The U.S. Navy has ordered another eight Virginia class SSNs

[geetrue]

Nice article if you wonder how many boats the USN have on order or in service:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hts.../20081230.aspx

The United States has three classes of SSN. The mainstay of the American submarine force is still the 6,100 ton Los Angeles-class SSN. Sixty-two of these submarines were built, 45 of which remain in front-line service, making it probably the largest class of nuclear submarines that will ever be built.

But they are going fast

[SteamWake]

Hrm... this is mildly disturbing :hmm:

[Kapt Z]

I'm a sub buff, but in this economy.....why?

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Kapt Z

I'm a sub buff, but in this economy.....why?

One would assume self preservation.

[Oberon]

Sad to see the old LA girls go, but they had their day I guess

[Frame57]

The 688I's will be in service for quite some time yet. A stroke of genius that was strategic and also economically feasable was the conversion of four Ohio class SSBN's to SSGN's. These will fill a niche that the 688I platform performs and you can carry far more special forces troops in the SSGN's than the 688I's could.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Kapt Z

I'm a sub buff, but in this economy.....why?

You sound almost doomish on your take on the state of our future. You expect this economy to be in this state or worse come several years from now?

The point is, you prepare for the future, and live for today. What they are doing is perfectly proper.

-S

[Kapt Z]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

You sound almost doomish on your take on the state of our future. You expect this economy to be in this state or worse come several years from now?

-S

Thinking the economy will be back to 'normal' before the next presidential election seems more optimistic than I'm willing to buy into. Seems I don't hear many saying things will get better in less than a year or so as it is. I wouldn't consider that 'doomish' per say, but I do think we do have a long EXPENSIVE road to go. We're going to have to cut funding for a lot of things that will hurt.

Since our present and forseable future conflicts seem to be against guys running around with RPGs and little else a fancy new attack sub seems a trifle misplaced. I would think we face more 9-11s than Dec-7s and the best attack sub in the world would not have stopped those airliners.

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by Kapt Z

Thinking the economy will be back to 'normal' before the next presidential election seems more optimistic than I'm willing to buy into. Seems I don't hear many saying things will get better in less than a year or so as it is. I wouldn't consider that 'doomish' per say, but I do think we do have a long EXPENSIVE road to go. We're going to have to cut funding for a lot of things that will hurt.

Since our present and forseable future conflicts seem to be against guys running around with RPGs and little else a fancy new attack sub seems a trifle misplaced. I would think we face more 9-11s than Dec-7s and the best attack sub in the world would not have stopped those airliners.

A simple locked cockpit would have done the job...

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Kapt Z

I'm a sub buff, but in this economy.....why?

Because the modern SSN is, arguably, the most versatile combat platform that the navy has to offer. The only other type of ship that would challenge it is the modern supercarrier. However, the SSN can function independently, in an entirely clandestine fashion, and for a fraction of the cost of CVN, let alone it's accompianing battle group. It is disheartening not to have the aging sub fleet replaced in adequate numbers.

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by Kapt Z

I'm a sub buff, but in this economy.....why?

Because the carrier is more and more useless. A serious attack using diesels is likely more than enough to bring one down in a serious war. (Look at how close they get when it is not a war)

We need more subs to replace the lost ability of the supers.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Because the carrier is more and more useless. A serious attack using diesels is likely more than enough to bring one down in a serious war. (Look at how close they get when it is not a war)

We need more subs to replace the lost ability of the supers.

If you loose the supercarriers, you loose much more than could ever be compensated by tens of new SSN. An attack sub has no strategic value, it cannot project force as a CVN battlegroup can. The strengh of the us navy is not in its submarine force, but in its 12 supercarriers dislocated throughout the world.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by goldorak

If you loose the supercarriers, you loose much more than could ever be compensated by tens of new SSN. An attack sub has no strategic value, it cannot project force as a CVN battlegroup can. The strengh of the us navy is not in its submarine force, but in its 12 supercarriers dislocated throughout the world.

I thought they had 15?

-S

PS. Never mind - 3 are in process of being built. There are 12 active and 3 more that will be active.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I thought they had 15?

-S

11 actually until CVN-79 is commissioned. And it's unlikely the planned number of Gerald Ford class's will be completed IMO. 15 is the number that lots of people consider ideal, though.

PD

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by goldorak

If you loose the supercarriers, you loose much more than could ever be compensated by tens of new SSN. An attack sub has no strategic value, it cannot project force as a CVN battlegroup can. The strengh of the us navy is not in its submarine force, but in its 12 supercarriers dislocated throughout the world.

Rubbish!

All a CVN is good for is scaring the hell out of some country that can't afford modern diesels. In a world war you would see them drop like flies just like in WW2 when IJN Carrier after Carrier met torpedoes and lost.

Boast about so called sub tracking abilities they have but the days of the supercarrier are at an end. Drones launching from motherships and submarines are the force multiplier of the future.