688(I) experts / Question

[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?

Just wondering.

Sea Demon

[Deathblow]

Not an expert, but I assumed that its because its original design intention was as a SSN, and the VLS was added later on as a upgrade iirc. :hmm: Plus the number of missles it can carry isn't that much, just 12 instead of 24 like the Oscar.

[Ghost Dog]

well, I think I can offer some input here. first off, the term SSN applies to the primary mission of the submarine. In this case, the 688i is an attack sub whos primary weapon is torpedoes. The primary mission of the 688i class is to attack enemy surface and subsurface assets. Its secondary missions include special forces deployment, precision land attack with cruise missiles and intelligence gathering.

The ocsar class primary mission seems to be its cruise missiles and heavy torpedoes. its designated an SSGN, although it could handle itself in an ASW situation. The U.S Ohio class SSBN have many of the same sonar systems and weapons as the 688i. They even have the same 4 frontal bow tubes and carry ADCAPS. But the primary mission of the submarine is focused on its ballistic missiles, therefore its an SSBN.

all that being said. Here is why the 688i cannot perform the same mission as the ocsar class with its cruise missiles and subsequently why TASM and sub-harpoon were removed from submarine duty.

the ocsar class SSGN is designed to strike at a CVBG with its 24 SS-N-19 missiles. It is thought that Russian strategy would be to use this strike after the CVBG had been attacked by long rang naval strike aircraft, such as Backfire and Blackjack. The oscar could make a good attempt on the carrier after some escorts have been sunk, damaged or scattered. The 24 missiles fly at mach 2.5, very fast. the 12 cruise missiles of the 688i would be TASMs, flying at mach .70 not sea skimming like harpoon and not flying very fast. it wouldnt be too hard to shoot down 12 TASMs for a group of modern warships. Harpoon is only real drawback is its comparitively small warhead, and it was thought that carrying more ADCAPS was a better choice. also, launching missiles gives away your position.

In the game, I never use TASMs. I carry 4 harpoons on board just in case and use them only when im picking off a long range straggler ship or to finish off a cripple that has become separated from its group.

another advantage to ADCAPS over harpoons and TASMs is wire guidance, I can steer my torpedo if it starts homing on the wrong target.

hope ive helped.

[Molon Labe]

Interesting... I've always wondered what the "G" really meant on a lot of ships.

It was the Spruance DD that threw me off. Despite being loaded up with Tomahawks in the VLS bays, it did not have a "G", yet the OHP's, with SM-1's and a few Harpoons get it. So was the "G" actually indicative of area-defense SAMs (as opposed to point-defense ESSMs), not SSM's? But that wouldn't explain an SSGN...

But, if the original design of the Spruance didn't have the VLS, an the addition of the VLS didn't significantly redefine its mission, then this actually makes sense! Thanks!

[Ghost Dog]

the NATO usage of G means Guided Missile. the exception to this is terms like SAG or CVBG, then the G means Group.

it usually applies to ships that use guided missiles for ASuW.

this is why oscar is SSGN. the original Spruance class was considered a DD, even though she carried harpoons. She could even carry SM-2, although she lacked the radars to guide them herself. The improved Spruance is called a DDG, mainly to reflect the addition of the VLS and tomahawk.

The canadian halifax class patrol frigate is called an FFH, or Helicopter Frigate although she carries Sea Sparrow SAM and Harpoon SSM. its mainly to reflect her main purpose an ASW ship as designed.

[Kapitan]

sea deamon has a point why isnt it deemed SSGN a julliette with four missiles deemed SSG an echo with eight an SSGN a papa and charlie class both with eight missiles deemed SSGN.

i think they could be deemed SSGN but on the other hand,

they were origional SSN the VLS systerm was just a later addition and SSGN is ment for a submarine that is designed to carry missiles.

SSGN is ment for a submarine that is designed to carry missiles.

which leads me to say the ohio wasnt designed as an SSGN but four have been converted

i personaly think they should be re designated SSGN they carry the missiles they are the platform it is an attack submarine.

[TLAM Strike]

As some have already said it’s the duty that defines weather or not a ship classification receives the 'G' but there are some general rules (that are broken on occasion). The 'G' for surface ships tends to mean AAW missiles when dealing with big ships and G for SSMs on very small ones (IE PTGs). But not all ships that have large missile magazines receive the 'G' since their main mission is something else such as ASW. For subs it tends to mean it has a dedicated missile launching system that the sub is designed around (IE the Echo, Oscar and Halibut class subs), boats like the 688 had the VLS added (Although the VLS was an option from the start it was not included until FLT 2) but its main mission is ASW.

Really it comes down to whose handing out the classifications. Some ships that could have the ‘G’ don’t and some that do probably shouldn’t. I swear the RN added it to the Trafalgar SSNs for a few weeks to make them sound cool in wartime!

[Kapitan]

trafalgar is follow on from swiftsure as the astute will be follow on to trafalgar

its odd we use the alphabet ie we get a letter and each boat of that class starts with that letter ie S: Swiftsure Splendid Spartan Sovrign ect and we do miss out letters X being one of them.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Kapitain

trafalgar is follow on from swiftsure as the astute will be follow on to trafalgar

its odd we use the alphabet ie we get a letter and each boat of that class starts with that letter ie S: Swiftsure Splendid Spartan Sovrign ect and we do miss out letters X being one of them.

Its not odd, its smart. You always know what class of boat your talking about.

I wish the USN still did that but we stopped after the first six Gatos but then it wasn't really a tradition with us since we started with the Barracuda class only 30 years earlier and didn’t do it in alphabetical order (we did it B, A, N, D, C, P, S, P, S, S, T, M, G, G. The boats before them we tried to do in Alphabetical order and failed: A, B C, D, F, E, G, H, K, L, M, AA, N, O, H, R, S).

... now what were we talking about?

[Ultraboy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_classification_symbol


I found this link useful, gives all NATO hull classifications. Doesn't really provide any answers that haven't already been given, but interesting anyway. Filled in a few blanks for me.

[SeaQueen]

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.

[Hobnail]

Originally Posted by Black_Dingo

In the game, I never use TASMs. I carry 4 harpoons on board just in case and use them only when im picking off a long range straggler ship or to finish off a cripple that has become separated from its group.

I go the other way Dingo, tests by fellow simmers has shown that the TASM is no more/less able to penetrate SAM and CIWS coverage. Add that to the fact that the TASM carries a substantially bigger warhead and greater range it's no contest.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Hobnail

I go the other way Dingo, tests by fellow simmers has shown that the TASM is no more/less able to penetrate SAM and CIWS coverage. Add that to the fact that the TASM carries a substantially bigger warhead and greater range it's no contest.

Of course the Time on Target is lower for the Harpoon.

[MaHuJa]

At least with the stock DB, the warhead size was the only difference between them.

[LuftWolf]

In the LWAMI Mod, the Harpoon is significantly quieter on launch, simlulating deployment out of the torpedo tube in a canister, leaving a much less detectable launch transient than the TASM.