Loss of SSN 755 USS MIami

Incredible how much damage one idiot was able to cause. I don't exactly know how the Navy manages its deployments, but it would really be sad if other subs are forced to make longer deployments and their crews are kept separated even longer from their families due to this moron's actions.
 
In honour of the USS USS Miami and its crew, I will read again the book "Submarine: A Guided Tour Inside a Nuclear Warship" by Tom Clancy, I enjoyed reading as a teenager. :)
 
Big Red by Doug Waller is also highly recommended, Waller wrote about a ridealong aboard an SSBN deployment.
 
Hello Every one,
As a former USn SonarTech Subs I am deeply saddened for the loss of the Miami. This will cause such a ripple effect in deployments and added stress on sub family's and of course the sailors. The wasted money already spent and the cost to replace is unreal. My first boat USS Providence 719 cost est 1985 dollars 750 million. What's a Virginia go for these days? ??? ?? The arsonist has done almost as much damage as John Walker did to the sub community. He should have gotten Life for a sentence!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Jeff Moon
Former STS/SS/USN
 
moonbeamsts said:
Hello Every one,
As a former USn SonarTech Subs I am deeply saddened for the loss of the Miami. This will cause such a ripple effect in deployments and added stress on sub family's and of course the sailors. The wasted money already spent and the cost to replace is unreal. My first boat USS Providence 719 cost est 1985 dollars 750 million. What's a Virginia go for these days? ??? ?? The arsonist has done almost as much damage as John Walker did to the sub community. He should have gotten Life for a sentence!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Jeff Moon
Former STS/SS/USN
Click to expand...

Depending on whose figures you use a Virginia costs about $2 - 2.6 billion, or $.922 to 1.2 billion in 1985 dollars. If repaired Miami would have served for 10 more years. Given what the repair would have costs, at the higher Virginia figure, that works out to $9 million more per year over a repaired Miami (Remember, the Virginia would last longer). Using the lower Virgina figure, a SSN-774 boat would actually cost $ 9 million/yr. less.

There is no way this will not affect deployments and operations, just like moonbeams said. This could last for decades, as we are short on fast attacks now and its going to get worse. Even if Congress funded an extra Virginia, you're talking a pretty lengthy time before the effects of her becoming operational would mitigate the situation.

For this, I kinda miss the way the old Royal Navy did it: "Bring out th' Cat"!
 
I wonder if the forward damage is limited enough to allow repurposing? Give up on returning to service as an attack boat, and use her as either a tech demo ship or a replacement of the NR-2? Though one of the Virgina's had that special hull plug added for NSA missions, so maybe not a NR-2 follow-on. Weren't most of the more interesting newer concepts for subs replacing the entire forward area with a something like a bomb bay with a rotary rack? Compared to a true repair, splicing a rack in would give operational experience.
 
F-14D said:
For this, I kinda miss the way the old Royal Navy did it: "Bring out th' Cat"!
Click to expand...

I doubt even the RN of yore would have been allowed to flog whom appears to me be to be a civilian dockyard worker or is he a serving member of the USN?
 
Actually, Arson in the Royal Dockyards was one of the last remaining capital offences in the UK - it lasted six years longer than murder. The only person known to have been convicted of it was an American Revolutionary terrorist, John the Painter, in 1777.
 
ouroboros said:
I wonder if the forward damage is limited enough to allow repurposing? Give up on returning to service as an attack boat, and use her as either a tech demo ship or a replacement of the NR-2? Though one of the Virgina's had that special hull plug added for NSA missions, so maybe not a NR-2 follow-on. Weren't most of the more interesting newer concepts for subs replacing the entire forward area with a something like a bomb bay with a rotary rack? Compared to a true repair, splicing a rack in would give operational experience.
Click to expand...

Sorry, IMO not really practical. The damage is extensive. There's really not enough money around to spend on any kind of tech demonstrator, especially considering what it would take to put Miami back to sea. BTW, I believe you're referring to NR-1 and Miami is too big for that series of missions.

There is going to be a major change to the bow with the Virginia Class starting with SSN 784. New sonar array the 12 missile tubes are replaced with a more flexible pair of vertical tubes adapted from the Ohio SSGNs and there are other changes to reduce costs by $20 million a sub. These changes were tested via a module built ashore. That would be the case with even more advanced concepts. Either they'd be tested ashore, or parts would be built into a new construction SSN. There simply isn't the money there for a specialty test boat, and if there were, would a 28 year old repaired hull be our best option. Such money would have to come from other ship repairs. What we really need is an additional SSN ordered soon to replace the Miami (we could easily build three at a time) but the question is whether the Administration would be intersted enough.
 
There have been dire warnings about the effect of this loss on US deployment patterns, and the suggestions here have been numerous and expensive. How about the simplest, cheapest alternative? The USS Dallas is due to retire in 2014. Don't retire it. Keep it in service until the next boat is scheduled to stand down, then retire the Dallas, and then the next, etc. Granted, it would mean that we're retaining the least marginally useful ships rather than a proper 688I, but still, it wouldn't be the end of the world. Even re-coring a reactor on a 688 would be cheaper than a complete rebuild of Miami. Finally, if we worked out a way to accelerate construction of a Virginia-class boat further down the line, we'd be able to return to a more desirable force level.

It's not as sexy as an extra brand-new, rush-built boat, or a complete rebuild of Miami into some kind of bizarre 688/774 hybrid, but still, it's workable.
 
i thought about this in a slightly different way - re-commission an older 688. Carsinamerica idea is way better. The truth is, the USN still has a luxury: quantity. The 688 class is huge, and I'm confident that even the older 688s remain valuable ships.
 
Archibald said:
i thought about this in a slightly different way - re-commission an older 688. Carsinamerica idea is way better. The truth is, the USN still has a luxury: quantity. The 688 class is huge, and I'm confident that even the older 688s remain valuable ships.
Click to expand...

Actually, we no longer have enough subs to do all the missions expected of them already, and it's only going to get worse since under present plans we are not building subs fast enough to replace the ones wearing out. There are some other issues. Unless a sub is retired prematurely, which may happen under current budget projections, they retire at the time of their next refueling. So to extend an older 688, you're going to have to refuel a reactor that is no longer in production. You've also got to take into consideration how many dive cycles and deep dives the sub has done. These cause permanent wear to the hull and could require extensive refit. In many ways a sub is similar to a plane in that it has an "airframe life".

You'd end up spending a lot of money to produce a series of obsolescent subs that may only have a few years left (even if they had repaired Miami she would have only served for another 10 years). If you're going to spend those kinds of bucks, just order an additional Virginia in FY14 or 15.

By their nature, once a nuke has gone cold iron, there is only a finite amount of tie before the reactor deteriorates to the point it becomes unusable. This was the way Clinton was going to triangulate preventing the Ohios from being converted into SSGNs without actually coming out and stopping the program. AS the first four Ohios (which still had at least half of their useful life left) came in for refueling, they wouldn't be retired, just left in a caretaker state while the option was being "studied". In not too long a time, the reactors would decay and could no longer go critical at which point the cost of turning them into SSGNs would have become astronomical and unaffordable. Then, of course there'd be no choice but to scrap them. Congress saw what was happening and stepped in with enough money for the refueling and so the SSGN conversion proceeded. So unfortunately recommissioning an older 688 that has been shut down isn't that practical. That's why no USN nuke (surface or sub) has ever been mothballed for possible return.
 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/12/uss-miami-towed-from-portsmouth-naval-shipyard/
 
In days of yore, this "troubled individual" would have found himself with his back to a wall. I suspect he will not survive his sentence, or if he does, he will spend it (and the rest of his life) with one eye over his shoulder.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom