A single U.S. Ohio class sub can destroy a Country, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

Topic started on 11-4-2009 @ 01:36 PM by USamf

The Ohio-class submarines were specifically designed for extended deterrence patrols. There are 14 Ohio class nuclear-powered SSBNs, each armed with 24 Trident II SLBMs; they are also known as "Trident" submarines. The Trident D5 is a Submarine-launched ballistic missile, built by Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Sunnyvale, California. It was first deployed in 1990, and is still in service. Each Trident missile can carry 8 W-88 warheads due to its multiple independent reentry vehicle system. It was designed for use on the Trident II (D5) SLBM. It combines a relatively high yield with increased accuracy to make it an effective hard target kill weapon. It is hardened against nuclear effects, and has enhanced safety features. Each W-88 warhead has a yield of 475 kilotons of TNT. This is 26.3 times the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima Japan. (475kt divided by 18kt.) 475 power per warheadx 8 warheads/missile x 24 missiles/sub= 91,200 kt of explosive power per submarine, or 5,066 times the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. I don't know about you, but that is damn scary to think that we have 14 submarines with this capability. One sub, has the power of 5,000 hiroshima bombs.....and these subs are not easy to detect when running silent. You could destroy whole nations with just one submarine...just some food for thought.

en.wikipedia.org...
nuclearweaponarchive.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Also note: The START I treaty limits the missile to 8, it can actually carry 12. So really you could have 7,600 times the power of the Hiroshima bomb, per Ohio class submarine.

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 01:57 PM by tamusan

This is somewhat related. One of my most vivid childhood memories is from when my father was stationed at Kings Bay in Georgia. They had a sub tender there called the Simon Lake. Anyways, we were taking my dad into to work one day and before we got to where we would drop him off we were directed to stop and could not proceed any further. We were stopped with a good vantage point of the Simon Lake. This is the first and last time I have seen a Trident I (C-4). They were lowering one back into a submarine. I have no idea what was going on or why it was happening. It was a very impressive thing for a 10 year boy.

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 02:05 PM by FredT

Also to note not ALL Ohios posses this capacity. 4 have been converted to SSGN's and carry 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles. I wonder if you could nuclear arm those suckers.

The hard kill capacity of the D-5 makes the Ohio's tailor made for couterforce missions targeting enemy missile silos. The CEP is measured in 10's of meters so even hardened silos can be held at risk. makes for a sweet first strike platform as well.

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 02:08 PM by rko_radio

Originally posted by USamf
I don't know about you, but that is damn scary to think that we have 14 submarines with this capability. One sub, has the power of 5,000 hiroshima bombs.....

What's really scary is that these weapons are in the hands of a government that has gone quite insane. Worse still, this insane government routinely carries out acts of State Sponsored Terror.

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 02:10 PM by USamf

reply to post by FredT

FredT, im sure in a time of war you could, and speedy quick. So do you think they would focus all 8 warheads on one silo, or have them go their separate ways? Also a note, it only takes 5-8 minutes for these to reach their target, depending on range.

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 02:13 PM by MajesticJax

Originally posted by FredT
Also to note not ALL Ohios posses this capacity. 4 have been converted to SSGN's and carry 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles. I wonder if you could nuclear arm those suckers.

The Tomahawk long range, subsonic cruise missile can attack targets on land (Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM)) and at sea (Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile (TASM)). The TLAM can be fitted with either conventional unitary warhead (TLAM\C), nuclear warhead (TLAM\N) or submunition dispenser (TLAM\D).

Source

Yep, that's a whole lotta love!

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 02:18 PM by MajesticJax

The RGM/UGM-109A Tomahawk Land Attack Missile-Nuclear (TLAM-N) entered service with the U.S. Navy in 1984. The missile has four delta-shaped fins at its rear, and an underbody engine air inlet that is lowered after launch. It is 6.25 m in length, has a body diameter of 0.52 m, an unfolded wingspan of 2.61 m, and has a launch weight of 1,452 kg. Guidance is provided by an inertial navigation system (INS) with terrain contour matching (TERCOM). The missile is powered by a solid propellant boost motor and a turbofan engine, and is programmed to fly at low altitudes, from 100 m for longer-range missions to 15 m for shorter range missions. The missile has a range of 2,500 km, an accuracy of 80 m circular error probability (CEP), and carries 200 kiloton nuclear warhead.

Source

So...... 154 Tomahawk TLAM/N's X 200 Kilotons = 30,800 Kilotons.

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 02:21 PM by Zaphod58

reply to post by MajesticJax

The TLAM-N was withdrawn from service in 1992. The only TLAMs in inventory are conventional missiles. All tactical nuclear warheads were removed from ships and subs at the same time.

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 02:24 PM by 5thElement

Wow, that is really impressive

I often wonder do those on board have constant erection just by thinking that they are capable of destroying entire country ?

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 02:25 PM by FredT

Originally posted by USamf
FredT, im sure in a time of war you could, and speedy quick. So do you think they would focus all 8 warheads on one silo, or have them go their separate ways? Also a note, it only takes 5-8 minutes for these to reach their target, depending on range.

MIRVS by nature do not have alot of cross range manuverability but Im not sure exactly how much range each would have. I am assuming 100-200 miles would be reasonable.

Fixed missile emplacement tend to be clustered for security so I suspect you could use 1 MIRV for each target plus one for the C&C instalation for the missile field.

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 02:26 PM by MajesticJax

reply to post by Zaphod58

Why? Did I miss a treaty somewhere? Seems like it would be giving up a huge tactical advantage to have nuclear tipped cruise missles, and 150 of them at your disposal to boot.

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 02:28 PM by FredT

reply to post by 5thElement

I dont think so I have alot of friends who were in the navy and a few on the Ohios. The impression i got was one of sober reality that in an instant they could and will fire those suckers off and the Navy spends alot of time discussing the reality and consequences of doing so.

