American SSNs

[Darrel_topgun]

With exception to the American Seawolf-class submarine, the most advanced class of nuclear submarines in the world is the American Los Angeles-class nuclear fast-attack submarine. The Los Angeles-class nuclear fast-attack submarine is equipped with the world's most sophisticated sonar systems, it is equipped with the BSY-1 advanced sonar and fire-control system that enables it to put up estimates of rough target ranges and distance. Los Angeles-class SSNs are armed depending on the mission profile, for naval missions, it is armed with argueably the most advanced heavy torpedo in existence: The Mark-48 ADCAP (Advanced Capabilities). This torpedo has a range of in excess of 30,000 yards and is armed with 650 pounds of high explosives (PBXN-103), its flank speed can reach 35+ knots. For striking ground targets and relatively large naval targets, the Los Angeles-class SSNs can be armed with Tomahawk medium-range cruise missiles and its respective variants:
1. TASM (Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile) This variant is specially designed in eliminating ships and is armed with 1000 pounds of high explosives.

2. TLAM-C (Tomahawk Land-Attack Missile with Conventional high-explosive warhead) This variant is the most commonly used in striking ordinary ground targets.

3. TLAM-N (Tomahawk Land-Attack Missile with Nuclear warhead) This variant is armed with a nuclear warhead that can yield up to 1 megaton of thermonuclear device.

4. TLAM-D (Tomahawk Land-Attack Missile with Bomblets) This variant is equipped with bomblets and is specially designed to destroy taking-off aircraft and cratering runways. Optional logistics include time-delayed fusses for the bomblets.

Special variants:

1.UGM-109D (Tomahawk Submarine-launched variant) This variant is submarine-launched from VLS tubes (Vertical-Launch System), it carries the 166 BLU-97/B Combined-effect munitions.

Harpoon missile
variant/s:

1. SLAM (Sea-to-Land Attack Missile) This variant is used in attacking ground targets and carries 510pounds of high explosives.

The American Ohio-class missile submarine is armed with UGM-93 Trident 2 D-5 SLBMs (Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles)

 

[gf0012-aust]

The whole idea of posts is to establish some kind of dialogue. Information posts about platforms don't actually achieve much as we kind of already know the capabilities of platforms (there are also a couple of submariners/ex submariners listed as members)

Its far more useful to ask a question or propose some kind of theoretical to get some kind of internet conversation going.

I realise it's one of your first posts, so you're unaware of whats expected. Please be aware of the above though before posting any more topics.

With respect to US nuke submarines, its probably better to ask some on here rather than quote whats been posted on some "information site" as there can be a bit of a difference. WRT submarines though - you aren't going to get much info though - especially about performance numbers. Stats for subs are always generalistic and often don't reflect absolute capability in any form or fashion apart from identifying "a" capability.

 

[Magoo]

Just on this subject, would you put the reconfigured Ohios ahead of the 688Is gf?

Word is the Ohios were the quietest nuke boats around, and now that they have a conventional attack and special ops capability, I'd have thought they'd be pretty hard to beat.

I don't know much about the Virginia boats though.

Magoo

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just on this subject, would you put the reconfigured Ohios ahead of the 688Is gf?

Word is the Ohios were the quietest nuke boats around, and now that they have a conventional attack and special ops capability, I'd have thought they'd be pretty hard to beat.

I don't know much about the Virginia boats though.

Magoo

I haven't seen any numbers for the modified Ohios. The Seawolf and Virginia Class though were rated above the Ohios.

At one of the UDT Confs I attended in Hawai'i a couple of years back, CINCPAC and a uniform attached to the build team passed comment that the Seawolf at double digit speeds was quieter than the Ohio dockside. A paraphrased article of their comments appeared in the NSL journal of the following quarter.

I'm a big fan of the SSGN's, they are extremely competent platforms, and in absolute throw terms are the most powerful ships they've got. Damn shame as a retro fit that we never whacked VLS stacks in the AIP real estate slots of the Collins.

