Reply With QuoteGood to see that the classic US sub yards are still up to their old standards.
So are they or aren't they dropping production to 1/yr?Originally Posted by Halidon
Good to see that the classic US sub yards are still up to their old standards.
I'm loving the new way the Navy does the ship logos now. This one is on par with the USS California's logo.
Congress is adding the money back to sustain 2/yr.
Thank god for that. Cutting back to one in 2014 was just about the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. Why punish the program that builds top of the line equipment under budget and delivers early? Its not like the Navy has a shortage of underperforming and over budget programs. If anything, the Navy should be seriously considering extending the Virginia buy beyond 30. Speaking of which, as I read it, the plan to install Virginia Payload Module in later Virginia builds would start with the Block 5 builds. Assuming that they build more than 2 with this modification, does that imply that the Virginia Class will ultimately consist of more than 30 hulls?
Last edited by HKDan; 05-04-2012 at 09:44 PM.
Google is my friend...just answered my own question. If the Navy makes the right choice and builds 10 Block V Virginia class subs to replace the SSGNs that will retire in the 2020s, the total Virginia build will come to 37 subs. Assuming that this program is able to continue its record of excellence, I can't see how this can be anything other than exactly the right choice to make. Especially since that Navy has also committed to submarine launched Prompt Global Strike. http://defense.aol.com/2011/10/18/vi...leet-but-wher/
Good. 12345678
Did they ever remedy the problem of urethane tiles falling off?
CPuffs check out:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE
Along with the House, the Senate also supports 2 ddg-51's and 2 Virginia p/y. Looks like another 10 Ship year.
Type 212 has neither the range requirements nor the armament requirements needed for RAN. If you take a look at all the ocean around Australia, you will quickly come to the conclusion that we have a greater need for range, not less. Going from the Collins to the 212 would be a complete disaster. The only Euro sub that comes close to RAN requirements is the S-80, and with some modifications could be well placed to be the next boat if Virginia class is well and truly off the list.
If $40 Billion is being budgeted for the Collins replacement, and we need 12, that's $3.3 Billion per boat. Including personnel requirements in that $3.3 Billion per boat, it would want to be the best submarine ever conceived.
EDIT: The other problem for RAN is that they have been slow to really outline specific future requirements, and the Govt is just as bad. 3 years after initially announcing a new sub replacement, the project has gone nowhere. The public 2009 White Paper never really gave any real outlines to capability, but it's been stated a few times that AIP, TacToms and same range or more as Collins class were desirable. Who knows what will come of all this.
Atleast the US Navy is getting a solid platform for the future.
Last edited by Ballistic; 05-05-2012 at 01:06 AM.
of all the US' military services IMHO the Navy is the most under-resourced.
It sounds counter-intuitive but this is exactly why the Virginia program was targeted in this way. The Navy pushed one Virginia out of its budget, then made sure everyone and their uncle called attention to the fact that its a dumb idea and would have negative effects. These calls are heard by the congressmen and congresswomen who represent Sub Fleet/Industry districts, Navy vets, Hawks, and certain Congress Critters who always (no matter the rises and falls in the budget) look to add something to Defense every year just to say they did. Lo and behold, here's a perfectly good submarine program with a missing boat! So Congress adds money to keep the program on-track, and things continue on. The budget process is full of this sort of thing.
The Virginias don't use tiles, the hull coating is molded right onto the hull in drydock. Which has been part of the problem: rather than loosing a few tiles and replacing them individually, any loss of adhesion would cause whole section to de-laminate and rip off, requiring a patch. They're improving the process and (belatedly) improving the adhesive, the most recent hulls seem to be doing better and I gather they expect to have the problem licked by Flight III. But the existing boats will have the problem until their hulls are scraped down to metal and re-molded.
Sorry, we're not building the Seawolf Class anymore.
Only 30? I thought the navy was going to replace the Los Angeles class on a ship-by-ship basis?
I may be completely wrong/ignorant, but the range factor seems to be two fold, it appears that the range listings I can see for the Collins Class while greater than the range of the Type 212 and 700km more then 214 is offset by a limited 'endurance' (I imagine in terms of food etc), with 70 Days listed vs say 84 (all possibly wrong hence I am asking?) it seems if I am correct the S-80 offers relatively similar range to the Collins Class and perhaps endurance?
In regards to the weapons component is a good point you raise though it seems to be again less of an issue on the Type 214 which likewise to the S-80 appears to be able to fire Harpoon Missiles.. If we throw in crew complements, we get a minimum of 42 on the Collins Class (this is before it appears crew sizes were increased to 58) vs say 30 for the Type 212/214s and 30 for the S-80, that crew size factor could mean increased operational readiness for Submarines aswell or if the problem of crewing them is solved, the ability to have more submarines for the same numbers of Personnel, the Virginia Class likewise requires 113 Crew Members, begging the question of whether manpower can be found to meet the needs to even get 12..
The Type 212 I do not think is under consideration anyway, built for German-Italian needs I do not think it is for export, hence the Type 214.. Additionally while apparently losing some of the 212s Capabilities the Type 214 does seem to offer closer capabilities to what Australia needs, and in the under development Type 216 it seems these capabilities are further extended explicitly for Australias needs... The S-80 admittedly I am struggling to see concrete information on, but it does appear to be a serious contender..
Knowing what the Costs are projected at for each Submarine, aswell as how readily serviceable each is, quietness and other characteristics of course has to factor in but I have very little idea of any of these (as I expect most of us are likewise limited)
How does Virginia compare with her UK new peer Astute class SSN , in noise level , firepower and Sonars/Sensors etc ?
Any idea how much db noise level do experts rate it , read it was comparable to Sea Wolf class
Posting Permissions
