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.


USS Florida

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 07:33 PM
There is an artical the the Houston Chronicle that the USS Florida, the former Trident balastic missle cruser into a war ship with out the balastic missles. The Florida is not capable of carring 154 Tomahawk cruise missles. 66Special Forces Troops and equipment. Enhanced periscopes and antennas. It has been said that they have now put together large volume strike capability with specile operatgions forces.

I am glad they have not thrown this Sub away. I think it is unique to itself.
I am feel that it might have been better to keep it as a balistic missle sub. With this age of terror with WMD it was seeming like a good idea that we would need them again.

The artical in the papper did not say anything about the other three subs in the same class. If any knows more about this and the other 3 subs please do let me know.

Any one else who has thoughts on this subject please let us know what they are.

Mod Edit: Fixed ALL CAPS title

[edit on 6/6/06 by FredT]

posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 07:41 PM
They're called SSGN. The USS Ohio was the first, and there are four being converted. The Ohio underwent sea trials at the end of last year, and got a clean sweep from what I heard.

At an investment of about $400M/ship (not including replacement cores) the Navy would acquire a modified Trident capable of carrying 154 Tomahawk missiles as well as Special Forces. SSGNs could operate in otherwise denied areas to provide unique capabilities that would enable other U.S. forces. These capabilities include cruise missiles that can be launched at rapid rates, 66 Special Operations Forces (SOF) personnel, a swimmer lock out shelter, and an Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS). This submarine would also retain the multi-mission capability found in SSNs and provide large volumes for future payloads and mission adaptation. These features would provide a transformational degree of firepower in a survivable and virtually undetectable platform that can remain on station continuously.

As of early 2003 two of the four submarines had already completed their final strategic offload. The first two SSBN engineered refueling overhauls (EROs) were scheduled to start in FY 2003, followed by conversion to SSGN starting in FY 2004. The third and fourth SSBN EROs are scheduled to start in FY 2004 and FY 2005, respectively, followed by conversion to SSGN starting in FY 2005.

The Ohio class cruise missile submarine (SSGN) program entails the refueling and conversion of the four SSBNs to dedicated cruise missile launch submarines to support the Land- Attack/Strike mission. Each new Multiple All-Up-Round (AUR) Canister (MAC) launchers contain seven Tomahawk land-attack missiles (TLAMs) and fit within the existing Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) vertical launch tubes. Each SSGN will accommodate up to 22 MACs, for a total of 154 TLAMs.

The SSGN will also support Special Operations Forces (SOF) missions. Two of the large vertical launch tubes will be converted to SOF lockout chambers and the ship will feature dedicated accommodations for SOF personnel and their equipment. The SSGN is capable of hosting the Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) and Dry Deck Shelter on its upper deck. In the future, the extensive payload capacity of the SSGN may be used to support other offboard systems, including large unmanned and autonomous underwater vehicles, as well as alternate weapons systems.

SSBN-726 Ohio GD-EB PAC 1974 10 Apr 76 7 Apr 79 11 Nov 81 Nov 02 Nov 05 2023
SSBN-727 Michigan GD-EB PAC 1975 4 Apr 77 26 Apr 80 11 Sep 82 Aug 03 Apr 06 2024
SSBN-728 Florida GD-EB LANT 1975 9 Jun 77 14 Nov 81 18 Jun 83 Nov 03 Oct 06 2025
SSBN-729 Georgia GD-EB PAC 1976 7 Apr 79 6 Nov 82 11 Feb 84 Apr 05 Apr 07 2026

[edit on 6/5/2006 by Zaphod58]

posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 07:47 PM
Some great info Zaphod, thanks!!
so do you think this new overhauled sub is better for the US stragiticaly?

posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 07:55 PM
I think it's a good idea, because the Ohio's are ultraquiet, and it frees up the SSNs for their real mission of being hunter killers. I don't think it's a good idea to take an SSGN in close, that's more for the Virginia Class, but I like the idea of having a dedicated Tomahawk launcher.

posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 09:46 PM
I like the Thomahawks also, just still wonder if it would be better to keep some balistic nukes also. I guess time will tell if it will make good use for sending the specile opps ashore also.

posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 10:11 PM
There are plenty of SSBNs. They're only converting four. That leaves 15 SSBNs.

posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 11:39 PM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
There are plenty of SSBNs. They're only converting four. That leaves 15 SSBNs.

14 left, there were 18 and they converted 4.

The conversions saved the 4 ships, which were being decommissioned as SSBNs due to START treaty arrangements between the US and Russia.

posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 11:45 PM
My bad. I counted the Georgia as an SSBN instead of an SSGN when I was counting them on Global Security.

posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 06:23 AM
again thanks for the info. I did not know we had that many subs in the Tridend class. I am glad they are saveing at least 4 of them. Would like to see more of them saved that way.

posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 09:03 PM
no need to bitch about converting them, 15 SSBNs are more than capable of doing the job. I believe the current missiles carried on SSBNs carry 10 warheads per missile at 475 Kilotons per warhead, and a max capacity of 24 missiles per sub, thats 11,400 kilotons per ship; thats about 542 Hiroshimas, times 15 ships, thats 8,130 Hiroshima size blasts just from the submarine force, theoretically.

posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 07:36 PM
Frankly, when considering nukes, as long as you can hit your target, the actual size isn't going to matter very much, the target's going away. (okay, you need at least enough blast to wipe out the average city or port, but that shouldn't be a challenge if you're lobbing nukes) The real factor to consider is how many warheads, times how many boats deployed. So it's 10*24*X (X for number of subs on station) In other words, 240 targets engageable per sub. Unless we go to war with a (geographicly) very large nation such as China or Russia, it isn't going to take very many to hold all of an enemies assets under threat.

For refrence, I think there were something like 160 Tomahawks launched during the first gulf war. (I'd have to check to be sure)

I think the potential threat that has the most to worrey about from such converted vessels would be North Korea. They have a limited amount of geographic footprint, and a whole heck of a lot of extended coastline for SEALs to slip acrossed. It's not likely that any one mission for Navy SEALs would actually need 40 of them, but the ability to support that many means one platform could play host to several teams and operations at one time.

posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 07:43 PM
The reason I was bringing up the nukes was because of the potenchen for them to be used be terrorists. Things have changed since the end of the cold war, and it has just been seeming prudent to keep a few of the subs as balastic missle carriers.


log in