• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Ohio Replacement Submarine

icyplanetnhc

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
101
Reaction score
6
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu
That rendering appears to show 16 missile tubes. Does the life-of-ship reactor that this new boat class sports contribute to the increased size?

As for naming, why not restart the convention of naming attack submarines after underwater creatures? State names for boomers seem fine, and frankly I'm getting quite tired of seeing vessels named after politicians.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,077
Reaction score
51
Steven said:
That rendering appears to show 16 missile tubes. Does the life-of-ship reactor that this new boat class sports contribute to the increased size?

As for naming, why not restart the convention of naming attack submarines after underwater creatures? State names for boomers seem fine, and frankly I'm getting quite tired of seeing vessels named after politicians.
The reactor and the electric drive contribute a lot of mass and volume, plus there's the regular generational growth contributed by improvements in the crew accommodations and quieting.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,332
Reaction score
78
Moose said:
Steven said:
That rendering appears to show 16 missile tubes. Does the life-of-ship reactor that this new boat class sports contribute to the increased size?

As for naming, why not restart the convention of naming attack submarines after underwater creatures? State names for boomers seem fine, and frankly I'm getting quite tired of seeing vessels named after politicians.
The reactor and the electric drive contribute a lot of mass and volume, plus there's the regular generational growth contributed by improvements in the crew accommodations and quieting.
My impression was that by going to a larger beam (43 ft. vs. 42. ft) they could potentially accommodate a longer
SLBM in the future e.g. they could replace the through-deck third stage motor with a longer first or second stage
motor.
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
925
Reaction score
18
Moose said:
Steven said:
That rendering appears to show 16 missile tubes. Does the life-of-ship reactor that this new boat class sports contribute to the increased size?

As for naming, why not restart the convention of naming attack submarines after underwater creatures? State names for boomers seem fine, and frankly I'm getting quite tired of seeing vessels named after politicians.
The reactor and the electric drive contribute a lot of mass and volume, plus there's the regular generational growth contributed by improvements in the crew accommodations and quieting.
Well, the Ford-Class reactors are reportedly smaller, weigh less and require 2/3 the maintenance than Nimitz-Class while electrical power generation is 3x larger. Expect the Columbia-Class reactor to have many efficiencies over predecessor besides service - to include size. Recall Virginia-Class reactors are life-of-the-boat @ 33 yrs.

Interesting article. Indicates drive is actually smaller...

http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/Issues/Archives/issue_09/power_system.html

"As I mentioned earlier, with mechanical drive 75-80 percent of the useful power produced by the reactor is available exclusively for propulsion. An integrated electric power system, on the other hand, puts power on a common electrical bus and gives the commanding officer operational flexibility in how this energy is distributed to suit the range of payloads, sensors, and propulsion needs for a given tactical situation. An integrated electric power system will allow tomorrow's submarines to make greater use of rechargeable off-hull vehicles, payloads, and sensors to extend the submarines' tactical reach and safeguard operations in high risk and restricted areas."

Emphasis above mine. What might be integrated into all that space. All I can find are references to "performance - survivability and acoustics".

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/beyond-the-ohio-class-inside-americas-next-generation-16270?page=show

"While there have been rumors that the ORP is larger than its Ohio predecessors because of the size of the electric drive and its permanent magnet motor—despite carrying eight fewer missiles—Lennon said that is not true. The ORP will be larger than the Ohio-class because of the enhanced survivability measures integrated onboard the submarines—the new boats will displace more than 20,800-tons. Indeed, the Navy could have opted to build the boat with twenty or twenty-four missile tubes, but chose not to in order to make sure the United States dispersed its nuclear deterrence. “If you look at the overall length of the ship, the length of the missile compartment is smaller,” Lennon said. “But it’s distributed pretty much equally—the increase—forward and aft. Very little of that has to do with electric drive. It’s really to do with the other capabilities we’ve had to put into the ship in order to meet the mission needs.”

While he could not go into detail, Lennon said those mission needs include performance—including survivability and acoustics. “We’ve had to designate larger volumes in order to put certain features and capabilities into the ship,” he said."

On another note...

UK Dreadnought is also larger then its predecessor and it too has less tubes. Interesting to note that US/UK shared reactor tech but US reactor has 42 year life and UK is 30 years.
 

RLBH

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
215
Reaction score
22
NeilChapman said:
Interesting to note that US/UK shared reactor tech but US reactor has 42 year life and UK is 30 years.
Design decision based on industrial considerations. UK submarine lifespan, fleet size and build rate are all tied together; we're at minimum fleet size and minimum build rate, which defines the life of the boat. A 42-year core would require a 40% increase in the size of the fleet or the yard standing idle for 12 years out of 42 - funding the former is politically unlikely, the second disastrous for the submarine industry.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,120
Reaction score
230
http://defense-update.com/20170817_modernizing-the-submarine-fleet.html
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
925
Reaction score
18
cross post...

NeilChapman said:
https://news.usni.org/2018/08/08/35632

"General Dynamics Electric Boat and the Navy are evaluating the potential of missile tube welding issues identified by a subcontractor to delay construction of the first Columbia-class submarines, the next block of Virginia-class submarines and for the British Dreadnought-class submarines."

** Edit: Fixed problem link **
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,029
Reaction score
204
https://news.usni.org/2018/11/08/columbia-class-program-upping-oversight-of-vendors-components-to-stave-off-further-delays
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,029
Reaction score
204
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/08/nuke-sub-launch-tube-problems-found-warning-flags-are-up/
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,029
Reaction score
204
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,120
Reaction score
230

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,120
Reaction score
230

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,120
Reaction score
230

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,010
Reaction score
111
So, are they getting a replacement or is the money going on the carriers? They seem to be making the old types bigger during refit so perhaps they will be happy with those instead.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,278
Reaction score
154
So, are they getting a replacement or is the money going on the carriers? They seem to be making the old types bigger during refit so perhaps they will be happy with those instead.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. They are not making the Ohio class SSBNs larger in any way during refits. And the refits are needed just timber the Ohio's to 42 years, when they will be end-of-life.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,010
Reaction score
111
There has been talk for a while, of making these older submarines bigger during refit, possibly not the Ohio's but I am talking generically. Submarines being stretched to give ability to land special forces units and othe added capabilities. I still wonder why there are no plans for conventional submarines for littoral waters. Conjecture, nothing more.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,278
Reaction score
154
There has been talk for a while, of making these older submarines bigger during refit, possibly not the Ohio's but I am talking generically. Submarines being stretched to give ability to land special forces units and othe added capabilities. I still wonder why there are no plans for conventional submarines for littoral waters. Conjecture, nothing more.
The Virginia's are getting a stretched version (Block V) but I doubt anyone is seriously considering a retrofit. Slotting in hull extensions during an overhaul has been suggested occasionally but it always turns out to be way more work than planned. OK for tankers, less OK for subs.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,120
Reaction score
230
There has been talk for a while, of making these older submarines bigger during refit, possibly not the Ohio's but I am talking generically. Submarines being stretched to give ability to land special forces units and othe added capabilities. I still wonder why there are no plans for conventional submarines for littoral waters. Conjecture, nothing more.
The Virginia's are getting a stretched version (Block V) but I doubt anyone is seriously considering a retrofit. Slotting in hull extensions during an overhaul has been suggested occasionally but it always turns out to be way more work than planned. OK for tankers, less OK for subs.
I don’t think the budget would be there but they should take three or four of the “youngest” Ohio’s and refurbish as SSGNs for hypersonic conventional global strike.
 

Ruriruri

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
There has been talk for a while, of making these older submarines bigger during refit, possibly not the Ohio's but I am talking generically. Submarines being stretched to give ability to land special forces units and othe added capabilities. I still wonder why there are no plans for conventional submarines for littoral waters. Conjecture, nothing more.
The Virginia's are getting a stretched version (Block V) but I doubt anyone is seriously considering a retrofit. Slotting in hull extensions during an overhaul has been suggested occasionally but it always turns out to be way more work than planned. OK for tankers, less OK for subs.
I don’t think the budget would be there but they should take three or four of the “youngest” Ohio’s and refurbish as SSGNs for hypersonic conventional global strike.
It would likely be cheaper to buy a new boat, but it’s all academic right now because there wouldn’t be enough yard space or qualified labor to do the additional work. Also...by the time you have enough Columbias to retire the youngest Ohios they wouldn’t be very young anymore.
 
Top