F-15 Eagle
New Member
How many SSN's and SSBNs are currently active?
Can anyone give me the currect size of the USN submarine fleet?
- Thread starter F-15 Eagle
- Start date
As of today:
Los Angeles Class
USS Philadelphia (SSN 690)
USS Memphis (SSN 691)
USS Dallas (SSN 700)
USS Albuquerque (SSN 706)
USS Providence (SSN 719)
USS Pittsburgh (SSN 720)
USS San Juan (SSN 751)
USS Miami (SSN 755)
USS Alexandria (SSN 757)
USS Annapolis (SSN 760)
USS Springfield (SSN 761)
USS Hartford (SSN 768)
USS Toledo (SSN 769)
USS Norfolk (SSN 714)
USS Oklahoma City (SSN 723)
USS Newport News (SSN 750)
USS Albany (SSN 753)
USS Scranton (SSN 756)
USS Boise (SSN 764)
USS Montpelier (SSN 765)
USS Hampton (SSN 767)
USS Los Angeles (SSN 688)
USS Bremerton (SSN 698)
USS Jacksonville (SSN 699)
USS La Jolla (SSN 701)
USS Olympia (SSN 717)
USS Chicago (SSN 721)
USS Key West (SSN 722)
USS Louisville (SSN 724)
USS Pasadena (SSN 752)
USS Columbus (SSN 762)
USS Santa Fe (SSN 763)
USS Charlotte (SSN 766)
USS Tucson (SSN 770)
USS Columbia (SSN 771)
USS Greeneville (SSN 772)
USS Cheyenne (SSN 773)
USS Helena (SSN 725)
USS Topeka (SSN 754)
USS Asheville (SSN 758)
USS Jefferson City (SSN 759)
USS Houston (SSN 713)
USS City of Corpus Christi (SSN 705)
USS Buffalo (SSN 715)
Total - 44
Seawolf Class
Seawolf (SSN-21)
Connecticut (SSN-22)
Jimmy Carter (SSN-23)
Total - 3
Virginia Class
Block I
USS Virginia (SSN-774)
USS Texas (SSN-775)
USS Hawaii (SSN-776)
USS North Carolina (SSN-777)
Block II
USS New Hampshire (SSN-778)
Total - 5
Ohio Class SSGN
USS Ohio (SSGN-726)
USS Michigan (SSGN-727)
USS Florida (SSGN-728)
USS Georgia (SSGN-729)
Total - 4
Ohio Class SSBN
USS Henry M. Jackson (SSBN-730)
USS Alabama (SSBN-731)
USS Alaska (SSBN-732)
USS Nevada (SSBN-733)
USS Tennessee (SSBN-734)
USS Pennsylvania (SSBN-735)
USS West Virginia (SSBN-736)
USS Kentucky (SSBN-737)
USS Maryland (SSBN-738)
USS Nebraska (SSBN-739)
USS Rhode Island (SSBN-740)
USS Maine (SSBN-741)
USS Wyoming (SSBN-742)
USS Louisiana (SSBN-743)
Total - 14
SSN Total = 52
SSGN Total = 4
SSBN Total = 14
Constantly changing numbers though, for example, the next Virginia is expected in Jan 2010, and a LA class may be retired then.
Enjoy.
You could have searched this at Wiki.
Ohio class ballistic missile submarines (18 in commission, with 4 converted into guided missile submarines)
Los Angeles class attack submarines (45 in commission, 17 decommissioned)
Seawolf class attack submarines (3 in commission)
Virginia class attack submarines (5 in commission, 4 under construction or ordered, at least nine more planned)
Is there plans to keep any US Cold War nuclear submarines (besides USS Nautilus which is already a museum) as museums? In France the French Navy has SSBN Redoutable as museum and in Britain there's HMS Courageous. How about other USN Cold War era ships?
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6
So what about the Seawolf class? Will they be replaced by the Virginia's or will they be kept in service?
Also I heard that they may keep some Los Angeles even once all 30 Virginia's are in service. The minimum Navy requirement is for 48 attack subs, so are they keeping some of the newest Los Angeles class subs?
