SSBN-X: What It Will Not Look Like

     Yesterday at Navy Live RDML Richard Breckenridge posted some facts about the SSBN-X that have solidified by this time. RDML Breckenridge specifically discussed the ideas for a stretched Virginia with a module for Trident SLBMs, A stretched Virgina with a new missile, and restarting the Ohio production line. Read:

Virginia-based SSBN design with a Trident II D5 missile. An SSBN design based on a Virginia-class attack submarine with a large-diameter missile compartment was rejected due to a wide range of shortfalls. It would:

• Not meet survivability (stealth) requirements due to poor hull streamlining and lack of a drive train able to quietly propel a much larger ship
• Not meet at-sea availability requirements due to longer refit times (since equipment is packed more tightly within the hull, it requires more time to replace, repair and retest)
• Not meet availability requirements due to a longer mid-life overhaul (refueling needed)
• Require a larger number of submarines to meet the same operational requirement
• Reduce the deterrent value needed to protect the country (fewer missiles, warheads at-sea)
• Be more expensive than other alternatives due to extensive redesign of Virginia systems to work with the large missile compartment (for example, a taller sail, larger control surfaces and more robust support systems)

We would be spending more money (on more ships) to deliver less deterrence (reduced at-sea warhead presence) with less survivability (platforms that are less stealthy).

Virginia-based SSBN design with a smaller missile. Some have encouraged the development of a new, smaller missile to go with a Virginia-based SSBN. This would carry forward many of the shortfalls of a Virginia-based SSBN we just discussed, and add to it a long list of new issues. Developing a new nuclear missile from scratch with an industrial base that last produced a new design more than 20 years ago would be challenging, costly and require extensive testing. We deliberately decided to extend the life of the current missile to decouple and de-risk the complex (and costly) missile development program from the new replacement submarine program. Additionally, a smaller missile means a shorter employment range requiring longer SSBN patrol transits. This would compromise survivability, require more submarines at sea and ultimately weaken our deterrence effectiveness. With significant cost, technical and schedule risks, there is little about this option that is attractive.

Ohio-based SSBN design. Some have argued that we should re-open the Ohio production line and resume building the Ohio design SSBNs. This simply cannot be done because there is no Ohio production line. It has long since been re-tooled and modernized to build state-of-the-art Virginia-class SSNs using computerized designs and modular, automated construction techniques. Is it desirable to redesign the Ohio so that a ship with its legacy performance could be built using the new production facilities? No, since an Ohio-based SSBN would:

• Not provide the required quieting due to Ohio design constraints and use of a propeller instead of a propulsor (which is the standard for virtually all new submarines)
• Require 14 instead of 12 SSBNs by reverting to Ohio class operational availability standards (incidentally creating other issues with the New START treaty limits)
• Suffer from reduced reliability and costs associated with the obsolescence of legacy Ohio system components

Once again, the end result would necessitate procuring more submarines (14) to provide the required at-sea presence and each of them would be less stealthy and less survivable against foreseeable 21^stcentury threats. 

     Emphasis is mine. The objections to using the Virgina-class are new, but the problems brought to light are accurate. Same for new build Ohios. However, with the SSBN-X the boomer fleet will be reduced to 12 from 14, and the SSBN-X will carry 16 missile tubes instead of the Ohios 24 tubes. This is a reduction of 140 missiles, almost 50% of the Navy's capability. I'm curious is this because of budgets, NEW START, or something else? 

The Virginia-class: The New Ohio-class

     Aviation Week reported last Thursday that the Navy was considering canceling the proposed SSBN(X) project to meet budget reduction requirements. Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright stated at the Defense Writers Group breakfast that the Pentagon was considering lengthening Virginia-class submarines to be capable of carrying Trident C-4 SLBMs (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles).

     The idea of lengthening Virginia-class submarines has been discussed before, the idea being to insert an extra 27.4 meter section into a normal Virginia-class sub, and fill the section with 194  Tomahawk cruise missiles. 

     The proposal to insert SLBMs into a Virginia-class certainly has merit, but with congress in a stalemate over the debt ceiling, the chances of this happening, are slim at best.

     

Photo Credit: U.S. Navy

Next Generation of U.S. Aircraft Carriers

The above photo is a picture of the USS Nimitz (CVN-68) the lead ship of the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. The Nimitz-class carriers have formed the core of the U.S. Navy since mid-1975 and will continue to do so for the next 10-20 years. At the same time the early Nimitz-class ships are beginning to age out and will need replacing in the near future. The Navy began on the Nimitz-class replacements several years ago and, the lead ships of the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers are due to be commissioned in 2014.

     The Gerald R. Ford-class has a number of improvements over previous classes of aircraft carriers, for example the Gerald-R. Ford-class will be equipped with the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System  (here is a video of a test) which is basically electric currents generating a magnetic field to propel the catapult forward to launch the aircraft. Another improvement the Gerald R. Ford-class has is the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow  surface-to-air missile system which is the successor to the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow which has equipped U.S. Navy ships since the mid-1970s.
       However, there is not much difference in aircraft capacity and capability between the Nimitz-class and the Gerald R. Ford-class as both are and will able to handle the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, F-35C Lightning II and the C-2 Greyhound. Both the Nimitz and Gerald R. Ford-classes both carry around 90 fixed wing aircraft and helicopters most of the time.
    I have written before on the subject of the Gerald R. Ford-class in "All Our Eggs In One Basket"
where I discussed the fact that while the Gerald R. Ford-class ships are being built the Navy is at the same time going to be trying to build it's SSBN-X-class of submarines. When you are trying to build two VERY expensive classes of ships (9 billion for the carriers and 6-7 billion for the subs) at the same time when you need both there are 3 choices. 1. don't build any of the ships, 2. increase the shipbuilding budget, 3. build one of the subs or carriers at a time and modify the older ships to work until the hard times are over. Personally, I prefer option #2 and just increase the shipbuilding budget but, the U.S. will be in so much debt at that point that it will not be possible. Option #1 is not viable because you will always need a nuclear deterrent and aircraft carriers thus, that leaves only one option left. The only real way to get the Navy through the coming shipbuilding crunch is to somehow overhaul  the Ohio-class SSBNs which will need replacing at the time and, the 2 or 3 newest Nimitz-class class carriers and, pray that a Democratic administration does not get elected between 2025 and 2045.  


Photo Credit: U.S. Navy

What Happend To the 600-Ship Navy?

     During the 1980s at the height of the Cold War, Ronald Reagan pushed a massive military modernization and expansion plan that for the Navy would have resulted in a 600-Ship Navy. My question is what happened to that idea?
     When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, governments around the world began to make massive budget cuts to their military's, one example is the so called Royal Navy and British Army, both of which are skeletons of their former selves. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union most governments have begun rearming (Britain hasn't) and putting their military's back together. Since 1991 the U.S. has expanded it's military but, the 600-Ship Navy idea is nowhere to be seen. The 600-Ship Navy has become a victim of several groups, socialists/communists who want to redistribute wealth and want a larger government, cost cutters who think now the the USSR is gone we can put the money into other programs, peace groups who think there should be no military at all and the list goes on.
      Few poeple outside the military realize how dire the situation really is, since 1987 the Navy has gone from the 1980s high of 594 ships to about 290 ships in service in 2011. Since 1987 our Navy has been more than halved and almost nobody in the media, the government or the people realizes it. Our Navy has been second to none since the end of WWII when we had over 6,000 ships and still are larger that the next seven navies combined but, China is rabidly increasing the size of their Navy and as of 2011 are second in size to only to the U.S. and climbing.
     The Navy is starting to begin building ships a higher rate in the last couple of years but, as I said a couple of articles ago the Navy is crumbling before our very eyes. And if we do not correct this situation, the cosequences could be extremly bad to say the least.



Photo credit: New Wars

All Our Eggs In One Basket

    As reported in my previous article "It's That Time Of Year"  I reported that the Navy was requesting (and got) 1.1 billion dollars for research on the SSBN-X-class of submarines.  The SSBN-X is a class of ballistic missile submarine slated to replece the Ohio-class SSBNs now in service with the U.S. Navy, the Navy is currently looking to replace the Ohio-class sometime during the 2020s. 

    However, during the last years of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. the Navy went through an enormous shipbuilding program intended to culminate in a 600 ship Navy in order to compete with the Soviets on the high seas. The high point of the 600-ship Navy plan was 594 ships in 1987, rising to 594 ships from the post-Vietnam low of of 521 ships.

     Because of this massive shipbuilding effort during the 1980s, a large amount of the Navy will age out during the 2020s and there is little anyone can do to stop it from happening. Furthermore, with a large part of the Navy being decommissioned it will be extremely hard for the Navy to replace the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers and the Ohio-class SSBNs at the same time. Since the SSBN-X has an estimated cost of 6-7 billion dollars apiece the SSBN-X alone would eat up a sizable portion of the Navy's shipbuilding budget, not counting the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers slated to begin replacing the Nimitz-class beginning in the 2015 and ending sometime after 2040.

     Most people might ask what is the solution to this problem? Well, for starters we could have all the Socialists/Communists sent off to Nowhere, USA and have them start a big commune and leave the rest of us alone (that's sarcasm). In reality the solution to ALL of America's budget woes is really quite simple, cut the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Energy, Agriculture, cut about 90% of the Department of the Interior and cut the Department of Homeland Security. If all of this is done the benefits are enormous because we could pay off the debt, have money for defense and best of all have less government. However, the pies de resistance is that all of those things would become the state's responsibility as stated in the 10th amendment to the Constitution which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." lav

     Which ever way the government chooses to go, they must choose quickly, because the U.S. Navy is crumbling before our very eyes.