688I Los Angeles Flight III

[illRoyalPanda]

Hello everyone, I was just wondering what yalls thoughts were on the 688I (flight III) compared to like the seawolf/ Virginia block IV and V

 

[Anduriel]

What is to compare? Obviously the Seawolf and Virginias are better, as they were made to replace 688i.

 

[Deleted member 29851]

Hello everyone, I was just wondering what yalls thoughts were on the 688I (flight III) compared to like the seawolf/ Virginia block IV and V

They are both watercraft.

 

[tychosis]

Hello everyone, I was just wondering what yalls thoughts were on the 688I (flight III) compared to like the seawolf/ Virginia block IV and V

Compared in what way?

We don't really like going backward, a newer class is generally going to be more capable than the previous one--but the 688is are still holding up.

 

[Vepr157]

Consider that the 688I is a late 1970s update to a mid 1960s design, the Seawolf is a mid 1980s design, and the Virginia is a mid 1990s design updated in the 2010s. So there is a three-decade gulf between the 688 and Virginia. Really the "front end" of the 688 is even older, late 1950s vintage as it was only incrementally updated from the original Thresher/BQQ-2 design (although the combat systems have of course been updated considerably since then). As you might imagine, 30 years is quite a big jump.

Something additionally to consider that is never discussed: the Virginia is not a very fast submarine. 28 knots was the design speed, compared with about 32 knots for the 688 and 35 knots for the Seawolf. This is the result of the S9G plant not being particularly powerful, about 20,000-25,000 SHP compared to 30,000/33,000 SHP for the S6G and 45,000 SHP for the S6W (the commonly cited 40,000-SHP figure for the S9G is probably wrong). I have heard that the Virginias are burning through their effective full power hours more quickly than expected due to their relatively slow speed, which is a problem for a core that is supposed to last the life of the ship.

 

[Yellow Palace]

I have heard that the Virginias are burning through their effective full power hours more quickly than expected due to their relatively slow speed, which is a problem for a core that is supposed to last the life of the ship.

This is one of the non-obvious problems with a life-of-ship core. Needing refuelling early is fine with a reactor that's designed to be refuelled. You just open it up early, do what needs to be done, and go from one refuelling in the ship's life to two refuellings.

If you've designed everything around the assumption that it'll never be refuelled, you've probably put stuff in the way of the refuelling route that can't easily be moved. Submarines are tight, it would be weird not to take advantage of any slight easing of constraints.

So that means you're either needing a really invasive docking period that wasn't planned for, or you're retiring the ship early because it's burnt all its neutrons. Neither is a great choice.

 

[illRoyalPanda]

By comparing them i mostly meant their capabilities and if the 688I is still semi decent overall or if it's just become a true relic

 

[Vepr157]

By comparing them i mostly meant their capabilities and if the 688I is still semi decent overall or if it's just become a true relic

It's still a fast, quiet, capable nuclear submarine with a modern combat system. I'd say that puts it above anything else besides the latest from the major navies (U.S., Britain, France, Russia).