Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cost Cutting the Super Sub
Defense Tech ^ | April 19, 2006 | David Axe

Posted on 04/19/2006 3:00:56 PM PDT by george76

The Navy's submarine force is in trouble.

A shrinking number of boats is struggling to meet steady demand from regional commanders.

Meanwhile, the cost of the only U.S. submarine currently in production, the super-high-tech Virginia-class attack boat, has risen to $2.3 billion apiece.

At that price, the Navy can afford to buy only one per year.

Do the math: since attack boats last only 30 years, building one boat per year means your fleet is eventually going to shrink to 30 boats from the current 55.

Long-range plans call for 48 attack subs, so how is the Navy going to get there?

Some observers have called for the Navy to start production of new, smaller and cheaper boats, perhaps even diesel-electrics rather than nukes.

But the long ranges that U.S. boats must travel, their need for big hulls (for mission flexibility) and the strong pro-nuke culture of U.S. submariners means diesels aren't a realistic option.

Plus, no U.S. shipyard has built diesel boats in more than 50 years, so where would you get them from? Germany? Sweden?


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: attack; attackboat; boat; class; dieselboats; dod; navy; nuclear; nukeboats; oil; rumsfeld; russia; submarine; submariners; terror; terrorism; us; ussubmariners; virginia; virginiaclass; war; waronterror; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last

1 posted on 04/19/2006 3:00:57 PM PDT by george76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: george76

Imagine the fleet of subs we'd have if there weren't 13 million illegals bilking the system.


2 posted on 04/19/2006 3:08:54 PM PDT by mtbopfuyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76; Doohickey; judicial meanz; submarinerswife; PogySailor; chasio649; gobucks; Bottom_Gun; ..

Steely-eyed Killers of the Deep - Active Ping


3 posted on 04/19/2006 3:09:34 PM PDT by SmithL (Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

"Some observers have called for the Navy to start production of new, smaller and cheaper boats, perhaps even diesel-electrics rather than nukes."

Some observers are obviously retarded.


4 posted on 04/19/2006 3:09:41 PM PDT by L98Fiero (I'm worth a million in prizes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76
Do the math: since attack boats last only 30 years, building one boat per year means your fleet is eventually going to shrink to 30 boats from the current 55.

Who says the boats can only last 30 years? The current generation has lasted about that long, the next generation should last longer. The last B-52 was built in around 1964, some will still be flying in 2020. It can be done. Of course when your engines tend to glow in the dark after awhile, it makes upgrading somewhat more difficult. But still not impossible.

5 posted on 04/19/2006 3:12:20 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn

Maybe we should hire the illegals to build our subs. I bet they'd do it for $8 an hour. And they'd just be doing the work Americans won't do. I know I wouldn't build a sub for $8 an hour.


6 posted on 04/19/2006 3:14:18 PM PDT by BykrBayb ("We will not be silent. We are your bad conscience. The White Rose will give you no rest.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

With the firepower of smaller subs today, that makes sense.


7 posted on 04/19/2006 3:16:45 PM PDT by AGreatPer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero
"Some observers have called for the Navy to start production of new, smaller and cheaper boats, perhaps even diesel-electrics rather than nukes."

Some observers are obviously retarded.

Well, maybe. We have coasts that need defending, just like all the folks who use diesels, and Diesels would be good for training the nuc boats, and other ASW forces to operate against DE type boats. However I'd skip DE and go to Air Independent Propulsion, just as many of the current operators of DE boats are doing.

There might also be potential for smaller, but still nuclear powered boats, as well. While I'd never say we needed no long range nuke boats, I think we still need a bunch, but Rickover's ghost can't be allowed to dominate the submarine force forever you know.

8 posted on 04/19/2006 3:17:27 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

"but Rickover's ghost can't be allowed to dominate the submarine force forever you know."

Perhaps not but I see no sense at all in going backwards. Besides, there's nothing like nuclear-powered air conditioning. ;)

I'm a fan of the nuclear Navy. I've seved on nuke boats and toured diesel boats. I'll take the nuke boats.


9 posted on 04/19/2006 3:28:11 PM PDT by L98Fiero (I'm worth a million in prizes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: george76

My gosh! My super sub is in trouble? What will I do?!???!

10 posted on 04/19/2006 3:28:22 PM PDT by China Clipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
You know we had illegals working on the subs in San Diego, right? (Google cache, ICE removed the press release)
11 posted on 04/19/2006 3:28:31 PM PDT by newzjunkey (America for Americans: No amnesty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

No, I missed that. Then again, I don't think I wanted to know that.


12 posted on 04/19/2006 3:31:17 PM PDT by BykrBayb ("We will not be silent. We are your bad conscience. The White Rose will give you no rest.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
And who says it will always take 1 year to build the boat we want ? Ten years out, the Virginia will be superseded by another series...
13 posted on 04/19/2006 3:31:59 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (BTUs are my Beat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AGreatPer

I've seen both types up close and personnal from the target point of view. The Nukes are bad $hit if they're used right. Let someone else build the diesels.


14 posted on 04/19/2006 3:33:41 PM PDT by NAVY84
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero; nutmeg

15 posted on 04/19/2006 3:36:08 PM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

I'm no expert, but I'll ask the following questions: How many times can the average sub reactor be re-cored? How much does it cost? Are there any limits to reactor life before the sub is effectively unusable?

I think the answers to those questions probably put the ultimate limits on the average boat's service life.


16 posted on 04/19/2006 3:39:27 PM PDT by Tallguy (When it's a bet between reality and delusion, bet on reality -- Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Rickover is the main reason no one else builds super carriers. The best way to defend our coast is to litter the enemies coastal waters with artificial reefs (previously known as their fleet)


17 posted on 04/19/2006 3:40:08 PM PDT by NAVY84
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: george76

Hmmm, $2.3 billion apiece. How many F-22s would that be?


18 posted on 04/19/2006 3:40:18 PM PDT by CPOSharky (Go home and fix your own country before you complain about ours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

The US Navy is Stuck on Nuclear. Until we get back to building nifty diesel boats, our sub force will continue to shrivel.


19 posted on 04/19/2006 3:42:13 PM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
This sounds like a decisions for Rumsfield whether we Diesel or Nuke boats?
20 posted on 04/19/2006 3:43:31 PM PDT by chas1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson