Ohio Replacement Submarine

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
70
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Artist's impression of Ohio Replacement Submarine (formerly the SSBN-X Future Follow-on Submarine) released on Sept. 6, 2012.

Ohio Replacement submarine details November 1, 2012.

Source:
http://www.navsea.navy.mil/HomePagePictures/Forms/DispForm.aspx?ID=131
http://news.usni.org/2012/11/01/ohio-class-replacement-details
 

Attachments

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
1
...and here's an artist's impression of UK's follow-on to the Vanguard SSBNs, to be devloped in parallel.

Source:http://news.usni.org/2013/12/18/u-k-mod-releases-first-images-royal-navys-new-boomers
 

Attachments

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
70
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Workers stand pose for a photo in the four-tube “quad-pack”. (U.S. Navy photo courtesy of General Dynamics Electric Boat/Released)

Source:
http://science.dodlive.mil/2012/10/10/the-next-generation-in-submarines/
 

Attachments

Brickmuppet

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
156
Reaction score
0
What is the point of the "quad-pack"? In surface vessels it means four smaller missiles (like ESSM or the abortive POLAR) could be fitted in a standard launch tube. I thought perhaps they were looking at something a few inches shorter and narrower than the cancelled Midgetman for 64 non-MIRVed missiles. However, Triton's pic shows the quad pack consists of 4 full sized tubes...is this a swappable module or what?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,061
Reaction score
21
Not swappable, exactly, but mass producable. Building the missile compartment separately and then dropping it into the sub is a lot easier than building it in place. Quad tubes because that fits both USN and RN plans. The RN replacement SSBN will have either 8 or 12 tubes (sources vary); the USN wants 16 tubes By designing a 4-tube module, you can put 2 or 3 in the British boats and 4 in the US subs.
 

NilsD

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Why is the replacement design significantly larger than Ohio while having only 2/3 the missile complement?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,482
Reaction score
42
NilsD said:
Why is the replacement design significantly larger than Ohio while having only 2/3 the missile complement?
Strange that way. Supposedly the UK's Vanguard replacement will also be larger than it's predecessor. Then there's the Russian Borei at 24,000 tons with 16 missiles.
 

Rhinocrates

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
167
Reaction score
0
Crew accommodations and facilities perhaps, which would help endurance? The Astute class are the RN's first to dispense with hot bunking, which would increase volume - they are significantly larger than the Trafalgars. The enormous Typhoons even have swimming pools.

Maybe some future-proofing...
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,061
Reaction score
21
Electric drive can be bulky. Also, many measures to improve quieting require volume inside the pressure hull.

As noted, improved crew accommodations also seem likely.
 

markfward

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Not putting up with hot-bunks, accepting mixed sex crews, etc.


The New Navy costs money, don't you know.


Nothings' for free.
 

RP1

I see the truth in it.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
440
Reaction score
0
Website
rp-one.net
Hi,


If I'm interpreting the "quad-pack" properly, it's to ease production issues - the integration of large diameter hull penetrations is always problematic and the missile tubes particularly. I think they used a lot of forged components but this new concept is supposed to make the structural integration a lot easier. [EDIT: Which TomS basically covered.]


Regarding hull size, remember that in the RN no small part of the growth from T- to A-boat was an increase in the diameter of the reactor compartment. Given what remained in the redacted documents released regarding successor it seems likely that PWR-3 will see a further increase in hull diameter to improve safety.


Of course, submarines have more that one dimension, so things like improved accommodation will increase volume, but sometimes that can be "filling in" space that has become available for other reasons. No matter how large they get, they're always the same density overall...


RP1


PS: IIRC Typhoon doesn't have a swimming pool, only a sauna. Roughing it in the Red Banner Northern Fleet! :D
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
70
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Is the reduction of missile tubes from 24 in the Ohio-class SSBN to 16 in the Ohio Replacement Submarine the result of the New START treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation? Is it possible to retrofit the Ohio Replacement Submarine with additional missile tubes if the New START treaty expires in 2021? Can this possibility explain the 20,810 long tons (submerged) displacement of the Ohio Replacement Submarine? Also what about the Type 096 (Tang- class) SSBN of the People's Liberation Army Navy that is expected to have 24 missile tubes?

Model of Type 096 (Tang- class) SSBN.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_096_submarine
 

Attachments

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,529
Reaction score
8
Triton said:
Is the reduction of missile tubes from 24 in the Ohio-class SSBN to 16 in the Ohio Replacement Submarine the result of the New START treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation? Is it possible to retrofit the Ohio Replacement Submarine with additional missile tubes if the New START treaty expires in 2021? Can this possibility explain the 20,810 long tons (submerged) displacement of the Ohio Replacement Submarine? Also what about the Type 096 (Tang- class) SSBN of the People's Liberation Army Navy that is expected to have 24 missile tubes?

Model of Type 096 (Tang- class) SSBN.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_096_submarine
Sorry to be slightly off topic but.............. As the first Ohio replacement (Neptune Class?) won't be built til after New Start expires which means the US has no desire to have any surge capability in place to deploy more missile tubes. My pessimistic prediction is that we will stop at about 5 SSBN(X)s, never replace our ICBM's nor ever build a new nuke warhead. We will reduce to 'minimum' deterrent levels of 300 or so warheads on those five subs with 80 missiles. Yes I am that pessimistic.
 

Rhinocrates

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
167
Reaction score
0
RP1 said:
PS: My word there is a *lot* of room on those boats.
Well, if a three-ring circus, a shopping mall and an orchestra are good enough for Spaceball One...
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
70
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Was the decision to use the UGM-133 Trident II with a Life Extension, also known as the Trident D5LE, in the Ohio Replacement Submarine and Successor principally a political decision? Should the United States Navy have developed a new SLBM for the Ohio Replacement Submarine?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,061
Reaction score
21
I'd say it was primarily an economic decision -- no one wants to fund a clear sheet SLBM when there,s no pressing requirement for one. The current missiles seem to have enough payload capacity for realistic future scenarios.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
70
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Navy Budgeting $10 Billion for Ohio Replacement Program Over Next Five Years
By: Sam LaGrone
February 3, 2015 4:58 PM • Updated: February 3, 2015 5:33 PM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2015/02/03/%EF%BB%BFnavy-budgeting-10-billion-ohio-replacement-program-next-five-years


PENTAGON – Continued work on the Ohio replacement nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) will cost the U.S. Navy about $10 billion over the next five years as part of budgeting in the Navy’s Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP), a senior service budget official told reporters on Monday.

“This FYDP plan funds both the advanced procurement [for ORP] at about $5 billion and [research and development] of about $5 billion,” said Rear Adm. William Lescher, the Department of the Navy’s (DoN) deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for budget in a late afternoon briefing to reporters.

The total includes $1.4 billion in the Fiscal Year 2016 request in the Department of the Navy’s R&D budget line, according to the Navy’s budget documents.

Those funds – over five years – are split between a $3.18 billion budget line for the research and development for the development of the submarine, $1.8 billion for nuclear technology development and $5.66 billion for long lead items from the Navy’s shipbuilding account, according to Navy budget documents.

The single largest line item is an anticipated $2.77 billion shipbuilding expenditure in Fiscal Year 2019.

ORP – an estimated $100 billion program to replace the service’s 14 nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) – is the Navy’s number one priority and the service has raised concerns without additional relief, the new class of 12 boomers could take funds away from other shipbuilding programs in the service’s shipbuilding account (SCN).

“They will get built,” Lescher said.
“[But there’s] very much a concern the impact of the broader shipbuilding approach absent the relief that we think is required to do this.”

The Navy thinks it will need the relief to preserve the rest of the shipbuilding budget when the first ORP boomer starts construction in FY 2021.

“The new construction SCN averages about $15 billion per year and these boats per year – past the lead boat – will be about $10 billion per year. So it requires two-thirds of the SCN absent relief, Lescher said.
“The department’s strong view is when the construction cost with the first boat in ’21 – particularly when it gets to a boat every year from 2026 to 2035 – that additional topline relief is required. “

In 2013, the former Navy director of undersea warfare Rear Adm. Richard Breckenridge said the relief needed could be more than half the cost of the program.

“$60 billion over 15 years is what we need,” Breckenridge said before the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

To that end, Congress has established a fund for a seabased nuclear deterrent but has yet to deposit any money in the account.

