Virginia Submarine Discontinued

[Deathblow]

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw050124_1_n.shtml

Looks like the even the Virginia Class has been deemed too cost ineffective for a 30 boat order. Rumor has it that the USN is seeking a even smaller, cheaper design. One that breaks away from existing sub designs and may utilize shaftless drives, all externally mounted weapons, and new ship infrastructure.

http://www.generaldynamics.com/news/press_releases/2005/NewsRelease%20May%2026,%202005-3.htm :hmm:

[Kresge]

Hmmmm...Maybe Walmart can get us a good deal on those new Chinese subs?
:shifty:

[Bort]

This new revalation only further reinforces that the Bush administration is totally disinterested in undersea warfare. It's a bad move that we'll pay for in a future conflict :down:

[Subnuts]

There is a reason for all this, you know...

http://img421.imageshack.us/img421/7997/defensespending7cg.jpg

[Oberon]

Sounds like Bush is picking up Britains bad habits when it comes to military spending :down:

[diver]

:nope: :damn: :hulk: :down:
Of course submarine classes are going to be too expensive if you only build a few boats each.

I mean Seawolf was cancelled because it was too expensive (after 3 hulls, 1 was very different from the first 2) so they decided to start the virginia class for a modern, affordable design for new worlds challenges. But now they are canning it because it is too expensive too, so they want a cost effective modern design for the new challenges.
Anybody else dizzy after this cycle? Whats the odds the new class is cancelled after three boats because it is too expensive.

Heres a thought, build more submarines and the costs go down, I mean most of the costs for a first of class sub are research and design which are then passed on to the others of the class. Stick with a design and they will get cheaper, much cheaper.

The last two US leaders have really buggered US naval warfare, unfortunatly its more than likely thousands will suffer in the future as a result.

[Deathblow]

Well IMHO the USN can't figure out what the heck it wants. By the time they invest resources into one naval philosophy, that philosophy has already been rendered obsolete, so its unwilling to put too many eggs in one basket. There are also too many potential technologies and concepts, which challenge old design paradiagms, that they want to try out which is stalling a long-term investment.

Or maybe the USN knows what it needs, but its so different than the previous philosophy of "supersubs" that its been hard to bring itself to invest in smaller and cheaper designs. Old habits are hard to break so the Virginia was sortof a half way point between the "super subs" that the USN was used too and the "small cheap and easy" subs that analyst were recommending. Maybe now that a little more time has past the Navy is ready to change its design philosophies even more.

Oh well, guess we will have to wait until China's Navy progresses to start challenging parts of the Pacific and Indian Ocean, before we see the next "Super Sub"

[Iceman]

Diver & Deathblow are right I think...I just watched a cool program the other day on Discovery how they put the whole project together and the cost of just designing it was crazy...modular design is a great idea why would a navy scrap such an idea... unless they want to go with some of those I think dutch subs or from somewhere that were neigh undetectable...maybe the gov knows more than it wants to let on.Like stealth was a big secret at first..why build this Virginia class at all if it has been determined it is already obsolete...

[Kresge]

Of course politicians play a large role in these decisions and they love to play with the numbers to get what they want.
For example, the F-22.
Factor in all the money spent to develop a new fighter, slash production to 20 fighters and then split the cost between those jets and they can scream about how an F-22 costs $300 million each.

Sound like some are trying to do the same thing with the Virginia.
:down:

[Hellcat]

I realize that by building fewer units you increase your "gearing up" costs associated with production. However looking over some sources did'nt the cost of the 688 class continue to rise with every boat produced?

Prehaps emerging technology is an issue of over concern? Why do the boats have to be the absolute best at what they can do? I'm saying take what makes the boats unique, but why not simply mass produce a boat with the capabilities of the 688i's and start a second class of SSN for more specialized operations. In that way the projects could be balanced better or even more so if each type were to use the same hull.... that just puts us back in the same situation though.

ah hell why not start new production of Diesel Electric boats? 2 dozen would be a nice match to whatever number of Virgina's they end up producing.

[Sea Demon]

I'm still skeptical about a total abandonment of the program. I can believe they will cut back on it, but not eliminate it entirely. Perhaps they're trying to find a way to pressure the manufacturers to provide lower cost alternatives in the program...lest they lose the program totally. On the upside, they are looking into even better technologies, rather than just relying on COTS (commercial-off-the-shelf) tech as an end all.

But if they do abandon it entirely, I think they are making the mistake of a lifetime.

Sea Demon

[Deathblow]

What I've read is that the plan is to cut back to 10 subs instead of 30. With a smaller and cheaper sub developed and ready for construction by 2012.

Everything is just rumors atm.

[Ghost Dog]

10 seems a reasonable number to me. two things need to be considered:

1. submarine fleets are getting smaller, but more effective. the big cold war size fleets are a thing of the past.

2. Technology advances come so fast that it makes sense to invest in fewer subs, so you can replace them with newer ones when new/cheaper technology comes available.

The 10 virginias will combine with the 3 Seawolfs and 40 some odd Los Angeles class. As the Virginias commission, a few 688s are withdrawn. The US Navy has said they wanted a 50 boat submarine force. so, you might see 10 Virginias, 3 Seawolfs and 37 688i. They might drop that number down to 40. By the time the last virginias are hitting the water, a new sub will developed.

Even the Russians, who once had a fleet of some 200 attack submarines have fleet of only 30 attack subs today. Most of the modern navies of the world have less than 20 subs, many have less than 10.

during the height of the Reagan era, secretary lehman wanted a 600 ship navy. They came very close at one point. this is simply not needed anymore.

[Bort]

While I agree that the Navy doesn't need 6oo ships anymore, I do think that the Navy needs substantially more ships than they have now and that without a doubt more subs and more importantly more modern subs are required (70 sounds like a good number). The idea of capping Virginias at 10 units just sounds silly to me, the cost will be to high per boat and we wont get full return on the R&D and production investments we made into the design, which from what I have read, is the best SSN in the world. :up: Building this supposed "new" light nuke just seems goofy and SSK's sillier still for many reasons:
1) The R&D time and costs of new designs when we have a perfectly good one already

2) The costs associated with operating and training personell for five boat types (Ohio, Seawolf, Virginia, XSSN, XSSK) as opposed to the previous objective three (Ohio, Seawolf, Virginia)

3) The costs and training associated getting back into the SSK buisiness that the US abandoned in the 80's

4) By the time these alternative boats are built we probably could have bought more Virginias at a lower overall cost

Bottom line- we should ramp up production of Virginas and concentrate on incorporating any new technological developments into later flights of that design- it's the logical thing to do! :know:

[Kapitan]

russia's Akula II costs less than a seawof and virginia infact i think its about en par with the 688I in cost.

if america cuts any more boats from her fleet then they will kiss good bye 40% of thier supremacy at sea in fact i recon alot more because there also cutting back on destroyers and frigates not to mention the possiblity some older air craft carriers might go for the chop oh and the cruisers.

bad move with out sea power you realy are not a super power americas force of 14 SSBN's 4 SSGN'S AND 44 SSN's are no longer enough to keep track of china's under sea fleet and could be deemed as a tactical disadvantage.

russia still maintains 16 SSBN's 16 SSGN's and 42 SSN's/SSK's
the fact a country like russia can still put more missiles at sea would deem it a greater threat (possibly not so by 2010) *****

but the one millatery machine that helped the cold war is to be smashed to bit when a new threat more like the old one is couming again.

STUPID MOVE

**** russia is to decommission at least another 4 SSBN's 10 SSN'S and rebuild its fleet with new boats by 2020

2020 fleet should look something like this:

12 to 16 SSBN
8 to 12 SSGN
25 to 30 SSN
12 to 16 SSK

[Torpedo Fodder]

For example, the F-22.
Factor in all the money spent to develop a new fighter, slash production to 20 fighters and then split the cost between those jets and they can scream about how an F-22 costs $300 million each.

On that note, I heard a rumor that due to spiraling cost projections, the Air Force may cut back the number of JSFs in plans to buy, and up it's procurtement of F-22s to the 380 it originally wanted, rather than the mere 180 it plans to buy at the moment.

As for the Virginia class, I'm not hedging bets on it's future one way or anyther. Nothing has been confirmed yet as to what they're actually going to do: it'll be 2012 before 10 boats are completed, and in Washington politics, 7 years is a very long time.

[Kapitan]

terrorism also the weather and the fragile stock markets at the moment could spell the end for all the projects if america's oil production looses any more than 25% they country would be hit so hard it wouldnt even be able to maintain the force it main tains now.

this could be the start of a recession or a full scale stock market crash

in 2000 the dollar was $1.42 to the british £1 currently according to bloomberg (stock market channel) the dollar sits at $1.86 to the £1

in five years thats a big big rise my predictions can see the dollar going to $2.10 to the £1 with in the next 5 years and that in its self would be devastating for america, not to mention the debt it owes its own banks which resides at some where around $ 325 million (about average)

inflation has obviously risen oil prices and loads of other things have risen

so could this be the end of america?

no but america will be alot weaker in 10 years time if this carrys on and at current forecasts it seems it will only get worse !

[Deathblow]

2. Technology advances come so fast that it makes sense to invest in fewer subs, so you can replace them with newer ones when new/cheaper technology comes available.

That reminds me of something.

I read in a report that the initial proposals for the NSSN included some 60+ new and unapproven submarine technologies that could be investigated when choosing a final design. But to test all the technologies, every Virginia Class sub would be a custom model in some way, and none as modular, interchangeable, and easily upgradeable as they would have liked..... and thats not even considering the design flexibility that electric drive would permit.

... chances are, that by the time they got past boat 10, the 11th boat could be so different than the first boat that they might as well think about a redesign anyway...

the USN is probably just being honest with itself. By the time 2012 gets around they would be itching to go back to the drawing board anyway.... why make a 30 boat deal.

[Bort]

the USN is probably just being honest with itself. By the time 2012 gets around they would be itching to go back to the drawing board anyway.... why make a 30 boat deal.

Well... By the time we get done with the drawing board, our pockets will be devoid of money, the yards will be screaming for work if they haven't closed down already for lack of it, and the 688's won't be getting any younger. Oh, and while we're futzing around the chinese will be cranking out subs the way McDonald's cranks out burgers. We need plenty of Virginias and we need them to be built as efficiently as possible! :up:

[Torpedo Fodder]

in 2000 the dollar was $1.42 to the british £1 currently according to bloomberg (stock market channel) the dollar sits at $1.86 to the £1

in five years thats a big big rise my predictions can see the dollar going to $2.10 to the £1 with in the next 5 years and that in its self would be devastating for america, not to mention the debt it owes its own banks which resides at some where around $ 325 million (about average)

Why do people assume that the dollar losing value against foreign currencies is automatically bad for the US? A currency that is too high is also bad, as is the case with Canada: Our dollar rose 20 cents against the US dollar in the last 2 years, and that is having a negative impact on our exports to the US.

Lower value currency makes a nations exports more competitive against those of nations with higher currencies, for example, the dollar's decline has made American exports much more competive compared to European exports. Obviously a balance must be maintained, as the currency going too low is also bad, but consider this: there's a reason the Chinese government artifically kept their currency very low in relation to the US dollar until very recently.

[Etienne]

Why do people assume that the dollar losing value against foreign currencies is automatically bad for the US? A currency that is too high is also bad, as is the case with Canada: Our dollar rose 20 cents against the US dollar in the last 2 years, and that is having a negative impact on our exports to the US. .

A low currency is good for a country with a positve international trade balance. The US has the most negative of them all - They're probably the biggest importer of goods. A low currency makes those goods more expensive to buy... And since the US exports manufactured goods (IE, Cars) that are not easily obtainable from another country, a low currency doesn't favor them.

Canada is advantaged by a low currency because most of it's international currency income comes from the export of raw material. Much like a third world country.

And I'm affraid submarines will slowly go the way of the large surface warship. Except for the chinese, most of America's enemies are terrorists. They don't usually have submarines, or means of detecting an approaching F/A 18... A submarine would be overkill.

There's no way to build a numerous class of vessel AND have them up to tech. Technology is simply moving to fast for traditional military procurements methods. Five years between the drawin board and the first - or even fifth - launch makes the ship obsolete before it has left the yard! Well, ok, maybe not obsolete, but definetly not everything it could be.

Some form of modular design and standardized interface is probably the way to go in the long term. But unless American yards can suddenly spit out twenty ships a year, the days of 60 identical warships are gone. And it's not gonna happen - that'd be way too expensive.

[Kapitan]

the 688's and 688I were almost compleately obsolete buy the 12th unit not only did the british trafalgar update but also the russian Akula knocked them off the boards

this is why russia only builds many types and few units

[Psycluded]

the 688's and 688I were almost compleately obsolete buy the 12th unit not only did the british trafalgar update but also the russian Akula knocked them off the boards

this is why russia only builds many types and few units

And you categorically say this based on what evidence?

Edit to add a link to some evidence otherwise.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/971.htm

The Akula is the quietest Russian nuclear submarine ever designed, and the low noise levels came as a surprise to Western intelligence. Russia claims the Akula is the quietest of its domestically built submarines and is fitted with acoustic countermeasure equipment. Noise reduction efforts include rafting the propulsion plant, anechoic tiles on the outside and inside of the hulls and possibly other measures such as active noise cancellation. Nonetheless, the American Improved Los Angeles class retained a decisive edge in silencing compared to the Akuka I. The Project 971A Akula II incorporated an improved double layer silencing system for the power train. According to Russian sources, this variant had noise emissions that were roughly the level of a basic Los Angeles and that of the Improved Los Angeles at slow speeds. At medium or high speeds the Improved Los Angeles design retains an acoustic advantage according to Russian sources. The Project 971 uses advanced sound insulation techniques that may not withstand Russian service conditions, and it may actually be noiser than earlier designs using more basic quieting technologies if poorly built or improperly maintained. The Project 971 is said by Russian sources to be at a distinct disadvantage in sensors, with a sonar suite that is roughly one-third as sensitive as the Los Angeles, able to track only two targets simultaneously (as opposed to the multiple target tracking capabilities of the American system).

[XabbaRus]

Ah you have to giggle.

Poor lad.....

[Fish]

terrorism also the weather and the fragile stock markets at the moment could spell the end for all the projects if america's oil production looses any more than 25% they country would be hit so hard it wouldnt even be able to maintain the force it main tains now.

this could be the start of a recession or a full scale stock market crash

in 2000 the dollar was $1.42 to the british £1 currently according to bloomberg (stock market channel) the dollar sits at $1.86 to the £1

in five years thats a big big rise my predictions can see the dollar going to $2.10 to the £1 with in the next 5 years and that in its self would be devastating for america, not to mention the debt it owes its own banks which resides at some where around $ 325 million (about average)

inflation has obviously risen oil prices and loads of other things have risen

so could this be the end of america?

no but america will be alot weaker in 10 years time if this carrys on and at current forecasts it seems it will only get worse !

US debt to the penny.

Current Amount

10/13/2005 $7,995,462,387,011.49

[Psycluded]

The idea that submarines will be cut from the force a la Battleships is ridiculous. The QDR ongoing at the DoD has recommended to the Deputy Defense Secretary, Mr Gordon England, the following:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1172065&C=america


On Oct. 5, Marshall’s “Red Team” described its findings to England and senior military leaders. The team recommended several steps, including:

# Cut tactical air forces by 30 percent.

# Cancel the Navy’s DDX future destroyer.

# Delay the Army’s Future Combat Systems.

# Develop conventional theater ballistic missiles to rapidly strike “high-value targets.”

# Build more fast sealift ships and nuclear submarines.

# Develop a new long-range bomber.

Emphasis added for readability.

[Torpedo Fodder]

the 688's and 688I were almost compleately obsolete buy the 12th unit not only did the british trafalgar update but also the russian Akula knocked them off the boards

Oh my god, that was so hilarious, it made my entire day! :rotfl: I know you wern't trying to be funny at all, but thanks anyway. On a more serious note, I would like to see you back up that claim with solid evidence.

US debt to the penny.

Current Amount

10/13/2005 $7,995,462,387,011.49

Which translates to about 65% of it's GDP: As bad as that is, the US is not the worst offender in the G8 in regards to national debt: Italy's national debt is equal to 106% of it's GDP, and Japan's is equal to 154% ( :o) of it's GDP.

[Deathblow]

Which translates to about 65% of it's GDP: As bad as that is, the US is not the worst offender in the G8 in regards to national debt: Italy's national debt is equal to 106% of it's GDP, and Japan's is equal to 154% ( :o) of it's GDP.

Economics is so weird like that. I'm glad I'm not in the financial proffessions because money and prosperity is such a strange beast. Guess in the end it all really comes down to confidence.... the amount its citizens have in its government and the amount the rest of the whole has in its prosperity. :hmm: