US Navy Converting 4 Ohio Class SSBN's into SPECOPS subs

[venture160]

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_6/ssgntit_copy.gif

The US Navy is currently taking the origional 4 Ohio class SSBN's and converting them into SSGN's, which are guided missle submarines, instead of carrying 24 trident d-5 missiles, they will be able to carry 164 cruise missiles. But the coolest part is that they will have a living quarters for up to 64 special operations troops, a mission command center, and the seals new mini sub.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_13/USW%20fall%2002/SSGN-Missile-8x10.gif

from a US NAvy website

Strike Capabilities
The SSGN will bring a new dimension to strike warfare. Currently, SSNs with up to two-dozen Tomahawks usually launch missiles in salvos of three or four (16 maximum), while on SSGN a salvo of 20 missiles will represent less than 15 percent of the full load of 140 or 154 missiles. One might ask where the nearly 600 Tomahawks needed to fully arm four SSGNs will come from. The answer is – the Submarine Force. Existing submarine torpedo-tube launched (TTL) TLAMs will be converted for vertical launch to provide the required load-outs. Obviously, the number of TLAMs available to deploying SSNs will decrease as a result, but if you consider that a missile on an SSGN is deployed 70 percent of the time, the overall TLAM inventory immediately available to the CINCs will increase by about 50 to 60 percent. This shift of weapons will also open up some room in SSN torpedo rooms for more torpedoes or alternative payloads, like LMRS and other unmanned vehicles.



Special Operations Forces (SOF)
SEALs have operated from submarines for years. Conversion of the SSBNs USS James K. Polk (SSN-645) and USS Kamehameha (SSN-642) – since inactivated – gave us the space for embarked SEALs to work out and maintain their conditioning for extended periods and to deploy with their equipment. SSGN will not only restore the force’s large, sustainable SOF capability, but will include significant command and control capabilities well beyond those of previous boats. With a dedicated command center and a “Virginia-class” communication system, SSGN will be able to control a Special Forces campaign over a period of months from her covert position. Once on scene, SSGN will deploy Special Forces submerged, either from the SEAL delivery vehicles (SDVs) housed in the dry-deck shelters, or in the Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) mini-subs, where SEALs will travel to locations over 125 nm away in a dry environment. SSGNs should prove to be the most advanced covertSpecial Forces platforms ever.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_13/USW%20fall%2002/SSGN-cutaway-8x10.gif

[Trigger]

I remember reading about this last year on Globalsecurity.org. The program was called Giant Shadow or something like that.
Cool.

[ShotOver]

Looks real good.

But i wouldnt like to live in a submarine... not too keen on that.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Hey, I'm all for special ops & all, but DAMN that's an expensive taxi.

As an aside, when they launch the SEALs out the top, in the missles, wouldn't they pull so many G's that their diving masks would fall off? :lol:

[Ian H]

Don't see why, James Bond and that other guy were fine when they tried it.



(Never Say Never Again in case you can't place it)

[OldRecon]

The Ohio is simply too big for the special forces part of the mission, where you need to get in real close to shore. Like trying to fit a blue whale in a swiming pool. Unless you modify the mother wessel to carry new design mini-subs - the size of the present DSRV - with extended range, that can again carry SVD's the necessary distance inshore.

[Antepilani]

What a waste of money, if we would cancel it we could bring two Battleships into service, upgrade them, and run them for 25 more years.

I'd rather send the message of "We are here and there aint a damn thing you can do about it".

[Roger Rabbit]

Yeah but with a submarine then the enemy doesnt always know you are there. They can hardly miss a battleship.

[usa320]

i like the idea. A cruise missile platform is far more useful in todays day and age than an SSBN.

I also like the idea of the battle ships.

The Iowa class BB's are still in mothballs- at least 2 of em, and they were called up for GW1, IMHO they should be refitted and put back out- nothing can beat those 12 inch guns.

[Ratamacue]

My brother was telling me a little about these. Antepilani, the point isn't to have a giant ship capable of intimidation, it's having a covert platform for launching SOF and cruise missiles without the enemy even knowing you're there. The fact is that with this, it won't take a nearby, overt military presence to send SOF on operations, nor do you need to risk the high-profile of airborne deployment.

[Antepilani]

The Battleship could be outfitted with several 30mm Goalkeepers, 400+ VLS Cells loaded with ESM, Tactical Tomahawks, SM-2, and SM-3. We would obviously load it up with 11" SABOT GPS guided DARPA designed rounds along with regular 16" shells. Plus you could have 4 ASW aircraft.

This 2 ships would be able to deliver the payload of over 20 DD(X)'s.

My argument is not against it as a delivery system for SF but as a missile delivery system. We already have more holes in the deck then we have Tomahawks.

[Ratamacue]

You're missing the point of the whole damn sub. Tactical missile delivery isn't the only objective for the SSGN, but also covert insert/extraction of SEAL teams. A battleship is a massive vessel, and has far too overt and simply VISIBLE a presence to be used for such.

[venture160]

i forgot to mentiont that it will also have the new seal submarine attached, which could travel short distances in shallower waters, and it will be connected through one of the missile tubes.
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_14/images/asds_hdr.gif




The Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) - a combatant submersible developed for clandestine insertion and extraction of Special Operations Forces (SOF) - is currently undergoing the operational testing needed to bring the vehicle to Initial Operational Capability (IOC). A transformational leap ahead of its operational predecessor, the Mk VIII SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV), ASDS will transport SEALs in a dry environment and deliver them ready for action. Its advanced sonar systems and unique electro-optical systems will provide a new level of undersea situational awareness to the embarked SEAL team, and allow them to conduct shore surveillance prior to landing. The personnel who currently support the ASDS program, based in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii - and especially those who pilot the vehicle - are forging new directions in undersea capabilities and redefining what may soon be the norm for submarine-based SOF operations for the next 20 to 30 years.
more information and pictures here: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_14/asds.html
http://starbulletin.com/2000/05/06/news/arte.jpg
the minisub in construction, the navy currently has 6 of these brand new minisubs

[Whistler]

What a waste of money, if we would cancel it we could bring two Battleships into service, upgrade them, and run them for 25 more years.

I'd rather send the message of "We are here and there aint a damn thing you can do about it".

LOL. A battleship? What do you think this is, WW1? Afraid the Kaisers Imperial Navy is going to come after us? rofl

Aint much use for a battleship these days... Way to blatant and vunerable.

And a submarine is much better than a battleship for the psychological thing you mentioned too... When the enemy KNOWS that you have the ability to come out of nowhere and land 154 cruise missiles or almost a hundred special forces anywhere in their country.

"Is there a sub off my coast? Where is he? What kind is it? What capabilities does he have?

These modified Ohios seem like one of the ultimate weapons for the new war on terror. SSBNs are almost useless these days, so why not?

[venture160]

Imagine it like this. there is a flashpoint somewhere in the globe, lets say you have gotten the exact location of some terrorists in indonesia. Without anyone having the slightest clue you could lauch a cruise missile attack from the ocean and have your seals waiting to go in and evalulate the damage, or you could simply use the seals against them, without obvious aircraft flying above. Obviously this kind of quick reaction will only work within the travels of a seal team on foot. But remember they are only converting 4 of the SSBN's and the new virginia class SSN's (2 are in service now) they are super super advanced attack submarines, a whole generation above the seawolf. People forget about these things, and this is a major development in submarine warfare, and these submarines already have all the capabilities the SSGN's will have, hence the SSGN's are being modeled after the Virginia class

[Antepilani]

NT

[Antepilani]

LOL. A battleship? What do you think this is, WW1? Afraid the Kaisers Imperial Navy is going to come after us?

Aint much use for a battleship these days... Way to blatant and vunerable.


A Battleship has over 20 inches of steel armor, even if the damn thing gets hit with a cruise missile the damage will be negligable(they would also have ESSM, CIWS, and SM-2 missiles to protect against missiles). Even the Russians after the Cold War admited they couldn't do jack to our Battleships!


When the enemy KNOWS that you have the ability to come out of nowhere and land 154 cruise missiles or almost a hundred special forces anywhere in their country.

And a Battleship can deliver 1500 11" GPS guided SABOT rounds to targets over 200 miles inland in a single day(it is highly unlikely they would fire that many in a day, however it is possible). With newly designed barrel linings they could fire this many rounds out of each gun before the lining would have to be replaced(at least).


These modified Ohios seem like one of the ultimate weapons for the new war on terror. SSBNs are almost useless these days, so why not?

A gigantic majority of the third world lives with in 200 miles of the coast. If you want to fire a bunch of Tacticle Tommy's you can stand off at 600 miles on an Aerligh Burk and hit as many targets as you like and they won't see you.


Imagine it like this. there is a flashpoint somewhere in the globe, lets say you have gotten the exact location of some terrorists in indonesia.

A tacticle Tommy can go 1000 miles, you do not need a sub to hit them by supprise!

Leave Seal insertion to Attack Subs.


You're missing the point of the whole damn sub. Tactical missile delivery isn't the only objective for the SSGN, but also covert insert/extraction of SEAL teams. A battleship is a massive vessel, and has far too overt and simply VISIBLE a presence to be used for such.

Please I beseech you, quote me where I said the Battleship should be used for SEAL Insertian?

[Ratamacue]

Antepilani, remember that battleships cost millions upon millions to deploy and maintain. There's little use for them nowadays that the job can be more tactically- and cost-effectively by destroyers and cruisers. For the amount of money that it takes to build a battleship, you can build several missile cruisers with a higher overall missile capacity.

