SUBSIM Radio Room Forums
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3456
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   Dangerous Waters (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=181)
-   -   How can US justify $2.6 billion on new sub? (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=94484)

Kurushio 06-15-06 05:41 AM
So these are meant to replace the LA's, that makes sense...though is the Virginia class a step up from the Seawolf?

goldorak 06-15-06 08:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurushio
So these are meant to replace the LA's, that makes sense...though is the Virginia class a step up from the Seawolf?
Not its actually a toned down version of the seawolf.

Frying Tiger 06-15-06 02:40 PM
Also note that a carrier is a "big stick"... it's an obvious threat to anything around it. There are times when you want that, and other times when you don't. When you want firepower somewhere but don't want to advertise it, that's where the sub comes in handy.

LoBlo 06-15-06 04:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimsalot
Doesnt a CVN cost about 2-3 billion?
A carrier cost about 4-5 billion dollars apiece to make, with lifetime maintanance, manning, and decommissioning cost totalling around 20-22 billion dollars.

Nexus7 06-15-06 04:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimsalot
In my biased opinion, a carrier is a better use of the money.
It carries more deployable fire power, can stay on station longer, and as for sea control, nothing announces one's presence quite so much as a CVBG. By deployable, I mean that a SSN is relatuively limited in terms of weapons systems it can deploy against land targets (TLAMS? ICBM's?).
A CVN Alpha Strike gives alot of options.
It is nice to have a sub or 2 with the CVN, and I do recognize the intrinsic value of having a very stealthy platform.
Doesnt a CVN cost about 2-3 billion?
In terms of "usable firepower per dollar", I think the CVN is hardto beat.
After reading some novel, I feel to disagree with your priorities.
About firepower I could agree, as long it concerns "conventional" warfare. Being the big war a war against terror, it is not to be considered conventional any longer. What is needed is speed and strikepower. Stealth is the factor in such a lame context.

In this, I find submarines to be more unpredictable than surface traffic.

It can't deploy against land targets? What are DSRV designed for?

LoBlo 06-15-06 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurushio
Ok, thanks so far for all the input. I wanted to see if my thinking was in the right direction... Though LoBlo, your GDP stats are not official, dated for the year 2000 and besides the point, considering the US has a military budget to stick to and GDP doesn't take this into account (for example Luxembourg has a higher GDP per Capita then the US). Also, let's just say that the US has a lot less money to spend generally after 2001 considering the cost of the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq.

My way of thinking, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the US is turning to subs as opposed to planes because of the bad experience with Turkey during the Iraq War. So now maybe the States does not trust it's allies, and generally has less, around the world. What point is it to have a plane if you don't have a base to use it, right? Whereas a sub can pretty much go anywhere...?

Though Britain, strangely, earlier this year announced it was spending £20 billion (circa 40 billion US dollars) on replacing it's ageing Trident nuclear missile system. So they also chose subs, but boomers instead of attack boats. But then we've got Russia who's allowed it's sub fleet to rot...hmmmm.

The point is that because of the overwhelming economic resources of the US, federal budgets run is the trillions of dollars, with US defense budgets run in the 300-400 billion dollar amount. Construction schedules of 1-2 subs a year will run around 2-5 billion per year representing about 0.5% to 1.5% of the annual defense budget, or roughly 5-8% of its military procurement cost. (gross estimates intended just for gross realizations). It should not be a surprise or mystery if US warship acquistions budgets are greater than most others. Someone check my rough estimates if I'm incorrect. The actual budgets of the US every year is public knowledge and easily found on a simple google search.

And actually, the US is downsizing its submarine fleet. The US buys subs because they provide unique capabilities.

Captain Norman 06-15-06 05:22 PM
Lets put it this way. With an aircraft carrier, you can send a small airforce to any location on the Earth, but at risk of being detected. With a submarine, you can attack and destroy anything at any location on the Earth, usually with stealth. I can perfectly see the justification there. Also, with the war on terror, and decommissioning of Los Angeles class subs, the Virginia provideds excellent tools for inserting special forces teams and gathering intelligence.

Bubblehead Nuke 06-15-06 09:06 PM
As I said:
Quote:
Funny thing is.. it might not be there at all, or it might be 50 feet below them.;)
You can make an impact by just SAYING that you are putting a sub in the area. In reality, do you know if it is there or not? You might have 3 or 4 'trouble areas' and no real assets to cover them. With one statement you make life hard on someone. Do they really KNOW that you are there? watching them? Ready to sink them or attack them?? Or can they do what they wanted to do that made you upset in the first place?

With a carrier it is pretty obvious that you are in the area. A very VISIBLE asset yes, but now they know were you are.. and were you AREN'T.

LuftWolf 06-15-06 10:45 PM
I think it was Kruschev that was asked why the Russians did not build aircraft carriers, and he said that in an ideal world he would have bought aircraft carriers but submarines were more necessary for the survival of the USSR and they could only have one or the other, so they bought only submarines.

In terms of the Virginia vs. SW, they are designed with essentially the exact same technology, but with much different design philosophies. The SeaWolf was designed to push the limits of engineering and capability to great cost to maximize the effectiveness of the unit delivered in all areas. The Virginia was designed to employ cost saving technologies to deliver a unit that performed effectively in its assigned role (littoral and special warfare) for the amount of money spent to design and make the class.

Overall, the construction of the three SW's yielded three exeptionally capable platforms at great cost, whereas the Virginia program will yield eight (I think it's eight) submarines well suited to their mission at comparatively moderate cost.

swimsalot 06-16-06 11:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henson
The cost of the CVN does not reside in the ship itself, but in paying FIVE THOUSAND CREWMEMBERS vice 120.
Do ya know how much the pay those guys???:cool:

Quote:
Think about that fr a minute, and then ask yourself again if it would be a better value. Subs cost MUCH less to operate, and fulfill much different missions. It is impossible to do some of our bread-and-butter sub missions with any other type of warship.
Yes, subs and carriers fulfill different missions; my point isthat a carrier with embarked airwing can fulfill many of the same missions, with the exception of surveilance.
Sea Control? yup
Interdiction? yup
Spec ops? yup, embarked seal team with helos
Strike? Big Yup
What else am I missing?

swimsalot 06-16-06 11:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frying Tiger
Also note that a carrier is a "big stick"... it's an obvious threat to anything around it. There are times when you want that, and other times when you don't. When you want firepower somewhere but don't want to advertise it, that's where the sub comes in handy.
I acknowledge this concept; in reality, when in the past 20 years or so has the US NOT made their presence known to combatants/possible beligeranrs? Isn't this part of deterence?
We park a couple CVBG's in the area and let em know we mean business.
With tanking the range of Naval Strike aircraft is quite substantial, more so with standoff weps.
When have we needed to "hide" our weapon platforms unless they were actively seeking a target? Other than SSB?
If we did strike somebody from a sub with TLAM, everyone in the world would know who did it, so it wouldnt exactly be a secret.

swimsalot 06-16-06 11:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexus7
After reading some novel, I feel to disagree with your priorities.
About firepower I could agree, as long it concerns "conventional" warfare. Being the big war a war against terror, it is not to be considered conventional any longer. What is needed is speed and strikepower. Stealth is the factor in such a lame context.

In this, I find submarines to be more unpredictable than surface traffic.

It can't deploy against land targets? What are DSRV designed for?
So how does a sub have more speed and strikepower than an Alpha strike?
A CVN makes about 40 kts, maybe a bit more. That fast enough?
How about an F/A 18 at 500kts?
A CVN can deploy to a "hot spot" more quickly than a sub can, can launch more firepower, and can intimidate the hell outta people alot more.

Henson 06-17-06 12:51 AM
This is like wondering aloud why the US invests in 9mm handguns when there are perfectly capable 155mm howitzers available.

The whole discussion is an asinine comparison of apples and oranges. Any Sailor who has BTDT recognizes this.

A submarine is not even in the same league as a carrier. Although 16 of our subs are capital ships, they do not require escort which is almost reason enough by itself to build a few more.

Carriers cost MUCH more to operate than submarines. It's not even close. It's like comparing the operating budgets of the Norwich Navigators to the New York Yankees...we're not even in the same league. This whole argument is taking place on a foundation of false premise: that the two platforms are an 'either-or' proposition. A balanced force will need both, have both, and use both. Case closed.

LoBlo 06-17-06 04:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimsalot
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henson
The cost of the CVN does not reside in the ship itself, but in paying FIVE THOUSAND CREWMEMBERS vice 120.
Do ya know how much the pay those guys???:cool:
Alot! My cousin was an enlisted man on a pacific aircraft carrier (not an officer and without a college degree) and he made a nice penny doing so. Its very good pay. Here, the basic cost breakdown or the ships lifetime... the manning cost are the predominant moneysink.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../cv76-cost.gif

Quote:
Quote:
Think about that fr a minute, and then ask yourself again if it would be a better value. Subs cost MUCH less to operate, and fulfill much different missions. It is impossible to do some of our bread-and-butter sub missions with any other type of warship.
Yes, subs and carriers fulfill different missions; my point isthat a carrier with embarked airwing can fulfill many of the same missions, with the exception of surveilance.
Sea Control? yup
Interdiction? yup
Spec ops? yup, embarked seal team with helos
Strike? Big Yup
What else am I missing?
Your missing the fact that a submarine operates independently, while a aircarrier MUST operate with the protection of at least 5 other ships. Most carriers will require the protection of 2 submarines ($1-$2 billion apiece) , 2 guided missile destroyers ($1-$2billion apiece) , one or two guide missile cruisers ($1-$2 billion apiece), and a FF (about half a billion). Carriers do not operate independently, so manufacturing a carrier = creating a carrier group = neccessitating the acquistion of all ships in the group NOT just the $5billion carrier, but its billions in support ships as well... and now with not just the multbillion dollar operating cost of the carrier, but now added to that the multibillion dollar operating cost of its support ships as well.

swimsalot 06-18-06 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henson
This is like wondering aloud why the US invests in 9mm handguns when there are perfectly capable 155mm howitzers available.

The whole discussion is an asinine comparison of apples and oranges. Any Sailor who has BTDT recognizes this.

A submarine is not even in the same league as a carrier. Although 16 of our subs are capital ships, they do not require escort which is almost reason enough by itself to build a few more.

Carriers cost MUCH more to operate than submarines. It's not even close. It's like comparing the operating budgets of the Norwich Navigators to the New York Yankees...we're not even in the same league. This whole argument is taking place on a foundation of false premise: that the two platforms are an 'either-or' proposition. A balanced force will need both, have both, and use both. Case closed.
Actually ,sir, I would disagree. The discussion about the value of submerged vs surface vs airborne assets has been going on since at least WW1 when Fisher, Jellicoe,Churchill, et al used to argue about what was the best use of their defense budget.
Some of the greatest minds of the 20th and 21st centuries have spent much effort trying to figure out what platform will be the most useful for what scenario.
Tabletop discussions about the relative merits of different weapons systems can be thought provoking, interesting, and often eye-opening for all involved.
As a sailor who has certainly BTDT,even got the t-shirts and bad haircuts to show for it, I remember having many discussion late at night about where the defense budget should be spent.:D

I would assume that most wouldn't have a problem with people on a sub forum having a discussion about the merits of submarines as weapons platforms in relation to other platforms.
But I do value your opiniion.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:42 AM.
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3456
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.