Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Click On Detroit)   Newest navy subs have no periscopes. Newer fiberglass screen-doors also rust resistant   (clickondetroit.com) divider line 148
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

19363 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Oct 2004 at 8:40 AM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



148 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
PTK
2004-10-24 03:49:29 PM  
Devin172
"The price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance"

Wing Commander, or something else?

/bored WC fan

//can't wait to see the day where the "We won't ever need that for ______" people feel like idiots
///but not the bloodshed
 
2004-10-24 03:51:43 PM  
svejker_14
It's less distracting than "Digital Camera Turn On".

I prefer, "Computer, activate forward display."

[image from home.comcast.net too old to be available]

/pull my finger
 
2004-10-24 04:18:51 PM  
BearToy

All good sub commanders have to prove their worth. I love the story about fresh recruits undergoing rigorous psychological training for subs where they were put under questioning designed to root out whether said were able to function favourably under constrictive conditions. The demands were, of course, rigid, hence prompting interviewers to resort to harsh techniques . On one particular occasion the interviewer asked the interviewee to "Piss me off. You can say anything, about my wife, my mother, my CAR, hell, just try and piss me off, boy."
Naturally the old timer had heard it all before and expected another round of weak verbal abuse. Not this individual, who, incidentally following orders, stood up and swiped everthing offa the man's desk onto the floor.

I quit my previous job by the same means and it feels as good as it looks.

Needless to say, the interviewee got the job.
 
2004-10-24 04:22:01 PM  
And I'd like to add myself to the queue for the number of that hottee that you posted in the Joan Collins thread.
 
2004-10-24 04:24:02 PM  
One very tiny step towards hopefully this. Not the model(duh!) but the real thing

[image from ca.geocities.com too old to be available]
 
2004-10-24 04:25:40 PM  
Ahem. "posted"="linked"
 
2004-10-24 04:30:02 PM  
[image from ca.geocities.com too old to be available]

This is what I mean but fark is having problems with me posting it, not the first time
 
2004-10-24 04:30:20 PM  
I, for one, welcome our new Virginia Class Submarine Overlords.
 
2004-10-24 04:33:02 PM  
The Navys next project:
[image from image.guardian.co.uk too old to be available]
/had to be done
 
2004-10-24 04:34:22 PM  
Ah I give up! I followed the fark posting of photos verbatum and still nothing. Sorry guys maybe I'm not permitted to post safe photos. It was a picture of the seaQuest from the series. I did the farkFAQ photoshop thing and nothing. My apologies. It came up perfect under "preview before post" but when "add comment" was clicked it came up truncated text. Again sorry.
 
2004-10-24 04:34:32 PM  
GOD DAMMIT!

Everything said in politics kind of sounds something like this "...war on terror...blah blah....terrorists...9/11...blah...terror" enough of this bullshiat already. 1984 isn't that far off.
 
2004-10-24 04:36:11 PM  
No matter how pro-military you are, Not Every Weapon System is Worthwhile or meets the current threat. This sub was designed a long time ago, and in that time the threat has changed.

Hell, the current administration promotes themselves as "pro-military" but have canceled some very high profile weapon systems. Systems the military really wanted, and strongly objected to being canceled. Of course this same administration has attacked Senator Kerry for wanting to cancel similarly useless military systems...

As for this new class of sub, it's a Hunter-Killer. It's designed to sink other subs. That's it's mission. It is Not going to do a damn thing against terrorism. It's not going to stop suicide speed-boats, and it's certainly not the best way to insert substantial numbers of special forces. If anything, this special forces angle is just an attempt to justify this cold war relic.

Since this is clearly a cold war vessel, the question you have to ask is if the current Los Angeles class isn't good enough to meet this threat for a few decades yet. Of course there isn't a cold war today. Sure, its possible that in another 2 decades there could be a cold war with the Chinese. But by that time, this sub will be a relic itself and a new boat will be necessary.

And this new sub isn't even the best available technology. Truth is, a lot of our allies have Fuel Cell subs that are a lot quieter than our nuclear boats. Yes, even quieter than this new sub. In subs of this type, Quiet is Everything, Quiet wins. And this boat is not even close to the quietest technology.

So why are we spending huge amounts on a sub that isn't using the best technology? Because this is just another Pork Barrel project.

Extremely good cases have been made for totally canceling this program. Or at the very least ditching the atomic reactor in favor of quieter, newer, better, cleaner fuel cells. But if we're getting into redesigns, it would be a much better to refit the existing Los Angeles class and save ourselves a ton of money. Money that could be spend against the Real threat.
 
2004-10-24 04:36:35 PM  
It's a conspiracy I tell ya! It's all Hollywood! This is just a new prop for JAG and NCIS!

/Just one ping
 
2004-10-24 04:45:29 PM  
RandomRandom- there are a lot of things that you do not know about this boat. An awful lot. I agree, it is very expensive, and I have no comment regarding Los Angeles class boat re-fitting/retrofitting, but we did need to move forward.
Its a start.
And dont bother asking me to tell you what you dont know about the boat. No way, no how.
 
2004-10-24 04:47:47 PM  
ninjawitch

Without using any HTML tagging, what is the url? I'll try to post it, just curious. Sometimes I can't post photos, other times yes. I'm trying to ferret out the gotchas still.
 
2004-10-24 04:51:39 PM  
Random Random is in fact, talking out of his A$$.

Our submarine force is designed to be forward-deployed which requires extensive long-range propulsion capability, hence the nuclear reactor.

The Virginia Class SSN was specifically designed to be modular, allowing for future modification to meet a variety of mission tasking. This boat was designed with a variety of missions, of which "Hunter-Killer" is one. Strike, Mining, Special Operations Forces deployment, and most importantly, Intel are also missions that will be required by the SSN force.
 
2004-10-24 04:52:35 PM  
"How exactly does a submarine play a vital role in the war on terrorism? Is Osama purchasing decommisioned Russian subs on the black market, now?"

Terrorists are only one threat. China is another. North Korea is another. China has a good inventory of state of the art diesle subs that are ideal for attacking our Carriers. In fact, they have outright said that's their plan. Diesles might have short run times on batteries (relatively speaking) but they are perfectly silent where our nuke boats still make noise. This makes Chinas boats very hard to detect. Our wargames with allied nations that use similar boats show us that we have a serious challenge to overcome in facing China.
 
2004-10-24 05:08:41 PM  
Show-offs.

/Canadian
 
2004-10-24 05:20:07 PM  
Alienated

I'm sure there are tons of things I don't know about this sub. But there are clear limits to what any submarine, no matter what systems it has, can do against the current threat.

Firstly, the current threat is mostly Land Based. So a submarine is completely useless in that regard. But the areas I suspect you're referring to are all the new electronic gizmos this boat has. Mainly having to do with collecting signals intelligence (SigInt).

And perhaps you're referring to this subs ability to launch some very neat mini-submersibles. Tiny manned or unmanned boats used to check out what the opposition has sitting at the bottom of the ocean. Or to get in very close to shore spy or drop off commandos. But the list of countries we would actually use any of that against is very short. China, North Korea, maybe Iran and Russia.

Truth is, we already have boats that can perform these tasks. And none of the countries above have anything even close to our current level of technology, let alone the technology on this boat. Most of the advantages this boat has over our current boats come in these high-tech electronic systems. And it would be a lot cheaper to fit our existing fleet with these very same electronic systems.

The hardest of truths for proponents of all this new high-tech equipment is that terrorists have learned their lessons about using electronic signals to communicate with each other. When they used electronic communications, we found them or killed them. Terrorists are evil, but they're not stupid. And most terrorist organizations simply don't use electronic communications any more. They use written notes and verbal messengers.

So while this sub may have the best electronic systems in the world, they are almost worthless against the current threat.

I'm sure this sub has a lot of new features that I've barely touched on and some I've missed entirely. But bottom line, there are limits to what any boat can do to address the current threat. The current threat isn't on the seas, and doesn't use electronic signals...

This is a pork barrel project, plain and simple. If it wasn't for all the jobs related to the construction of these boats, this project would have been canceled years ago. Like the F22 Raptor, it's a nice piece of high-technology. But both are a near total waste of our limited funds.
 
2004-10-24 05:36:47 PM  
Beartoy
You are quite the dumbass. As Enave pointed out this was under Clinton's watch. And if you think you can replace a sub with UAV's you are dumber than I think you are. UAV's need bases to fly to, and soldiers to run them. But you left-wingers want us out of the middle east. So do you think some soldier in Kansas can fly a UAV over to the middle east? As a Total Farker you are really quite the dumbass.
 
2004-10-24 05:50:05 PM  
I remember in the 80's, when the press kept coming up with stories saying the M-1 Abrams tank was a waste of money. Tanks are obsolete, they all said. Besides, this system has way too many development problems.

That, of course, was before Desert Storm, when they went through the Iraqi tank force like they weren't even there.

What magic crystal ball do you guys have, that makes you think the future enemies we face will be the same as the ones we face today? If these weapon systems aren't ready before the conflict begins, they won't be built in time. They aren't like the Liberty ships of WW II that were turned out in 30 days. Nothing, in our past history, has shown that complacency is the way to go. Where as, a great deal in every nations past history has shown that a nation which is obviously prepared to fight, and fight well, won't be attacked in the first place. Avoiding a conflict, will save us a lot of the money, as well as a lot of lives.
 
2004-10-24 05:58:00 PM  

Wasn't there a problem with the Los Angeles class subs being refuelled/refitted along the lines of that the reactors were never designed to be refuelable because there wasn't enough room to put in hard patches in the hull to get at the reactor; never mind changing it out?

Then there is the problem of what to do with all of the irradiated & neutron-embrittled parts on the hot side of the power loop. But I leave that to the educated reader.

 
2004-10-24 06:06:13 PM  
Technology wise, it makes pretty good sense to go with the digital periscope route. And, hey, they can still say "Up Periscope!" if the mood strikes them, because they still have to raise the camera. But moving the bridge deeper and further aft into the boat makes sense.

Which brings up the burning question... how come in Star Trek, they always put the vulnerable and vitally important Bridge directly on the top of the saucer section? And how come more bad guys just didn't aim for it when combat started?

People want to know, dammit.
 
2004-10-24 06:08:15 PM  
hella_bella

Quite.

But I still love those stories about Soviet/USA subs crashing into each other. I mean, 2/3rds of the planet is water and guess what happens.

Anyone remember the great idea to build subs' hulls out of some transparent composite? On a par with "The Big Board"!
 
jph
2004-10-24 06:46:58 PM  
svejker:

Go read Blind Man's Bluff. That book is the one that revealed the stories about U.S. Navy submarines tapping undersea cables. Now that's some cool shiat.
 
jph
2004-10-24 06:50:39 PM  
BTW, you naysayers are idiots. Modern diesel-electric boats are pretty dangerous. Guess who has them? Iran, Pakistan, India, some others. Oh, and CANADA! And China has diesel and nuke boats...and they're definitely worth watching out for.
 
2004-10-24 07:01:57 PM  
Speaking of Canada's subs... didja hear about the HMCS Chicoutimi? They bought them, used, from the British Navy. Hope they kept the warranty.

On its maiden voyage as a Canadian vessel [10/5/2004], a fire breaks out in the electrical equipment room of HMCS Chicoutimi causing "extensive damage to cabling," says Commodore Tyrone Pile, commander of the Canadian Fleet Atlantic. Nine members of the crew suffer smoke inhalation. Three crewmen are transferred by Royal Navy helicopter to a hospital in Ireland. Lieut. Chris Saunders, 32, dies on the helicopter.
 
2004-10-24 07:12:42 PM  
Submariner here-

Couple clarifications:
Periscopes, which route light waves from the surface to the OOD's eye in control, penetrate the pressure hull. That's the hull that keeps the water off the crew. Subs have a number of masts and antennas, but most are totally outside the pressure hull. Every penetration of a pressure hull = more danger for the crew. A digitally transmitted picture travelling thru an electrical coupling in the hull is less dangerous than a 9" hole in the hull. In point of fact, I've been on a sub where the pressure resistant sleeve that a periscope slides thru gave out and we had flooding in control. We surfaced in a hurry, trust me. So that's why no more periscopes. It's safer.

The Virginia class, while generally designed years ago, was also designed to be modular in construction, so as technology and needs of national security change, the capabilities of new Virginia's can be altered without a total re-design of the entire ship.

Yes, a nuclear powered submarine is noisier than a diesel, or fuel cell sub. Diesel submarines can operate for a few days submerged, and are limited in deployment by how much fuel they can carry. Fuel cell subs can operate for a few weeks submerged, and work by producing huge amounts of hydrogen and oxygen.. in other words, they're propelled by a big potential bomb. Nuclear submarines can operate submerged for as long as the crew has food. Which is why we line our decks and every nook and cranny with canned food and walk and sleep on it. I have personally been submerged for up to 4 months at a time, and I know others have gone longer. And nuclear powered submarines are incredibally safer than either other variety. I get less harmful radiation sleeping 20' from an operating reactor than you get lying out on the beach for a day in the sun.

All of that aside... subs have a huge role in the war on terror, and if you can't understand the importance of being able to eavesdrop on terrorists and insert special ops forces and interdict terrorist ships without forewarning or being detected... you aren't using your imagination.

Oh, and Los Angeles subs are outliving thier usefulness. To refit them up to the standards of modern technology would take more time than it does to build a Virginia class sub, and probably nearly as much money. They're old and need to be put to rest.
 
2004-10-24 07:14:30 PM  
how amusing it is to see RandomRandom trying to argue things of which he has absolutely no clue
 
2004-10-24 07:23:12 PM  
2004-10-24 07:12:42 PM Aelix
Nuclear submarines can operate submerged for as long as the crew has food. Which is why we line our decks and every nook and cranny with canned food and walk and sleep on it.

methinks you would love the vigrinia:
"Culinary Services Chief Frank Chandler said he has a kitchen about three times as large as on a 688, with a dining area that serves more men and is not part of the main passageway for the first time. He also has storage room to bring aboard provisions for as much as 100 days; on 688s, the only way to accomplish that is to cover the floors with food cans, and walk on them until you have eaten down the excess."
 
2004-10-24 07:24:13 PM  
It was mentioned a few times above about maintaining the military industrial complex. Well, guess what? Thats critical in maintaining a technological advantage in times of war. It takes 6 years to build a submarine nowadays (keel laying to commissioning).

It takes several hundred highly skilled workers from welders and pipefitters to electricians and nuclear technicians just to build one boat. These people are not trained overnight and they need to maintain their skills and be available to do the work. If you stop building boats the shipyards will lose those skills. Then when you do need them you are adding several years (and dollars) onto the production of a boat.

In the 60's, 70's and 80's we were commissioning about 5 boats per year on average. Today its 1 boat every 2 years or so. Just enough to maintain the industrial base.

You cannot just keep refitting older boats to meet new threats indefinitely. As hulls are compressed and expanded during normal operations the hulls develop micro-cracks over time. The average design life of a boats hull is 30 years. Certification can be extended (up to ~5 years) but the boat is then severely limited in it's maximum depth which reduces it effectivness.

Also as a boat ages maintainance becomes an ever growing resource hog. Boats are nothing more than very complex machines. As the crew spends more time fixing the boat they have less time for training and, (wait for it), going to sea and stuff (you know, what they are paid to do). Not to mention the cost of all the new parts. I'm willing to bet if your car gets too old you're going to buy a new one instead of taking it to the shop every week.

/sorry for the late post
 
2004-10-24 07:30:41 PM  
xoxotl:

My point exactly :)
 
2004-10-24 07:32:28 PM  
Notch_Johnson:

Actually, I got to be one of the first group of sailors brought on-board the Virginia when she was just a bunch of modules and years from completion. Our job was to test and attempt to break-through-usage all the new electronic gear in CONTROL and then tell the engineers what we did so they could make sure it wouldn't happen again. During that time we learned a lot about the plans for the basic construction of the VA and how it differed from the older boats most of us were still stationed on... So yeah... I've already got plans to put in for orders on a VA boat - after they home-port one on the West Coast of course. I'm done with the Eastern Seaboard!

Radioactive Ass -
True words. I've missed one deployment on a 688 due to being sent to Shipyard at the last minute for critical maintenance. Spent 10 months in drydock instead of maintaining a forward prescence. Los Angeles class subs are just OLD through and through.
 
2004-10-24 07:35:22 PM  
Aelix, are you still over here? i'm looking at EB from my window right now
 
2004-10-24 08:06:50 PM  
Let me clarify what I meant to say. We need some submarine force. however, these new subs are not replacing old ones, they are adding to the fleet. We do not need 30 attack subs. A dozen or so would be fine. We also do not need 25 "armageddon" subs with 560 nuclear warheads floating around. This type of nuclear deterrent is no longer needed. We can now rely on our stockpile of ICBMs. Plus, the russian torpedo technology is very unreliable, possibly dangerous to the sub that carries them. So say a torpedo malfuntion was what destroyed the Kursk.
 
2004-10-24 09:24:42 PM  
blindeye01
Just curious, ever served on a boat? I'd say that 30 is a small number, let alone a dozen.
12 gives us 6 for each coast. Since the boats and, more to the point, the people, can't be on station all of the time that gives you at most 2 or 3 on station at any one time. Two boats to cover all of the Pacific and Indian Ocean, and two for the Atlantic and Med. Stretched a bit thin, wouldn't you say?

/99 days underwater Guam to Guam, 1979-1980
 
2004-10-24 09:44:04 PM  
Most I did was a 3 month stretch without seeing the sun.

And go check out a copy of Jane's Fighting Ships just to see what the navies of the world have.You'd be suprised to find out out what countries we consider poor and not having a modern miltiary, have a submarine or two.
 
2004-10-24 09:49:27 PM  
It's amusing how Notch_Johnson can't offer even the most simple rebuttal to any of my points. I think he's the one that needs to buy a clue.

I guess you're from the class of people that have never seen an overbloated, over-cost, unneeded weapon system they didn't like.

It doesn't matter what your politics are, people on all sides agree that not every new weapon system is in the best interests of the country. Just because we can design it and build it, doesn't mean we should. Not every weapon system is a cost effective solution.

It's not "anti-military" to suggest one of these systems is a boondoggle. It's actually pro-military to rid our country of massively budgeted pork-barrel projects. Pointing out these outrages helps the military at large be leaving more funds available for the most needed areas.

Large companies research and develop all kinds of technology that never hit the market. They spend lots of money on these products, but then come to the realization that the product is past its time or usefulness, or simply isn't effective enough.

Just this week, Intel shelved their entire liquid crystal on silicon, television chip division. After spending many years and huge amounts of money on the project, after lining up production partners and setting release dates, they canceled the project before a single chip had ever shipped. They realized that the quality of their solution was not up to the level of the competition. They made and informed business decision that it would be better cut their losses now than take a loser of a chip to market.

The Army screamed when Rumsfield and Bush canceled the Crusader self propelled artillery system. If a democrat had done it, I'm sure he'd have been labeled as an "anti-military" pinko lefty. In fact, the Crusader cancellation was one of the few correct military decision Bush has ever made. The project deserved to be canceled. Getting rid of it saved our government far more than the initial development costs. Yet many in the Army are still outraged that the system will not be built.

The Marines scream whenever someone suggests canceling the unreliable deathtrap that is the Osprey tilt-rotor. It's still hanging on, god knows why. It's suffered multiple crashes killing dozens of Marines and it hasn't ever reached production stages. Its never come close to living up to its promises. In its current state, it is a failed technology.

Don't get me wrong, I think Osprey, the F-22 and the Virginia class are all very cool technology showpieces. And I'm not suggesting that they be canceled so we can spend the money on humanitarian projects or the like. I think money for those projects should stay within the defense department. But there are a hell of a lot of more pressing military needs than those overblown projects.

Our country would be far better served if the massive dollars those programs cost were spent in other, more fundamental and very necessary areas of the military. Like raises for those in uniform, better housing, better armored vehicles, better human intelligence gathering, and a lot more soldiers. These bloated, pork-barrel projects which serve no current need keep us from spending enough military dollars in the areas that need it most.
 
2004-10-25 03:46:29 AM  
I was wondering when the virginia class would be ready, still, the seawolf and Los Angeles Class subs were cheaper and would be just as effective in today's world.

You are wrong.

The reason they stopped production of the Seawolf class subs after making 3 of them was because they each costed as much to make as an Aircraft Carrier.

That is why they decided to start working on the Virginia class.

Virginia class subs are far more cost effcient compared to the Seawolfs.
 
2004-10-25 06:54:05 AM  
even if it's not a true periscope, it's still goign to be called a periscope. honestly, I'm surprised this wasn't done years ago.

