Register here

Author Topic: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future  (Read 68370 times)

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10623
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #165 on: June 13, 2018, 02:28:55 pm »
Issue is the length.  D5 is ~44' 6".

Interesting to see if they could rehost AHW on a booster stack that would fit in the VPMs.

*cough* KEI. . .
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2643
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #166 on: June 14, 2018, 07:22:16 am »
The last iteration of KEI I know of was 39 feet long, too deep for the VPTs.

The STARS booster for AHW is basically a Polaris misile stack.  If that's enough for an operational weapon, you could do something like a D5 without the second stage (or with a half-length first stage). 

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10623
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #167 on: June 14, 2018, 08:08:11 am »
The last iteration of KEI I know of was 39 feet long, too deep for the VPTs.

The STARS booster for AHW is basically a Polaris misile stack.  If that's enough for an operational weapon, you could do something like a D5 without the second stage (or with a half-length first stage).

I know this is the Virginia thread but I could swear there has been talk of making Columbia SSGNs after the SSBNs have been built.  ???
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8346
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #168 on: June 14, 2018, 09:31:01 am »
The last iteration of KEI I know of was 39 feet long, too deep for the VPTs.

The STARS booster for AHW is basically a Polaris misile stack.  If that's enough for an operational weapon, you could do something like a D5 without the second stage (or with a half-length first stage).

I know this is the Virginia thread but I could swear there has been talk of making Columbia SSGNs after the SSBNs have been built.  ???
Somewhere in the Nuke New Only thread. Proposed keeping the line open past 12 Columbias and building SSGNs so mid 2040s IIRC.
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 TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2643
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #169 on: June 14, 2018, 12:47:26 pm »
The last iteration of KEI I know of was 39 feet long, too deep for the VPTs.

The STARS booster for AHW is basically a Polaris misile stack.  If that's enough for an operational weapon, you could do something like a D5 without the second stage (or with a half-length first stage).

I know this is the Virginia thread but I could swear there has been talk of making Columbia SSGNs after the SSBNs have been built.  ???

With NSSN Block V and the VPM, is there really a screaming need for boomer-sized SSGNs?

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10623
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #170 on: June 14, 2018, 03:44:28 pm »
The last iteration of KEI I know of was 39 feet long, too deep for the VPTs.

The STARS booster for AHW is basically a Polaris misile stack.  If that's enough for an operational weapon, you could do something like a D5 without the second stage (or with a half-length first stage).

I know this is the Virginia thread but I could swear there has been talk of making Columbia SSGNs after the SSBNs have been built.  ???

With NSSN Block V and the VPM, is there really a screaming need for boomer-sized SSGNs?

As you pointed out, the Virginias are limited in the size of missiles they can carry.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 482
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #171 on: June 14, 2018, 04:05:24 pm »
With NSSN Block V and the VPM, is there really a screaming need for boomer-sized SSGNs?

The current SSGNs have something like 5x the number of shots of a VPM. The other reason was to keep the heavy submarine line open indefinitely. Which is pretty smart, because there many be a demand for a submarine UUV carrier within the next 20 years.

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 840
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #172 on: June 14, 2018, 04:11:27 pm »
The last iteration of KEI I know of was 39 feet long, too deep for the VPTs.

The STARS booster for AHW is basically a Polaris misile stack.  If that's enough for an operational weapon, you could do something like a D5 without the second stage (or with a half-length first stage).

I know this is the Virginia thread but I could swear there has been talk of making Columbia SSGNs after the SSBNs have been built.  ???

I've seen that as well but I can't find it now.  Was it in a document talking about future ship build schedules?

I can see Columbia becoming "Improved Virginia".  If nothing else than to have one boat being built.  But there are lots of good operational reasons as well.



Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8346
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #173 on: June 14, 2018, 05:00:45 pm »
https://news.usni.org/2017/11/02/navy-considering-mid-block-virginia-class-upgrades-ssgn-construction-late-2030s

Quote
To address that firepower gap, the TSEP looks at the possibility of using the Columbia-class SSBN design and production line to flow into an SSGN production line in the mid-2030s.

With a sub-launched LRSO or better yet an hypersonic BGV on a IRBM.
USNI article
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 TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2643
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #174 on: June 14, 2018, 05:32:41 pm »
With NSSN Block V and the VPM, is there really a screaming need for boomer-sized SSGNs?

The current SSGNs have something like 5x the number of shots of a VPM. The other reason was to keep the heavy submarine line open indefinitely. Which is pretty smart, because there many be a demand for a submarine UUV carrier within the next 20 years.

A Block V has more like 40-50 TLAM (4x7 in the VPM, 12 more in the forward VPTs, and more in the torpedo room).  That's a third of an SSGN and more than enough for most likely strike missions.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2011
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #175 on: June 14, 2018, 06:55:20 pm »
an SSGN(X) would provide for greater capacity for other payloads as well.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2018, 06:57:29 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 796
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #176 on: June 15, 2018, 01:17:43 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.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10623
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #177 on: June 15, 2018, 03:20:29 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?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline moonbeamsts

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 37
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #178 on: June 15, 2018, 03:26:37 pm »
Doesn't  the Columbia missile come in 4 pack configuration? With 8 tubes  and the VPM hatch design USN could do a short columbia  at reduced cost with massive fire power and payload flexibility.
https://news.usni.org/2016/10/06/101m-awarded-electric-boat-build-ssbn-missile-tubes-uk-enters-manufacturing-phase-successor-class

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2011
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future
« Reply #179 on: June 15, 2018, 04:13:59 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?

There was also an argument for a faster transiting SSGN which translates to about a 300 ft length for a 43 ft beam.