Cruise missile sub

The Washington Times ^ | December 21, 2007 | Bill Gertz

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Well, the SSN fleet has supported SEAL operations for a long time. What bothers me about this is that cruise missiles are much more vulnerable to shootdown or spoofing than FBMs, which just can’t be stopped once they are out of the water. Consequently, I’d rather stay with the triad FBMs for deterrence purposes than converting the boomers over to Soviet Oscar class-style cruise missile platforms. Plus, I’m not so sure that the Navy is doing this for any real strategic purpose other than to get a bigger share of the action in GWOT, and all the funding that goes long with that.

[tanknetter]

Not sure at all how I feel about this.

Of all of the elements of our TRIAD, the subs are by far the most important.

But I don’t have current numbers.

18 Ohio SSBN's were built. With the four converted to SSGNs, there are still 14 left ... with 336 available Trident tubes.

Tridents can carry up to 8 MIRVs, for a theoretical total of 2688 thermonuclear warheads. This is assuming that all 14 boats are deployable, and that each Trident carries the maximum of 8 warheads. WRT the warheads, in practice, allegedly, SSBNs deploy on patrol with a MIRV mix of 1 to 8 warheads on the Trident missles - no sense in throwing away 7 warheads if there's only a single target that needs to be incinerated)

WRT to how many subs are out on patrol the SSBNs operate on the Blue/Gold crew system. Each boomer has two crews, with the crews rotating to ensure that the boats spend the maximum amount of time at sea on deterrance patrols as possible.

IIRC those four subs were scheduled to be decommissioned at their mid-life point due to one of the START treaties anyways. Better to have them as SSGNs for the next 20 years than to have them cut up for razor blades in Bremerton.

[george76]

Thanks for that story.

It reminds me of another old salt who sent a tourist below for a bucket of steam...

Nice to see the navy do something so nice for an old veteran.

[tanknetter]

Well, the SSN fleet has supported SEAL operations for a long time. What bothers me about this is that cruise missiles are much more vulnerable to shootdown or spoofing than FBMs, which just can’t be stopped once they are out of the water. Consequently, I’d rather stay with the triad FBMs for deterrence purposes than converting the boomers over to Soviet Oscar class-style cruise missile platforms. Plus, I’m not so sure that the Navy is doing this for any real strategic purpose other than to get a bigger share of the action in GWOT, and all the funding that goes long with that.

Yes, but the size and capacity of the SSGNs provide the SEALS with a quantum leap in capabilities. IIRC the SSGNs have the capability of supporting 60 SEALs, with two drydock shelters and at least two former Trident tubes dedicated to equipment storage.

And they can do it without having to retask SSNs from their primary mission (killing other subs).

[Robert A Cook PE]

Kinda of fun to be proved out by history isn’t it?

[george76]

Thanks.

[Mariner]

Inertial, magnetic and optical.

[LS]

Well, it was obvious after we had 2-3 in the water that the Soviets couldn’t match them, and that 10-12 would be so redundant as to be silly. So what do you do with those fantastic hulls and great stealth capability? Modify them. We really didn’t need history to confirm that.

[GAB-1955]

Inertial guidance.

[GAB-1955]

If the Chinese start taking out our sats, we start taking out China. 154 cruise missiles is a good start.

[Tree of Liberty]

I might be wrong, but I believe that these subs would have to be decommissioned because of the SALT treaties if they weren’t converted to conventional weapons systems. So, we’re not losing any part of the triad that wouldn’t be dismantled anyway.

[null and void]

If the Chinese start taking out our sats, we start taking out China.

I suspect China will have a plausibly deniable way of doing it. At least enough so to to give us pause on an overt response.

One hopes that they recognize that plausible deniablity is a game two can play, and that we can be quite good at it!

[Paul Ross]

Better to have them as SSGNs for the next 20 years than to have them cut up for razor blades in Bremerton.

Precisely. It needs to be pointed out that if the Navy hadn't been able to go this route with conversion of the 4 Tridents, Bush, who is deeply steeped in unilateral nuclear disarmament pledges to the Russians and Chinese, would have been compelled to dismantle them entirely.

Poisoned fruit from his "Treaty of Moscow"...even though the Ruskies are NOT dismantling their SS-18s as was expected.

This was a way to keep the "assets" from going into the boneyard. They can actually be refitted back to strategic boats relatively painlessly...removing the "quad-pack" inserts in their tubes, and replacing them with the original Trident missile capsule.

It would be interesting to see if the fire-control systems original to the Trident aren't being left for reserved future use...or if the new systems added haven't merely had that option as a "two-fer". I doubt you will see anyone actually admitting to that...and likely you will see some professedly knowledgeable submariner deny it outright and stoutly too.

Can't let it slip to the enemy what our REAL capabilities are to restore strategic strength are.

But no matter how much spin is put on this, knowing the mindset of the Chicoms and the Russian coms pretending to be nationalists (Putin) they likely aren't buying the spin.

[tanknetter]

It would be interesting to see if the fire-control systems original to the Trident aren't being left for reserved future use...or if the new systems added haven't merely had that option as a "two-fer".

Probably not. The first Ohios (not sure if it was the first four or the first eight boats) were configured to carry the Trident C4. Later boats were configured to carry the Trident D5. The early boats were supposed to be backfitted with the D5, but I don't think that the first four Ohios (the ones being converted to SSGNs) were ever upgraded, since they were slated for decommissioning under START.