Question about the Wolves.

[Excalibur Bane]

You'll have to excuse my ignorance here, but my memory is pretty bad. More like a trainwreck.

Anyway, did I read a thing about most LA class subs having to be decommisioned soon because of the age of the reactors or was that just my imagination?

I remember reading a paper on one of the military sites about the whole debate going on within the military about whether or not to build the Seawolf class. Did they ever sort that out? I know they have one at least. They cost something like a billion a piece, correct?

I think it's a good idea to build a new fleet if the old one has to be replaced. It creates alot of new jobs and stimulates the economy, which is always a good thing. Then again, not much point in submarines these days or anything really, since any war would just be a nuclear war. So I could certainly understand the other side of the argument. Pretty hard to justify that cost for a mobile, submerisble nuke platform essentially.

Anyway I'd love to know that turned out and how many Seawolves are being built (have been built) so far.

Thanks!

[lesrae]

This site may help out: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-21.htm

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Excalibur Bane

Anyway I'd love to know that turned out and how many Seawolves are being built (have been built) so far.

Three have been built and thats all that will be.

[sonar732]

Right now, there is a debate going on in congress regarding how many Virginia class boats should be bult a year. The navy requested 1, but members of congress who's states will be impacted economically, want 2. Yes, there have been a number of 688's decommissioned already.

[Kapitan]

of the 62 that were built 44 remain with 6 to be decommissioned soon many fast approaching or have past the wrong side of 15 years.

my personal view, america should replace the older 688's with virginia and replace the 688i's with a newer type of sub and reduce the fleet slightly, however as was said economy and what not

[Takeda Shingen]

Whatever the replacements, I believe that you undoubtably see a reduction in numbers. The large number of '88s were produced to counter a Soviet threat in the Pacific and Atlantic sea lanes. Seeing that there is currently no pressing need to close off those lanes, you now have a large number of submarines without a use for their primary role: That of fleet escort. Yes, they are adaptable, but they are also wasting a lot of money.

[Excalibur Bane]

Thanks for the link, lesrae. Fascinating ship, I truly admire the design of that monster. Aesethically pleasing too. Extra points for that. In a grim fashion, I am kinda sad that they only need three of them. I would love to see one of those babies first hand. Ah, well.

We should have bought one from the US for sure. They'd be a hell of alot better then these bunch of second hand, flammable ones we got from the British.

[Etienne]

Our submarines get assigned to stuff like "Fishery control."

I say we should have gotten Balaos, if they were cheaper than the matchsticks we have now.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Whatever the replacements, I believe that you undoubtably see a reduction in numbers. The large number of '88s were produced to counter a Soviet threat in the Pacific and Atlantic sea lanes. Seeing that there is currently no pressing need to close off those lanes, you now have a large number of submarines without a use for their primary role: That of fleet escort. Yes, they are adaptable, but they are also wasting a lot of money.

THat is somewhat incorrect. We need to increase our sub fleet to counter the Chinese threat. By 2008, the Chinese will surpass our own sub fleet in number of deployed boats. They will double it by 2015, and that is if we maintain current levels. I think we will wake up one day and realize that we have a much bigger problem than we originally anticipated, and China can do this without having to build many nuke boats because it is not their intention to fight us on our side of the ocean, but to fight us near their side.

-S

[Kapitan]

id agree with subman there i think america does too and keeping sea lanes open is prime role for the 688's ........ what about the sealanes in the pacfic or dont they count?

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

THat is somewhat incorrect. We need to increase our sub fleet to counter the Chinese threat. By 2008, the Chinese will surpass our own sub fleet in number of deployed boats. They will double it by 2015, and that is if we maintain current levels. I think we will wake up one day and realize that we have a much bigger problem than we originally anticipated, and China can do this without having to build many nuke boats because it is not their intention to fight us on our side of the ocean, but to fight us near their side.

-S

And, therefore, keeping the sealanes open would not be a large factor given that China wants to fight in their front yard, so to speak. This is the anthesis of Soviet doctorine, which called for a 'breakout' into the oceanic shipping lanes in an effort to protect their interests in eastern Europe, which was the most likely front in an east-west conflict. China's stragegy, obviously, calls for a 'fortress' approach in the South China Sea, Yellow Sea, and Formosa Strait. This greatly reduces the need for high-speed escorts, as operations in the regions around China would allow for more stationed operations.