View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
The Bandit
Joined: 14 Sep 2002 Posts: 1167 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:22 pm Post subject: New American SSBNs??? |
|
|
Well I was just on strategypage, I think it was, and I read somthing that the said somthing along the lines of "The united states is developing a new class of SSBN that will essentially be a Virginia with a missile "plug" in it." now is this just more crap you find on the internet, or is there some truth to it? It wouldn't suprise me to see the americans doing a feasibuility study "Do you think we can add a missile compartment to a Virginia class and make it a boomer?" but the way it was talked about, it sounded very certain, like they were almost ready to build them. This might be a good idea to save money, but I'm of the oppinnion, that if your going to build a boomer, build it BIG. Look at the Ohio class, they're huge, and they were designed that way so that they could accomodate all the quieting measures the americans could come up with. I think if they're going to build new boomers they'd be smart to come up with an entirly new design. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
XabbaRus
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 Posts: 6949
|
Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But the Virginia is quieter than the Ohio to begin with...
So it seems like a perfect starting point. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TLAM Strike
Joined: 30 Apr 2002 Posts: 4866 Location: Rochester, New York
|
Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that if they installed some kind of modular plug in the sub that could be swapped out with various different equipment it would become the "next big thing" for submarines.
For example a set of say 6 SLBM tubes could be installed then a after an overhaul a set of Rotary TLAM launchers could be installed with a whole bunch of reloads, then a pair of ASDV docks and space for a bunch of SEALs or a full array of ELINT gear or mine laying gear with a 100 or so mines ETC. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Angle
Joined: 09 Nov 2003 Posts: 88
|
Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
They should develop an all new SSBN and be prepared when the life cycle of the ohio class ends. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Scion
Joined: 31 May 2001 Posts: 1552 Location: New Zealand
|
Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why? If something will work completely fine, why spend the money to get something else that does the same thing all together again?
It would be quite interesting, having modular sections that can be added and removed with relative ease. You could have your basic design with no addons, and add hull sections as desired...
You wouldnt necessarily be limited to adding one section at a time. If both ends had the same dimensions, you could have a sub with all of the addons, or none. Imagine a SSBGN \ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Angle
Joined: 09 Nov 2003 Posts: 88
|
Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yea. ok. If it ain't broke don't fix it. right. Guess we should keep the ohio class for the next 50 years. goes with all our other equipment that works just fine. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
clive bradbury
Joined: 05 Jun 2004 Posts: 510 Location: stoke-on-trent, UK
|
Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Cold War is long over, and the US is cutting spending on its submarine fleet as a result. In the post-Soviet world, why do they need SSBNs? There is certainly no longer any need for a covert, mobile, nuclear strike capability. For all their posturing, the Chinese will join the capitalist economy as soon as they possibly can without losing face.
Following that logic, the US does not need a massive nuclear strike capability. Ironically, with hindsight, they probably never did. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Molon Labe
Joined: 16 Jun 2004 Posts: 1052 Location: Bloomington, IN, USA
|
Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Even with hindsight, it seems like SSBN's were a great idea. Not only did they deter a nuclear strike, but Russia bankrupted themselves trying to develop quieter subs that could escape our detection and be able to track US SSBN's (of course, this was only one part of Soviet military spending, but it was very important).
Today, we face developing nuclear threats from China and North Korea, with several other states developing nuclear warheads and the missiles to carry them. Russia is unstable enough that a return to the bad old days is a possibility--or perhaps they could become an adversary again simply due to stategic interests. While we don't need a nuclear force as big as we did in the Cold War, we would be fools to completely disarm now. We'd only find ourselves rebuilding the fleet in a hurry to face a new threat. Better to stay prepared. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Angle
Joined: 09 Nov 2003 Posts: 88
|
Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
clive bradbury wrote: | The Cold War is long over, and the US is cutting spending on its submarine fleet as a result. In the post-Soviet world, why do they need SSBNs? There is certainly no longer any need for a covert, mobile, nuclear strike capability. For all their posturing, the Chinese will join the capitalist economy as soon as they possibly can without losing face.
Following that logic, the US does not need a massive nuclear strike capability. Ironically, with hindsight, they probably never did. |
heh. we've been burned before cutting back on military assets then having to to R&D during a war to come up with anything good. several world wars come to mind. except development of new equipment takes longer now days because of the technology. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Torpedo Fodder
Joined: 02 Aug 2003 Posts: 1224 Location: Whitby, Ontario
|
Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | The Cold War is long over, and the US is cutting spending on its submarine fleet as a result. In the post-Soviet world, why do they need SSBNs? |
Because the US has severely cut the other arms of it's nuclear force, leaving SSBNs as it's primary deterrant. using SSBNs also allows more flexibility in deciding whether or not to launch a nuclear counterattack, because even in this day and age accidents can happen, like how in 1994 Russia mistook a Norweigan weather rocket for a Trident missile, and almost launched a counterattack against the US. Using SSBNs (which are essentialy immune to counterattack) allows you the luxery to wait and confirm that you are infact under nuclear attack, where if you have a land base force you might be more tempted to use it rather than risk losing it, even without confirmation.
EDIT: I'd like to take this opportunity to test out my new sig banner: what do y'all think?
Last edited by Torpedo Fodder on Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TLAM Strike
Joined: 30 Apr 2002 Posts: 4866 Location: Rochester, New York
|
Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like it Torpedo Fodder, I'm almost temped to do a Blue Sun Corp one.
Molon Labe and TF our correct the SSBN force is just as important today as it was during the Cold War.
An SSBGN eh? I don't think they would want to risk strategic assets on a TLAM attack. A SMGN (Mine Laying Submarine-Cruise Missiles-Nuclear) or STGN (Transport Submarine-Cruise Missiles-Nuclear) might be a good idea for Littoral Combat. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Torpedo Fodder
Joined: 02 Aug 2003 Posts: 1224 Location: Whitby, Ontario
|
Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | I like it Torpedo Fodder, I'm almost temped to do a Blue Sun Corp one. |
Well I could do one, I've already tracked down a Blue Sun logo on the internet, and of course anyone whose watched a single episode of Firefly would know their slogan. Unfortunately, the only logo I found on the net is a little bland:
http://www.average-bear.com/firefly/img/bluesun.jpg
But no biggie: I gould just use photoshop to give it a more 3D look like the W-Y logo I used for my banner (of course, I didn't make that one, but I'm pretty sure I can achieve the same effect with the BS logo). The last thing I would need is a humerous disclaimer... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TLAM Strike
Joined: 30 Apr 2002 Posts: 4866 Location: Rochester, New York
|
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here is a better verson of the logo:
I don't know what the disclamer could be... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Torpedo Fodder
Joined: 02 Aug 2003 Posts: 1224 Location: Whitby, Ontario
|
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | I don't know what the disclamer could be... |
Well I've decided that it might not be a bad idea to go with a disclaimer of a similar vein to the W-Y one: take the "Live life with Blue Sun" slogan and add the disclaimer "Your definition of 'life' may differ from that of the Blue Sun corporation, it's subsiduaries and shereholders": even funnier than the W-Y one, IMHO... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TLAM Strike
Joined: 30 Apr 2002 Posts: 4866 Location: Rochester, New York
|
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe; Live life with Blue Sun:
"By using Blue Sun products you agree that your life, brain or body maybe used to test new Blue Sun products."
heheh brain hint hint... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|