[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Ohio class sub replacement (Page 1 of 5)
Posted: 3/4/2013 7:01:33 PM EDT
|
The Ohio class replacement, the SSBN-X, is longer, heavier and wider than the current Ohios. But it only holds 16 Trident missiles, instead of 24 like the Ohios.
What gives? They make it bigger and heavier, but it carries less missiles? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSBN-X_future_follow-on_submarine |
|
It's really only marginally bigger.
That's normal, cram more technology in, and you need more space. And really, the quieting is the real issue with a sub. A Virginia is a bit bigger than a 688, as well, but it's a better boat. The reduction in missile tubes is more driven by need than by space in the boat. To reach current treaty limits on warheads, we have to download the missiles fairly severely. You get more bang for the missile buck by MIRVing them to a greater extent than we do currently. Keep in mind, L/W ratio is an important characteristic in ship design. This sub is likely to be within a few feet, in ever dimension, of what an Ohio is now. |
|
Quoted:
What gives? They make it bigger and heavier, but it carries less missiles? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSBN-X_future_follow-on_submarine Gotta have room for the rail-gun |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I fail to see why it is necessary. Colossal waste of money. Because when you put steel in salt water, it doesn't last forever?  We dont need the platform at all. We have B2s and ICBMs. Why are we wasting billions on a sub that we simply dont need? Cold War is over. We do not need this many nuclear weapons, nor the multi-billion dollar platforms to develop them. Invest in America's infrastructure and space exploration. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I fail to see why it is necessary. Colossal waste of money. Because when you put steel in salt water, it doesn't last forever? We dont need the platform at all. We have B2s and ICBMs. Why are we wasting billions on a sub that we simply dont need? Cold War is over. We do not need this many nuclear weapons, nor the multi-billion dollar platforms to develop them. Invest in America's infrastructure and space exploration. Neither of which would likely survive a first strike in sufficient numbers. Remember that we've cut down our nuclear arsenal substantially. The SSBNs are vital for maintaining MAD. In order for MAD to work we must have a credible second strike capability and SSBNs are the only part of the nuclear triad that guarantees this. Of course, arfcom fails at even understanding MAD so I guess I'm not surprised. |
|
Quoted:
We dont need the platform at all. We have B2s and ICBMs. Why are we wasting billions on a sub that we simply dont need?. Because if a pre-emptive strike takes out the bombers and ICBM's, we still have the subs to retaliate. It's called the Nuclear Triad. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I fail to see why it is necessary. Colossal waste of money. Because when you put steel in salt water, it doesn't last forever? We dont need the platform at all. We have B2s and ICBMs. Why are we wasting billions on a sub that we simply dont need? Cold War is over. We do not need this many nuclear weapons, nor the multi-billion dollar platforms to develop them. Invest in America's infrastructure and space exploration. Neither of which would likely survive a first strike in sufficient numbers. Remember that we've cut down our nuclear arsenal substantially. The SSBNs are vital for maintaining MAD. In order for MAD to work we must have a credible second strike capability and SSBNs are the only part of the nuclear triad that guarantees this. Of course, arfcom fails at even understanding MAD so I guess I'm not surprised. Lol, MAD with who? Soviet Union is gone dude. Ain't no one left to play catch with. |
|
Quoted:
We dont need the platform at all. We have B2s and ICBMs. Why are we wasting billions on a sub that we simply dont need? Cold War is over. We do not need this many nuclear weapons, nor the multi-billion dollar platforms to develop them. Invest in America's infrastructure and space exploration. Actually, we do. Its the most secure, and hardest to detect of the nuclear triad. The B-2 is sexy, but takes time to deploy, and with a limited number of airframes (<20), and a single base location, its quite vulnerable to a first strike. ICBM's may be in hardened silos, and have a faster reaction time, but we don't have many, and they are also vulnerable due to their fixed locations. They're also getting up there in age, and with the replacement cancelled, will start to dwindle in numbers as well. The SSBN's are mobile, quiet, and have an extremely fast reaction time. They are the most secure due to their unknown location, and damned hard to find. Plus, a single boat has enough firepower to decimate any nation on the globe. . . . . |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I fail to see why it is necessary. Colossal waste of money. Because when you put steel in salt water, it doesn't last forever? We dont need the platform at all. We have B2s and ICBMs. Why are we wasting billions on a sub that we simply dont need? Cold War is over. We do not need this many nuclear weapons, nor the multi-billion dollar platforms to develop them. Invest in America's infrastructure and space exploration. Neither of which would likely survive a first strike in sufficient numbers. Remember that we've cut down our nuclear arsenal substantially. The SSBNs are vital for maintaining MAD. In order for MAD to work we must have a credible second strike capability and SSBNs are the only part of the nuclear triad that guarantees this. Of course, arfcom fails at even understanding MAD so I guess I'm not surprised. Lol, MAD with who? Soviet Union is gone dude. Ain't no one left to play catch with. Oh, we're totally best buds with the Russians and Chinese? I must have missed that. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Correct me where I'm wrong. Subs carry half our nuclear weapons. Loosing capacity like this means less nukes on subs, so are we getting less nukes in total? Yes. Instead of nuking the entire planet 5 times, we'll only be able to do it three times. You're aware of the reason for having so many nuclear weapons, right? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I fail to see why it is necessary. Colossal waste of money. Because when you put steel in salt water, it doesn't last forever? We dont need the platform at all. We have B2s and ICBMs. Why are we wasting billions on a sub that we simply dont need? Cold War is over. We do not need this many nuclear weapons, nor the multi-billion dollar platforms to develop them. Invest in America's infrastructure and space exploration. Neither of which would likely survive a first strike in sufficient numbers. Remember that we've cut down our nuclear arsenal substantially. The SSBNs are vital for maintaining MAD. In order for MAD to work we must have a credible second strike capability and SSBNs are the only part of the nuclear triad that guarantees this. Of course, arfcom fails at even understanding MAD so I guess I'm not surprised. Lol, MAD with who? Soviet Union is gone dude. Ain't no one left to play catch with. Oh, we're totally best buds with the Russians and Chinese? I must have missed that. Russia has no reason to nuke anyone. And we are basically China's biggest trade partner. Somehow, I dont think they're that retarded. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Correct me where I'm wrong. Subs carry half our nuclear weapons. Loosing capacity like this means less nukes on subs, so are we getting less nukes in total? Yes. Instead of nuking the entire planet 5 times, we'll only be able to do it three times. You're aware of the reason for having so many nuclear weapons, right? That reason has passed. Its time to face reality. We can't keep spending like this. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Correct me where I'm wrong. Subs carry half our nuclear weapons. Loosing capacity like this means less nukes on subs, so are we getting less nukes in total? Yes. Instead of nuking the entire planet 5 times, we'll only be able to do it three times. You're aware of the reason for having so many nuclear weapons, right? That reason has passed. Its time to face reality. We can't keep spending like this. There are plenty of other places to cut. Now perhaps such an expensive replacement isn't necessary, but SSBNs are crucial for maintaining our security. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:.
Russia has no reason to nuke anyone. And we are basically China's biggest trade partner. Somehow, I dont think they're that retarded. You're quite short sighted. Not really. It's fairly simple. We dont need thousands of ICBMs. We dont even need hundreds. China's economy is completely dependant on the US. They would be nuking the hand that feeds them, along with the refrigerator that stores the food and the farm it was grown on. That day is over for the forseeable future. Time to start modernizing the military. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I fail to see why it is necessary. Colossal waste of money. Because when you put steel in salt water, it doesn't last forever? We dont need the platform at all. We have B2s and ICBMs. Why are we wasting billions on a sub that we simply dont need? Cold War is over. We do not need this many nuclear weapons, nor the multi-billion dollar platforms to develop them. Invest in America's infrastructure and space exploration. Yes, and let's have another massive stimulus program to invest in our infrastructre. Also, if we just show dictatorships like the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, etc. that we're really nice guys now I'm sure that they will be nice too. After all, look how awesome they are to their serfs, I mean citizens. We should also get rid of our aircraft carriers too. They are expensive, nobody else has anything close to them, and it's really unfair for the USA to flaunt our military power. We should totally unilaterally disarm ourselves. With all of the money we save we can radically expand our entitlement programs. That would be awesome! 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Correct me where I'm wrong. Subs carry half our nuclear weapons. Loosing capacity like this means less nukes on subs, so are we getting less nukes in total? Yes. Instead of nuking the entire planet 5 times, we'll only be able to do it three times. You're aware of the reason for having so many nuclear weapons, right? That reason has passed. Its time to face reality. We can't keep spending like this. There are plenty of other places to cut. Now perhaps such an expensive replacement isn't necessary, but SSBNs are crucial for maintaining our security. And this is always the argument. This program is "crucial." Trillions later, here we are. Stuck with weapons we can't use and probably wont use, ever. |
|