Also I heard that they may keep some Los Angeles even once all 30 Virginia's are in service. The minimum Navy requirement is for 48 attack subs, so are they keeping some of the newest Los Angeles class subs?
The Seawolf class is newer than the Los Angeles class, so the LA class subs will be decomissioned before any sub of the Seawolf class. The Virginia class subs are replacing LA class subs at the moment, who knows by the time they get to replacing the Seawolf class what class of new subs will be built. Maybe, and then maybe not, this is twenty or more years into the future.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #8
I see, the Seawolf's will stick around for some time yet.
I also heard they are looking into building a new SSBN to replace the 14 Ohio class subs. Have you heard anything about this?
From a FY 2009 CBO report found using Google about future defense planning, which has already been changed during FY 2010 concerning the future submarine plans: These long term plans are just that, plans. Nothing is ever specific with the Congress and the administration changing them annually with different annual spending bills.
"Submarines. The fiscal year 2009 shipbuilding plan envisions the Navy maintaining its force of 48 attack submarines. That plan also indicates that the Navy would continue through 2026 to deploy 14 ballistic submarines and 4 guided missile submarines. The shipbuiding plan does not anticipate replacing the guided missile submarines when they are retired in the mid-2020s but would call for the purchase of 12 new ballistic missile submarines. Meeting that goal would require the Navy to order the first new ballistic missile submarine in 2019.
The Navy's short-term goal is to reduce the price of the new Virginia class attack submarine to $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2009 dollars, and to increase procurement to two per year starting in 2011. CBO projects that the Navy's current plans for sustaining the attack, guided missile, and ballistic submarine forces would cost, on average, more than $7.2 billion per year over the next two decades, or as much as $8.4 billion annually, including historical cost growth."
What I read between the lines is that the US intends to buy two Virginia class attack submarines for a while, and starting in 2019 a new class of ballistic missile submarines will be bought. Most likely during the seven to ten years we buy ballistic submarines no attack submarines will be bought. When the new ballistic missile submarine program has been bought, a newer new class of attack submarines will start...
Well, that is the long term plans. What will be bought and exactly when time will tell...
Last edited:
However, after last year's cold winter, and ice breaking required on Lake Erie, the House has voted to buy another new Mackinaw icebreaker. The Senate didn't. We are waiting for the House-Senate conference committee's compromise, and then another full House and Senate vote, along with the President's signature for FY 2010's budget, which by the way started on October first....
The US annual appropriations bills are never finished on time.... A second Mackinaw icebreaker is not on any long term plans. However, with a couple of years delay of the LCS program, along with the Wisconsin shipyard laying off of some of their workers because of the delay, not to mention last year's cold spell, on top of the age of the icebreaking tugs, the House voted for another Great Lakes icebreaker during this budget year of stimulus spending..... to put those workers back to work.....
The Great Lakes congressmen and senators are wanting this icebreaker, and are mixing in the fact that many of the east and gulf coast ports are anticipating future dredging of their ports for the larger and deeper containerships which will be using the new Panama Canal locks starting in 2014-15... Quid pro quo...
The US annual appropriations bills are never finished on time.... A second Mackinaw icebreaker is not on any long term plans. However, with a couple of years delay of the LCS program, along with the Wisconsin shipyard laying off of some of their workers because of the delay, not to mention last year's cold spell, on top of the age of the icebreaking tugs, the House voted for another Great Lakes icebreaker during this budget year of stimulus spending..... to put those workers back to work.....
The Great Lakes congressmen and senators are wanting this icebreaker, and are mixing in the fact that many of the east and gulf coast ports are anticipating future dredging of their ports for the larger and deeper containerships which will be using the new Panama Canal locks starting in 2014-15... Quid pro quo...
Last edited:
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #11
I would if the new SSBNs will be even bigger than the Ohio class I wonder. Maybe carry 30 SLBMs instead of 24? Just pure speculation.
As for the SSGNs I don't see them retiring with out a replacement considering how much of an asset they are, carrying 154 cruise missiles. Can't just let something with that much firepower go without replacemnt IMO.
exported_kiwi
New Member
Have to agree about the SSGNs. Maybe, when they build the new SSBNs, they can "tack on" a few extras, especially if larger so they can more missiles in less hulls. Of course, that hurts availability as discussed so many times here.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #13
I think 4 SSGNs will do but 6 is ideal IMO. They seam to be a very strategic weapon for conventional warfare like the bombers and aircraft carriers along with the nuclear triad.
Why? What's your logic behind 6 hulls?
The main reason these boats are an asset is not particularly the cruise missiles, they are more valuable because of they are used as transport/insertion assets by Special forces. Cruise missiles can be fired from a vast array of platforms - there are far cheaper ways to deliver CM's.
From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_class_submarine
The missile tubes also have room for stowage canisters that can extend the forward deployment time for special forces. The other two Trident tubes are converted to swimmer lockout chambers. For special operations, the Advanced SEAL Delivery System and the Dry Deck Shelter can be mounted on lock out chamber and the boat will be able to host up to 66 special operations sailors or Marines, such as Navy SEALs. Improved communications equipment installed during the upgrade allows the SSGNs to serve as a forward-deployed, clandestine Small Combatant Joint Command Center.[4]
Last edited:
Oh yes. Especially the Jimmy Carter, that boat is special in a couple of different ways.
Parche lives on.... At least this Jimmy Carter is doing a good job.
Indeed she does.Parche lives on.... At least this Jimmy Carter is doing a good job.
I'm against naming warships after living or newly deceased politicians. Naming a sub after Jimmy Carter is appropriate as he was a reactor officer but they should of waited 10 years of so after he died before naming a sub after him.
I also object to pretty much every other ship named after a politician so this isn't influenced by my political beliefs.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #18
Mod: Text deleted. I said IMO do you even know what IMO means?
If you don't cut the crap you will be blocked. I'm sick and tired of you following me from thread to thread finding any little excuse to rant, insult and just argue.Mod: He hasn't insulted you, he has asked a reasonable question and we would expect a reasonable answer.
Mod: Text deleted. See above
Mod: Text deleted,.completely unnecessary.
Last edited by a moderator:
In any discussion, if the response has been bound by an IMO caveat, then one would still expect the logic to be displayed so that people can test it themselves for clarity.
It's not an unreasonable request by any means.
what is your logic on having 6? eg, churn rates, at sea, in maint, blue water presence, blue water persistence, sail time from major fleets, top and tailing issues, etc etc.......
eg 6 is already not enough to cover the PACRIM in heightened readiness, and it would take a few days for the next largest "fleet" to release assets.
eg subs are also on a separate command, so you just can't break into their mission sets easily
Last edited:
Yes. I believe it stands for "In My Opinion". Opinions are like anal sphincters, - everybody has one, however I fail to see the value in putting forward an opinion that is not backed by reasoning.
I could say IMO, that New Zealand urgently required 50 Nuclear powered fleet carriers. If I don't back that statement with reasoning, then I will be dismissed as a crackpot for putting the idea forward.
As it so happens, I probably agree that an increase in SSGN's would be a good idea but not for the reason you were putting forward (cruise missile carrier). The biggest reason these boats were converted was to act as Special forces transport/insertion and command vessels. By the time you take one out for a refit, and potentially have others transiting the globe you may at best be looking at one or two on mission - and these days with there being so much of a requirement for SF activities in different parts of the globe, the SSGN's are probably running around flat out at the moment. Now you can either go off half cocked and decide insulting people is a decent response, or you can add constructively to the thread. Maybe you were not aware of the SF role for these subs?
And no, trust me, I have better things to do with my time than to run around persecuting you whenever I come across one of your threads
. Fee free to block me - as a threat that rates right up there with being beaten with a wet bus ticket. I won't be blocking you because I believe you do have quite a bit to add to the forum, particularly if you start to realise when its time to pull your head in.I'm off out bush for 3 weeks, have a great Christmas and New Year to you and the other regular forumites, hope your holidays are full of this:love
nfloorl:frostyuke:sleepy:drunk1Cheers, from :australia