The Submarine Thread

[Scratch]

Popeye:

That would be in violation to the START II treaty the US signed in 1992 limiting the number of SSBN the USN and other navies can have.

Hm, I'm not sure if I understand that point correct. This only 14 SSBNs, does that B mean ballistic missiles in general or nuclear armed BMs?
Because I thought conventional armed Tridents would make the sub a SSGN.
And in bluejackets post it's about using BMs as ASAT weapons, would that also affect the SART II treaty?

I just also saw one sentence in my last post is confusing. I wanted to say: If a Ticonderoga is in the area anyway to carry the SPY-2 radar, why put a SSBN there as an ATBM platform.

 

[bd popeye]

Popeye:

Hm, I'm not sure if I understand that point correct. This only 14 SSBNs, does that B mean ballistic missiles in general or nuclear armed BMs?
Because I thought conventional armed Tridents would make the sub a SSGN.
And in bluejackets post it's about using BMs as ASAT weapons, would that also affect the SART II treaty?

START II limits the numbers of warheads also.

The US is limited to 14 SSBN's by this treaty. They are not limited in SSN or SSGN's.(SSN & SSGN's are not in the treaty). It's that simple. I think the SSBN could be used in the ASAT role. But I'm not 100% sure.

But to be sure check the treaty..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I ain't readin' it...

 

[BLUEJACKET]

I wrote

Future SSGNs..

- If more SSBNs converted to SSGNs there will be even less than 14 SSBNs left! And there is talk about having SSBNs

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

BMs-

The Pentagon would “keep [the Trident] subject to the treaties, so [Russian officials] can look at it,” the senior official said. “They can go inspect it. They can see where it is. They can see what it looks like. They can see whether it's changed or not. [Let's] keep all of those things up above board.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Wether or

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

this happens, IMO SSBNs subs can be used in ASAT/BMD role-
if they can

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, by the same token it's possible to kill a satellite!

Using a Russian Navy strategic submarine and a converted ballistic missile, a small

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

was launched into orbit Friday on a mission to aid in the potential development of earthquake forecasts from space.
The Shtil 1 rocket blasted out of its launch tube at 1850 GMT (2:50 p.m. EDT). The three-stage liquid-fueled booster later released its payload as planned into the targeted orbit with a high point of about 300 miles, a low point of approximately 250 miles, and an inclination of around 79 degrees.
The launch originated from the Russian Navy's nuclear-powered Ekaterinburg submarine submerged in the Barents Sea inside the Arctic Circle offshore Russia's northern coast.

 

[bd popeye]

BLUEJACKET, As it stands right now your proposal could come true. But as of now only 4 Ohio class will be converted to SSGN's.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The cost of the conversion is $222 million a piece. But I can swear that I read that $1.5 Billion USD has been set aside for this program. If that's so that means at least two more boats could be converted.

 

[IDonT]

Popeye:

Hm, I'm not sure if I understand that point correct. This only 14 SSBNs, does that B mean ballistic missiles in general or nuclear armed BMs?
Because I thought conventional armed Tridents would make the sub a SSGN.
And in bluejackets post it's about using BMs as ASAT weapons, would that also affect the SART II treaty?

I just also saw one sentence in my last post is confusing. I wanted to say: If a Ticonderoga is in the area anyway to carry the SPY-2 radar, why put a SSBN there as an ATBM platform.

The B in SSBN stands for Ballistic Missile. All Trident Missiles in Ohio Class Subs are nuclear armed. It is part of the US nuke deterrant.

The SSGN conversion placed 154 Tomahawk Cruise missles (hence the term G for guided missile) in the vacated Trident launched tubes. With the retirement of the Spruances, the USN needed additional VLS cells that carry Tomahawks. SSGN are a much more survivable "arsenal ship" than the Spruance.

 

[Scratch]

Ok, so I take it that every sub equiped with Tridents is a SSBN even if all the carried Tridents were only armed with conventional warheads, wich theoreticaly is possibly and may become prectice as how I understand it. That means SSBNs could carry few conventional armed Trident in the future, too.

As for ASAT/BMD, I still can't see a military value of using subs for the BMD role for the reasons I stated earlier. The principles of operating a sub (wich requires it to be [deeply] submerged) and the needs of a BMD platform (be ready to launch all the time, wich a dived sub is not) make those two systems incompatable, imo.

 

[IDonT]

Ok, so I take it that every sub equiped with Tridents is a SSBN even if all the carried Tridents were only armed with conventional warheads, wich theoreticaly is possibly and may become prectice as how I understand it. That means SSBNs could carry few conventional armed Trident in the future, too.

Its prohibitedly expensive to use a Trident missile for conventional attack. The MIRV vehicles are relatively small and can probably carry no more than a ton worth of High explosives. Tomahawks are much cheaper and more accurate. In technical terms it is possible.

 

[BLUEJACKET]

.. Chinese military academic writings indicate that the PLA may also be considering using nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines to launch direct ascent ASAT missiles. In early 2004 one Chinese author with the Dalian Naval Academy noted, "By deploying just a few anti-satellite nuclear submarines in the ocean, one can seriously threaten the entire military space system of the enemy. In addition to anti-satellite operations, these nuclear submarines can also be used for launching low orbit tactical micro-satellites to serve as powerful real time battlefield intelligence support."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The conventional BMs are/were planned to be used not with MRV, but as "

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

".

The D5 missile project involves the removal of nuclear warheads from as many as two dozen D5 ICBMs that are carried aboard the U.S. fleet of 12 Ohio-class Trident submarines.
The Pentagon has the project on an accelerated schedule, with the goal of fielding the weapons alongside their nuclear variants in two years. Each Trident submarine carries 24 D5 missiles, and the plan calls for using two of those as conventional weapons in each sub.
The rocket fired by a submerged submarine would barrel up through the ocean powered by its three-stage engine and rapidly ascend through the atmosphere at speeds up to 20,000 feet per second into outer space.
The warhead compartment of the missile would then plummet back to earth, guided to its target within about 50 feet by sophisticated sensors. Defense officials believe it would gain enough speed and force to penetrate underground command bunkers.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[BLUEJACKET]

Re: Russian Sub Kursk

Any ideas what is going on with

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

now? Is it heading for scrapping or to be cannibalized?

12 August 2000: The Russian submarine Kursk, a nuclear-powered cruise missile submarine of the Oscar II class, was participating in military exercises in the Barents Sea north of Russia when a massive explosion rocked the vessel. The blast ruptured the hull sending the Kursk into a terminal dive towards the sea floor 350 ft (105 m) down. Though at least 23 of the 118 crewmembers survived the initial sinking, attempts to rescue them failed. The men had run out of oxygen by the time divers were able to enter the wreck. Subsequent investigations concluded that the sinking was caused by a fire in the torpedo room similar to the one that had sunk the USS Scorpion in 1968. A torpedo's propellants ignited creating a large fire that soon caused the warheads of other torpedoes to detonate. The massive explosion ripped the forward part of the submarine open and quickly flooded the forward compartments. Russia indicated that no nuclear weapons were aboard at the time, and the nuclear reactors were recovered in 2001 when the wreck was raised.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Finn McCool]

Uhhh...nothing Bluejacket its at the bottom of the sea. I don't think they would raise it just to scrapp it. They would try to recover it if its reactor started leaking though. On 2nd thoought it seems more likely that in that situation they would go down there and try to reseal it.