Register here

Author Topic: Ohio Replacement Submarine  (Read 22094 times)

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9693
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Ohio Replacement Submarine
« Reply #15 on: December 22, 2013, 11:37:36 am »
Is the reduction of missile tubes from 24 in the Ohio-class SSBN to 16 in the Ohio Replacement Submarine the result of the New START treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation? Is it possible to retrofit the Ohio Replacement Submarine with additional missile tubes if the New START treaty expires in 2021? Can this possibility explain the 20,810 long tons (submerged) displacement of the Ohio Replacement Submarine? Also what about the Type 096 (Tang- class) SSBN of the People's Liberation Army Navy that is expected to have 24 missile tubes?

Model of Type 096 (Tang- class) SSBN.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_096_submarine
« Last Edit: December 22, 2013, 11:43:53 am by Triton »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Ohio Replacement Submarine
« Reply #16 on: December 22, 2013, 12:17:54 pm »
Is the reduction of missile tubes from 24 in the Ohio-class SSBN to 16 in the Ohio Replacement Submarine the result of the New START treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation? Is it possible to retrofit the Ohio Replacement Submarine with additional missile tubes if the New START treaty expires in 2021? Can this possibility explain the 20,810 long tons (submerged) displacement of the Ohio Replacement Submarine? Also what about the Type 096 (Tang- class) SSBN of the People's Liberation Army Navy that is expected to have 24 missile tubes?

Model of Type 096 (Tang- class) SSBN.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_096_submarine

Sorry to be slightly off topic but.............. As the first Ohio replacement (Neptune Class?) won't be built til after New Start expires which means the US has no desire to have any surge capability in place to deploy more missile tubes. My pessimistic prediction is that we will stop at about 5 SSBN(X)s, never replace our ICBM's nor ever build a new nuke warhead. We will reduce to 'minimum' deterrent levels of 300 or so warheads on those five subs with 80 missiles. Yes I am that pessimistic. 
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2547
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Re: Ohio Replacement Submarine
« Reply #17 on: December 22, 2013, 12:31:40 pm »
Yes I am that pessimistic.


Some may find this an optimistic scenario...

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11101
Re: Ohio Replacement Submarine
« Reply #18 on: December 22, 2013, 12:44:32 pm »
Yes I am that pessimistic.


Some may find this an optimistic scenario...

If Zero gets his way. . .
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Rhinocrates

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 162
Re: Ohio Replacement Submarine
« Reply #19 on: December 22, 2013, 12:45:30 pm »


PS: My word there is a *lot* of room on those boats.

Well, if a three-ring circus, a shopping mall and an orchestra are good enough for Spaceball One...
If I had all the money I've spent on drink, I'd spend it on drink.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9693
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Ohio Replacement Submarine
« Reply #20 on: December 22, 2013, 07:47:08 pm »
Was the decision to use the UGM-133 Trident II with a Life Extension, also known as the Trident D5LE, in the Ohio Replacement Submarine and Successor principally a political decision? Should the United States Navy have developed a new SLBM for the Ohio Replacement Submarine?

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2868
Re: Ohio Replacement Submarine
« Reply #21 on: December 22, 2013, 07:55:51 pm »
I'd say it was primarily an economic decision -- no one wants to fund a clear sheet SLBM when there,s no pressing requirement for one.  The current missiles seem to have enough payload capacity for realistic future scenarios.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9693
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Ohio Replacement Submarine
« Reply #22 on: February 03, 2015, 05:07:01 pm »
Navy Budgeting $10 Billion for Ohio Replacement Program Over Next Five Years
By: Sam LaGrone
February 3, 2015 4:58 PM • Updated: February 3, 2015 5:33 PM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2015/02/03/%EF%BB%BFnavy-budgeting-10-billion-ohio-replacement-program-next-five-years


Quote
PENTAGON – Continued work on the Ohio replacement nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) will cost the U.S. Navy about $10 billion over the next five years as part of budgeting in the Navy’s Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP), a senior service budget official told reporters on Monday.

“This FYDP plan funds both the advanced procurement [for ORP] at about $5 billion and [research and development] of about $5 billion,” said Rear Adm. William Lescher, the Department of the Navy’s (DoN) deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for budget in a late afternoon briefing to reporters.

The total includes $1.4 billion in the Fiscal Year 2016 request in the Department of the Navy’s R&D budget line, according to the Navy’s budget documents.

Those funds – over five years – are split between a $3.18 billion budget line for the research and development for the development of the submarine, $1.8 billion for nuclear technology development and $5.66 billion for long lead items from the Navy’s shipbuilding account, according to Navy budget documents.

The single largest line item is an anticipated $2.77 billion shipbuilding expenditure in Fiscal Year 2019.

ORP – an estimated $100 billion program to replace the service’s 14 nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) – is the Navy’s number one priority and the service has raised concerns without additional relief, the new class of 12 boomers could take funds away from other shipbuilding programs in the service’s shipbuilding account (SCN).

“They will get built,” Lescher said.
“[But there’s] very much a concern the impact of the broader shipbuilding approach absent the relief that we think is required to do this.”

The Navy thinks it will need the relief to preserve the rest of the shipbuilding budget when the first ORP boomer starts construction in FY 2021.

“The new construction SCN averages about $15 billion per year and these boats per year – past the lead boat – will be about $10 billion per year. So it requires two-thirds of the SCN absent relief, Lescher said.
“The department’s strong view is when the construction cost with the first boat in ’21 – particularly when it gets to a boat every year from 2026 to 2035 – that additional topline relief is required. “

In 2013, the former Navy director of undersea warfare Rear Adm. Richard Breckenridge said the relief needed could be more than half the cost of the program.

“$60 billion over 15 years is what we need,” Breckenridge said before the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

To that end, Congress has established a fund for a seabased nuclear deterrent but has yet to deposit any money in the account.

Programs in the Navy’s long-range outlook have already been affected by the anticipated costs of ORP.

An anticipated Flight IV of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (DDG-51) – that would have replaced the Ticonderoga-class cruiser’s (CG-47) air defense commander role – was deemed unaffordable during the Ohio replacement period.

The class of 12 ORP boats will displace more than 20,000-tons and be the largest submarines the U.S. has ever constructed. The boomers will each field 16 Trident II D5 submarine launched ballistic missiles to replace the 14 existing Ohio-class boats.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11101
Re: Ohio Replacement Submarine
« Reply #23 on: February 03, 2015, 07:16:26 pm »
"The class of 12 ORP boats will displace more than 20,000-tons and be the largest submarines the U.S. has ever constructed. The boomers will each field 16 Trident II D5 submarine launched ballistic missiles to replace the 14 existing Ohio-class boats."

Cut the loadout by 50% and it's still bigger?  Huh?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Ohio Replacement Submarine
« Reply #24 on: February 03, 2015, 08:12:18 pm »
"The class of 12 ORP boats will displace more than 20,000-tons and be the largest submarines the U.S. has ever constructed. The boomers will each field 16 Trident II D5 submarine launched ballistic missiles to replace the 14 existing Ohio-class boats."

Cut the loadout by 50% and it's still bigger?  Huh?

33% but confusing to reduce the number of missile tubes when the current fleet of 14 w/24 missiles fits nicely with New START numbers. SSNBs would give you the easiest most effective warhead upload capability IMHO.

Does it need a larger reactor as it is supposed to last 44 years or the life of the boat without refueling? Would this be advanced silencing techniques?
« Last Edit: February 03, 2015, 10:53:57 pm by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 897
Re: Ohio Replacement Submarine
« Reply #25 on: February 03, 2015, 10:03:16 pm »
The electric drive is the single largest contributor to the extra size, but there are lots of things contributing to it. For example ORP will have a big upgrade in living conditions, with particular attention to accommodating mixed-gender crews, and that requires space.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9693
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Ohio Replacement Submarine
« Reply #26 on: February 03, 2015, 10:16:25 pm »
Will there also be an SSGN replacement?

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Ohio Replacement Submarine
« Reply #27 on: February 03, 2015, 11:01:22 pm »
Will there also be an SSGN replacement?

Don't think so I read somewhere future Virginias will carry many more SLCM than the one's today in the VPMs and the entire fleet of Virginia's will 'match' the current SSGN's (I put match in quotes to suspend my disbelief this will happen).

http://news.usni.org/2013/11/04/navy-selects-virginia-payload-module-design-concept
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 659
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Ohio Replacement Submarine
« Reply #28 on: February 04, 2015, 01:55:15 am »
The electric drive is the single largest contributor to the extra size, but there are lots of things contributing to it. For example ORP will have a big upgrade in living conditions, with particular attention to accommodating mixed-gender crews, and that requires space.
interesting.

I thought that electric drive (in the context of nuclear boats) would be more compact since it's what's used in small nuclear subs which cannot fit a steam plant, e.g. Losharik, NR-1...
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10825
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Ohio Replacement Submarine
« Reply #29 on: February 05, 2015, 12:01:35 pm »
Removed a pointless digression on diversity in the Navy.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm