"U.S. Navy’s New Nuke Sub Is 20,000 Tons of Apocalypse" Topic
8 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Modern Naval Discussion (1946 to 2013) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Tango01 | 17 Apr 2014 11:00 p.m. PST |
"The U.S. Navy has unveiled the design of its next-generation nuclear ballistic missile submarine. It's huge. And very, very expensive. Displacing 20,000 tons of water—thousands of tons more than the Ohio class it will replace—the so-called "Ohio Replacement" submarine packs fewer missile tubes and torpedoes than its predecessor vessel but extra space for sensors and propulsion. The Ohio (pictured) and the Ohio Replacement, which the Navy once called "SSBN-X," should be equally long—560 feet from bow to stern. But the extra displacement makes the newer boat America's biggest submarine ever, although not the world's biggest. That honor belongs to Russia's Cold War Typhoon boats
" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
FingerandToeGlenn | 18 Apr 2014 8:38 a.m. PST |
and we'll be able to afford two. |
Lion in the Stars | 18 Apr 2014 9:15 a.m. PST |
20,000 tons isn't really all that much bigger than an Ohio. Ohios displace 19,000 tons submerged. I am somewhat concerned by the statement that the Ohio-replacement will carry fewer torpedoes than the Ohios, since Ohios have space for 8-13 (depending on ship) on the ready racks and 4 more in the tubes (that's less than half the load of a Los Angeles-class). I never went to sea with a completely and totally full torpedo room. We always left one or two tubes empty for shooting water slugs (practice shots). If we were actually shooting exercise torpedoes, we'd offload some warshots to make room for the exercise torpedoes. |
Ron W DuBray | 18 Apr 2014 12:30 p.m. PST |
and just why do they need to be bigger then the Ohios ????? there is nothing anyone can build that can kill them or even find them to stop them from destroying the world, what a wast of money. |
doug redshirt | 18 Apr 2014 2:59 p.m. PST |
Sub hulls do have a limit on how long you can use them due to them being pressure hulls. I have no idea on what the life time is on them. But subs are one thing I don't mind them building new ones, within limits of course. |
A Twiningham | 18 Apr 2014 4:16 p.m. PST |
My dad helped design the new reactor. |
James Wright | 19 Apr 2014 6:53 a.m. PST |
Heh Fingerand. I doubt we can afford any, we will just go into hock for two. =) For the sake of the men serving in them, I have no issue with a good design, that performs the mission well, and especially better. Where defense spending irritates me most is when they shove programs down the throats of various branches that are obvious pork spending projects, especially when they have shady track records or do not bring new or improved capability to the mission. I think a new, more capable sub is always a good thing, especially if we still plan on using naval power going forward. |
Lion in the Stars | 19 Apr 2014 8:40 a.m. PST |
and just why do they need to be bigger then the Ohios ????? Partly to have separate berthing for the men and women. Ohios have a bunch of 9-man bunkrooms that only have a curtain to keep the light out. I also suspect that there's more space for exercise equipment, as it looks bad to have 3/4 of the ship crew on mandatory PT because they simply couldn't get any time on the treadmill while underway. there is nothing anyone can build that can kill them or even find them to stop them from destroying the world Any torpedo hit WILL kill an Ohio. A near miss might "only" cause a hydraulic rupture and fire, which is still a mission kill. As far as finding them goes, well, slamming a door (or allowing one to slam) can give your position away. We call those "acoustic transients." Operating in the shallows makes it easy for both sonobuoys and magnetic anomaly detectors to find a sub. Once located, a sub is dead, full stop. Remember that subs don't have any anti-aircraft weapons to chase away sub-hunters like the SH60 or P3. Personally, I would want to add the 30mm Muraena gun, some UAVs, and some exotic SAMs that can be launched from underwater to ALL subs. |
|