Programs in the Navy’s long-range outlook have already been affected by the anticipated costs of ORP.

An anticipated Flight IV of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (DDG-51) – that would have replaced the Ticonderoga-class cruiser’s (CG-47) air defense commander role – was deemed unaffordable during the Ohio replacement period.

The class of 12 ORP boats will displace more than 20,000-tons and be the largest submarines the U.S. has ever constructed. The boomers will each field 16 Trident II D5 submarine launched ballistic missiles to replace the 14 existing Ohio-class boats.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,482
Reaction score
42
"The class of 12 ORP boats will displace more than 20,000-tons and be the largest submarines the U.S. has ever constructed. The boomers will each field 16 Trident II D5 submarine launched ballistic missiles to replace the 14 existing Ohio-class boats."

Cut the loadout by 50% and it's still bigger? Huh?
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,529
Reaction score
8
sferrin said:
"The class of 12 ORP boats will displace more than 20,000-tons and be the largest submarines the U.S. has ever constructed. The boomers will each field 16 Trident II D5 submarine launched ballistic missiles to replace the 14 existing Ohio-class boats."

Cut the loadout by 50% and it's still bigger? Huh?
33% but confusing to reduce the number of missile tubes when the current fleet of 14 w/24 missiles fits nicely with New START numbers. SSNBs would give you the easiest most effective warhead upload capability IMHO.

Does it need a larger reactor as it is supposed to last 44 years or the life of the boat without refueling? Would this be advanced silencing techniques?
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
970
Reaction score
6
The electric drive is the single largest contributor to the extra size, but there are lots of things contributing to it. For example ORP will have a big upgrade in living conditions, with particular attention to accommodating mixed-gender crews, and that requires space.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,529
Reaction score
8
Triton said:
Will there also be an SSGN replacement?
Don't think so I read somewhere future Virginias will carry many more SLCM than the one's today in the VPMs and the entire fleet of Virginia's will 'match' the current SSGN's (I put match in quotes to suspend my disbelief this will happen).

http://news.usni.org/2013/11/04/navy-selects-virginia-payload-module-design-concept
 

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
670
Reaction score
0
Website
www.hisutton.com
Moose said:
The electric drive is the single largest contributor to the extra size, but there are lots of things contributing to it. For example ORP will have a big upgrade in living conditions, with particular attention to accommodating mixed-gender crews, and that requires space.
interesting.

I thought that electric drive (in the context of nuclear boats) would be more compact since it's what's used in small nuclear subs which cannot fit a steam plant, e.g. Losharik, NR-1...
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,174
Reaction score
168
Removed a pointless digression on diversity in the Navy.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,482
Reaction score
42
covert_shores said:
Moose said:
The electric drive is the single largest contributor to the extra size, but there are lots of things contributing to it. For example ORP will have a big upgrade in living conditions, with particular attention to accommodating mixed-gender crews, and that requires space.
interesting.

I thought that electric drive (in the context of nuclear boats) would be more compact since it's what's used in small nuclear subs which cannot fit a steam plant, e.g. Losharik, NR-1...
Compare the (nuclear, turbo-electric) Glenard P. Lipscomb SSN to it's nearest peer, the Sturgeon class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Glenard_P._Lipscomb_(SSN-685)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon-class_submarine
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
970
Reaction score
6
covert_shores said:
Interesting.

I thought that electric drive (in the context of nuclear boats) would be more compact since it's what's used in small nuclear subs which cannot fit a steam plant, e.g. Losharik, NR-1...
My reply got eaten by the above or by Comcast, sorry.


NR-1 was nuclear-electric because Rickover wanted her to be super-quiet and because it made it easier to power things like the maneuvering thrusters, floodlights, etc.


A Nuclear Electric submarine still has the steam plant, since direct conversion of fission heat to electricity on this scale is not practical at present. The essential difference between a Nuke and a Nuclear electric is that the mechanical drivetrain is replaced by an electrical one. The steam plant turns a big generator, and the propulsor is turned by a big electric motor. The generator and motor alone are quite large given the application, plus you have the various controllers, power cables, driveshafts, etc which all take up space. On top of all that you have the SUBSAFE culture within the Silent Service which tends to overbuild in order to minimize risk of things going wrong hundreds of feet underwater. A shaftless nuclear electric boat could shave off a chunk off that extra size+weight, but the Navy isn't ready to go there yet.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
70
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Time to rename this topic to "Columbia-class SSBN"?

