It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
Just curious. where is it documented that soviet subs have double hulls to dive better. I was always made to understand that double hulled subs have 3 times the reserve boyancy as a single hulled sub AND that the double hull allows a sub to absorb a larger blow from a torpedo with less damage. didn't know a double hull had any barring on the depth the inner pressure hull can take in hydrostatic pressure.

also why would the soviets have a greater need to dive deeper than US subs? if anything US subs would because they preform a wider array of missions. some requiring one to dive deep. also underwater speed contests are irrelevant. know what is relevant? how quite a sub is at tactical speed usually around 2-7 knots. not 35 balls to the walls we can hear you from two oceans over fast.

There are times where a soviet/russian sub might have the upper hand in a conflict with even a 688 maybe an akula II under the perfect conditions, but I'd say at least 80% of the time even an 688 would win. and that doesn't even get into the seawolfs and virginias.

Also in regards to the supercavitating torpedo. pretty sure NAVSEA was working on them a few years before the russians. they discontinued development of them for a reason. because although scary on paper aren't very practical at all in attacking other subs. and if you want to attack a surface ship you would use an asroc anyways. not he big bad weapon that people are getting excited about but navies aren't.

The US navy, well all navies worth their salt, know how to counter supercavitating torpedoes and they aren't with other supercavitating torpedoes.

Which realistically in an underwater dogfight would be a last ditch revenge weapon. oh and they better had not miss. which could be easy to do when the torpedo can't turn worth a damn, and the enemy sub would have been spotted and taken care of long before they could get into any position that would make a supercavitating torp of any use. Also what idiot wants a noisy torpedo when it's well know that the US like to hunt in pairs. Even try it and the other sub you aren't tracking will wax you and you won't even see it coming.

This IS why I asked you to "proove it with sources", but with this question you just asked lets me know you don't understand about Russian subs.




posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
No, you asked about my sources for other reasons. As I said don't even ask.
You'd think from my previous post that you'd get that we are not adversaries. SO please stop trying to ask me the same question. It's called morals. I'm not selling out the US or it's people under pressure from some poster on an obscure internet thread.

In regards to double hulls on russian subs. I used a poor choice of words. I said dive better, I should have said dive deeper. I can think of reasons a double hull can make a sub more maneuverable.

But we are still getting way off onto a tangent again. The thread is about Deltaboys inquiry to converting ssns into ssbns. I say it's a bad idea, but i like the concept of converting ssbns into ssgns. You have a lot of good knowledge on subs. I believe you have an opinion on conversions of ssbns to ssgns. what are they?



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYRI believe you have an opinion on conversions of ssbns to ssgns. what are they?


I know you weren't asking me, but I'd like to interject. By treaty, the USN needed to either scrap 4 Ohio class or repurpose them. Now, the Ohio is a fine piece of engineering and has a strong logistics chain and support system built up to field these. By refueling and modifying the tubes, the Navy added an entirely new mission profile capability without building up an entirely new system to support those vessels. With new cores, these 4 boats are ready to carry out this role for years to come from a reliable, quiet, well-understood platform. It's a win-win really. The US meets it's treaty obligations, the Ohio class gets "newer" by moving the 4 oldest boats from the SSBN force, the Navy adds a capability it previously did not have (at least not in the quantity that the SSGN offers), the SEALS get a bigger, better platform to operate from and the taxpayer gets these Cadillacs at Hyundai prices because these are modifications instead of a truly new "clean sheet" design.

That's my 2 cents on it anyway.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I think that this a is a cool idea.

But I also think that it's time to say good bye to the Trident D-5's on a new platform such as the Virgina class.
We don't need them. We still have W-80 warheads that can fit on Tomahawks and if we can use the VLS system to deliver them, well we should.

Like you said, quiet and speed. No more heavy D-5's to lug around and maintain.

Good idea.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Hey oxillini,

Great post. You know a whole lot about this topic. I can tell from your previous posts. Thanks for the last post which I though went a good way in explaining how the conversions of the 4 ohios to ssgns is a win win situation.

Personally I am thrilled at the new use of the ssbns. Plus I'm hoping this allows more room for any SEAL detachments to bunk somewhere else besides on top of torpedoes. Been told that it's pretty moist in the torpedo room, and not the greatest as living quarters. Personally though I'd find it an honor to be allowed to bunk anywhere on a US sub. Also cool that they have developed two of the missile tubes to be lockout trunks for the deploying SEALS. no more 8 packed into a escape trunk only suitable for 2 or 4. I picture that it will make it a lot safer for the swimmers during early mission insertion.

Here's a question. these new conversions. who do they choose as a captain. I don't know too much about this sort of thing but do ssn captains stick career wise with ssn's and the same for ssbn's. I'm sure the boats are "flown" in very different manners. Or, is it that if the captain is good enough they put him in whatever boat they deem necessary. I'd imagine that captains of either type of boat would be well suited for the roll of taking a ssgn, converted ssbn, into littoral waters to insert or retrieve SEALs.

I know 688's are used a lot like ssgns with all of their cruise missiles so would that captain make more sense for the new ohios. would the old captain of the ssbn be better since he does know his boat after all. do you think the captains are welcoming their boats new mission profile. I think they are happy about it. whats your opinion. sorry if the post seems poorly thought out. my phone keeps ringing every other sentence I try to type and it's hard to remember my original point.

regarding nuke tipped cruise missiles. Very useful but I believe that ICBM's have a very different roll to play apart from an nuke tipped cruise missile .
Personally I think that small portable atomic munitions are going to be the way someone would nuke a country in the future. Although I wouldn't want anybody to use nukes period. even if they do have great EMP capabilities. But I know very little about nukes, nor care to know very much about them.

I know all I need to know about them. Don't be anywhere near one when one goes off, and don't stand down wind, and try not to stare at the implosion.

PS oxillini I respect your opinions and look forward to more dialog with you, feel free to reply to any questions I ask, no matter whom their addressed to. no need to apologize you're not butting in in any way. The threads for all of us. talking to guys like you (i'm assuming you're a guy) is a great joy and I feel like I have gained from my conversations with you in this thread. believe it or not I have a suspicion that you could humble me with your knowledge about this topic, like completely blow me out of the water. Just a feeling I have deduced from your posting style.

also your two cents is worth more like 200 cents to me.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by BASSPLYR]


[edit on 21-7-2008 by BASSPLYR]



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by oxillini
 


Well stated Oxillini...darned right the Ohio's are a fine piece of engineering..darned right!!! I am so glad to see that someone has thought through to get more savings and usage both for the taxpayer out of these boats than just scraping them.
These boats were very expensive to build in their day.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 03:52 AM
link   
is this the first time the US military has actually done something `right` from a cost effective point of view?

and yes , the role of an SSGN is very similar to the SSBN - really its a boomer that fires missiles rather than rockets;

a question - the russians have been using ssgn`s for years - the latest is the oscar-II (nato reporting name) , so why catch up now?



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequina question - the russians have been using ssgn`s for years - the latest is the oscar-II (nato reporting name) , so why catch up now?


I'm not an expert in defense economics or US military strategy, but I think the "Why now?" for US Navy SSGN's is two-fold.

1. The DoD has seen the utility of the Tomahawk missile through engagements such as Gulf War I. If 12 VLS Tomahawks on a fast attack are nice to have as a military option, and the Arsenal ship was canceled, 150+ VLS Tomahawks on an Ohio is an even better option in the first strike phase of a war or engagement.

2. Utility. 4 SSBN's had to go. The Ohio class is a rousing success from the standpoint of technological achievement, reliability and support system. When the class was designed and built, the Navy thought through everything. The class is double-crewed to maximize time at sea, the boats are based at just 2 facilities to reduce the quantity of handling equipment and trained personnel required, and the boats were built to be maintainable from the start, not as an afterthought. So, if you have to de-nuke 4 SSBN's and keep the rest you need to keep all the support structure and staff behind the class. You get little savings from scrapping the oldest 4 (in fact, you pay millions to scrap them). The obvious answer is to refit them for a new role. My analogy is this: you have a nice pickup truck. A law comes out stating trucks with pickup beds are illegal. So, would you scrap the truck or take off the bed and put, say a flatbed?

Combine points 1 and 2, and it just made sense. Previously, regardless of the Pentagon's opinion of point 1, point 2 did not exist. Thus, the cost of developing, fielding and supporting a separate class of SSGN's was just too high.

That's my guess.



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Back to the original poster's question, even if one ignores the vast difference in operations and tactics between the fast attack and ballistic missile submarines, one of the primary reasons for not building a SSBN that attacks or a SSN that launches ballistic missiles is the sheer size and weight of the weapons themselves. Most submarine launched ballistic missiles are in the range of 1.8 to 2.1 meters in diameter and 11 to 14 meters in length. Thus, even if a sub carried the missile tube(s) at the centerline of their pressure hull, you'd need a hull diameter or beam of over 46 feet. The Seawolf class, the USN's largest SSNs have a beam of 12 meters or 40 feet. Thus, either you'd need a very "fat" SSN or it'd need a huge hump (called a turtleback) to accomodate that monster of a weapon. Big subs with large hydrodynamic disturbances like turtlebacks are hard to make both fast and quiet.