Nope. They're actually referred to as "photonic masts", as in "Raising #1 photonic mast". Don't ask how I know this, please
 
2004-10-25 08:14:15 AM  
[b]2004-10-24 09:49:27 PM RandomRandom [/b]

me buy a clue? i design systems for these subs. here's your stupid points that show you have no clue what you're talking about

This sub was designed a long time ago, and in that time the threat has changed.
the VA wasn't designed until the mid 90's and is the first sub designed completely by software without the need for large expensive models


As for this new class of sub, it's a Hunter-Killer. It's designed to sink other subs. That's it's mission. It is Not going to do a damn thing against terrorism. It's not going to stop suicide speed-boats, and it's certainly not the best way to insert substantial numbers of special forces. If anything, this special forces angle is just an attempt to justify this cold war relic.
Since this is clearly a cold war vessel, the question you have to ask is if the current Los Angeles class isn't good enough to meet this threat for a few decades yet. Of course there isn't a cold war today. Sure, its possible that in another 2 decades there could be a cold war with the Chinese. But by that time, this sub will be a relic itself and a new boat will be necessary.

thats completely not true, and no amount of googling will back up any of your points. its even pointed out IN THIS THREAD the modularity and special ops this class is made for. again, the cold war was over years before the idea for virginia was even conceived.

And this new sub isn't even the best available technology. Truth is, a lot of our allies have Fuel Cell subs that are a lot quieter than our nuclear boats. Yes, even quieter than this new sub. In subs of this type, Quiet is Everything, Quiet wins. And this boat is not even close to the quietest technology.
as was pointed out here, nuclear subs have capabilities far beyond that of fuel cells. the technology on the VA is 100x better than that of any existing US sub, most of which ARE being upgraded, then they will only be 10x behind. no matter how much work you put into a 72 chevy nova, it's still a 72 nova.

So why are we spending huge amounts on a sub that isn't using the best technology? Because this is just another Pork Barrel project.
the only way to get newer technology on subs is to have them designed and built in a year. this just isnt possible.

But if we're getting into redesigns, it would be a much better to refit the existing Los Angeles class and save ourselves a ton of money. Money that could be spend against the Real threat.
688's ARE being refitted. and will still be less capable than the virginia. thats technology from the 70s or at the very best, the late 80s. to be able to retrofit them to the level of virginia will cost far more than a completely new class. that's why we have the completely new class.
hey, we've still got Tandy-1000's lying around, IT departments and software programmers should just use those, it will cost a lot less.

Firstly, the current threat is mostly Land Based. So a submarine is completely useless in that regard
you defeated this point by yourself later

But the areas I suspect you're referring to are all the new electronic gizmos this boat has. Mainly having to do with collecting signals intelligence (SigInt).
as well as stabilization controls that allow it to run more safely in much shallower waters

And perhaps you're referring to this subs ability to launch some very neat mini-submersibles. Tiny manned or unmanned boats used to check out what the opposition has sitting at the bottom of the ocean. Or to get in very close to shore spy or drop off commandos. But the list of countries we would actually use any of that against is very short. China, North Korea, maybe Iran and Russia.
or any country with a coastline. i guess there's only 5 of those

Truth is, we already have boats that can perform these tasks. And none of the countries above have anything even close to our current level of technology, let alone the technology on this boat. Most of the advantages this boat has over our current boats come in these high-tech electronic systems. And it would be a lot cheaper to fit our existing fleet with these very same electronic systems.
no. just no. i design some of these systems, its not cheaper to retrofit. however it is being done to a certain point anyway because the capabilities are needed on the older subs as well

I'm sure this sub has a lot of new features that I've barely touched on and some I've missed entirely. But bottom line, there are limits to what any boat can do to address the current threat. The current threat isn't on the seas, and doesn't use electronic signals...
the bottom line is you don't know what you're talking about so stop now.

This is a pork barrel project, plain and simple. If it wasn't for all the jobs related to the construction of these boats, this project would have been canceled years ago. Like the F22 Raptor, it's a nice piece of high-technology. But both are a near total waste of our limited funds.
i can best guess you are thinking the virginia is a fancy-pants seawolf class, which was designed for the cold war, was very costly, and actually WAS cancelled after only 3 boats because the threat it was designed for had expired. or perhaps even an Ohio class which was primary for launching ballistic missiles. that's cancelled too. so was LA. all because they could be replaced with a more relevant design like Virginia

I guess you're from the class of people that have never seen an overbloated, over-cost, unneeded weapon system they didn't like.
nope, a lot of stuff ends up bloated and overpriced, but it's not the government's fault when they go over-budget.

the Navy had years to put together new requirements for a sub to meet the needs of modern and future defense and warfare. believe me, when they spend money like that, they make damn sure it does what they need it to do
 
2004-10-25 09:44:45 AM  
"Main Screen Turn On!"

"How Are You Gentlemen? Are Your Base Are Belong To Us..."
 
