Yeah, Ive seen it before, but still. The Vic is a diesel electric submarine, its silent on batteries, but when it has to recharge em it aint silent anymore. The Vics are alright, but they're all in drydock till 2008-2012, cause our damn engineers overloaded the circuitry. My navy is an embarassment in terms of our submarines, but for everything else its good. By the time our subs are back out in the oceans, the Americans will have their Virginia.

wats up with the 7 missiles a tube thing?
that seems out of place :hmm:

I don't even want to think how much the guy that designed those got paid. :doh:

The missiles are put in that arangment so if they are required to launch muitiple tomahawks, they can and that way the submarines torpedo loadout will not be affected. And don't for get that they are now cruise missile submarines, so the more they can put in a tube the more they can launch. I'm sure there's a better reason then wait I have listed but I can't think of any. I havent had lunch yet:ping:

well it kinda makes scence but dont you think they would have the trident missile onborad for what is going on in IRAQ:hmm:

The frist 4 ohio Class SSBN's were and still are being converted to SSGN or cruise missile submarines. They will also have a seal team on board. They will no longer have their trident missiles. There is talk however to rearm some trident missiles with convensional warheads. You can find a great bit of detail on this from
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...p/ssgn-726.htm thereis a bit of a problem with converting the warheads the russian President Putin said how would we know what is nuclear and what is a conventail attack.

Not exactly, a cruise missile would work well, what would u put in a Trident apart from a nuclear warhead. Ive heard of some plans of using concrete instead of convential explosives because it would still have the same power, but I dont see a trident being used.

With the current talk about converting the next four Ohio's into "conventional Tridents" I agree with Putin. Think about it...here you have a Russian Space Commander watching the map and all the alarms going off. Is this a nuclear launch or a conventional? I've got 2 minutes to decide.

Any civilized nation with that capability will be thinking the same way. I don't see our Pentagon calling every Russian command to tell them...by the way, this is a conventional lauch against country 'x'.

Which is what I dont get. I whole heartidly agree with Putin, cause Tridents can easily be mistaken for nuclear missiles, but then a problem arises. What are we going to do with all of these SSBNs and the unused Trident missiles. Ive been wondering if it would instead be possible to instead convert all missile tubes to fire cruise missiles and such with conventional explosives.
Also, I have another question. With the new Virginia, I was wondering if any pics of the interior exist yet, or is that still classified?

tridents are nukes

No, a Trident is a missile that carries a NUCLEAR WARHEAD. The US wants to outfit them with conventional explosives, but Putin doesnt want that cause it would look like a nuclear missile launch.

There are pics of the Virginia class ssn at navsource.org

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08774b.htm
:rock:

wow were still freinds with rusia?

Lol, good one.

GhOsT55 was mentioning that Trident's are nuclear submarines. While I was stationed on the boat, we didn't call it an "Ohio", we called it a "Trident" due to the missiles it carried. I say tomatoe, you say tomato.