It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why not a Ballistic missile/Attack sub?

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 01:29 PM
Think of a Virginia class extension hull submarine armed with about 6 to 8 ballistic missiles instead of 24. Its better than having two different classes built when one class can do both. Certainly tactics would change since these boomer boats are usually suppose to get away, but ballistic/attack could do either, be aggressive, or withdrawal depending on the commander's options.

posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 01:31 PM
Because if you lose one you just lost a major deterrent as well as an attack sub. Not to mention that a boomer is slower than an attack sub, and a lot less maneuverable. It's better to keep them seperate classes, and not risk losing one HUGE asset, instead of just losing one asset.

posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 01:38 PM
it would be like an oil tanker being used as a speed boat.

Its like there is two seperate jobs, two seperate shapes, two seperate identities within the Submarine world. It could never work.

posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 01:43 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

Sure its a huge major loss of an asset where nuclear weapons are concerned. But imagine with the capability of about 50 or more B/A submarine. Those boomers are slow because they are carrying 24 Trident missiles. This sub concept I have in mind would just carry only a quarter or third of the complement of missiles of the Ohio. Which would allowed the B/A sub to still maintain a high flanking speed of a real attack sub. At least in theory.

posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 01:45 PM
reply to post by Dan Tanna

Oh come now. Thats a very bad analogy between those two. Think of it better that you have a cruiser compared with a battleship. A battlecruiser.

posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 01:46 PM
Well I know that a lot of attack subs have nuclear cruise missiles and asrocs so in some ways they can operate like a boomer. But to extend the hull of a virginia class sub would be dangerous to the hull integrity. plus the boats too small to house a trident missile. it would have to have this massive superstructure extended back from the con tower.

Boomers do boomer work. hiding a nuclear arsenal at the bottom of the sea. Boomers don't make contact of shadow other subs and therefore don't get into collisions with other subs. which would be disatreous if the attack syub was carrying ICBMs. The virginia class boat would be too ungainly in the configuration to hold ICBMs.

Virginia class subs already do a hell of a lot more top secret stuff than launch cruise missiles at Iraq and shadow enemy subs. like lots of espionage. Intel gathering, electronic spying. masking a carrier task group with it's active sonar. think bose noise canceling tech. delivering seals. although some boomers are being reconfigured to do that. etc.

The virginia is geared heavily towards electronic espionage and spy work. Plus we have enough 688's around to patrol just about everywhere important. plus those 688's got a lot of secret stuff in them too that will never reach the light of day.

We only need a few boomers anyways. they go out on a patrol. go to a secret spot and then settle down on the bottom of he ocean for 6 months. the enemy knows they are there ready to strike in the worst case war scenerio, but they also know that they'll never find one either once it goes into hidding. just one boomer could wipe out anything and we have a few deployed at a time, and just one is all we really need. so there is no use in converting attack subs to carry ICBMs.

posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 01:46 PM
The point of the Ohio is to have a small number of launchers with a large number of missiles. By keeping them more concentrated you keep costs down, and it's much easier to maintain them. Instead of having to take 15 boats out of service at once to do maintenance on the missiles and launchers, you only have to take 2-3 at a time. Not only is it less of a loss to lose one, it's a hell of a lot cheaper too.

posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 01:49 PM
reply to post by BASSPLYR

What about those new SSGNs with the Tridents gone? Are the tactics still the same? Or the commanders of those boats are allowed to be more aggressive to hostile boats?

posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 01:52 PM
An Ohio will NEVER play the role of an SSN. It's not designed to be one, so it won't ever try to be one. The role of an SSGN is go sneak into the area, launch their cruise missiles, and sneak out again. It's not to kill anything, then launch, then kill more. An SSN would do something like that. An SSGN would go in if they thought they could sneak in without being caught.

posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 01:53 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

That would make sense. Not to mention having to constantly have two crews for about 50 or more B/A submarines. Can't afford that.

posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 04:14 PM
As noted: they have dramatically different mission requirements. Nor would you want to put at risk strategic deterence in Littoral waters etc.

posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 11:02 PM

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by Dan Tanna

Oh come now. Thats a very bad analogy between those two. Think of it better that you have a cruiser compared with a battleship. A battlecruiser.

The battlecruiser is an excellent comparison. It was an idea that sounded good on paper (combining the role of fleet scout and heavy gun platform), but worked somewhat less well in reality. In the battlecruisers' case, the theoretical maxim "What I can't outgun, I can outrun" translated practically as "Anything I can fight, I can't catch, and anything I can catch, I can't fight".

In the case of the attack / ballistic missile submarine,you wind up with a platform that's too slow and slow-turning to be tactically effective, but has way too much performance to perform the missile boat role.

There's also a range problem, in that if I'm forward deployed (where an aggressive attack sub should be), the range of my SLBMs is wasted....and if I'm staying back in uncontested waters (the whole point of long-range SLBM), I don't need attack capability. Either way, I'm wasting half of my equipment.

posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 01:12 AM
reply to post by BASSPLYR


I think you will find this very intrresting. No I dont think the idea is to put a full compliment of Ballistic Missles on a Virginia Class Submarine.
This is however an adaptation of what is on the Ohio SSGN's outfitted with Cruise Missles. It is a good idea as far as simplicity..12 missle tubes verses only 2 is a big step in simplicity. It greatly lowers the problem of how many watertight access points to monitor for leaks. This is called in the Naval Terminology as Hull Integrity. Also 2 missle tubes verses 12 tubes and operating equipment is a significant simplification and weight savings.

Check out this link here.

This is also a new type of sonar array planned for upgrades.
Click on the lower diagram of the bow section and it should blow it up for closer inspection.

Here is another upgrade in the works...and I was once again surprised to find it on the computer as I heard about it some years ago and took for granted that it was hush hush.

Here is the link...

YOu know...all these people out here talking about how quiet the diesel electric boats are?? This should clear up alot...about the direction things are going. While I wont go into particulars..most people havent a clue as to the various modes in which current nuclear submarines can operate if necessary...or desired. Not all is as seems in these war games or the rules of engagement.

Nonetheless..this is a update to your inquiry more than a year ago concerning whether we are standing still or doing research and upgrades to our submarine fleets.


posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 01:40 AM
dial a power from the reactor - turn off the pumps and let natural convection cool the low power reactor for silent running

nuke boats *right now* make more noise than electric boats , BUT if they ever perfect solid state cooling rather than liquid cooling then watch out

the russians have done it with with there hybrid diesel/baby nuke boat.

you can`t really compaer the ohio`s to the LA boats or seawolf - the size/displacement comparison is rather large -

ohio is around 530 feet long and 43 feet beam , displacing 18,000 (ish) tons submerged , whilst the LA boats are around 360feet long , 33feet beam and displace 6200(ish) tons submerged.

its like comparing a supercharged humvee to a ferrari - one has the power but is big and lumbers around , whilst the other has similar power but is small and agile.


i`vea heard that the new brit boats `Astute` class are allready using electric final drive rather than the mechanical system - which would explain why there so darn quiet.

[edit on 13/7/08 by Harlequin]

posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 03:09 AM
Damn thats why I love talking to you Orangetom!!!

Thank you for the excellent links. everybody in this thread take the time to read them they are pretty sweet.

Glad they are doing what the US sub fleet does best. breaking new ground and leading the way as far as tech goes. keeping the edge that continually safeguards all of our lives. and it's nice to know that what the enemy doesn't know about our boats scares the crap out of it should be.

wonder if they have developed a way to deliver the large amounts of power other than using a nuclear reactor which could really make this tech mentioned in the link really kick ass. Or maybe they have. loose lips sink ships and other than that piece of baktah (klingon for the s word, it's the only Klingon I know) walker's(he doesn't deserve his name capitalized)leaks I doubt any of this new drive configuration would have been leaked out or even discussed unless they already have a much more advanced version already in operation. Thats just my speculation.

Any speculation regarding technology developed from the NR1 program that could be used by the virginias? (hell probably the 688's maybe a sturgeon) they seem to have the ability to feasibly perform the same function that the NR1 did.

Also since you are the man regarding all things naval. Any speculations as to what the k129 was really doing outside of hawaii. International spy games gone wrong or really a rouge sub trying to initiate WWIII or a false flag attack to get us going at china to get the pressure off of the USSR.

And as always what happened to the Scorpion. what sank her. I just don't buy the Hot run story. it sounds like BS to me. "Something" happened to the scorpion.

Oh, and those extra fins located on the ventral side of the subs that stop porpoising but also tow apparati. Other than towed arrays, perhaps apparati that could possibly conduct or receive large amounts of power from somewhere. a very advanced method thats really quiet. NASA tether like tech.

Also wouldn't, with the satellite tech these days, an MHD system leave one hell of a magnetic signature that if one knew how to look for it and therefore not be so great an option.

Thanks for your input as always it tacitly tells much more than it appears. thank you again.

Bassplyr (dave)

PS thanks for continually putting up with my horrible grammar and syntax.

posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 04:20 AM
Bass ,

i disagree with you saying the USA is leading the way - the UK is allready fiedling alot of the tech mentioned in both the Type 45 destroyers and Astute class attack boats

posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 05:43 AM
I doubt it. the astutes a kickass boat. It has the public title of beingthe worlds bestest boat. but behind closed doors and with full disclosure from the US which would be insanely stupid the US has got them beat. who do you think they learned to build subs from the germans.

but does anybody really know whats under the skin of any US boat. NO!!!!!! unless you work directly on them or serve on board one nobody knows the highly classified just about everything on those US subs on the outside. which is how it should be. everything on the inside is pretty much classified. sure they take pretty but sanitized pictures pf the inside of our boats for the world to see. but they show us only what they want us to see and know. some of the tech inside our boats are so top secret and classified and cutting edge and beyond what any other navy has that the mere concepts and basic premises behind the tech are classified top secret. we have some serious gizmos on board our subs that would frankly surprise the world including the UK's navy. we don't share everything not even with the UK.

Yes theres tons of stuff on the internet about how nifty the astute is, but maybe thats just partial disclosure concerning the general state of current sub tech. Not the secret secret stuff. But the US navys sub fleet like to keep their tech very very much to themselves. theres just some stuff the US is not willing to share with anybody, and just how advanced even our 688's are is one of them and believe me your head would spin if you knew the real capabilities of even those older boats. loose lips sink ships and the US sub fleet holds that to a law and violating it is a cardinal sin. in fact it's treason.

posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 05:52 AM
and the UK doesn`t share all of its tech with the USA - they allready are using electric final drives (the ones shown in orangetoms link about future US subs)

you say there s ton of stuff on the net about astutes - and so there is also about LA boats etc - BUT you must ask , how much of it is just for mushroom consumption - heres a titbit now go away , and thats about both countries

so i must ask - given the *available* information , who IS leading the way then....

posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 06:15 AM
Thats just the point perhaps we are even aware of the drive systems in those boats mentioned in orangetoms links because they are old new to the US.

You think that when we declassified the stealth fighter we didn't already have it's replacement already operating in the skys.

We won't know what the US boats currently have in them for at least a decade. and when we do it will be only because disclosing that tech will have no threat or negative impact to the safty of the US's boats. And when we are told about the tech the US fleet with already have replaced that tech with something much more advanced.

posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 11:58 AM

I thought I would post these sights as it has been awhile since I have said anything about them.

I saw this boat out back of a building where it was completed a day or two before it was shipped out. It was in the middle of the night and I wheeled my bicycle around to get a better look. I was shocked when I looked in side and realized this was a scale model test bead ....specifically for testing new designs and new equipment. A very large radio controlled model. Very expensive too.

Link here... LSV 2 Cutthroat

This was the first time I had hard confirmation as to how far and serious they were about the features on these new boats. Also how far and fast the changes were coming. Obviously there are several types of these boats decked out for different types of testing categorys. here on this.

This second link contains photos which I had neve seen before so more of this stuff is becoming public.

here is another link...

This is exactly what I saw that night just before they shipped her out.

Let me tell you something BASSPLYR...that night, when I saw this riding around on my bicycle...when I realized fully what it was I was mouth dropped one of those dribbling idiots in the movie know the Stephen Spielburg Scenes....where everyone is standing around dumbfounded, speechless, with their mouth hanging open. Well that was me when I realized how far and sophisticated they were willing to go to get the facts straight about new designs and equipment. This is serious stuff dude..hardball.

Also this last set of photos are about ten years olde. How far do you think they have come here??

Gotta go ..things to get done around here.


[edit on 13-7-2008 by orangetom1999]

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in