Most of the info available is pure speculation, and the 12 tubes thing was from the same gordon brown press conferance, and as for the US version being more expensive, why would you think that, RN SSBNs will cost about £4 billion, the USN's about $6.5 billion dollars, that really isn't much of a difference.
SSBN(X): Follow on Ohio replacement; News and info
- Thread starter F-15 Eagle
- Start date
- Status
kev 99
Member
The 12 tubes rumour pre-dates the Gordon Brown press conference, I believe I first read about it at least a year before.
As for cost, they will be bigger and more expensive because they always are, what do you think is more expensive an Ohio or Vanguard? Projected costs being similar doesn't prove anything, USN replacements will have economies of scale on their side, RN successors won't.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #23
DOD Seeks 'Alternative Concepts' To Cut Cost Of New Nuclear Subs
According to defense.iwpnewsstand.com
The Defense Department is seeking "alternative concepts" to cut the huge cost of acquiring new submarines armed with nuclear ballistic missiles that would patrol the world's oceans for decades to come, according to DOD's No. 2 policy official.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates questioned the program's affordability last month, days before launching a broad push to find savings across the department. The new SSBN(X) subs would replace the existing Ohio-class boomers that DOD considers the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad.
The Navy estimates the lead SSBN(X), slated for purchase in 2019, would cost $9 billion, and a dozen would cost $86 billion. But the Congressional Budget Office projects the first sub would cost $13 billion, and a dozen would cost $99 billion, not including $10 billion to $15 billion for research and development.
DOD is “looking at all aspects of the program,” James Miller, the No. 2 official in the Pentagon's policy shop, said today during a lunch with reporters. With the fiscal year 2012 budget cycle under way, it is time to “make some initial decisions about SSBN(X),” he said.
“I think the signal from the secretary of defense, consistent with his recent speech -- and the follow-on activity that's under way now -- about various types of efficiencies, is that nothing escapes a hard look and SSBN(X) is getting that hard look,” Miller said.
He noted questions about how many missile tubes each sub should have and how much should be spent to make the subs stealthy. But adjustments in those areas, even if they save hundreds of millions of dollars per sub -- which is “not chump change” -- are unlikely to take a big bite out of the cost of the multibillion-dollar boats, he said.
Asked if DOD will be able to significantly cut the cost or merely make adjustments at the margins, Miller said, “The answer . . . at this point, is that I don't know. If you look at the savings associated with one fewer compartment, four fewer launch tubes or other modest changes in stealth -- given that you're going to have this platform a long time, you want it to be pretty stealthy -- I think you're not going to drive that down substantially.”
But, he added, the Pentagon is asking in “a relatively open-ended way right now” about the potential to find additional savings in the program.
House authorizers have proposed developing a new nuclear ballistic missile that is smaller than the Trident II D-5 weapon. That might enable DOD to go with a smaller design for SSBN(X) based on the existing Virginia-class attack sub hull, the lawmakers argue.
“We're looking at a wide range of options,” Miller said. “And we've noted the interest in that option by the House and others.” The House version of the FY-11 defense authorization bill would withhold authority to obligate more than half of the funds requested for SSBN(X) development until DOD provides Congress additional information and certifies it must stick with the Trident II D-5. The Senate version authorizes the administration's $493 million request for the program.
Asked if DOD would consider rethinking the entire concept of the program, Miller said, “The starting point is to understand that we intend to maintain the triad and . . . the submarine-based leg is the most secure and that is likely to be the case for the long term if we make the appropriate investments.” From that starting point, he added, the department will "look for alternative concepts."
"I believe we have a well thought out program. It is just extremely expensive so we're having a hard look at places to save dollars," he said.
The Navy has told the Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Research Service that the new sub would probably be about the same size and have roughly the same displacement as an existing Ohio-class sub, even if the number of missile tubes on each SSBN(X) is 16 or 20 relative to the 24 on the existing sub, according to a CBO report released last month.
According to defense.iwpnewsstand.com
The Defense Department is seeking "alternative concepts" to cut the huge cost of acquiring new submarines armed with nuclear ballistic missiles that would patrol the world's oceans for decades to come, according to DOD's No. 2 policy official.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates questioned the program's affordability last month, days before launching a broad push to find savings across the department. The new SSBN(X) subs would replace the existing Ohio-class boomers that DOD considers the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad.
The Navy estimates the lead SSBN(X), slated for purchase in 2019, would cost $9 billion, and a dozen would cost $86 billion. But the Congressional Budget Office projects the first sub would cost $13 billion, and a dozen would cost $99 billion, not including $10 billion to $15 billion for research and development.
DOD is “looking at all aspects of the program,” James Miller, the No. 2 official in the Pentagon's policy shop, said today during a lunch with reporters. With the fiscal year 2012 budget cycle under way, it is time to “make some initial decisions about SSBN(X),” he said.
“I think the signal from the secretary of defense, consistent with his recent speech -- and the follow-on activity that's under way now -- about various types of efficiencies, is that nothing escapes a hard look and SSBN(X) is getting that hard look,” Miller said.
He noted questions about how many missile tubes each sub should have and how much should be spent to make the subs stealthy. But adjustments in those areas, even if they save hundreds of millions of dollars per sub -- which is “not chump change” -- are unlikely to take a big bite out of the cost of the multibillion-dollar boats, he said.
Asked if DOD will be able to significantly cut the cost or merely make adjustments at the margins, Miller said, “The answer . . . at this point, is that I don't know. If you look at the savings associated with one fewer compartment, four fewer launch tubes or other modest changes in stealth -- given that you're going to have this platform a long time, you want it to be pretty stealthy -- I think you're not going to drive that down substantially.”
But, he added, the Pentagon is asking in “a relatively open-ended way right now” about the potential to find additional savings in the program.
House authorizers have proposed developing a new nuclear ballistic missile that is smaller than the Trident II D-5 weapon. That might enable DOD to go with a smaller design for SSBN(X) based on the existing Virginia-class attack sub hull, the lawmakers argue.
“We're looking at a wide range of options,” Miller said. “And we've noted the interest in that option by the House and others.” The House version of the FY-11 defense authorization bill would withhold authority to obligate more than half of the funds requested for SSBN(X) development until DOD provides Congress additional information and certifies it must stick with the Trident II D-5. The Senate version authorizes the administration's $493 million request for the program.
Asked if DOD would consider rethinking the entire concept of the program, Miller said, “The starting point is to understand that we intend to maintain the triad and . . . the submarine-based leg is the most secure and that is likely to be the case for the long term if we make the appropriate investments.” From that starting point, he added, the department will "look for alternative concepts."
"I believe we have a well thought out program. It is just extremely expensive so we're having a hard look at places to save dollars," he said.
The Navy has told the Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Research Service that the new sub would probably be about the same size and have roughly the same displacement as an existing Ohio-class sub, even if the number of missile tubes on each SSBN(X) is 16 or 20 relative to the 24 on the existing sub, according to a CBO report released last month.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Same displacement (thus 18,000+ tons), however with smaller number of Missiles tubes. Then what the extra room for..??
Could be:
1. Better crew quarters..?? (I do believe they will not spare rooms for covert operations crew..I mean they will not use boomer for covert operations though..)
2. Better sillencing facilities...??
3. Double or Twin Hull...??
Interesting...
This will be the first US sub designed for male and female crew members so the extra room for more surface ship type berthings will be needed.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #26
Possibly all 3 of those. Remeber the Russian Typhone class has 20 missiles and its bigger than the Ohio class.
At minimum 16-20 missiles on 12 ships each with MIRV warheads will be more then enough for the sea based leg of the triad.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Right..I've forgot that USN finally agree for female sub crews. I'm not a male chauvinist..however I still doubt the wisdom having mix sex crews on a nuclear sub which has to be underwater for at least 4-6 months.
It'll increase the costs since the some seperations has to be placed..but can it really provide better performances..?? other that some 'politically correct' decissions. I'mean it's not like USN having trouble on manning the subs though..
Lesser number of Boomers (18 vs 12) with lesser number of missiles (24 vs 16 or 20). I believe the MIRV will not be different in numbers compared what's now in current SLBM. In the mean time the Russian aimed for only 8 Boreys, while (from Russsian sources) seems they will not maintain the Delta's and Typhoons after the end of this decade. Seems it's confirm that the next START will aimed on significant reductions on deployed missiles and war head.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #28
1550 warheads is still a lot, enough for the US and Russia to wipe each other out let alone the entire human race.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #29
NTI: Global Security Newswire - Proposed Ballistic-Missile Submarine Nears Pentagon Review
The U.S. Navy's emerging plans for a new nuclear-armed submarine are slated to undergo a pivotal Defense Department review in November, with the initial backing of a key congressional committee in hand
(Sep. 27) - A top-level Pentagon board is set in November to review Navy plans for initial work on a next-generation replacement for U.S. Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarines, like the one shown above (U.S. Navy photo).
The Senate Appropriations Committee on Sept. 14 said it fully supported the fiscal 2011 plans to perform design, engineering and prototyping work on the next-generation ballistic-missile submarine.
Lawmakers noted, though, that they had imposed a 10 percent reduction in funds on the Obama administration request for $493 million because program delays this past year would prevent the Navy from completing all its earlier anticipated work for 2011. The partial funding would leave the effort with $444.7 million for the coming year.
The Senate panel's counterpart committee in the House has not yet acted on an unreleased subcommittee version of the defense appropriations bill. However, according to one Washington insider, the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee offered full funding for the proposed submarine, dubbed the "SSBN(X)."
With the new fiscal year beginning on Oct. 1, Congress is expected to pass a continuing resolution that would allow the Defense Department to maintain operations temporarily until the appropriations legislation is enacted. For the more formal legislation, defense appropriations would likely be consolidated with other funding bills into an omnibus spending package, sources said.
Meanwhile, the Navy this summer reportedly submitted to Ashton Carter, the Pentagon acquisition czar, its major design recommendations for the new submarine, which is to replace today's Ohio-class vessels.
Carter earlier this month said that to cut costs, the Defense Department would limit the replacement submarine's "size and speed," though he indicated that design details remained classified.
An "emphasis on affordability is already being applied to the next-generation ballistic missile submarine, where we are trimming [design] requirements without compromising critical capability," said Defense Secretary Robert Gates, appearing alongside Carter at a Sept. 14 press briefing.
"The per-unit estimated cost had risen as high as $7 billion. It is now roughly $5 billion," Gates said. "The goal is a reduction of fully 27 percent in a program where total cost is expected to be more than $100 billion."
Design features to be decided during the Defense Acquisition Board meeting, led by Carter, will include how many launch tubes each boat will contain, which could affect the number of weapons the vessel can carry, according to defense sources. Today's Ohio-class submarines feature 24 launch tubes, each of which can shoot a single Trident 2 D-5 ballistic missile.
Another detail on the drawing boards is the size of each launch tube, which could affect the types of future missile the submarine might field.
Like today's nuclear-armed submarines, the replacement vessels will initially carry the Trident D-5. The new boats are also expected to be capable of carrying a next generation of nuclear-armed missiles. They might be fitted with a small number of conventionally armed weapons, as well, according to Navy officials.
Retaining D-5 missile capability in the new submarine will help maintain continuity during a 13-year period between 2029 and 2042, when the Ohio-class boats gradually retire and their replacements are introduced into the force, Rear Adm. Terry Benedict, director of the Navy Strategic Systems Planning office, said in July on Capitol Hill.
Under the "New START" nuclear arms control agreement, signed by the United States and Russia in April, the Pentagon anticipates reducing its Ohio-class vessels from 14 to 12 and capping its Trident D-5 missile force at 240.
Today the fleet carries 288 deployed D-5s, armed with a total 1,152 nuclear warheads, according to Robert Norris and Hans Kristensen. The reduction in two vessels by the end of this decade is not, in itself, expected to affect the number of D-5 warheads fielded at that time, the two nuclear force analysts reported. The numbers would allow for a slightly higher average warhead loading on each missile, if the Pentagon so desired.
If Carter's review board approves Navy plans, the SSBN(X) effort will move into its first major phase as a Pentagon acquisition program, called "Milestone A."
Leading up to the November gathering, the Navy in May 2009 completed an analysis that explored various alternatives for meeting a continued military requirement for a portion of the nation's nuclear stockpile to be deployed on submarines, according to service budget documents. The Pentagon has not released the results of the classified study.
A final report on the Navy's review of options was completed last September and, in December 2009, the Pentagon's Program Analysis and Evaluation Office certified the service's assessment, the Navy documents state.
However, the House Armed Services Committee earlier this year told the Defense Department it was dissatisfied with the process thus far. It admonished the Pentagon for not sharing with Capitol Hill more information about its analysis of alternatives, in advance of the Milestone A decision and the administration's request for hundreds of millions of dollars in new program spending.
The lawmakers said in May that although they support the continuation of a "robust sea-based strategic deterrent force" after the Ohio-class submarines retire, the Defense Department has moved too hastily on deciding what capabilities the new boats must have.
"First," the panel stated in its report on the fiscal 2011 defense authorization bill, "the basic requirement of how much and what type of deterrent capability is sufficient for the national military strategy has not been communicated to the committee."
