NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future

Dose anybody know the diameter of the vergina payload module tubes. Thanks.
 
HII says their SSN workforce is back to full strength.
www.defensenews.com

Newport News has fully staffed attack sub line, after years of delays

The company has a fully staffed Virginia-class production line, and the company hopes to see improved schedule performance on the remaining Block IV subs.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Both yards had prioritized the SSBN program, to the 774s' detriment, but now at least Newport News' lines are at strength.
 
that_person said:
bobbymike said:
I like the SSTN idea. Probably carry three IRBMs per SLBM tube. Although I prefer a dedicated Columbia conventional strike platform.
Click to expand...
Might be something like the below, an adaption of ATACMS to submarine cells. Remember this was also when we thought using unarmed Trident II warheads as bunker busters was a good idea.
Click to expand...
Only problem is launch signature.

If you're going to throw a kinetic bunker buster at someone, it should NOT come from a place that could also carry a nuclear warhead.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Only problem is launch signature.

If you're going to throw a kinetic bunker buster at someone, it should NOT come from a place that could also carry a nuclear warhead.
Click to expand...

Though we didn't have that concern with SLCM, for some reason.
 
TomS said:
Scott Kenny said:
Only problem is launch signature.

If you're going to throw a kinetic bunker buster at someone, it should NOT come from a place that could also carry a nuclear warhead.
Click to expand...

Though we didn't have that concern with SLCM, for some reason.
Click to expand...
Any ship/sub launched hypersonic missile could have a nuke on it or look initially like a ballistic missile launch. Better scrap all of it.
 
TomS said:
Scott Kenny said:
Only problem is launch signature.

If you're going to throw a kinetic bunker buster at someone, it should NOT come from a place that could also carry a nuclear warhead.
Click to expand...

Though we didn't have that concern with SLCM, for some reason.
Click to expand...
Originally, all submarine launched Tomahawks that would be aimed at shore were nuclear warheads. UGM-109A. The -B model was an odd thing, an antiship missile with ludicrous range. Then the -C with a unitary warhead, and -D with the cluster warhead.

Once the US formally withdrew all the -As, any SLCM is a lot less threatening. Or at least the US SLCMs are.


bobbymike said:
Any ship/sub launched hypersonic missile could have a nuke on it or look initially like a ballistic missile launch. Better scrap all of it.
Click to expand...
There's an immense size and thermal signature difference, not to mention the fact that an SLCM tips over at 200ft and stops climbing.
 
Scott Kenny said:
TomS said:
Scott Kenny said:
Only problem is launch signature.

If you're going to throw a kinetic bunker buster at someone, it should NOT come from a place that could also carry a nuclear warhead.
Click to expand...

Though we didn't have that concern with SLCM, for some reason.
Click to expand...
Originally, all submarine launched Tomahawks that would be aimed at shore were nuclear warheads. UGM-109A. The -B model was an odd thing, an antiship missile with ludicrous range. Then the -C with a unitary warhead, and -D with the cluster warhead.

Once the US formally withdrew all the -As, any SLCM is a lot less threatening. Or at least the US SLCMs are.


bobbymike said:
Any ship/sub launched hypersonic missile could have a nuke on it or look initially like a ballistic missile launch. Better scrap all of it.
Click to expand...
There's an immense size and thermal signature difference, not to mention the fact that an SLCM tips over at 200ft and stops climbing.
Click to expand...
As I said they could all STILL be assumed to have nukes on them. Our adversaries could claim “we assume any ballistic missile is a nuke” to try and control our tech development and deployment options.

IIRC back a couple decades a couple of oils rig fires initially set off launch detection warnings. Maybe China has much more advance systems that could tell a hypersonic ballistic missile launched from an SSGN to a D5 launched from an Ohio but I doubt it to be honest.
 
bobbymike said:
Our adversaries could claim “we assume any ballistic missile is a nuke”
Click to expand...
'Claim' is not what will get us into trouble when the missiles start flying. What will get us into trouble is the very real suspicion on the adversaries' side that some, or all of the incoming missiles are carrying nukes. A suspicion that can only be disproven after all the warheads have exploded.

Would you expect the adversaries to put aside that suspicion when the missiles are flying? Because then I would think you're suffering from terminal optimism.
 
Last edited:
Arjen said:
bobbymike said:
Our adversaries could claim “we assume any ballistic missile is a nuke”
Click to expand...
'Claim' is not what will get us into trouble when the missiles start flying. What will get us into trouble is the very real suspicion on the adversaries' side that some, or all of the incoming missiles are carrying nukes. A suspicion that can only be disproven after all the warheads have exploded.

Would you expect the adversaries to put aside that suspicion when the missiles are flying? Because then I would think you're suffering from terminal optimism.
Click to expand...
Of course my comment refers to prelaunch even predepoloyment and relates to an adversaries attempt to sway defense policy at home.

The USSR was highly successful in “stirring up opposition” to any nuclear modernization re: MX, D5, Pershing II, GLCM/ALCM/SLCM, Neutron Bomb, etc. All those weapon systems were going to start WWIII many in the west bought their story.
 
bobbymike said:
Scott Kenny said:
TomS said:
Scott Kenny said:
Only problem is launch signature.

If you're going to throw a kinetic bunker buster at someone, it should NOT come from a place that could also carry a nuclear warhead.
Click to expand...

Though we didn't have that concern with SLCM, for some reason.
Click to expand...
Originally, all submarine launched Tomahawks that would be aimed at shore were nuclear warheads. UGM-109A. The -B model was an odd thing, an antiship missile with ludicrous range. Then the -C with a unitary warhead, and -D with the cluster warhead.

Once the US formally withdrew all the -As, any SLCM is a lot less threatening. Or at least the US SLCMs are.


bobbymike said:
Any ship/sub launched hypersonic missile could have a nuke on it or look initially like a ballistic missile launch. Better scrap all of it.
Click to expand...
There's an immense size and thermal signature difference, not to mention the fact that an SLCM tips over at 200ft and stops climbing.
Click to expand...
As I said they could all STILL be assumed to have nukes on them. Our adversaries could claim “we assume any ballistic missile is a nuke” to try and control our tech development and deployment options.

IIRC back a couple decades a couple of oils rig fires initially set off launch detection warnings. Maybe China has much more advance systems that could tell a hypersonic ballistic missile launched from an SSGN to a D5 launched from an Ohio but I doubt it to be honest.
Click to expand...
Again.

Launch signature.

The rocket motor of a Tomahawk burns for about 5 seconds and only makes about 3500lbs thrust for those 5 seconds, just enough to get the missile out of the water and 200ft up, no significant acceleration.

The first stage of a Trident II burns for about 65 seconds and makes at least 130,000lbs thrust (missile weighs 130klbs), and I believe makes more than 400,000lbs thrust to accelerate at over 3 gees.

Very, very, VERY different amount of thermal bloom involved!!!

If it takes an entire oil rig burning to get enough heat to trip the missile launch warning satellites, that should give you an idea of just how much power it'd take to get there.

Now, I did miss that you were specifying hypersonics. 3M22 Zircon weighs about 7000lbs, which is 1/20 that of a Trident II. Shaurya weighs about the same at 6200kg. Even with a rocket booster running for 65 seconds like a Trident, it's still 1/20 the total energy on a completely different trajectory.
 
Scott Kenny said:
bobbymike said:
Scott Kenny said:
TomS said:
Scott Kenny said:
Only problem is launch signature.

If you're going to throw a kinetic bunker buster at someone, it should NOT come from a place that could also carry a nuclear warhead.
Click to expand...

Though we didn't have that concern with SLCM, for some reason.
Click to expand...
Originally, all submarine launched Tomahawks that would be aimed at shore were nuclear warheads. UGM-109A. The -B model was an odd thing, an antiship missile with ludicrous range. Then the -C with a unitary warhead, and -D with the cluster warhead.

Once the US formally withdrew all the -As, any SLCM is a lot less threatening. Or at least the US SLCMs are.


bobbymike said:
Any ship/sub launched hypersonic missile could have a nuke on it or look initially like a ballistic missile launch. Better scrap all of it.
Click to expand...
There's an immense size and thermal signature difference, not to mention the fact that an SLCM tips over at 200ft and stops climbing.
Click to expand...
As I said they could all STILL be assumed to have nukes on them. Our adversaries could claim “we assume any ballistic missile is a nuke” to try and control our tech development and deployment options.

IIRC back a couple decades a couple of oils rig fires initially set off launch detection warnings. Maybe China has much more advance systems that could tell a hypersonic ballistic missile launched from an SSGN to a D5 launched from an Ohio but I doubt it to be honest.
Click to expand...
Again.

Launch signature.

The rocket motor of a Tomahawk burns for about 5 seconds and only makes about 3500lbs thrust for those 5 seconds, just enough to get the missile out of the water and 200ft up, no significant acceleration.

The first stage of a Trident II burns for about 65 seconds and makes at least 130,000lbs thrust (missile weighs 130klbs), and I believe makes more than 400,000lbs thrust to accelerate at over 3 gees.

Very, very, VERY different amount of thermal bloom involved!!!

If it takes an entire oil rig burning to get enough heat to trip the missile launch warning satellites, that should give you an idea of just how much power it'd take to get there.

Now, I did miss that you were specifying hypersonics. 3M22 Zircon weighs about 7000lbs, which is 1/20 that of a Trident II. Shaurya weighs about the same at 6200kg. Even with a rocket booster running for 65 seconds like a Trident, it's still 1/20 the total energy on a completely different trajectory.
Click to expand...
Yes obviously, however none of my comments were intended to discuss the different launch signature of any systems per se.

They were intended to relate how an adversary will try and make very controversial any new system we are developing for future deployment.

If I did a poor job of that it’s on me I guess.
 
bobbymike said:
Arjen said:
bobbymike said:
Our adversaries could claim “we assume any ballistic missile is a nuke”
Click to expand...
'Claim' is not what will get us into trouble when the missiles start flying. What will get us into trouble is the very real suspicion on the adversaries' side that some, or all of the incoming missiles are carrying nukes. A suspicion that can only be disproven after all the warheads have exploded.

Would you expect the adversaries to put aside that suspicion when the missiles are flying? Because then I would think you're suffering from terminal optimism.
Click to expand...
Of course my comment refers to prelaunch even predepoloyment and relates to an adversaries attempt to sway defense policy at home.

The USSR was highly successful in “stirring up opposition” to any nuclear modernization re: MX, D5, Pershing II, GLCM/ALCM/SLCM, Neutron Bomb, etc. All those weapon systems were going to start WWIII many in the west bought their story.
Click to expand...
Remember the Europeans screaming about how deploying Pershing IIs and GLCM was going to get them nuked? Did they ever admit they were wrong after the INF Treaty was signed? No? I didn't think so.
 
bobbymike said:
Scott Kenny said:
bobbymike said:
Scott Kenny said:
TomS said:
Scott Kenny said:
Only problem is launch signature.

If you're going to throw a kinetic bunker buster at someone, it should NOT come from a place that could also carry a nuclear warhead.
Click to expand...

Though we didn't have that concern with SLCM, for some reason.
Click to expand...
Originally, all submarine launched Tomahawks that would be aimed at shore were nuclear warheads. UGM-109A. The -B model was an odd thing, an antiship missile with ludicrous range. Then the -C with a unitary warhead, and -D with the cluster warhead.

Once the US formally withdrew all the -As, any SLCM is a lot less threatening. Or at least the US SLCMs are.


bobbymike said:
Any ship/sub launched hypersonic missile could have a nuke on it or look initially like a ballistic missile launch. Better scrap all of it.
Click to expand...
There's an immense size and thermal signature difference, not to mention the fact that an SLCM tips over at 200ft and stops climbing.
Click to expand...
As I said they could all STILL be assumed to have nukes on them. Our adversaries could claim “we assume any ballistic missile is a nuke” to try and control our tech development and deployment options.

IIRC back a couple decades a couple of oils rig fires initially set off launch detection warnings. Maybe China has much more advance systems that could tell a hypersonic ballistic missile launched from an SSGN to a D5 launched from an Ohio but I doubt it to be honest.
Click to expand...
Again.

Launch signature.

The rocket motor of a Tomahawk burns for about 5 seconds and only makes about 3500lbs thrust for those 5 seconds, just enough to get the missile out of the water and 200ft up, no significant acceleration.

The first stage of a Trident II burns for about 65 seconds and makes at least 130,000lbs thrust (missile weighs 130klbs), and I believe makes more than 400,000lbs thrust to accelerate at over 3 gees.

Very, very, VERY different amount of thermal bloom involved!!!

If it takes an entire oil rig burning to get enough heat to trip the missile launch warning satellites, that should give you an idea of just how much power it'd take to get there.

Now, I did miss that you were specifying hypersonics. 3M22 Zircon weighs about 7000lbs, which is 1/20 that of a Trident II. Shaurya weighs about the same at 6200kg. Even with a rocket booster running for 65 seconds like a Trident, it's still 1/20 the total energy on a completely different trajectory.
Click to expand...
Yes obviously, however none of my comments were intended to discuss the different launch signature of any systems per se.

They were intended to relate how an adversary will try and make very controversial any new system we are developing for future deployment.

If I did a poor job of that it’s on me I guess.
Click to expand...
Ah, gotcha!

Having been an SSBN sailor, I react a bit differently to normal folks.
 
news.usni.org

Report on Virginia-class Attack Submarine Program - USNI News

The following is the June 22, 2023, Congressional Research Service report, Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress. From the report The Navy has been procuring Virginia (SSN-774) class nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) since FY1998...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
 
Scott Kenny said:
If they're willing to pay for it, we need to do it. US needs probably thirty more SSNs than we physically own. The combat commands are all screaming for SSN support missions, enough to keep some 86 submarines busy.
Click to expand...
And it’s currently the weapon system where we maintain the largest technological superiority (F-22/F-35/B-2/B-21 a close second) IMHO.
 
Scott Kenny said:
If they're willing to pay for it, we need to do it. US needs probably thirty more SSNs than we physically own. The combat commands are all screaming for SSN support missions, enough to keep some 86 submarines busy.
Click to expand...
I would say cruisers (preferably nuclear powered) are a far more pressing priority. Shoehorning destroyers into cruiser roles was always clearly going to be a losing proposition in the medium to long term, and things have only gotten worse.
 
Scott Kenny said:
If they're willing to pay for it, we need to do it. US needs probably thirty more SSNs than we physically own. The combat commands are all screaming for SSN support missions, enough to keep some 86 submarines busy.
Click to expand...
They can order it all they want, but the current shipyard worker shortage (which includes the ones building SSN parts) means that they won't get built any faster.
 
BlackBat242 said:
They can order it all they want, but the current shipyard worker shortage (which includes the ones building SSN parts) means that they won't get built any faster.
Click to expand...
This is pretty much the argument the Navy leadership is making. Its not that they don't want 30 more boats or aren't trying to grow the fleet's size, it's that they believe the money this year would be better spent on industry investments to reduce the existing backlog.

I think they would agree that the best route would be to increase Industry investments while also buying the 2 boats, but the congressional budget caps are what they are.
 
Last edited:
Grey Havoc said:
I would say cruisers (preferably nuclear powered) are a far more pressing priority. Shoehorning destroyers into cruiser roles was always clearly going to be a losing proposition in the medium to long term, and things have only gotten worse.
Click to expand...
No, nuclear powered surface ships aren't worth the overhead costs. Yes, it's easier to make a lot of electrical generation for all the crap you need, but the training, building, and especially overhaul costs haven't been worth it for anything smaller than a carrier.

Both the Koreans and the Japanese have adapted the Burke superstructure to a different hull shape (wider and shallower) that has added the flag command spaces that Burkes don't have.

Moose said:
This is pretty much the argument the Navy leadership is making. Its not that they don't want 30 more boats or aren't trying to grow the fleet's size, it's that they believe the money this year would be better spent on industry investments to reduce the existing backlog.

I think they would agree that the best route would be to increase Industry investments while also buying the 2 boats, but the congressional budget caps are what they are.
Click to expand...
Hopefully Congress can pry some extra money loose for the second boat while still increasing industry investment/enlargement.
 
Scott Kenny said:
No, nuclear powered surface ships aren't worth the overhead costs. Yes, it's easier to make a lot of electrical generation for all the crap you need, but the training, building, and especially overhaul costs haven't been worth it for anything smaller than a carrier.
Click to expand...

The USN has also decided in the early 1990s that CGNs are too vulnerable, as the hull width did not allow for sufficient compartmentalization beside or below the reactors to keep the reactor compartment/vessel intact if hit by a torpedo or mine, and there was also vulnerability to air attack penetrating through the superstructure to the reactor.*

There has been a law on the books in the USN for decades requiring surface combatant ships** to be nuclear-powered where possible... unless the USN certifies that it would be unacceptable to do so!

The USN has so certified all such ships except aircraft carriers since the law was passed.


* This applies to any cruiser type with a beam less than ~80 feet - meaning only ships larger than the Newport News class heavy cruisers (76' beam) (basically the size of the Alaska class "large cruisers" [90'] or larger) are "safe enough" to be nuclear-powered. CGN-9 Long Beach was the largest of the nuclear-powered "escorts" with a beam of 71' 6". The other DLGN/CGNs had beams of 58'-63'.

** LHAs, LHDs, and LPDs are also subject to the law... note that none of those have the "N" ending on their type designations either.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Hopefully Congress can pry some extra money loose for the second boat while still increasing industry investment/enlargement.
Click to expand...
Could Congress / Navy do a split buy for the boat, where half of the cost is on this years budget and half on next year? The half this year helps keep industry going and showing we are serious about making more, but allowing more money to be allocated for industry investments.
 
BlackBat242 said:
The USN has also decided in the early 1990s that CGNs are too vulnerable, as the hull width did not allow for sufficient compartmentalization beside or below the reactors to keep the reactor compartment/vessel intact if hit by a torpedo or mine, and there was also vulnerability to air attack penetrating through the superstructure to the reactor.*

There has been a law on the books in the USN for decades requiring surface combatant ships** to be nuclear-powered where possible... unless the USN certifies that it would be unacceptable to do so!

The USN has so certified all such ships except aircraft carriers since the law was passed.


* This applies to any cruiser type with a beam less than ~80 feet - meaning only ships larger than the Newport News class heavy cruisers (76' beam) (basically the size of the Alaska class "large cruisers" [90'] or larger) are "safe enough" to be nuclear-powered. CGN-9 Long Beach was the largest of the nuclear-powered "escorts" with a beam of 71' 6". The other DLGN/CGNs had beams of 58'-63'.

** LHAs, LHDs, and LPDs are also subject to the law... note that none of those have the "N" ending on their type designations either.
Click to expand...
IIRC, when the America-class was getting developed, the analysis of alternatives said that oil would have to stay over $140/barrel for the life of the ship (in whatever year the analysis was done dollars) before an LPHN would be less expensive to operate than a dino-burner.



Shoes31 said:
Could Congress / Navy do a split buy for the boat, where half of the cost is on this years budget and half on next year? The half this year helps keep industry going and showing we are serious about making more, but allowing more money to be allocated for industry investments.
Click to expand...
I don't know if they can.
 