 

[Magoo]

Damn shame as a retro fit that we never whacked VLS stacks in the AIP real estate slots of the Collins.

Is this still an option next refit?

Magoo

 

[Cootamundra]

Good question magoo, it would be a 'major' capability boost if the Collins had VLS inserted. Once the AWDs came online and with VLS armed Collins we would then have the capability to equip Tomahawks - sure thing though, the Indo's would be spitting chips and we would probably have to go on a 'regional briefing' mission ;-0

Gary, if push came to shove and we needed to slot in the VLS how long would a collins be in refit (roughly). Are we talking weeks (assuming we have the HW) or is it months and months?

 

[Whiskyjack]

Good question magoo, it would be a 'major' capability boost if the Collins had VLS inserted. Once the AWDs came online and with VLS armed Collins we would then have the capability to equip Tomahawks - sure thing though, the Indo's would be spitting chips and we would probably have to go on a 'regional briefing' mission ;-0

Gary, if push came to shove and we needed to slot in the VLS how long would a collins be in refit (roughly). Are we talking weeks (assuming we have the HW) or is it months and months?

As an add on question how many VLS tubes can be fitted, roughly?

Also how would targeting be accomplished, I am not sure how the details work but I am assuming that it would require a strategic recon asset or humint to acquire the target and then it would have to be sent to the sub and programmed?

Or can the missile be fired and directed by a third party to the target?

Don’t you love all these questions?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Is this still an option next refit?

Magoo

Nope, a definite DNS in my opinion - mainly due to cost benefit issues.

 

[Francois]

The aerodynamics of the SSGN after conversion was greatly modified, hence the new ones are far more noisier then the olders. Even worse with the (cancelled?) ADSVs.

TLAM-N are not used anymore. Phased out long ago.
I know one non-US submarine quieter then the Ohios.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Gary, if push came to shove and we needed to slot in the VLS how long would a collins be in refit (roughly). Are we talking weeks (assuming we have the HW) or is it months and months?

Can't see it happening due to a number of reasons:

• minimal stacks could be put in. the more you put in, the more you start imposing on other core issues. I'd guess that the easiest minimum would be two quad stacks
• you'd have to remap the signature management software for the hull (minor in real terms, but still an extra cost and indicative of the depth of surgery required)
• greater benefit in installing a plug - but completely cost ineffective IMV. Its the kind of thing that you might chuck on the table if you had a build up to a war - but I really can't see it happening. we'd be far better off fast tracking Collins Mk2 than mucking around with Collins Mk1
• time - even installing a plug is a non trivial exercise. It would result in a complete change in centre of balance and that would mean a change in handling, absolute speed, diving rate etc...
• too many dissimilar materials involved. you're basically having to slice through multiple types of structural metal including stainless steel, titanium, the hull skin itself, plus reharnessing issues. There's no easy way to do it.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Also how would targeting be accomplished, I am not sure how the details work but I am assuming that it would require a strategic recon asset or humint to acquire the target and then it would have to be sent to the sub and programmed?

Or can the missile be fired and directed by a third party to the target?

Don’t you love all these questions?

Yes, the capability is there to do a co-operative handoff to another asset. assuming that there are no political protocol issues, you could hand off to an allied asset as well.

 

[KAPITAIN]

Id just like to ask the american 688i submarines or improved los angeles class carry cruise missiles in Verticle launch tubes so why are they not designated SSGN ?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Id just like to ask the american 688i submarines or improved los angeles class carry cruise missiles in Verticle launch tubes so why are they not designated SSGN ?

I suspect that its based on what is the primary tasking of the platform.

eg the RAN Oberons were classified as SS. When HMAS Ovens was certified and tested for Harpoons she was immediately reclassified as SSG.

 

[alexsa]

Just on this subject, would you put the reconfigured Ohios ahead of the 688Is gf?

Word is the Ohios were the quietest nuke boats around, and now that they have a conventional attack and special ops capability, I'd have thought they'd be pretty hard to beat.

I don't know much about the Virginia boats though.

Magoo

I would be interested to see how the later Trafs and the new Astute compare in this regard.

 

[KAPITAIN]

There are better submarines out there and alot quieter than the ohios dont forget these boats date back to the 1980's even back to the 70's, they are not much more quieter than the 688i's as they used similar sound proofing, which means the akula II's are as quiet or just a tad louder than them.

The seawolf and virginia are the quetest nukes at sea, and id place my bet that the type 214 of germany is the quietest conventional.

 

[Jtimes2]

As an add on question how many VLS tubes can be fitted, roughly?

Also how would targeting be accomplished, I am not sure how the details work but I am assuming that it would require a strategic recon asset or humint to acquire the target and then it would have to be sent to the sub and programmed?

Or can the missile be fired and directed by a third party to the target?

Don’t you love all these questions?

There really isn't third-party "targeting" per se with TLAM; it is a fire&forget weapon. A host nation assembles a library of targets, downloads the one(s) it wants to attack at the time of launch; and after that the Tomahawk does all the work. So that wouldn't be a problem.

However there is more involved than just cutting into the sub and inserting VLS tubes; space needs to be found inside the sub for the launch panels, onboard diagnostic systems, etc. Also the host nation would need to build up tech support expertise, spare parts, etc.

As far as new tactical targets; they could be identified by satellite and relayed to the sub's library by radio. But Tomahawk is intended more for use against known targets like airfields, bunkers, piers; etc than "targets of opportunity" that would require real-time humint, etc.

 

[Jtimes2]

Nope, a definite DNS in my opinion - mainly due to cost benefit issues.

Agreed. A few years ago, Argentina tried to modify a Salta class sub in a similar manner that involved cutting into the pressure hull. Problems (and cost) spiraled out of control and they ended up decom'ing the sub without it ever returning to the water.

Pressure hulls require extremely difficult welds and once they are complete; it's extremely difficult to go back and mess around with them.

 

[Jtimes2]

The aerodynamics of the SSGN after conversion was greatly modified, hence the new ones are far more noisier then the olders. Even worse with the (cancelled?) ADSVs.

TLAM-N are not used anymore. Phased out long ago.
I know one non-US submarine quieter then the Ohios.

You are correct about TLAM-N; they were withdrawn by President Bush (the Elder) in 1991. The same order also withdrew SUBROC, nuclear-tipped ASROC, nuclear-tipped SM-2ER Standards (they used to have nuclear SAMs!!!) and cancelled the Sea Lance missile program.

The TLAM-Ns sat in storage for years; after Clinton exhausted much of the UGM-109 inventory in Serbia some were converted to the conventional submunition warhead variant.

As far as the Ohios....."quiet" is a pretty broad term. In their intended role (slow-speed loitering in very deep water) they are extremely quiet. However, their noise increases by orders of magnitude with their speed. Remember, the Ohios don't have anechoic coating; it's raw metal sending sound into the ocean. They were simply not designed to be quiet at high speed in shallow water because they were never envisioned doing that! When sprinting, or in the shallows, a modern SS like the Collins or Israeli Dolphin would be much quieter than an Ohio.

Additionally, I don't have any facts on this but I bet the SSGNs have "age noise" (other submariners on here know what I mean); the miscellaneous creaks and rattles that afflict subs as they age.

Also, let's not forget that the SSGNs don't even have active on their main sonar! I like the SSGNs but they are more of an underwater arsenal ship than a combat sub.

 

[Big-E]

This thread is supposed to be about US Fast Attacks, why are we talking about anything else besides Sea-Wolf, Virginias or Los Angeles?

 

[contedicavour]

This thread is supposed to be about US Fast Attacks, why are we talking about anything else besides Sea-Wolf, Virginias or Los Angeles?

Yes right. Let's talk about the overall size of the SSN fleet the USN is targeting. I've read that the max number is 30 Virginias and the 3 Sea Wolf. That's quite a reduction vs the current 50-55. The article I read is credible according to you ?

cheers