Posted on 04/13/2011 8:09:12 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
EB: Submarines can be ''stretched'' to boost firepower
By Jennifer McDermott
Publication: The Day
Electric Boat says it can add more missile tubes to Virginia-class submarines without compromising speed or stealth.
EB has been working on a concept for a "stretch Virginia" to boost firepower. The task was to figure out whether the subs could be lengthened by about 90 feet to accommodate triple the number of Tomahawk missiles they now carry, and to launch the weapons of the future, including unmanned undersea vehicles.
Preliminary estimates say the modification could cost up to $500 million per ship, adding roughly 20 percent to the cost of an attack submarine.
Two years ago the Navy asked EB to work on the project, which is not an official Navy program at this point.
After completing the initial engineering work the company found that it can be done, according to John Holmander, the vice president who manages the Virginia-class program. Company officials are discussing the concept at the Navy League's three-day Sea-Air-Space Exposition that began Monday in Maryland.
U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, plans to advocate for research and design money for the Navy in the fiscal 2012 budget, some of which could be used to further develop the concept. But fully funding a new program would be an uphill battle, given the federal government's fiscal woes.
The Navy's Submarine Force will lose about 60 percent of its undersea firepower in the late 2020s with the retirement of its four guided-missile subs, capable of carrying up to 154 Tomahawk missiles. This is happening at the same time that the number of attack submarines in the fleet is dropping because of the retiring of the aging members of the Los Angeles-class subs.
The first "stretch" Virginia could be the sub that EB starts building in 2019, which would be commissioned close to the time that the first guided-missile sub retires.
On the most recent Virginia-class subs, two large-diameter missile tubes located forward of the sail can launch six Tomahawk cruise missiles each. The subs also carry torpedoes.
Extending the submarine to 471 feet would make room for a module near the middle with four additional tubes capable of launching seven missiles each. That would be a 230 percent jump in the number of Tomahawks that can be launched quickly, from 12 to 40.
These stretched subs would still fit in the docks at EB, which at one time held Ohio-class submarines 560 feet long.
The four new missile tubes would be more than 7 feet in diameter.
"This opens the door to many, many other game-changing applications," Rear Adm. Richard P. Breckenridge, deputy director of the Submarine Warfare Division, said in an interview.
The stretch Virginia ranks third in the Submarine Force's priorities, Breckenridge said. Topping the list is the program to replace the current fleet of Ohio-class, or Trident, submarines, followed by finding ways to mitigate the dip in the number of attack submarines as the aging subs of the Los Angeles class retire.
If the Navy had a more robust budget, it would pay for the capability "without hesitation," he said. The Navy is looking to the Defense Department to see if funds could be available to proceed with the stretch Virginia concept, Breckenridge said.
Peter W. Singer, director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative and a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, said the stretch Virginia seeks to answer a key problem that the Navy faces, the crunch in the number of submarines overall and the limits in the number of missiles they can deploy. Both problems look to be worsening in the future, he added.
"The Navy is going to face a series of tough decisions budgetwise. But all things being equal, it's a program we have to give serious consideration towards," Singer said Tuesday.
The USS Florida was one of the three U.S. submarines that launched Tomahawk missiles into Libya last month to support a no-fly zone. One of the fleet's four guided-missile submarines, the Florida launched a majority of its Tomahawk missiles, Breckenridge said. Typically guided-missile submarines deploy with 105 missiles, he added.
"The Navy would've needed eight other attack subs in theater to do what that one ship, Florida, did," he said.
While the economy and the budget "will not tolerate" building a new class of guided-missile submarines, Breckenridge said the stretch Virginia solution offers a more affordable way for the Navy to get a "strategically important capability." It gives the Navy flexibility to distribute more missiles on submarines in more locations, rather than concentrating them on the guided-missile submarines, he added.
Courtney said the fact that Congress still plans to pay for two Virginia-class submarines this year instead of one, despite immense pressure for spending cuts, bodes well for the future of the stretch Virginia concept.
"If you're going to make that investment, you obviously want to concentrate the return to the greatest extent possible," he said Tuesday. "And stretching the missile capacity, I think, makes sense."
j.mcdermott@theday.com
General Dynamics/Electric Boat
Electric Boat brochure showing its concept for adding missile tubes, labeled as 7, 8, 9 and 10, to Virginia-class submarines to increase their firepower. Known as the "stretch Virginia" in the Pentagon, EB is calling the module that could be added to the submarines the Virginia Payload Module.
$500 Million the tax payers do not have, so the navy needs to make do with beer and forget the champagne.
Eggs. Basket.
90 ft more in length equals more surface area (skin friction drag) and more weight, so Electric Boat’s claim of no impact to speed is bogus!
JC
my instincts tell me that the DoD would be wiser investing in defensive armaments; specifically, a weapon that effectively neutralizes the threat of anti-ship missiles. Our real enemies obviously recognize this vulnerability and are able to exploit it. IMHO. I’m not sure why we feel we need to launch more tomahawks from submarines when the aircraft carrier remains our primary means of projecting power overseas.
Better that they have more missiles. They never seem to get around to using their torpedoes. I have heard about how impressive attack submarines are, but we seem to be awfully shy about pulling the trigger.
I think that the Admiral Belgrano was the only post WWII use of a torpedo by US or NATO forces. Of course, North Korea recently used some type of torpedo, but that’s a whole another story.
They think we’re all stupid.
The Pakistanis used a French submarine to sink an Indian frigate in 1971 a decade before the Belgrano. About subs not using torpedoes, well the point is few conflicts have involved all out naval warfare. Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and similar conflicts didn’t have too many naval targets to shoot at.
USS Patrick Henry SSBN 599
I wonder why nobody thought of this before? Oh wait, they did! They cut the USS Scorpion in two, inserted a missile compartment, and renamed it USS George Washington.
The surgery made it kind of an awkward class, but it was still one heck of a warship. I loved the torpedo room, with the six bow tubes. They sure got a lot of use out of the old 41 for Freedom boats. I was on the Washington for its 21st birthday. The boat was older than much of its crew. I’ve got a picture of the GW passing under the Golden Gate on my home page.
A boat’s hull speed increases with waterline length.
Agreed. And I would prefer the Navy speed up the weaponization of that “frickin lazer beam” they just tested. That is a game changer. Adding more tubes isn’t.
If they need subs in the Pac Rim, port more at Pearl and Guam. Reconsider the Phillipines.
Anyone know why there isn’t a boomer ported at Pearl?
Anyone know why there isn’t a boomer ported at Pearl?When I was on the Washington, we were home-ported in Pearl Harbor, but operated out of Guam. New London boomers operated out of Holy Loch, while Charleston boomers patroled from Rota.
With the advent of the Trident boats, we didn't need to start so far from home. All Tridents operate from Kings Bay, GA and Bangor, WA, but can still make the world go away, if called upon to do so.
regarding A., it is up to us to prevent them from becoming obsolete by developing defensive systems that make antiship missiles obsolete. Regarding B., We can’t afford to field a diminished Navy IMO. We can find the money somewhere else in the military budget. again, IMO.
Submarines are now a technology in search of a mission and have been so for 20 years. I worked on the VLS tubes for the 688 Class attack submarine and can tell you that there is much waste in the entire program despite what the spin-meisters at EB and the Navy would say.
The money would be better spent on improving the mobility and defense of our ground forces or just not spending it at all since the US is broke.
ping
was that the Scorpion, or the Shark they did that to? The time I was on Shark, we were always told our original keel and hull pieces went to make the GW, maybe the sealore was wrong! lol
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.