I am no expert on this, am looking to learn. What follows is based on my current limited understanding.
When 4 of the 18 Ohio class boats were freed up by nuclear arms reduction treaty, those 4 were converted to GN boats, with room for lots of Tomahawks, lots of Seals, lots of extra tubes for other spooky goodies, autonomous craft (UUV,USV,UAV), lots of varied capability that only the big boats could provide. It seems to bring a lot to the party, and keeps it well hidden from view, and well hidden from the PLA(N)'s DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missile.
Now they are moving toward the Ohio replacement, SSBN(X), and I don't hear any public discussion about continuing the tactical GN capabilities with a mixed SSBN/GN boat. There is some public discussion about reducing the number of ballistic missle tubes relative to the Ohio. I would think adding some GN tubes would provide added value disproportionate to the added cost.
By limiting the Ohio replacement to the BN mission I think the Navy risks losing funding for a big boat, losing the added capability that a big boat can provide, and might be forced to accept a stretched variant of the Virginia. There is public talk of that. It seems to me that adding GN tactical capability might save the perceived value (political support) in funding a big boat.
Given a mixed BN/GN boat...
The BN specific tubes would likely be similar to those used on the Ohio, if it is going to carry the same Trident II D5, though the new treaty might change that. I have not yet read the treaty, but news reports have mentioned that the US is losing MIRVs in that, down to only one re-entry vehicle per missile. The Ohio was designed to carry 24 D5 missiles, and the D5 was designed to carry 12 MIRVs (reduced to 8 and later to 5 by earlier treaties), for up to 288 MIRVs per boat (now reduced to 24 per boat by latest treaty if the news reports have it right). I think earlier treaties may have allowed decoys in the unused/dummy positions, but I am not sure that is still the case. A smaller missile could allow use of a smaller boat, but it wouldn't be cheap to develop a new smaller missile, so maybe they'll keep the D5, even if its now bigger than needed.
Back to the mixed BN/GN boat...
Perhaps the GN-specific tubes might be sized similar to the new Virginia class Block III Common Weapon Launcher (CWL) design, a little larger in diameter than the Ohio tubes but shorter in height, sized to take the exact same load modules used in the Virginia (similar in concept to the SSGN, but different in detail design). The difference in size might avoid need for ongoing inspection for treaty compliance, since it would be too short to accomodate a D5. Unlike the tandem positioning on the Virginia, the tubes could be fit in side-by-side pairs like the Ohio, and moving the center of the tubes outboard away from the center of the submarine would make the shorter height obvious. The GN tubes could be given an added bottom-drop capability.
Thoughts on the new Boomers?
.
When 4 of the 18 Ohio class boats were freed up by nuclear arms reduction treaty, those 4 were converted to GN boats, with room for lots of Tomahawks, lots of Seals, lots of extra tubes for other spooky goodies, autonomous craft (UUV,USV,UAV), lots of varied capability that only the big boats could provide. It seems to bring a lot to the party, and keeps it well hidden from view, and well hidden from the PLA(N)'s DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missile.
Now they are moving toward the Ohio replacement, SSBN(X), and I don't hear any public discussion about continuing the tactical GN capabilities with a mixed SSBN/GN boat. There is some public discussion about reducing the number of ballistic missle tubes relative to the Ohio. I would think adding some GN tubes would provide added value disproportionate to the added cost.
By limiting the Ohio replacement to the BN mission I think the Navy risks losing funding for a big boat, losing the added capability that a big boat can provide, and might be forced to accept a stretched variant of the Virginia. There is public talk of that. It seems to me that adding GN tactical capability might save the perceived value (political support) in funding a big boat.
Given a mixed BN/GN boat...
The BN specific tubes would likely be similar to those used on the Ohio, if it is going to carry the same Trident II D5, though the new treaty might change that. I have not yet read the treaty, but news reports have mentioned that the US is losing MIRVs in that, down to only one re-entry vehicle per missile. The Ohio was designed to carry 24 D5 missiles, and the D5 was designed to carry 12 MIRVs (reduced to 8 and later to 5 by earlier treaties), for up to 288 MIRVs per boat (now reduced to 24 per boat by latest treaty if the news reports have it right). I think earlier treaties may have allowed decoys in the unused/dummy positions, but I am not sure that is still the case. A smaller missile could allow use of a smaller boat, but it wouldn't be cheap to develop a new smaller missile, so maybe they'll keep the D5, even if its now bigger than needed.
Back to the mixed BN/GN boat...
Perhaps the GN-specific tubes might be sized similar to the new Virginia class Block III Common Weapon Launcher (CWL) design, a little larger in diameter than the Ohio tubes but shorter in height, sized to take the exact same load modules used in the Virginia (similar in concept to the SSGN, but different in detail design). The difference in size might avoid need for ongoing inspection for treaty compliance, since it would be too short to accomodate a D5. Unlike the tandem positioning on the Virginia, the tubes could be fit in side-by-side pairs like the Ohio, and moving the center of the tubes outboard away from the center of the submarine would make the shorter height obvious. The GN tubes could be given an added bottom-drop capability.
Thoughts on the new Boomers?
.
Comment