Quoted: China will not need us forever.Quoted: Quoted:. Russia has no reason to nuke anyone. And we are basically China's biggest trade partner. Somehow, I dont think they're that retarded. You're quite short sighted. Not really. It's fairly simple. We dont need thousands of ICBMs. We dont even need hundreds. China's economy is completely dependant on the US. They would be nuking the hand that feeds them, along with the refrigerator that stores the food and the farm it was grown on. That day is over for the forseeable future. Time to start modernizing the military. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Correct me where I'm wrong. Subs carry half our nuclear weapons. Loosing capacity like this means less nukes on subs, so are we getting less nukes in total? Yes. Instead of nuking the entire planet 5 times, we'll only be able to do it three times. You're aware of the reason for having so many nuclear weapons, right? That reason has passed. Its time to face reality. We can't keep spending like this. There are plenty of other places to cut. Now perhaps such an expensive replacement isn't necessary, but SSBNs are crucial for maintaining our security. And this is always the argument. This program is "crucial." Trillions later, here we are. Stuck with weapons we can't use and probably wont use, ever. The best reason to have nukes is so that we never have to use them. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I fail to see why it is necessary. Colossal waste of money. Because when you put steel in salt water, it doesn't last forever? We dont need the platform at all. We have B2s and ICBMs. Why are we wasting billions on a sub that we simply dont need? Cold War is over. We do not need this many nuclear weapons, nor the multi-billion dollar platforms to develop them. Invest in America's infrastructure and space exploration. Neither of which would likely survive a first strike in sufficient numbers. Remember that we've cut down our nuclear arsenal substantially. The SSBNs are vital for maintaining MAD. In order for MAD to work we must have a credible second strike capability and SSBNs are the only part of the nuclear triad that guarantees this. Of course, arfcom fails at even understanding MAD so I guess I'm not surprised. this be the truth eta: wiki states that the first Ohio is expected to retire in 2029...dont have to worry about it this week 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Correct me where I'm wrong. Subs carry half our nuclear weapons. Loosing capacity like this means less nukes on subs, so are we getting less nukes in total? Yes. Instead of nuking the entire planet 5 times, we'll only be able to do it three times. Are you joking or stupid? All of the nukes on earth detonated together would not destroy the earth or create nuclear winter...or even kill all the people. |
|
Quoted:
We dont need the platform at all. We have B2s and ICBMs. Why are we wasting billions on a sub that we simply dont need? Cold War is over. We do not need this many nuclear weapons, nor the multi-billion dollar platforms to develop them. Invest in America's infrastructure and space exploration. Your ignorance of nuclear deterrence is astounding. We only have 20 B2's, and they are not kept on hot alert. A first strike could easily wipe ALL of them out. Our ICBM's would have to be launched on warning or otherwise be lost in a first strike - this is inherently dangerous from a nuclear game theory point of view. SLBM's (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile) on the other hand are extremely survivable (a 726 class boat is virtually impossible to detect and track), and the D5 trident the 726 boats carry is ungodly accurate (like rifles, accurate nuclear missiles are the only interesting missiles). It has been policy for MANY years now that the vast majority of the US nuclear deterrent force is in the form of sub carried D5 tridents. And this is because if you detect an inbound strike, you can wait to see if its a true strike or a sensor malfunction. If its a false warning, you haven't had to launch on warning (because you still have a second strike capability in the form of SLBM's). And if its the real deal, you have plenty of highly accurate missiles available after the first strike that you can retaliate with. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I fail to see why it is necessary. Colossal waste of money. Because when you put steel in salt water, it doesn't last forever? We dont need the platform at all. We have B2s and ICBMs. Why are we wasting billions on a sub that we simply dont need? Cold War is over. We do not need this many nuclear weapons, nor the multi-billion dollar platforms to develop them. Invest in America's infrastructure and space exploration. Yes, and let's have another massive stimulus program to invest in our infrastructre. Also, if we just show dictatorships like the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, etc. that we're really nice guys now I'm sure that they will be nice too. After all, look how awesome they are to their serfs, I mean citizens. We should also get rid of our aircraft carriers too. They are expensive, nobody else has anything close to them, and it's really unfair for the USA to flaunt our military power. We should totally unilaterally disarm ourselves. With all of the money we save we can radically expand our entitlement programs. That would be awesome!
And nukes are how we flex our muscle over them? Hows that been working the last twenty years? We ha e more weapons than China and Iran combined. Probably more than if you included Russia. And I could care less how they treat their peolple. We're not the world's police. I fail to see how investing in infrastructure is expanding entitlement programs. Or are you against developing new technology and manufacturing methods? How about instead of building nuclear bombs, we start building nuclear power plants? I swear, some of you continue to prove that the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is what you want to spend money on. |