I wonder how many of us would have the chops to do this? These guys take it very very seriously..........

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 02:28 PM by USamf

reply to post by 5thElement

I bet they do. You must feel on top of the world knowing you have god like powers in your nice cozy submarine.

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 02:33 PM by FredT

reply to post by MajesticJax

It was addressed in the SALT and START treaties

Edit: Scratch that

www.globalsecurity.org...
The Tomahawk long range, subsonic cruise missile can attack targets on land (Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM)) and at sea (Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile (TASM)). The TLAM can be fitted with either conventional unitary warhead (TLAM\C), nuclear warhead (TLAM\N) or submunition dispenser (TLAM\D).

On 27 September 1991, President Bush announced a number of initiatives affecting the entire spectrum of US nuclear weapons. The United States removed all tactical nuclear weapons, including nuclear cruise missiles, from its surface ships and attack submarines. The nuclear equiped UGM-109A TLAM-N Tomahawk was withdrawn from service in 1992, though conventional versions remain operational.

Note they could be added back on

[edit on 4/11/09 by FredT]

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 02:41 PM by Zaphod58

reply to post by MajesticJax

It wasn't a treaty, it was a move to get the Russian nuclear forces to do the same.

dosfan.lib.uic.edu...

That's the release that realigned the US nuclear forces.

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 10:53 PM by orangetom1999

USamf,

There were at one time some 40 to 41 of the older type Ballistic Missle submarines in service by the US Navy. The MIRV capability was something which came into usage toward the end of the lifetime of these older class subamarines. These older boats had some 16 missle tubes each. That represents some 640 plus missle tubes.

This is some 640 plus missle tubes verses todays boats with some 336 missle tubes on the Trident submarines. Are you thinking yet??

I have worked on the older class Ballistic Missle Submarines and also on the 688 or Los Angeles class submarines configured to carry Tomahawk Cruise Missles. 12 missles each. These missles in spite of what they say about removing the nuclear warheads can be quickly configured back to the same. There are also mulitple configurations in which these Tomahawk Cruise missles can be armed.
I have also worked on the Virginia Class submaries ...which are also configured to carry Tomahawk.

I bet they do. You must feel on top of the world knowing you have god like powers in your nice cozy submarine.

This kind of statement shows great immaturity and smugness. I have worked to build these boats and also watched/observed the crews training in these yards where the boats are built. They do not tolerate slackers. Any slackers are quickly weeded out as they should be.

I have done and experienced things in the yards building these boats which would give most people religion. It is and can be very serious and demanding work. It is more so for the crews who must serve on them.
I have personally observed olde salty chiefs eating the backside off a slacker...who couldnt cut it....in port. As I recall they shipped him out to a shore station.

My point in all this is that these people from the cook and bottle washer to the Skipper all have tremendous responsibilities on them. It is not a game nor something about which to be smug..or self promoting. Things happen out there ..that will never get on the evening news where most of us are safe behind our microwaves and televisions/videos.
Pilot of an airplane, a ship, Submarine, or tank...they have upon them tremendous responsibilities, tremendous weight on their shoulders.

Do I think they will launch if given the orders..Yes I think they most certainly will. I think so both Boomers and fast attack boats will launch.

I think also that you may not be aware that certain kinds of artillery are capable of launching nuclear weapons. Special crews are assigned to a gun battery having undergone special training to launch just such "special weapons." They too will fire if directed to do so. They too have special training and huge responsibilities. It is not a light thing that they do as well.

Any thinking person who has held any type of power in thier hands over others knows that it is a tremendous responsibility. It is not a light thing that they do. Anyone who has supervised people who work in a dangerous enviornment knows precisely of what I speak. Responsibility and power are often at cross purposes with each other if one thinks it is only about power. It is also and always about responsibility as well. Most of the time the weight of responsibility far outweighs any of the perks of power.

Power is a two edged sword or knife and can cut one back if not prudent or wise in its usage or application.

Thanks to all for thier posts,
Orangetom

[edit on 11-4-2009 by orangetom1999]

reply posted on 12-4-2009 @ 01:13 AM by USamf

reply to post by orangetom1999

Yes I understand the great responsibility of being a crew member of a Nuclear submarine. I just didn't have any prospective of what someone around them thinks, thank you for your input. Do you think all submarine crews would launch if given the order?

reply posted on 12-4-2009 @ 01:37 AM by Mercenary2007

reply to post by USamf

i Have a cousin currently serving on a boomer they realize they carry enough power to destroy a country if not the world. they take their jobs very seriously on the boomers. if the command even thinks a crew member will not perform their duty when ordered to launch their missiles you won't make it onto a boomer.

And yes the Boomers crews will launch their missiles if ordered to by the POTUS.

reply posted on 12-4-2009 @ 06:02 PM by rogue1

Originally posted by FredT
MIRVS by nature do not have alot of cross range manuverability but Im not sure exactly how much range each would have. I am assuming 100-200 miles would be reasonable.

Fixed missile emplacement tend to be clustered for security so I suspect you could use 1 MIRV for each target plus one for the C&C instalation for the missile field.

They tend to cross target warheads from different missiles on different subs onto a hardened target. For example a MIRV from a missile on say the USS Alabama would be targetted on a silo and another from say a missile on the USS Ohio would be targetted on the same silo. This ensures that if one sub is sunk it's targets won't be immune from attack. Asuuming of course a major nuclear war.

reply posted on 12-4-2009 @ 06:06 PM by rogue1

Would they launch ? Of course they will, they are conditioned and brainwashed not to think about the consequences. People with individual tendencies tend to be excluded from jobs such as this. I like that movie Cromson Tide.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^