2004-10-25 12:16:31 PM  
The "periscope" you see is a mast that houses a digital camera. The
other masts are two radio/comm antenna masts, a "snorkel" (for the
emergency diesal/blower/surface ventilation), an ECM antenna, and
likely a radar mast (used on the surface). It doesn't penetrate the
pressure hull (like traditional 'scopes), and isn't "optical", thus
the control room can be moved to another location vice right below the
sail. Oh, it's the "control room" not "maneuvering" (as someone
mentioned)..."maneuvering" is in the Engineroom, it's the room where
the reactor/electric plant/main engines are controlled from, where the
Engineering Officer of the Watch (EOOW) runs the engineering spaces
from.

Value in "war on terror"...well, about 1/3 of the missiles launched in
the Iraq war were from subs, and subs can strike Afghanistan from the
IO. Then there's ISR ops, SEAL delivery (which the VA's are better
equipped for), and other stuff I can't discuss :)

Oh, someone mentioned women on subs...not in the US Navy as of yet,
and no plans for it in the foreseeable future.

Older LA's are
being retired, and the newer ones (some are as new as 8 years old, the
last one I served on (Cheyenne) was commissioned in 1996) are designed
with a 25-30 year life, based on the life of the reactor core and the
hull. You can keep a surface ship around longer because they don't
experience the hull stress of repeated submergence/surfacing (water
pressure, hull compression and cyclic stresses, etc.). The older boats
were designed for refueling (cores didn't last as long), but now they
are "disposable" (reactor runs out of fuel, you decommission and scrap
the boat). We don't sell 'em to foreign countries for a couple of
reasons...the nuclear technology (which we don't let get out), the
fact that without the reactor the boat is useless (converting an SSN
to diesal-electric would likely cost more than buying a new boat, as
the design and layout is massively different...like replacing 2/3 of
the boat, meaning the steam plant engineroom), and the fact that after
20-30 years the boat is just plain worn out.

Not to defend the current administration, but
this class of sub and the Seawolf class (it's predecessor) were
actually started (R&D) many, many years ago. Being a submariner
myself, I can tell you we have plenty of use for them...we are as busy
as ever, in terms of employment of subs. In fact, some in the Navy
have been alarmed in how far we've drawn down the sub force...we are
getting stretched thin ourselves. Case in point...many sub
deployments, including my last one, are extended past 6 months...due
to lack of available boats...mine was 9 months, the average now is 7
1/2 months. This increased use burns fuel faster than predicted
(shortening core/ship life), makes maintenance/upkeep a nightmare, and
really adds stress to the crew. Imagine, if you will, being locked up
with 150 of your pals in a steel tube with about as much interior
living space as an average 3 bedroom house...for 270 days, with about
50 days in port (not home port), and periods of continuous sea time of
45 days, 57 days, 63 days, and 88 days, among others. That was my last
deployment. And only 14 of those 50 in port days were considered
"liberty", the rest were working ports (like Guam, where there is a
tender and you do 12-16 hour workdays doing what maintenance you can
before putting to sea again). For those reasons the sub force admirals
have said we either need to stop cutting back the number of subs we
have or cut the mission requirements...not do more with less.

Oh, you have to keep building subs, even on a trickle schedule...both
to keep up your numbers (even if you draw down, boats continually
reach end of life and need replacement) and to keep the shipyard skill
base in sub construction (something that was nearly lost in the nearly
5 year break between the launch of the last LA class sub and the
beginning of construction of the Seawolf class).

Digital 'scopes on LA class
boats...nope. Only on the USS Memphis, which is a R&D boat. I know of
no plans to backfit, either...as the main advantage (relocating the
control room) can't be realized in the existing LA/Seawolf design.
 
2004-10-25 01:10:57 PM  
Notch,
Not in Rotten Groton anymore. I'm currently serving my shore duty tour overseas, but will be back on a West Coast boat in a year. When VA class boat gets home-ported out west, I'll probably either do a second tour or a split tour. Using tech from this decade will be great.