"Navy Ohio Replacement Sub Class to Be Named for D.C."
By: Sam LaGrone
July 28, 2016 8:30 PM • Updated: July 29, 2016 7:34 AM

The Navy’s new planned class of ballistic missile submarines will be named in honor of the District of Columbia, two Navy officials confirmed to USNI News on Thursday.

According to a notification memo to Congress obtained by USNI News, the first ship in the next planned class of Navy nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBN(X))– also known as the Ohio replacement program — will be named USS Columbia.

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus’ office is not releasing further information until the naming announcement, one Navy official told USNI News.

While the name Columbia for a U.S. ships and aircraft is not new – at least eight U.S. ships, a Space Shuttle and the Apollo 11 command module have all shared the name – it will be the first time the name has been used to commemorate the U.S. capital, the sources told USNI News.

The fleet’s current USS Columbia (SSN-771) – a Los Angeles attack submarine – is named in honor of Columbia, S.C., Columbia, Ill and Columbia, Mo. The submarine is expected to decommission before the first SSBN(X) enters service.

Other ships in the fleet were named after the romantic female personification of the Americas – Columbia.

The Columbia-class is set to replace the current crop of 14 Ohio-class boomers starting with the first acquisition of Columbia in Fiscal Year 2021.

“The Navy’s proposed FY2017 budget requests $773.1 million in advance procurement (AP) funding and $1,091.1 million in research and development funding for the Ohio replacement program,” according to a May Congressional Research Service report.

The new boomers will feature a new life-of-boat reactor, an electric drive and field 16 Trident II D5 ballistic nuclear missiles as one leg of the U.S. strategic nuclear deterrent triad.

According to early estimates, the 12 boat class will cost the Navy about $100 billion and is the service’s number one acquisition priority, a claim Navy leadership has repeated often.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
70
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
U.S.S. Columbia (SSBN-822)? The next available number after Block VII of the Virginia-class is 822. With 48 Virginia-class submarines planned, will all members of the Columbia-class be named for United States territories?
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
970
Reaction score
6
Technically the Navy can go a couple routes with the hull numbers, so we just have to wait and see there. As for naming, it's highly unlikely the entire class would be named for territories. For one, there are only 16 territories, only 5 with permanent population. It seems very unlikely that the Navy would name SSBNs after uninhabited territory, for a number of reasons.

For two, Guam and Puerto Rico already have Sealift ships named for them. While not impossible to rename ships or declare a name will be reused while it's still currently in use, it's somewhat unusual.

l'll also point out that DC is not a territory, it's the Federal District. Whether this is a nod to the DC statehood movement or just a nod to the citizens who live and work in DC, I couldn't say. But it's a fine name, to my eyes.
 

RLBH

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
182
Reaction score
0
Looking outside the park here, you could use COLUMBIA as a jumping-off point for a class named after American virtues and symbols. CONGRESS and PRESIDENT have precedence, maybe slip a REPUBLIC in there. If they weren't already taken, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, LIBERTY, and INDEPENDENCE would fit in perfectly.

The scheme gives good names, avoids the political game playing that's bound to result in the USS JAMES BUCHANAN one of these days, and should be completely uncontroversial. I fail to see the downside....
 

phil gollin

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
199
Reaction score
1
.

Well ::) why not get corporations to "sponsor" them ?

Columbia, could be sponsor by Columbia Records.

OBVIOUSLY, we could have USS Walmark, USS ExxonMobile, USS Apple, USS Microsoft, USS Google, USS Amazon, etc.......
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,394
Reaction score
32
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/09/boost-for-british-steel-as-sheffield-forgemasters-wins-deal-to-s/
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,529
Reaction score
8
Grey Havoc said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/09/boost-for-british-steel-as-sheffield-forgemasters-wins-deal-to-s/
Looks like a continuation of the CMC work?
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,394
Reaction score
32
bobbymike said:
Grey Havoc said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/09/boost-for-british-steel-as-sheffield-forgemasters-wins-deal-to-s/
Looks like a continuation of the CMC work?
It would seem so.
 
Top