Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sea Demon
The 688(I) SSN is a fast attack nuclear submarine. But it also carries cruise missiles in the VLS configuration. Why isn't the 688(I) also considered an SSGN if it is cruise missile capable? In fact, many of it's missions are primary land strike via Tomahawks. During the Cold War, 688(I)'s could have done the exact same mission as an OSCAR with TASM's. So what's the deal?
|
Politics. Submarine designations in the USN have always been sort of nebulous. For a while there was a movement towards increasing specialization of submarines, but as time progressed, submarines became increasingly expensive to own and operate, so even if a submarine was designed to do one thing, it had to be capable of doing everything.
That was the case with the Los Angeles class. It was designed as an escort for carrier battle groups, to engage Soviet attack submarines which had advanced enough to have sufficient speed to trail them. Hence the SSN designation.
The thing was, that was only a part of what what the navy really needed, and the competing design which was in many ways more capable, was undermined by Adm. Rickover who had enormous political power due to his connections in Congress. By the late 80s, though, people were getting over him and his political power was in decline. So... the CNO at the time managed to get the LA class redesigned. I think that must have been Zumwalt because he liked cruise missiles. For years the Navy was the least "joint" of all the services, and cruise missiles were sort of their way to say that they were working with the other services.