying large SEAL units, or launching huge waves of Tomahawks without warning. What I question is the massive cost of outfitting and operating Ohio class subs to do this. Those ships are enormously expensive to operate, crew, and maintain. It was not such an issue during the cold war when cost was no object with these ships, but now it is. Can that money be better spent on other programs? I think so. No it cant. If anything there should be fewer Tomahawks and more room for SEALS. The Ohios are being used because ther is no room for extra passengers on a 688 class Seawolf and Virginia are only marginally better. Submarine landing provides a extremely covert method for deploying SEALs for both recon work and raids. Far less likely to be spotted, and far safer, than airborne insertions. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
