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?
Imagine the fleet of subs we'd have if there weren't 13 million illegals bilking the system.
Steely-eyed Killers of the Deep - Active Ping
"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.
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.
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.
With the firepower of smaller subs today, that makes sense.
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.
"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.
My gosh! My super sub is in trouble? What will I do?!???!
No, I missed that. Then again, I don't think I wanted to know that.
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.
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.
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)
Hmmm, $2.3 billion apiece. How many F-22s would that be?
The US Navy is Stuck on Nuclear. Until we get back to building nifty diesel boats, our sub force will continue to shrivel.
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.