Refit masters,
Refitting old boats so that they are totally up to par with todays tech and fully as capable as the VA class would be stupid-expensive. It's not just the computer systems that are old. I've had a pipe burst 3 feet from me, after containing pressurized air for two decades. If I'd been standing in the wrong spot, I'd have no legs from just below the knees down. I've seen problems with wiring that the crew is unable to figure out what's wrong, they just come up with a work-around. I've seen what happens when a crew spends more time fixing a boat than they do operating it. As somebody else said, when your 30 year old car starts breaking down, do you take it to the mechanic every week or do you replace it?

blindeye01,
When anybody in the Navy says "nuclear submarine" they are NOT talking about submarines that sneak around in the ocean carrying nuclear weapons. A nuclear submarine has a nuclear power plant. Whereas most engines run on a load of fuel for hours (lawnmowers), days (cars), or months (most ships), a nuclear powered submarine runs on one fuel load for DECADES. So while I could agree with you that our need for the ability to deliver nuclear weapons from submarine platforms is not what it once was, you are dead wrong in your estimate of the current and future numbers of submarines needed to carry out missions vital to national security to be below 50, let alone in the neighborhood of 12. If you doubled the number of operational submarines today, there would still not be enough to accomplish all the jobs that the military (not the politicians!) want them to do right now. We are prioritizing and letting much fall by the way-side because of lack of equipment and manning, which I'm sure is true of ALL the armed forces.

Someone above talked about devoting more money to translating the backlog of intercepted phone calls. Do you believe there are 20 people remaining in the US that are capable of translating those phone calls, willing to do the job, capable of passing the security clearance requirements for that job, and haven't been hired by the government yet? Throwing the money of 1 Virginia Class submarine at that project won't magically generate man-hours out of thin air to get the job done significantly faster.
 
2004-10-25 05:58:18 PM  
Digital 'scopes on LA class
boats...nope. Only on the USS Memphis, which is a R&D boat. I know of
no plans to backfit, either...as the main advantage (relocating the
control room) can't be realized in the existing LA/Seawolf design.


you'll just have to believe me then. the plans are there, i've seen the 688 mockup and it already works. the masts aren't replaced and the control room stays put, but digital imaging systems will be integrated to what's there already. it upgrades the capability of photography, tracking, remote control, and surface checks among others.
 
2004-10-25 07:53:35 PM  
dr-shotgun mentioned converting Ohio class (the ones that carry the nuc strategic missles) subs to carry SEALs/other special forces. This is already in progress (google SSGN). The first four Ohio class subs are in the shipyard right now. Projected total cost of this (not counting refueling) is somewhere around $700 Million, but we all know how that goes. They will do most of what the virginia class will do, but not as shallow and will carry 126-154 tomahawk missles. This is a pretty good deal, considering that they were just going to decommission them, due to START. This will give the US better strike capabilities now, but the boats are already ~20 years old, leading to more and more equipment problems as they age, so they will not replace the virginia class for very long.

/RIP USS Parche, you've done more for us than we'll ever know.
 
2004-10-25 09:26:09 PM  
God Damnit! I know the difference between ICBM subs and reactor subs. When I said "doomsday subs" I was specifically referencing the ICBM subs. The best attack subs ARE nuclear subs, no doubt. And I have known people who served on ICBM subs. They found it kind of grim, especially the guy I knew who guarded the missile control room. Still, attack subs are patrolling former soviet waters still like they are planning a sneak attack. Those subs should be scrapped or put in a place where they tube launched tomahawks can do some damage, like the PERSIAN GULF! I am not anti military, I am pro waste. We can upgrade our existing sub fleet rather than have expensive design wars over a new sub design. Same thing with the
A-10 attack plane. Heavily armored, 1/30 the cost of an F-16, could carry 3 times the bomb load and is actually allowed to do close air support from a close altitude (F-16's were not allowed to provide close air support from lower than 10000 feet, their thin skin would be ripped up by AAA guns) Still, 30 years old, can't be good anymore, and they keep trying to scrap the last few against the will of marines and pilots. Same crap, different military branch.
 
2004-10-26 03:44:52 AM  
you'll just have to believe me then. the plans are there, i've seen the 688 mockup and it already works. the masts aren't replaced and the control room stays put, but digital imaging systems will be integrated to what's there already. it upgrades the capability of photography, tracking, remote control, and surface checks among others.


I misspoke, I was referring to outright replacement of the scopes (mast and all) to a setup like the VA class has. I've actually seen the setup you refer to (integrating digital imaging to existing scope/mast setup), and it's neat..but still leaves the pressure hull penetration and mechanical issues.

I'm curious (if you know, and can tell)...does the VA class have a standard scope (purely mechanical) for backup in case the digital setup fails? Would suck to come to PD/surface with no eyes, ya know...
 
Displayed 48 of 148 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report