In short, even once one gets past the question of whether a SSN with ballistic missiles makes any tactical sense, the question of whether a capable ship of such a description could reasonably be built looms large.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by oxillini
 


Well what if they were able to build a new SLBM that is smaller in dimensions but still as capable as the Trident D5 in terms of range and payload. Could they still able to build the submarine with a smaller beam capable of carrying a few of the new SLBMs?



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by oxillini
 


Well what if they were able to build a new SLBM that is smaller in dimensions but still as capable as the Trident D5 in terms of range and payload. Could they still able to build the submarine with a smaller beam capable of carrying a few of the new SLBMs?


You'd need to shrink the missile by about 50% and still have a range in the area of 7500 km. Do you want MIRV on that? The Trident C4 is actually slightly smaller than a D5 but, still, it'd be a major leap in ballistic missile design to retain Trident capability in a missile half the size. At that point we're into the realm of a massive development program rather than what I believed the original "what if" of this thread to be.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Oxillini, how about designing only one column of SLBMs instead of the usually 2 columns on their "back", would that readdress the size problem of the missile, not having to worry about the diameter of the missile but just the height? Also you mentioned the turtleback hump of the SSBNs, that makes them more noisier. Well my impression of something like that would be those old ugly Russian Delta submarines. But if you look at the Le Triomphant class submarine, the hull is smooth and "clean" in a way that would not degrade the submarine's primary advantages dealing with noise and drag. Even the Ohio class submarine is decades old design. If we were to build a new ballistic/attack sub, the submarine's hull would be more streamlined than the Ohio. Besides that, the Triomphant class submarine has only about a beam of 12 meters. About the same size as the Seawolf!



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
Here's a question. these new conversions. who do they choose as a captain. I don't know too much about this sort of thing but do ssn captains stick career wise with ssn's and the same for ssbn's. I'm sure the boats are "flown" in very different manners. Or, is it that if the captain is good enough they put him in whatever boat they deem necessary. I'd imagine that captains of either type of boat would be well suited for the roll of taking a ssgn, converted ssbn, into littoral waters to insert or retrieve SEALs.


In the past, I believe brand new commanding officers went to SSNs while SSBNs were reserved for O-6s with previous at sea command experience. But that's not the case anymore. I know there are O-5s getting SSBNs right out of PCO school.

I think the detailer and NAVPERS try to keep the sub officer core versatile on both platforms. But at some point, I think they choose career paths too. If selected for command, someone who did a dept head and XO tour on an SSN, is unlikely to become captain of an SSBN.

Also the majority of sub commanding officers were former engineer officers. When classing up for SOAC (sub officer advanced course), supposedly the cream of the crop become engineers. It's considered the most demanding dept head position. Although I know the former navigator on my boat took command of an SSN, so exceptions happen.

I'd estimate only one out of every 30-40 newly qualified junior sub officers will ever take command of a sub themselves. Many won't stay that long, but for those that do, the competition is fierce.





[edit on 26-7-2008 by Schaden]



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Oxillini, how about designing only one column of SLBMs instead of the usually 2 columns on their "back", would that readdress the size problem of the missile, not having to worry about the diameter of the missile but just the height? Also you mentioned the turtleback hump of the SSBNs, that makes them more noisier. Well my impression of something like that would be those old ugly Russian Delta submarines. But if you look at the Le Triomphant class submarine, the hull is smooth and "clean" in a way that would not degrade the submarine's primary advantages dealing with noise and drag. Even the Ohio class submarine is decades old design. If we were to build a new ballistic/attack sub, the submarine's hull would be more streamlined than the Ohio. Besides that, the Triomphant class submarine has only about a beam of 12 meters. About the same size as the Seawolf!


True, the Le Triomphant class are much sleeker than Deltas, or even the US Ohios. And they are just half a meter wider in beam than a Seawolf. Going to one "column" of missiles would probably result in a much narrower turtleback (think similar to the Gotland or Kilos in appearance). You make some good points. I think it is technically feasible to put ballistic missiles on a sub small enough to be considered a hunter-killer. Thus, the question reverts to "Would any Navy actually want to do it?" That's a huge risk carrying ICBMs into a sub vs sub fight. Precisely why the SSBNs have always been wont to hide rather than fight when contacts are found.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:36 AM
link   

The US is just now talking about Soviet subs they were able to track in the 60's. Neither Russia, nor the US, nor any capable Navy with a submarine force will ever really talk about their tracking capabilities and successes.

sub-log.com...
www.fas.org...
www.defenseindustrydaily.com...
findarticles.com...
www.fas.org...
www.allbusiness.com...

This has now been augmented by a satellite system that is able to track subs by there bow wave where it hit the surface of the ocean.


How about submarine mine sweeps
findarticles.com...




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join