Scott Kenny said:
$140/barrel for the life of the ship (in whatever year the analysis was done dollars)
Click to expand...
Remember reading that, it was in pre-2008 dollars.

So it be over 200 dollars in 2023, From a low end of 198 in 2008 all the way up nearly 300 if you drop all the way back to 1992.


Me I mainly waiting to see if the Helion Fusion reactor works anywhere near as advertised, which for me be making 2.5 times more then you put in. They say it be roughly 500 megawatts, but even if it only outputs like 100 megawatts if be enough for the navy to look at that HARD. Cause the Safety factors for Fusion are Far FAR FAR loser then Fission. IF it eats a missile you will not be able to measure the amount of radiation basically compare to the outside and you cant melt down at all. Break yes, but you can train that unlike fission deals and again at worse is low beta radiation, which standard Damncon gear for DDGs be rated to stop it without it getting activated.
And you can automaticed to the point of Turbines if you wanted, which Helion is doing. Thrown in that the Big 500 megawatt assembly is smaller then a standard LM2500 turbogenset? Be a damn near drop in replacement. Only issue being needing to throw in a set of electric motors to turn the props, which be a bigger design issue for refitting the Burkes imo. The Ships with Intergrited Electric Propulsion like the Type 45 or the Zumwalts be a near plug and play deal.
 
Scott Kenny said:
No, nuclear powered surface ships aren't worth the overhead costs. Yes, it's easier to make a lot of electrical generation for all the crap you need, but the training, building, and especially overhaul costs haven't been worth it for anything smaller than a carrier.
Click to expand...
The supposed excessive costliness of nuclear powered cruisers and the like is mostly a myth, dating back primarily to the 1960s and the shenanigans of the McNamara era. For example, back in the 1980s it emerged that the cost of the Virginia-class cruiser (originally nuclear powered frigates prior to the great cruiser panic of the Carter period) was exaggerated by among other things the amortisation of the costs of a shore infrastructure originally planned to support around 40 ships having to be spread among only 4 ships. The original plan for what was then the DLGN program was to have at least 4 frigates for each of the then 8 planned CVN-68 (Nimitz) CVBGs, for a minimum procurement of 32 frigates. However given the hostility of McNamara to the CVN-68 program, the carrier admirals were increasingly forced to resort to drastic tactics to keep the program alive, among which I believe was not only quietly shifting funds and other resources from the DLGN program to the beleaguered CVN-68 program, but also moving R&D and other costs from the balance sheet of the latter program to that of the former. All of which ultimately ended up drastically reducing procurement of the DLGNs while (seemingly) driving their costs sky high, even before one took into account shore infrastructure designed for a much greater number of nuclear powered frigates.

BlackBat242 said:
The USN has also decided in the early 1990s that CGNs are too vulnerable, as the hull width did not allow for sufficient compartmentalization beside or below the reactors to keep the reactor compartment/vessel intact if hit by a torpedo or mine, and there was also vulnerability to air attack penetrating through the superstructure to the reactor.*

There has been a law on the books in the USN for decades requiring surface combatant ships** to be nuclear-powered where possible... unless the USN certifies that it would be unacceptable to do so!

The USN has so certified all such ships except aircraft carriers since the law was passed.


* This applies to any cruiser type with a beam less than ~80 feet - meaning only ships larger than the Newport News class heavy cruisers (76' beam) (basically the size of the Alaska class "large cruisers" [90'] or larger) are "safe enough" to be nuclear-powered. CGN-9 Long Beach was the largest of the nuclear-powered "escorts" with a beam of 71' 6". The other DLGN/CGNs had beams of 58'-63'.

** LHAs, LHDs, and LPDs are also subject to the law... note that none of those have the "N" ending on their type designations either.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the so-called Carrier mafia have made a total mockery of that law, along with their entirely fallacious criteria for CGN survivability, all to ensure that any and all resources for nuclear powered surface vessels goes solely into CVNs. However, I rather suspect that the end result of all that is going to bite them in the butt in the near future big time, pardon my French.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom