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

Skip to comments.

USS Michigan returns as a guided-missile sub
Seattlepi ^ | June 12, 2007 | AP

Posted on 06/13/2007 8:53:20 AM PDT by RDTF

The USS Michigan was welcomed back to duty Tuesday during a ceremony at Naval Base Kitsap that celebrated its conversion to a guided-missile submarine.

The afternoon fanfare marked the end of a $1 billion, nearly three-year modification process at neighboring Puget Sound Naval Shipyard on the Kitsap Peninsula. The Bangor-based Michigan was transformed from a Trident missile sub, equipped to carry nuclear missiles, to one capable of using conventional Tomahawk cruise missiles and supporting special operations forces.

"This transformation ... will bring incredible payload, incredible volume in terms of conventional strike capabilities with its Tomahawk cruise missiles and ability to insert and extract special operations forces," Navy Capt. Kerry Ingalls, commander of Submarine Squadron 19, which includes the USS Michigan, said in a telephone interview.

The Michigan was commissioned in 1982, and the conversion breathes new life into the aging sub.

The guided-missile submarine "brings with her the opportunity to experiment with new payloads ... so that we can continue to transform, continue to improve on the concept as we see the need down the road," Ingalls said.

-snip-

The Michigan's makeover began in March 2004. It will be able to carry as many as 154 Tomahawk missiles, more than double the number of cruise missiles carried by standard Navy attack submarines. It also can carry and support as many as 66 special operations forces for up to 90 days.

The 560-foot-long submarine has a war room and extra bunks, and two of its 40-foot, Trident missile-firing tubes were converted to airlocks so Navy SEALs in scuba gear can exit the sub underwater.

(Excerpt) Read more at seattlepi.nwsource.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: ussmichigan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

1 posted on 06/13/2007 8:53:20 AM PDT by RDTF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RDTF

So we are adjusting to a changing world, it would seem.

How many Trident missile subs does that leave on active duty?


2 posted on 06/13/2007 8:57:15 AM PDT by RexBeach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RDTF

Designing SSGNs was fun. We just let the SOF people and sailors fight over the real estate.


3 posted on 06/13/2007 9:01:43 AM PDT by Thrownatbirth (.....when the sidewalks are safe for the little guy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RexBeach
How many Trident missile subs does that leave on active duty?

Of the original 18, only SSBNs 726-729 (4) were converted to SSGNs. SSBNs 730-743 (14) will stay as SSBNs.
4 posted on 06/13/2007 9:06:00 AM PDT by Thrownatbirth (.....when the sidewalks are safe for the little guy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RDTF
154 Tomahawk missiles...

Load those puppies with targeting data...Iranian targeting data.

5 posted on 06/13/2007 9:16:30 AM PDT by ryan71 (You can hear it on the coconut telegraph...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RDTF

Three years and a $billion? They could have just about build one from scratch for that, instead of recycling a 25 year old hull. I smell pork. Counting up - after the conversion program, it looks like the US will only have about 14 ballistic missile subs left.


6 posted on 06/13/2007 9:32:01 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
They could have just about build one from scratch for that

This is a windfall for taxpayers. The Navy estimated it would have needed 15 billion in current year dollars for 4 new class SSGNs. Better to refurbish and modernize.
7 posted on 06/13/2007 9:50:36 AM PDT by Thrownatbirth (.....when the sidewalks are safe for the little guy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RDTF

The sub can still carry a nuclear payload in the Tomahawk missiles.


8 posted on 06/13/2007 9:55:53 AM PDT by Thunder90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RDTF; Jeff Head; sukhoi-30mki; Oztrich Boy

How would you rate the quietness of a Trident against that of a SeaWolf/Virginia? Simply put, which has the lower acoustic signature? Thanks.


9 posted on 06/13/2007 11:03:15 AM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thrownatbirth

I thought the going rate was about a billion and a half per boat.


10 posted on 06/13/2007 11:03:26 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RDTF

I like it.


11 posted on 06/13/2007 11:16:11 AM PDT by Badeye (You know its a kook site when they ban the word 'kook')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RDTF

I did a patrol on the Michigan and a couple on the Pennsylvania (SSBN 735) in an exchange program, they were like Cadillacs compared to anything else under the sea.


12 posted on 06/13/2007 11:20:09 AM PDT by BritExPatInFla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RDTF
The Michigan's makeover began in March 2004. It will be able to carry as many as 154 Tomahawk missiles, more than double the number of cruise missiles carried by standard Navy attack submarines.

Who writes this stuff. The normal SSN has twelve tubes for TLAMs. At 154, the SSGNs carry more than 12 times that number.

13 posted on 06/13/2007 11:49:48 AM PDT by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

The Michigan’s makeover began in March 2004. It will be able to carry as many as 154 Tomahawk missiles, more than double the number of cruise missiles carried by standard Navy attack submarines.

Who writes this stuff. The normal SSN has twelve tubes for TLAMs. At 154, the SSGNs carry more than 12 times that number.

I’m sure even though the SSN has 12 tubes, it has more then 12 missiles.


14 posted on 06/13/2007 12:21:11 PM PDT by Ro_Thunder ("Other than ending SLAVERY, FASCISM, NAZISM and COMMUNISM, war has never solved anything")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
A new Nuclear sub with the capabilities mentioned would run over $3 billion; the new Virginia-class attack boats cost over $2 billion. One-third the cost... That’s cheep...
15 posted on 06/13/2007 12:24:47 PM PDT by Freeport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
Virginia & Seawolf are said to be at the same noise level; lower than that of a Russian Improved Akula Class.
16 posted on 06/13/2007 12:27:55 PM PDT by Freeport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ro_Thunder
I’m sure even though the SSN has 12 tubes, it has more then 12 missiles.

Well, the VLS tubes are reloaded externally, not from the inside. They can carry 12 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAMS). From the Los Angeles class boat SSN-719 and on to the completion of the LA class boats...that's all they could carry. We have like 31 of those boats so they are by far and away the most numerous and represent the current "face" of the US Navy sub force.

Now, the better route was on the Sea Wolf and Virginia class SSNs. The Sea Wolf carries eight large 660mm torpedo tubes that can launch the Tomahawk missiles from those tubes and can carry the missiles internally like torpedoes. Up to 50 of them if so desired...or any mixture of 50 torpedoes and missiles.

So the max for a Sea Wolf is 50...which they would never carry because they would be defenseless against other subs and ships. We only have three Sea Wolfs.

For the Virginias, they have 12 externally loaded TLAMS, and then four 533mm torpedo tubes that can also launch Tomahawk missiles. With the 12, I believe four more or carried for a max of 16.

The max internal weapons they can carry is 26. And that can consist of the Tomnahawks, MK-48 torpedoes, or Harpoon anti-shipping missiles. We only have two Virginias out there thus far.

So, for 31 of our boats, the max is 12. For five others, they can carry more.

It is interesting because the most capable are the Sea WOlfs. We stopped construction of the Sea Wolfs at three. Said they were too expensive. Then we began building the less capable Virginia class (in terms of fire power and speed)...and now they cost more. Go figure.

17 posted on 06/13/2007 1:02:20 PM PDT by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Freeport; Thrownatbirth; PAR35
A new Nuclear sub with the capabilities mentioned would run over $3 billion; the new Virginia-class attack boats cost over $2 billion. One-third the cost... That’s cheep...

Yeah, but now Hillary lost the chance to sell the USS Michigan to China!

18 posted on 06/13/2007 1:03:39 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

19 posted on 06/13/2007 1:05:10 PM PDT by aomagrat (Gun owners who vote for democrats are too stupid to own guns.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: aomagrat
Amazing to think that thing could be quiet underwater!



;-)

20 posted on 06/13/2007 1:09:19 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 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