Register here

Author Topic: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future  (Read 71273 times)

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #180 on: June 15, 2018, 05:29:59 pm »
I believe a new-build SSGN that's a straight adaption of Columbia class (retaining 16-ish payload tubes) is ultimately unlikely. But a more affordable SSN/SSGN making use of Columbia tooling and hardware where practical while being considerably smaller overall seems like it has a good chance.

The whole point would be to take advantage of the greater diameter (enabling longer missiles).  Maybe make it shorter.  8 tubes instead of 16 but how much would doing that actually save once you add in all the additional NRE?
Probably a $billion without sweating.
I believe a new-build SSGN that's a straight adaption of Columbia class (retaining 16-ish payload tubes) is ultimately unlikely. But a more affordable SSN/SSGN making use of Columbia tooling and hardware where practical while being considerably smaller overall seems like it has a good chance.

The whole point would be to take advantage of the greater diameter (enabling longer missiles).  Maybe make it shorter.  8 tubes instead of 16 but how much would doing that actually save once you add in all the additional NRE?

There was also an argument for a faster transiting SSGN which translates to about a 300 ft length for a 43 ft beam.
Oh yes indeed. Waste not the ability to roll those 43' barrel sections.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2018, 05:37:45 pm by Moose »

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 856
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #181 on: July 13, 2018, 03:20:55 am »
I believe a new-build SSGN that's a straight adaption of Columbia class (retaining 16-ish payload tubes) is ultimately unlikely. But a more affordable SSN/SSGN making use of Columbia tooling and hardware where practical while being considerably smaller overall seems like it has a good chance.

But that's not the bureaucratic way.  In government speak, 'why build one when you can build two at twice the price?'

By then, Columbia will be more affordable.  Production will be in full swing.  Incremental improvements in efficiency will result in considerable man-hour reductions.  Look at the efficiencies in the Virginia build.

Hasn't the line between the requirements for each class blurred as the mission requirements have changed? Attack boats need a larger diameter to accommodate more flexibility in munitions.  Boomers need to be faster while being even quieter than before. If both the strategic and the tactical missions can be accomplished with one boat then it might make sense to build one boat. 

It seems more likely that Columbia tech will be late and some reduction in capability will result. I could see more boats built so later 'blocks' could receive upgrades.  The Navy also wants a particular quantity of boats in general.  If funding isn't available to meet the quantity required then I could also see Virginia Block VIII. 

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8475
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #182 on: July 26, 2018, 08:55:31 pm »
https://news.usni.org/2018/07/25/35314

Quote
The first Columbia-class submarine is more than a decade away from joining the fleet and General Dynamics is preparing its Electric Boat business — and the Wall Street analysts watching the company — for what the almost $100 billion project means to its operations.

During the quarter, the U.S. Navy awarded General Dynamics $225 million for Block V Virginia-class submarine long-lead materials, and $100 million for advanced nuclear plant studies in support of the Columbia-class submarine project. Later this year, General Dynamics expects to finalize the Block V contract with the Navy, Phebe Novakovic, chief executive, told analysts during a conference call Wednesday morning.

Overall, these awards, steady work at the shipyards and good performance by other General Dynamics business lines helped the company report strong financial results for the three months ending July 1. Revenues were $9.2 billion, compared to revenues of $7.7 billion for the same period a year ago, according to the General Dynamics earnings report. Profits for the quarter were $786 million, an increase from the $749 million reported a year ago.
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 NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 856
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #183 on: August 09, 2018, 06:30:36 pm »
https://news.usni.org/2018/08/08/35632

"General Dynamics Electric Boat and the Navy are evaluating the potential of missile tube welding issues identified by a subcontractor to delay construction of the first Columbia-class submarines, the next block of Virginia-class submarines and for the British Dreadnought-class submarines."


**  Edit: Fixed problem link  **
« Last Edit: August 10, 2018, 05:53:40 am by NeilChapman »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8475
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #184 on: October 20, 2018, 11:56:02 am »
https://news.usni.org/2018/10/19/analysis-of-navy-shipbuilding-plan-hints-at-return-to-blue-sea-great-power-competition?fbclid=IwAR0tKJVKVAQu-2OKocVkRG_6t9zKDX7JY3vZaZMqXdPy_39_SEZq64Y6Dn8

Quote
The Navy’s next class fast attack submarine will be designed for a return to blue-water great power competition, where the ability to support forces ashore is less important than operating in the open ocean hunting rival submarines, according to an analysis of the Navy’s 30 Year shipbuilding plan conducted by Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The Navy plans to start purchasing this new class of submarine in 2034. Previously the SSN(X) class were assumed to be a successor to the current Virginia-class submarine, complete with the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) – a vertical launch system that increases the number of Tomahawk-sized weapons from 12 to 40 – and other acoustic and technological design improvements, according to the CBO analysis released Thursday.
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

Online seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 847
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #185 on: October 22, 2018, 12:53:36 am »
Two submarines christened in one day - a rare occurence indeed. It happened Saturday, when Jill Biden christened #DELAWARE SSN791 at Newport News VA and Gloria Valdez broke the bottle for #VERMONT SSN792 at Groton CT


Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8475
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #186 on: November 16, 2018, 02:20:22 pm »
https://news.usni.org/2018/11/14/navy-looking-use-virginia-payload-module-deploy-new-missiles-uuvs

Quote
ARLINGTON, Va. – The undersea warfare community wants to boost attack sub lethality by providing new payloads for the Virginia-class SSNs, especially ones that can be leveraged through the Virginia Payload Module missile tubes that will be added to new-construction boats beginning this year.

Program Executive Office for Submarines Executive Director George Drakeley said at the two-day annual Naval Submarine League symposium last week that, when the Navy was first pitching the idea of adding the VPM missile tube capacity to SSNs, “we were only really allowed to talk about it as a replacement for SSGN (Ohio-class guided-missile submarine) strike; we weren’t able to talk about other missions. And most of you here as submariners and warfighters could think of a lot of things you could do with a VPM. Well, the handcuffs are off now, and lately we’ve been talking about other capabilities.”
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 bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1707
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #187 on: November 17, 2018, 07:09:28 am »
^ A Harpoon on an SSN for the 2020s.  ::)
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10896
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #188 on: November 17, 2018, 07:56:29 am »
^ A Harpoon on an SSN for the 2020s.  ::)

So glad they killed LRASM-B













« Last Edit: November 18, 2018, 07:48:24 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1707
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #189 on: November 17, 2018, 08:14:59 am »
They should at least consider the LRASM which is now months away from being fielded. Going forward, we should spin off an AShM requirement into some of the hypersonic programs much the same way the Army is doing with PrSM via increments on the BM side.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10896
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #190 on: November 17, 2018, 06:53:20 pm »
They should at least consider the LRASM which is now months away from being fielded. Going forward, we should spin off an AShM requirement into some of the hypersonic programs much the same way the Army is doing with PrSM via increments on the BM side.

LRASM is too fat for a 21" tube.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 568
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #191 on: Today at 05:34:29 pm »
They should at least consider the LRASM which is now months away from being fielded. Going forward, we should spin off an AShM requirement into some of the hypersonic programs much the same way the Army is doing with PrSM via increments on the BM side.

LRASM is too fat for a 21" tube.
How are they launching it from 21" VLS cells?
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10896
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #192 on: Today at 06:03:08 pm »
They should at least consider the LRASM which is now months away from being fielded. Going forward, we should spin off an AShM requirement into some of the hypersonic programs much the same way the Army is doing with PrSM via increments on the BM side.

LRASM is too fat for a 21" tube.
How are they launching it from 21" VLS cells?

Beats the hell out of me.  A poster here, TomS I believe, has indicated that they've launched somewhat larger missiles from the Mk41 VLS by removing the liner from the canister.  This includes ATACMs at 24" diameter apparently.  I have no idea how, or if, that compromises the canister. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.