My gosh! My super sub is in trouble? What will I do?!???!
Posted on 04/19/2006 3:00:56 PM PDT by george76
The Navy's submarine force is in trouble.
A shrinking number of boats is struggling to meet steady demand from regional commanders.
Meanwhile, the cost of the only U.S. submarine currently in production, the super-high-tech Virginia-class attack boat, has risen to $2.3 billion apiece.
At that price, the Navy can afford to buy only one per year.
Do the math: since attack boats last only 30 years, building one boat per year means your fleet is eventually going to shrink to 30 boats from the current 55.
Long-range plans call for 48 attack subs, so how is the Navy going to get there?
Some observers have called for the Navy to start production of new, smaller and cheaper boats, perhaps even diesel-electrics rather than nukes.
But the long ranges that U.S. boats must travel, their need for big hulls (for mission flexibility) and the strong pro-nuke culture of U.S. submariners means diesels aren't a realistic option.
Plus, no U.S. shipyard has built diesel boats in more than 50 years, so where would you get them from? Germany? Sweden?
Imagine the fleet of subs we'd have if there weren't 13 million illegals bilking the system.
Steely-eyed Killers of the Deep - Active Ping
"Some observers have called for the Navy to start production of new, smaller and cheaper boats, perhaps even diesel-electrics rather than nukes."
Some observers are obviously retarded.
Who says the boats can only last 30 years? The current generation has lasted about that long, the next generation should last longer. The last B-52 was built in around 1964, some will still be flying in 2020. It can be done. Of course when your engines tend to glow in the dark after awhile, it makes upgrading somewhat more difficult. But still not impossible.
Maybe we should hire the illegals to build our subs. I bet they'd do it for $8 an hour. And they'd just be doing the work Americans won't do. I know I wouldn't build a sub for $8 an hour.
With the firepower of smaller subs today, that makes sense.
Well, maybe. We have coasts that need defending, just like all the folks who use diesels, and Diesels would be good for training the nuc boats, and other ASW forces to operate against DE type boats. However I'd skip DE and go to Air Independent Propulsion, just as many of the current operators of DE boats are doing.
There might also be potential for smaller, but still nuclear powered boats, as well. While I'd never say we needed no long range nuke boats, I think we still need a bunch, but Rickover's ghost can't be allowed to dominate the submarine force forever you know.
"but Rickover's ghost can't be allowed to dominate the submarine force forever you know."
Perhaps not but I see no sense at all in going backwards. Besides, there's nothing like nuclear-powered air conditioning. ;)
I'm a fan of the nuclear Navy. I've seved on nuke boats and toured diesel boats. I'll take the nuke boats.
My gosh! My super sub is in trouble? What will I do?!???!
No, I missed that. Then again, I don't think I wanted to know that.
I've seen both types up close and personnal from the target point of view. The Nukes are bad $hit if they're used right. Let someone else build the diesels.
I'm no expert, but I'll ask the following questions: How many times can the average sub reactor be re-cored? How much does it cost? Are there any limits to reactor life before the sub is effectively unusable?
I think the answers to those questions probably put the ultimate limits on the average boat's service life.
Rickover is the main reason no one else builds super carriers. The best way to defend our coast is to litter the enemies coastal waters with artificial reefs (previously known as their fleet)
Hmmm, $2.3 billion apiece. How many F-22s would that be?
The US Navy is Stuck on Nuclear. Until we get back to building nifty diesel boats, our sub force will continue to shrivel.
There was a thread here yesterday about the USS Honolulu (Los Angeles class) being retired shortly...it was built in 1986.
This paragraph would seem to imply that all U.S. submarines must have the same capabilities. What is wrong with specialization?
That is, for missions that do not require long ranges, build short-range boats. Instead of requiring mission flexibility, build some boats that are especially suited to a particular type of mission. And if nuclear power is not necessary for some submarines, consider using another propulsion system.
Or am I missing something?
I know I wouldn't build a sub for $8 an hour.
You wouldn't want to dive in a sub MADE for $8 an hour.
TRUE!!!
Until this class, attack submarines could expected to be refueled once over a thirty year life (so each core was expected to last approximately fifteen years, although their lives are measured in "Effective Full Power Hours" or "EFPH.")
The Virginia class will never need to be refueled over their 30-40 year lives (at least, that is what we designed the cores for, and ALL design and performance info to date indicate that the core will outlast the hull.)
To my knowledge, no boat (since the end of the original Nautilus-type core, and now I've said enough) has been refueled more than once.
That sounds too simple. There must be a complicated reason it won't work.
How about row boats with glass bottoms? We could make them fast!
There are small nuclear subs. To go diesel is crazy. What we need is a whole bunch of the smaller size nuke subs. We need it for longevity in case of a long term nuke war.
When a sub did get its reactor re-cored, didn't the procedure call for the pressure hull to be sliced in half & then have everything welded back together? THAT is a major undertaking.
Not to say I wouldn't like to see some new U.S. subs, say on the order of that Swedish boat we've been training with. But it won't be cheap.
What was it like when the giant squid attacked the Nautilus?
;<)
oh about 9 or so.....
Long-range plans call for 48 attack subs, so how is the Navy going to get there?
Ummmmm ....... It's pretty easy to get to 48 if you start with 55. What am I missing?
Besides, this analysis presumes stasis. In ten years technology may allow for construction of adequate attack subs at lower cost. Or make one sub adequate to do the job of two subs.
I served on a Skipjack class boat--252 feet long and nuclear. You don't have to make a submarine huge to get the job done. We need a mix of small SSN's for the tradional fleet support role, some big SSN's for the flexibility of anti-ship/anti-sub/anti-land roles, some big SSBNs for nuclear deterrent, and--most importantly for the type of warfare we face today--some big SSGNs to make enemies wonder what is hiding out in the water off their coast with 160+ Tomahawk cruise missiles.
Diesels are of little use beyond costal patrol.
You cannot take a diesel and deploy it to sea for 60+ days straight if necessary - they simply cannot carry the fuel required.
We have evolved to a fleet comprised of Fast Attacks(SSN's), Boomers (SSBN's) and Special Forces/Use (SSGN's).
Part of the problem is that at any given time as many as 30% of our subs are in the yards for overhaul, repairs and normal maintenance. That places an additional burdon on the remaining boats to cover all the necessary missions.
I would rather have a couple of OUR SSGN's sitting 50 miles of the bad guys coast vs. our diesels sitting 50 miles off OUR coasts doing nothing more than being used as training aids for ASW/Skimmer exercises.
Not exactly in half, but yes, a refueling is a major undertaiking - extremely expensive (far beyond the cost of the new core.) It took the boat out of action for three years - a huge decrement to the power and flexibilty of that theater's sub fleet.
Life extension is discussed as is the use of diesel submarines.
I say, build desiel subs if we can drill for oil off FLA,CA in Anwar and anywhere else.
That's why I suggested the AIP, you get many of the benefits of the nucs, although not the room. OTOH, you wouldn't be out for months at a time either, and the crew would smaller too. Different missions. The big boats can do the inshore mission, but so can the little boats, and the latter can do it less expensively.
Meanwhile you free up the big nuc boats for the missions that only they can do properly.
You would of course have the same level of sophistication of weapons and sensors, although probably fewer reloads, and perhaps give up something in the capabilities of *some* sensors, given the smaller hull to mount them on.
I'm sure there are, but worst case you build the boat modularly, and then just remove the reactor modual, to include all of the "hot" sections, and slip in a new one. Not as easily done as said of course, but entirely possible.
In a nutshell, they will wear out faster than you can afford, or more properly Congress chooses to afford, to build new ones.
After all can't cut entitlements vote buying programs, you know.
Assuming she's worn out, which I doubt, that would just say that 3rd flight Los Angeles class boats wear out in 20+ years. More likely she's being retired to save the cost of operating her. That seems to be the mode we are in now, and not just in the Navy, but the Army and Air Force as well.
The whole reason the Virgina class was built was that the Seawolf class, of which only three were built (the 3rd is SSN-23 Jimmy Carter ), was deemed too expensive to produce in numbers... by President Bush I [and Defense Secretary Dick Cheney], while Clinton endorsed procuring the SSN-23 as a sort of jobs program for the yard, (well they said, to maintain the production base, and there was some of that too).
During WWII diesel U.S. subs routinely departed Pearl Harbor for mission assignments in Japanese waters some 3800 miles distance, returning to Pearl. German U-boats (diesels) sailed from occupied French ports on the Bay of Biscay on missions to the east coast of the U.S. and Canada. With forays into the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico. This was some 60 years ago ... where, pray tell, are you coming up with this premise diesel submarines can only used for coastal waters?
They really need to stop throwing everything, including the kitchen sink into every boat. A smaller platform that can handle basic ASW/ASUW and SIGIT/ELINT missions should augment the Virginia class. Maybe a retooled Sturgeon or Skipjack class. The Seawolf and Virginia are Cadillacs. We need a few Chevys also.
The new breed of D/E subs which carry AIP modules like the French Scorpene,German Type-212/214 & Russian Amurs have a lot of advantages.Coming with an at sea endurance of 30 to 45 days,these ships can stay submerged for any duration from 5 to 20 days(for type 214s),which is a huge improvement over conventional D/Es which couldn't stand under for more than 24 hours at a stretch.
The argument of fewer weapons too is being addressed differently.The Russian company,CKB Rubin is offering a variant of their Amur class subs to India with a 8 cell VLS for carrying heavy anti-ship or land attack weapons in addition to internal torpedo tube load of 16-18 weapons.It still is not in the LA or Virginia category,but the lower costs & versatility makes such systems very attractive.
O No! now it's subs
USS William Jefferson Clinton CVS1
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1510710/posts
But the long ranges that U.S. boats must travel, their need for big hulls (for mission flexibility) and the strong pro-nuke culture of U.S. submariners means diesels aren't a realistic option.
Diesels would be an awesome addition to our fleet. As far as the submariners, who cares what they think. They are not paying for them; we are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.