Virginia-Class Subs Could Bolster Cruise Missile Fleet, But Where's the Money?

Aol Defense. ^ | October 18, 2011 | David Axe

[sukhoi-30mki]

Virginia-Class Subs Could Bolster Cruise Missile Fleet, But Where's the Money?

By David Axe

The nuclear-powered submarine USS Florida was lying in wait, quietly submerged off the Libyan coast, when the order came from then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to launch its cruise missiles.

It was the evening of March 19. Two days before, the U.N. Security Council had unanimously voted to approve Resolution 1973, authorizing a no-fly zone over Libya aimed at protecting civilians against the forces of Muammar Gaddafi's repressive regime. To clear the way for the no-fly zone, the U.S. Navy and Royal Navy prepared a barrage of more than 100 precision-guided Tomahawk cruise missiles.

With a capacity of 154 Tomahawks, the Florida -- a former ballistic-missile boat converted to non-nuclear missiles in 2006 -- was by far the most powerful Tomahawk shooter off Libya. The night of March 19 she fired no fewer than 90 Tomahawks, with deadly accuracy. "I could see their professionalism and determination in their faces," Chief Fire Control Technician Lee Taylor, from Florida's strike fire control division, said of his sailors. They hunched over their consoles, carefully managing the underwater missile launches over a period of hours.

Later, then Chief of Naval Operations Gary Roughead was almost cavalier about the Tomahawk barrage. "That went off as we expected it would," he said.

It was the major combat debut for the four-strong fleet of converted Ohio-class missile submarines, or "boomers." Known as "SSGNs" to the Navy, the former Ohios can also carry scores of Special Forces troops and possess their own stealth and high-tech listening devices to spy on enemy forces. "

[ken5050]

Possibly a dumb question, but why can't they replace the reactors when the old cores wear out..

Am I correct in assuming that the reactors cores become degraded over time by the nuclear energy.

[PreciousLiberty]

“Possibly a dumb question, but why can’t they replace the reactors when the old cores wear out..”

Just a guess, but it probably has to do with the extensive cutting that would have to be done on the pressure hull. Possibly the hull and other parts of the sub are also wearing out in the same time frame and it’s just not cost-effective (or safe) to overhaul the old sub compared with building a new one.

“Am I correct in assuming that the reactors cores become degraded over time by the nuclear energy.”

It’s that the reactor core’s energy potential is being used up as the fissionable elements fission. It is possible to replace the cores in general, since that’s what’s done every ten years with our nuclear carriers. Clearly the issues are a lot different with the subs.

[ken5050]

If the cut the sub open to add a new segment to increase the length, I assume they can cut the hull where the reactor is to remove it, and swap in a new one..

I expect the experst here will let us know soon enough..

[Lou L]

The nuclear-powered submarine USS Florida was lying in wait, quietly submerged off the Libyan coast,

Back when these subs were still "boomers" or SSBNs, I believe it would've been unheard of for them to be crusing around in the Mediterranean Sea.

[PreciousLiberty]

“If the cut the sub open to add a new segment to increase the length”

That’s being done at construction time, not after the hulls have endured underwater pressure stresses for years. Metal fatigues over time.

“I expect the experst here will let us know soon enough..”

I hope so, I’m interested in the definitive answer. If there weren’t a good reason to retire subs worth billions of dollars, I doubt we’d be doing it.