Virginia Submarine Discontinued

[Deathblow]

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jd...0124_1_n.shtml

Looks like the even the Virginia Class has been deemed too cost ineffective for a 30 boat order. Rumor has it that the USN is seeking a even smaller, cheaper design. One that breaks away from existing sub designs and may utilize shaftless drives, all externally mounted weapons, and new ship infrastructure.

http://www.generaldynamics.com/news/...,%202005-3.htm :hmm:

[Kresge]

Hmmmm...Maybe Walmart can get us a good deal on those new Chinese subs?

[Bort]

This new revalation only further reinforces that the Bush administration is totally disinterested in undersea warfare. It's a bad move that we'll pay for in a future conflict

[Subnuts]

There is a reason for all this, you know...

[Oberon]

Sounds like Bush is picking up Britains bad habits when it comes to military spending

[diver]

Of course submarine classes are going to be too expensive if you only build a few boats each.

I mean Seawolf was cancelled because it was too expensive (after 3 hulls, 1 was very different from the first 2) so they decided to start the virginia class for a modern, affordable design for new worlds challenges. But now they are canning it because it is too expensive too, so they want a cost effective modern design for the new challenges.
Anybody else dizzy after this cycle? Whats the odds the new class is cancelled after three boats because it is too expensive.

Heres a thought, build more submarines and the costs go down, I mean most of the costs for a first of class sub are research and design which are then passed on to the others of the class. Stick with a design and they will get cheaper, much cheaper.

The last two US leaders have really buggered US naval warfare, unfortunatly its more than likely thousands will suffer in the future as a result.

[Deathblow]

Well IMHO the USN can't figure out what the heck it wants. By the time they invest resources into one naval philosophy, that philosophy has already been rendered obsolete, so its unwilling to put too many eggs in one basket. There are also too many potential technologies and concepts, which challenge old design paradiagms, that they want to try out which is stalling a long-term investment.

Or maybe the USN knows what it needs, but its so different than the previous philosophy of "supersubs" that its been hard to bring itself to invest in smaller and cheaper designs. Old habits are hard to break so the Virginia was sortof a half way point between the "super subs" that the USN was used too and the "small cheap and easy" subs that analyst were recommending. Maybe now that a little more time has past the Navy is ready to change its design philosophies even more.

Oh well, guess we will have to wait until China's Navy progresses to start challenging parts of the Pacific and Indian Ocean, before we see the next "Super Sub"

[Iceman]

Diver & Deathblow are right I think...I just watched a cool program the other day on Discovery how they put the whole project together and the cost of just designing it was crazy...modular design is a great idea why would a navy scrap such an idea... unless they want to go with some of those I think dutch subs or from somewhere that were neigh undetectable...maybe the gov knows more than it wants to let on.Like stealth was a big secret at first..why build this Virginia class at all if it has been determined it is already obsolete...

[Kresge]

Of course politicians play a large role in these decisions and they love to play with the numbers to get what they want.
For example, the F-22.
Factor in all the money spent to develop a new fighter, slash production to 20 fighters and then split the cost between those jets and they can scream about how an F-22 costs $300 million each.

Sound like some are trying to do the same thing with the Virginia.

[Hellcat]

I realize that by building fewer units you increase your "gearing up" costs associated with production. However looking over some sources did'nt the cost of the 688 class continue to rise with every boat produced?

Prehaps emerging technology is an issue of over concern? Why do the boats have to be the absolute best at what they can do? I'm saying take what makes the boats unique, but why not simply mass produce a boat with the capabilities of the 688i's and start a second class of SSN for more specialized operations. In that way the projects could be balanced better or even more so if each type were to use the same hull.... that just puts us back in the same situation though.

ah hell why not start new production of Diesel Electric boats? 2 dozen would be a nice match to whatever number of Virgina's they end up producing.

[Sea Demon]

I'm still skeptical about a total abandonment of the program. I can believe they will cut back on it, but not eliminate it entirely. Perhaps they're trying to find a way to pressure the manufacturers to provide lower cost alternatives in the program...lest they lose the program totally. On the upside, they are looking into even better technologies, rather than just relying on COTS (commercial-off-the-shelf) tech as an end all.

But if they do abandon it entirely, I think they are making the mistake of a lifetime.

Sea Demon

[Deathblow]

What I've read is that the plan is to cut back to 10 subs instead of 30. With a smaller and cheaper sub developed and ready for construction by 2012.

Everything is just rumors atm.

[Ghost Dog]

10 seems a reasonable number to me. two things need to be considered:

1. submarine fleets are getting smaller, but more effective. the big cold war size fleets are a thing of the past.

2. Technology advances come so fast that it makes sense to invest in fewer subs, so you can replace them with newer ones when new/cheaper technology comes available.

The 10 virginias will combine with the 3 Seawolfs and 40 some odd Los Angeles class. As the Virginias commission, a few 688s are withdrawn. The US Navy has said they wanted a 50 boat submarine force. so, you might see 10 Virginias, 3 Seawolfs and 37 688i. They might drop that number down to 40. By the time the last virginias are hitting the water, a new sub will developed.

Even the Russians, who once had a fleet of some 200 attack submarines have fleet of only 30 attack subs today. Most of the modern navies of the world have less than 20 subs, many have less than 10.

during the height of the Reagan era, secretary lehman wanted a 600 ship navy. They came very close at one point. this is simply not needed anymore.

[Bort]

While I agree that the Navy doesn't need 6oo ships anymore, I do think that the Navy needs substantially more ships than they have now and that without a doubt more subs and more importantly more modern subs are required (70 sounds like a good number). The idea of capping Virginias at 10 units just sounds silly to me, the cost will be to high per boat and we wont get full return on the R&D and production investments we made into the design, which from what I have read, is the best SSN in the world. Building this supposed "new" light nuke just seems goofy and SSK's sillier still for many reasons:
1) The R&D time and costs of new designs when we have a perfectly good one already

2) The costs associated with operating and training personell for five boat types (Ohio, Seawolf, Virginia, XSSN, XSSK) as opposed to the previous objective three (Ohio, Seawolf, Virginia)

3) The costs and training associated getting back into the SSK buisiness that the US abandoned in the 80's

4) By the time these alternative boats are built we probably could have bought more Virginias at a lower overall cost

Bottom line- we should ramp up production of Virginas and concentrate on incorporating any new technological developments into later flights of that design- it's the logical thing to do!

[Kapitan]

russia's Akula II costs less than a seawof and virginia infact i think its about en par with the 688I in cost.

if america cuts any more boats from her fleet then they will kiss good bye 40% of thier supremacy at sea in fact i recon alot more because there also cutting back on destroyers and frigates not to mention the possiblity some older air craft carriers might go for the chop oh and the cruisers.

bad move with out sea power you realy are not a super power americas force of 14 SSBN's 4 SSGN'S AND 44 SSN's are no longer enough to keep track of china's under sea fleet and could be deemed as a tactical disadvantage.

russia still maintains 16 SSBN's 16 SSGN's and 42 SSN's/SSK's
the fact a country like russia can still put more missiles at sea would deem it a greater threat (possibly not so by 2010) *****

but the one millatery machine that helped the cold war is to be smashed to bit when a new threat more like the old one is couming again.

STUPID MOVE

**** russia is to decommission at least another 4 SSBN's 10 SSN'S and rebuild its fleet with new boats by 2020

2020 fleet should look something like this:

12 to 16 SSBN
8 to 12 SSGN
25 to 30 SSN
12 to 16 SSK