And even though a battleship may have 20in of steel armor, a cruise missile is going to do a very significant amount of damage. And beyond that, they're impractical compared to today's carrier battlegroups, as carriers have enough fighter power to wreak havoc on an enemy fleet or inland target, plus the firepower of several destroyers/cruisers, plus (soon) supporting firepower from an SSGN nearby.

Battleships went out the window with V-J day in 1945. There hasn't been a massive naval battle since World War II (correct me if I'm wrong on that), the Russians are no longer our enemy, and today's warfare does not call for what we've needed in the past. To spend billions of dollars building, deploying, and maintaining battleships would be a ridiculous waste of money.

[venture160]

I agree ratamacue, the idea of a battleship is just rediculous.


A Battleship has over 20 inches of steel armor, even if the damn thing gets hit with a cruise missile the damage will be negligable(they would also have ESSM, CIWS, and SM-2 missiles to protect against missiles). Even the Russians after the Cold War admited they couldn't do jack to our Battleships!

this is the biggest load of bull I have heard in a long time. The newest generation of Anti ship missiles like the sunburn can tear apart even a battleship and render it useless. Flying at mach 2.9 there's not much that can stop it, especially when fired in salvos they can communicate with each other to avoid incoming anti missile fire from something like a phalynx system. Todays Harpoon or Exocet gives a modern ship 150-250 seconds to respond, with a Sunburn (the fastest anti ship missile in the world) you have less than 40 seconds to respond. And you say 20 inches of steel armor will provide negligable damage? do you know what a 320kg warhead will do to a ship? (the sunburn has a 320kg warhead) Anything smaller than a cruiser is dead in the water, and a single hit would provide enough damage to render the ship completely succeptible to another hit or more which would surely put it to the bottom. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY lets not forget that ANY of these anti ship missiles can be fitted with a 300+kg NUCLEAR WARHEAD. Which would not only destroy the ship completely but used properly could take out an entire battlegroup!! I believe I have you proven wrong Antepilani

[Antepilani]

Antepilani, remember that battleships cost millions upon millions to deploy and maintain. There's little use for them nowadays that the job can be more tactically- and cost-effectively by destroyers and cruisers. For the amount of money that it takes to build a battleship, you can build several missile cruisers with a higher overall missile capacity.

A Tacticle Tomahawk cost over 1 million dollars, an 11" GPS Guided SABOT round is estimated to cost $200,000 a peice. Now to match the ammount of firepower of say 750, 11" rounds you would need a few hundred Tacticle Tomahawks, which is far more then the ammount in Destroyers and Cruisers in any Carrier Battle Group or any two Carrier Battlegroups for that matter.

It would cost roughly 2 billion dollars to refit and update the 2 Battleships we have in Mothboll and a little less then 150 million per year to run both of them. To refit and update them and then use them for another 10 years would cost less then the SSGN conversion project.



And even though a battleship may have 20in of steel armor, a cruise missile is going to do a very significant amount of damage. And beyond that, they're impractical compared to today's carrier battlegroups, as carriers have enough fighter power to wreak havoc on an enemy fleet or inland target, plus the firepower of several destroyers/cruisers, plus (soon) supporting firepower from an SSGN nearby.

If the cruise missile does not have an AP warhead it's not going to much damage.

During Gulf War II they managed an amazing 1 sorty per day. They claim two but in truth they landed the aircraft on an airforce base. A Battleship can deliver 1500, 16" shells and another 15,000 5" shells. Don't get me wrong, nothing can match the overall firepower of a Carrier.



Battleships went out the window with V-J day in 1945. There hasn't been a massive naval battle since World War II (correct me if I'm wrong on that), the Russians are no longer our enemy, and today's warfare does not call for what we've needed in the past. To spend billions of dollars building, deploying, and maintaining battleships would be a ridiculous waste of money.



Check BB's history in Vietnam please.


The newest generation of Anti ship missiles like the sunburn can tear apart even a battleship and render it useless. Flying at mach 2.9 there's not much that can stop it, especially when fired in salvos they can communicate with each other to avoid incoming anti missile fire from something like a phalynx system.

It is hardly the "newest" generation as it came out in the late 1980's.

The ESSM engaged drones doing 9 g manouvers at mach 5, got anymore BS?

A BB with 120 VLS cells could give you the ability to engage 60 targets if only 1/8th of the VLS cells are filled with them. If this somehow manages to fail you would have Phalanx or Goalkeeper. The most you would get if a few missiles did get pass is an Op Kill.

[venture160]

please I would like to know where you get your information that says a direct hit by a 300kg+ warhead will do little damage to your precious little battleship?

If they really are as effective as you claim them to be, wouldn't you think the Navy would have kept them around? The cost of maintenence and training for such a large crew could pay for numerous of the Navy's new DDX's which have a large armada of "tactical tommies." Everything is automated aboard these new ships so training and maintence fees are drasticly reduced. Plus, the ground radar signature of a battleship is pretty easy to pick up compared to the new generation of warships i.e the arliegh burke and the DDX. While the Battleship may make SOME sense for LARGE scale conflicts such as invading a country, in the near AND distant future, it appears unlikely that conflicts such as WWWIII are going to happen. Low intensive conflicts do not need gigantic battleships. More nimble, lightweight forces are far better for todays warfare.

[AFACadet]

Battleships are DEAD....



...Since 1945.



There is ZERO value for them these days.


They are some of the largest and most expensive ships ever built or maintained. They lack any kind of weapons smaller and more effective ships have, except the 16 in guns, where are totally useless these days.

They have a range of about 20 miles.


Most anti-ship missiles have a range over 10 times that, and when a ship is in range of the shore, its extremely easy to simply pop a couple off.

[Antepilani]

please I would like to know where you get your information that says a direct hit by a 300kg+ warhead will do little damage to your precious little battleship?

Oh no, not 300kg!

The Battleship Yamato took 11 torpedos and 7 bombs before it sank. On average the Yamato had around 2 more inches of armor then the Iowa class Battleships(Iowa has better quality of steel though and far better damage control). It's going to take more then a couple Cruise Missiles to sink her.


If they really are as effective as you claim them to be, wouldn't you think the Navy would have kept them around?

Ever heard of Politics?



The cost of maintenence and training for such a large crew could pay for numerous of the Navy's new DDX's which have a large armada of "tactical tommies." Everything is automated aboard these new ships so training and maintence fees are drasticly reduced. Plus, the ground radar signature of a battleship is pretty easy to pick up compared to the new generation of warships i.e the arliegh burke and the DDX. While the Battleship may make SOME sense for LARGE scale conflicts such as invading a country, in the near AND distant future, it appears unlikely that conflicts such as WWWIII are going to happen. Low intensive conflicts do not need gigantic battleships. More nimble, lightweight forces are far better for todays warfare.

The DD(X) is only going to have 1400 rounds and 2, 155mm Guns. Being able to fire 100nm is a pipedream.


They are some of the largest and most expensive ships ever built or maintained. They lack any kind of weapons smaller and more effective ships have, except the 16 in guns, where are totally useless these days.

They have a range of about 20 miles.

They tested an 11" SABOT round with a range of 200nm before they mothballed them.

[AFACadet]

Can you show me some credible information for that?

[venture160]

so far you have provided NO information to back your erroneous assertions up. dont forget that a missile traveling at Mach 3+ is going to have a bit of an easier time penetrating a hull than a 1940's torpedo. Also dont forget that conventional explsovies have also Drasticly advanced in the past 50 years. you simply can't compare them. o and here's the bra buster for you. go read the general accountings office report on the drasticly poor state of the us naval missile defense system. my case rested.


Also to add, the ss-22n as developed in the early 1990's and the Harpoon is dated 1970's technology. Also you should note that a salvo attack would be much harder to stop. And dont forget that these missiles have advanced radar jamming techniques that could stifle the aegis system. American technology is not completely inpenetrable.

let me also remind you that an exocet missile itself is capable of evading early 1980's missile technology, which is evident by the HMS Sheffield being hit by one during the falklands war.

In 2000 the general accounting office THE OFFICIAL AUDITING AGENCY of the USA released a report stating that the Aegis system was drasticly ****e to attack from the newest generation of missiles, one that is mentioned is the sunburn and newer cruise missiles made by the Russians or chinese here is the link to the document http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/7/18/153131

The general accounting office concluded that the US NAVY was at a HIGH RISK from a cruise missile hit, as stated on table 4 of page 13 in the report. All you have to do is read the first 10 pages of the report and you will read of a situation where cheap parts have been substituted on the newer systems that are ****e to failure and the amount of training has decreased. the document also cites a dramatic decrease in spending on fleet missile defense and concludes that the current us navy fleet is operating on a dangerous level. Mind you since 1993 not a single new anti missile defense system has been implemented aboard US ships.

[usa320]

A tacticle Tommy can go 1000 miles, you do not need a sub to hit them by supprise

While tomahawks fly low, they arent exactly stealth. So a wave of about 100 incomming missiles wont really take the enemy by surprise. Unless of course a B-2 or F-117 take out radar assets before the missiles fence into enemy radar range. Traditionally that is how its done. First wave is stealth aircraft hitting airfields,leadership, C3I and radar facilities- then the ALCMs and Tomahwaks take out the radar guided SAM sites, military facilities, ect. Once the air is cleared of large or long range air defenses, traditional bombers and strikers are cleared to hit whats left.