Second, the lawmakers complained, the House panel "has not been afforded the opportunity to review the analysis of alternatives conducted by the Navy, which determined that a submarine large enough to support the Trident 2 D-5 missile weapons system is the preferred vessel to continue deterrent capability."
Finally, the committee said it "has concerns that the decision to proceed with a submarine program of similar size as the Ohio-class ships was made prior to the analysis of alternatives, and that a potential use of a modified Virginia-class submarine, in production today, was discounted in favor of maintaining the Trident 2 D-5 weapons system."
Using the smaller Virginia-class attack submarine as a basis for the new SSBN(X) could help the Navy avoid billions of dollars in spending on a new design, according to advocates. The drawback, detractors say, is that without a major redesign, a submarine smaller than the Ohio-class design would likely be limited to carrying shorter-range ballistic missiles.
If the Trident D-5 were required to fit inside a Virginia-class design, the service would have to modify the submarine with a "humpback" silhouette to make it capable of housing the weapon's long missile tubes, Kristensen said last month.
In an e-mailed response to questions last week, he said the time has come to reassess whether such long-range missiles -- and a correspondingly large submarine to accommodate them -- are still required in the post-Cold War era.
"For the foreseeable future, it simply makes no sense to design an SSBN with a capability similar to what was needed to evade Soviet attack submarines, equip it with long-range SLBMs [submarine-launched ballistic missiles] to maximize patrol areas, and deploy these SSBNs with two crews at an operational tempo that is similar to what we did during the height of the Cold War," said Kristensen, who directs the Nuclear Information Program at the Federation of American Scientists.
"Given the enormous price tag, Russia's problems in fielding its next SSBN and SLBM, China's slow SSBN program and recent SLBM development problems, Britain's inability to afford a new SSBN, and India's growing SSBN plans, I think it is time to think about how to limit deployment and operations of nuclear weapons at sea, rather than continuing business as usual but with more [international] players," he said.
However, one retired submarine officer said it is imperative that the Navy effort embrace new technologies and avoid getting mired in delays. The source asked not to be named in this article because he was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
"We need to move forward with the new submarine. There is no plausible future where it isn't required," he told Global Security Newswire last week. "The last ships of the [new] class will still be in service 60 to 70 years from now. That puts a great premium on building in flexibility and adaptability and using the best technology available. That costs money."
The former officer said Gates should move cautiously in his effort to trim costs on the next-generation vessel.
"Balancing the need for building such a ship with the equally important need to control costs is a real challenge for DOD and the Navy, [but] like so many public policy decisions, it isn't a choice between right and wrong but a balance between competing-but-incompatible goals," the retired submariner said.
By contrast, Kristensen suggested that SSBN(X) costs could be more significantly reduced as part of a fundamental reassessment of how strategic security requirements translate into military hardware.
"I'm all for Defense Secretary Gates' effort to trim the SSBN requirements," he said. "But it should not just be about saving money, but also about changing the nuclear posture and [reducing] the role of nuclear weapons."
Kristensen was referring to President Barack Obama's April 2009 pledge in Prague to "reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same." A year later, the Pentagon committed itself to implementing that objective as part of its Nuclear Posture Review, a 49-page report on strategy, forces and readiness.
The administration announced some limited changes to nuclear targeting policy in the posture review and has continued Bush-era investments in long-range, conventionally armed "prompt global strike" weapons as a niche alternative to atomic arms.
However, some critics grumble that the administration could take additional substantial steps to bring its warhead and delivery-system investments more in line with the goal of limiting the role of nuclear weapons.
At a July hearing, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) asked whether the Navy had "done any studies on whether a replacement such as the Virginia-class submarine can perform the same [nuclear deterrence] duties, with obviously an alteration in the missiles and the ship somewhat."
Navy Undersecretary Robert Work responded that his service had indeed considered that option in its analysis of alternatives.
However, Work said, "the judgment is that because we have elected to go with the D-5 missile, that using the Virginia is not the right way to go, that it is a much better and more efficient thing to exploit our existing infrastructure on a 42- or 43-foot diameter hull."
Skelton scolded Work for what he said appeared to be a Navy failure to consider the use of a smaller missile in the next-generation boat, which might make the Virginia-class design more feasible as an alternative. Any need to design a larger replacement submarine "might well eat into your attempt" to field a 313-ship Navy, he said.
"I think you ought to ask the engineers about a missile that might fit in the smaller submarine rather than the multibillion dollars you might have to sink into a replacement for the Ohio-class submarine," the committee chairman said.
Skelton's panel stated in its May defense spending document that it would "withhold authority" for the Pentagon to obligate more than half of the $493 million in fiscal 2011 funds requested for the SSBN(X) development program, "until the secretary of defense certifies to the committee the necessity to continue sea-based deterrence with the Trident 2 D-5 weapons system."
This defense-secretary report is also expected to spell out the guidance the Navy used in crafting its list of alternatives, projected costs and schedules for any alternatives, and the "reasoning" the Navy used in opting to require that the new boat carry the D-5 missile.
No similar language was advanced by the committee's counterpart panel in the Senate.
Clarification: An earlier version of this article should have stated that while a reduction in Ohio-class boats from 14 to 12 by the end of this decade is not expected to affect the number of Trident D-5 nuclear warheads deployed at that time, limits set by a U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control deal would likely result by 2018 in fewer than the 1,152 warheads deployed aboard submarines today.
The U.S. Navy's emerging plans for a new nuclear-armed submarine are slated to undergo a pivotal Defense Department review in November, with the initial backing of a key congressional committee in hand
The Senate Appropriations Committee on Sept. 14 said it fully supported the fiscal 2011 plans to perform design, engineering and prototyping work on the next-generation ballistic-missile submarine.
Lawmakers noted, though, that they had imposed a 10 percent reduction in funds on the Obama administration request for $493 million because program delays this past year would prevent the Navy from completing all its earlier anticipated work for 2011. The partial funding would leave the effort with $444.7 million for the coming year.
The Senate panel's counterpart committee in the House has not yet acted on an unreleased subcommittee version of the defense appropriations bill. However, according to one Washington insider, the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee offered full funding for the proposed submarine, dubbed the "SSBN(X)."
With the new fiscal year beginning on Oct. 1, Congress is expected to pass a continuing resolution that would allow the Defense Department to maintain operations temporarily until the appropriations legislation is enacted. For the more formal legislation, defense appropriations would likely be consolidated with other funding bills into an omnibus spending package, sources said.
Meanwhile, the Navy this summer reportedly submitted to Ashton Carter, the Pentagon acquisition czar, its major design recommendations for the new submarine, which is to replace today's Ohio-class vessels.
Carter earlier this month said that to cut costs, the Defense Department would limit the replacement submarine's "size and speed," though he indicated that design details remained classified.
An "emphasis on affordability is already being applied to the next-generation ballistic missile submarine, where we are trimming [design] requirements without compromising critical capability," said Defense Secretary Robert Gates, appearing alongside Carter at a Sept. 14 press briefing.
"The per-unit estimated cost had risen as high as $7 billion. It is now roughly $5 billion," Gates said. "The goal is a reduction of fully 27 percent in a program where total cost is expected to be more than $100 billion."
Design features to be decided during the Defense Acquisition Board meeting, led by Carter, will include how many launch tubes each boat will contain, which could affect the number of weapons the vessel can carry, according to defense sources. Today's Ohio-class submarines feature 24 launch tubes, each of which can shoot a single Trident 2 D-5 ballistic missile.
Another detail on the drawing boards is the size of each launch tube, which could affect the types of future missile the submarine might field.
Like today's nuclear-armed submarines, the replacement vessels will initially carry the Trident D-5. The new boats are also expected to be capable of carrying a next generation of nuclear-armed missiles. They might be fitted with a small number of conventionally armed weapons, as well, according to Navy officials.
Retaining D-5 missile capability in the new submarine will help maintain continuity during a 13-year period between 2029 and 2042, when the Ohio-class boats gradually retire and their replacements are introduced into the force, Rear Adm. Terry Benedict, director of the Navy Strategic Systems Planning office, said in July on Capitol Hill.
Under the "New START" nuclear arms control agreement, signed by the United States and Russia in April, the Pentagon anticipates reducing its Ohio-class vessels from 14 to 12 and capping its Trident D-5 missile force at 240.
Today the fleet carries 288 deployed D-5s, armed with a total 1,152 nuclear warheads, according to Robert Norris and Hans Kristensen. The reduction in two vessels by the end of this decade is not, in itself, expected to affect the number of D-5 warheads fielded at that time, the two nuclear force analysts reported. The numbers would allow for a slightly higher average warhead loading on each missile, if the Pentagon so desired.
If Carter's review board approves Navy plans, the SSBN(X) effort will move into its first major phase as a Pentagon acquisition program, called "Milestone A."
Leading up to the November gathering, the Navy in May 2009 completed an analysis that explored various alternatives for meeting a continued military requirement for a portion of the nation's nuclear stockpile to be deployed on submarines, according to service budget documents. The Pentagon has not released the results of the classified study.
A final report on the Navy's review of options was completed last September and, in December 2009, the Pentagon's Program Analysis and Evaluation Office certified the service's assessment, the Navy documents state.
However, the House Armed Services Committee earlier this year told the Defense Department it was dissatisfied with the process thus far. It admonished the Pentagon for not sharing with Capitol Hill more information about its analysis of alternatives, in advance of the Milestone A decision and the administration's request for hundreds of millions of dollars in new program spending.
The lawmakers said in May that although they support the continuation of a "robust sea-based strategic deterrent force" after the Ohio-class submarines retire, the Defense Department has moved too hastily on deciding what capabilities the new boats must have.
"First," the panel stated in its report on the fiscal 2011 defense authorization bill, "the basic requirement of how much and what type of deterrent capability is sufficient for the national military strategy has not been communicated to the committee."
Second, the lawmakers complained, the House panel "has not been afforded the opportunity to review the analysis of alternatives conducted by the Navy, which determined that a submarine large enough to support the Trident 2 D-5 missile weapons system is the preferred vessel to continue deterrent capability."
Finally, the committee said it "has concerns that the decision to proceed with a submarine program of similar size as the Ohio-class ships was made prior to the analysis of alternatives, and that a potential use of a modified Virginia-class submarine, in production today, was discounted in favor of maintaining the Trident 2 D-5 weapons system."
Using the smaller Virginia-class attack submarine as a basis for the new SSBN(X) could help the Navy avoid billions of dollars in spending on a new design, according to advocates. The drawback, detractors say, is that without a major redesign, a submarine smaller than the Ohio-class design would likely be limited to carrying shorter-range ballistic missiles.
If the Trident D-5 were required to fit inside a Virginia-class design, the service would have to modify the submarine with a "humpback" silhouette to make it capable of housing the weapon's long missile tubes, Kristensen said last month.
In an e-mailed response to questions last week, he said the time has come to reassess whether such long-range missiles -- and a correspondingly large submarine to accommodate them -- are still required in the post-Cold War era.
"For the foreseeable future, it simply makes no sense to design an SSBN with a capability similar to what was needed to evade Soviet attack submarines, equip it with long-range SLBMs [submarine-launched ballistic missiles] to maximize patrol areas, and deploy these SSBNs with two crews at an operational tempo that is similar to what we did during the height of the Cold War," said Kristensen, who directs the Nuclear Information Program at the Federation of American Scientists.
"Given the enormous price tag, Russia's problems in fielding its next SSBN and SLBM, China's slow SSBN program and recent SLBM development problems, Britain's inability to afford a new SSBN, and India's growing SSBN plans, I think it is time to think about how to limit deployment and operations of nuclear weapons at sea, rather than continuing business as usual but with more [international] players," he said.
However, one retired submarine officer said it is imperative that the Navy effort embrace new technologies and avoid getting mired in delays. The source asked not to be named in this article because he was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
"We need to move forward with the new submarine. There is no plausible future where it isn't required," he told Global Security Newswire last week. "The last ships of the [new] class will still be in service 60 to 70 years from now. That puts a great premium on building in flexibility and adaptability and using the best technology available. That costs money."
The former officer said Gates should move cautiously in his effort to trim costs on the next-generation vessel.
"Balancing the need for building such a ship with the equally important need to control costs is a real challenge for DOD and the Navy, [but] like so many public policy decisions, it isn't a choice between right and wrong but a balance between competing-but-incompatible goals," the retired submariner said.
By contrast, Kristensen suggested that SSBN(X) costs could be more significantly reduced as part of a fundamental reassessment of how strategic security requirements translate into military hardware.
"I'm all for Defense Secretary Gates' effort to trim the SSBN requirements," he said. "But it should not just be about saving money, but also about changing the nuclear posture and [reducing] the role of nuclear weapons."
Kristensen was referring to President Barack Obama's April 2009 pledge in Prague to "reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same." A year later, the Pentagon committed itself to implementing that objective as part of its Nuclear Posture Review, a 49-page report on strategy, forces and readiness.
The administration announced some limited changes to nuclear targeting policy in the posture review and has continued Bush-era investments in long-range, conventionally armed "prompt global strike" weapons as a niche alternative to atomic arms.
However, some critics grumble that the administration could take additional substantial steps to bring its warhead and delivery-system investments more in line with the goal of limiting the role of nuclear weapons.
At a July hearing, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) asked whether the Navy had "done any studies on whether a replacement such as the Virginia-class submarine can perform the same [nuclear deterrence] duties, with obviously an alteration in the missiles and the ship somewhat."
Navy Undersecretary Robert Work responded that his service had indeed considered that option in its analysis of alternatives.
However, Work said, "the judgment is that because we have elected to go with the D-5 missile, that using the Virginia is not the right way to go, that it is a much better and more efficient thing to exploit our existing infrastructure on a 42- or 43-foot diameter hull."
Skelton scolded Work for what he said appeared to be a Navy failure to consider the use of a smaller missile in the next-generation boat, which might make the Virginia-class design more feasible as an alternative. Any need to design a larger replacement submarine "might well eat into your attempt" to field a 313-ship Navy, he said.
"I think you ought to ask the engineers about a missile that might fit in the smaller submarine rather than the multibillion dollars you might have to sink into a replacement for the Ohio-class submarine," the committee chairman said.
Skelton's panel stated in its May defense spending document that it would "withhold authority" for the Pentagon to obligate more than half of the $493 million in fiscal 2011 funds requested for the SSBN(X) development program, "until the secretary of defense certifies to the committee the necessity to continue sea-based deterrence with the Trident 2 D-5 weapons system."
This defense-secretary report is also expected to spell out the guidance the Navy used in crafting its list of alternatives, projected costs and schedules for any alternatives, and the "reasoning" the Navy used in opting to require that the new boat carry the D-5 missile.
No similar language was advanced by the committee's counterpart panel in the Senate.
Clarification: An earlier version of this article should have stated that while a reduction in Ohio-class boats from 14 to 12 by the end of this decade is not expected to affect the number of Trident D-5 nuclear warheads deployed at that time, limits set by a U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control deal would likely result by 2018 in fewer than the 1,152 warheads deployed aboard submarines today.
EXSSBN2005
New Member
Prompt global strike is a mission better suited for land based launchers that can be designated as such(should be another topic). Sea based SLBMs due to their shorter flight times and that they will have the same flight characteristic as a nuclear tipped SLBM. The decision to use a smaller (and less capable) missle is apparently why the Congressman is getting hung up on. He has probably never been on a submarine other than maybe a tour of a WW2 musieum ship and has no clue what he is talking about as far as weither the dimentions can be easily worked around to make a smaller ship in relation to the current ships. The LA class that was moored ahead of my ship when we put in to point loma looked tiny compaired to an Ohio class (I got a tour on that boat for the cost of a tour of ours). It will be an interesting 12 years to see what they are planning and what shape it finally takes.
Ananda-
Right..I've forgot that USN finally agree for female sub crews. I'm not a male chauvinist..however I still doubt the wisdom having mix sex crews on a nuclear sub which has to be underwater for at least 4-6 months.
It'll increase the costs since the some seperations has to be placed..but can it really provide better performances..?? other that some 'politically correct' decissions. I'mean it's not like USN having trouble on manning the subs though..
Actually talking to some of the guys who are still in the service, personnel that are on the ships slated to be mixed gender are putting in for transfers to just about any boat that is not fully manned, I believe it will be a mistake but its one that has to be made in order to prove if its the right choice or the wrong one. (One of the reasons that they wanted to do it was they were/are having trouble retaining the nuclear trained female operators, so they figured that letting them on submarines will help to keep them in uniform when they can get out and make 4-5 times as much as when they were in, those that wanted children, and possiable medical reasons associated with pregnancy.) (again a topic for another thread but iirc one has already been started on it.)
Ananda-
Right..I've forgot that USN finally agree for female sub crews. I'm not a male chauvinist..however I still doubt the wisdom having mix sex crews on a nuclear sub which has to be underwater for at least 4-6 months.
It'll increase the costs since the some seperations has to be placed..but can it really provide better performances..?? other that some 'politically correct' decissions. I'mean it's not like USN having trouble on manning the subs though..
Actually talking to some of the guys who are still in the service, personnel that are on the ships slated to be mixed gender are putting in for transfers to just about any boat that is not fully manned, I believe it will be a mistake but its one that has to be made in order to prove if its the right choice or the wrong one. (One of the reasons that they wanted to do it was they were/are having trouble retaining the nuclear trained female operators, so they figured that letting them on submarines will help to keep them in uniform when they can get out and make 4-5 times as much as when they were in, those that wanted children, and possiable medical reasons associated with pregnancy.) (again a topic for another thread but iirc one has already been started on it.)
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Thanks for the info.
Again I'm not going to debate on gender issue on women in uniform, even in Moeslem country like Indonesia here, there already some acceptance for woman role in combat although still limited one (more on logistics duties).
However mixed sex crews on Nuclear subs for me is a little bit too far.
Last edited:
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #32
All we know now is that the Navy has opted for the SSBN(X) to carry the Trident II D-5 and it will be 42 or 43 feet in diameter which is the same size as an Ohio class submarine. And carry 16 or 20 missiles plus torpedo tubes.
The mixed sex crews are not the only reason why the new sub will be roughly the same size as an Ohio, it also has to be big enough to fit the D-5 missile, and I don't think anyone wants to be cramped up on a Virginia class size sub which is like living in a sardine can for 6 months.
Hans Kristensen is an anti-nuclear activist. His bio indicates that he has education in biology and mathematics, but does not list any degrees awarded or work in those areas. He has coauthored a large number of papers in the disarmament area, and is apparently a popular speaker and media consultant.
He does not know much about project costs and time required if he thinks a new class of missile can be quickly and cheaply developed as a cost saving step. Or that putting a “hump” on a Virginia class hull will not significantly degrade the stealth characteristics. Actually, I suspect that he does know these things, and hopes that the inevitable problems and delays will sink getting any new SSBNs.
The members of Congress are just playing to their political base in the run-up to the November elections.
Even a cursory inspection will show that sticking with the Trident D-5 is actually all about cost savings. It avoids the need to develop a new missile system, which far exceeds any cost savings from a smaller SSBM.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #34
I agree 100% with you, Hans really has no idea what he is talking about and the larger Ohio class size sub is much better which is why thats what the Navy is going for I think.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #35
With a limit of 240 Trident II missiles under the new START, Ohio class subs will carry only 20 missiles now instead of 24.
The SSBN(X) could carry anywhere from 16 to 24 missiles tubes.
NTI: Global Security Newswire - U.S. May Disable Some Submarine-Based Nuclear Arms Capacity
The SSBN(X) could carry anywhere from 16 to 24 missiles tubes.
NTI: Global Security Newswire - U.S. May Disable Some Submarine-Based Nuclear Arms Capacity
Maybe they can convert the 4 extra tubes into silos for conventional armed cruise missiles.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Why do I got the feeling that 16 tubes will be number
With increasing nuclear missiles reducement, and potential increasing inter-services budget fight, in my oppinion the most probable way for SSBN(X) got 24 tubes, if the sumber of SSBN(X) reduced from 12 (not likely if Russian managed getting 8 Borei's), or US reduces significantly USAF land based ICBM.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11527/05-25-NavyShipbuilding.pdf
See pages 15/16 in the doc (pgs 27/28 in the pdf) of the referred CBO report.Why do I got the feeling that 16 tubes will be number
With increasing nuclear missiles reducement, and potential increasing inter-services budget fight, in my oppinion the most probable way for SSBN(X) got 24 tubes, if the sumber of SSBN(X) reduced from 12 (not likely if Russian managed getting 8 Borei's), or US reduces significantly USAF land based ICBM.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11527/05-25-NavyShipbuilding.pdf
localhost127
Member
is this wise? since launching of sub-launched weapons is incredibly loud...Maybe they can convert the 4 extra tubes into silos for conventional armed cruise missiles.
if a boomer were suddenly launching conventional weapons (vs essentially hiding and staying quiet for its entire life cycle), wouldnt that put it in the position of being exposed or heard more often? what are the benefits of a boomer launching conventional weapons, when there are cheaper and more-dedicated platforms already available?
would a boomer launching conventional weapons (thus, being heard/exposed) take away from its primary mission?
or would it be wise to simply have the capability (conv cruise missiles) onboard, even though it may not never use them / wouldnt be the primary platform/role for launching.
thanks,
SLBM are loud, cruise missiles are much less so. Mostly because the Trident weighs 59 tons vs. 1.5 tons for the Tomahawk.
The goal, which you note at the end, is to increase platform capability, which in turn gives more options to military and political planners. One of the things that I worry about is the persistent demands to create a ‘prompt conventional strike’ capability, usually based around ICBM’s. Since these would be almost indestingish from a nuclear launch, there is a higher probability that mistakes can be made. The more likely they are to have an available alternative, the less pressure to build it.
- Status