Yesterday it was attack subs, so why not missile boats today?
Of the 18 Ohio-class nuclear ballistic missile submarines built from 1976–1997, all are still in service. Four of them have been removed from strategic service and have been converted to SSGN cruise missile subs. USS Ohio (SSGN 726) and USS Florida (SSGN 728) rejoined the fleet last year, USS Michigan (SSGN 727) just rejoined the fleet a couple of weeks ago, and USS Georgia (SSGN 729) should rejoin this fall. The remaining 14 Ohios continue to serve as strategic nuclear deterrents much as they did during the Cold War.
Unlike the attack sub force, which has been nearly halved since 1990 with more cuts to come, the missile sub force has not been cut back nearly so much. Though Northrop Grumman’s Newport News recently said it was ready and willing to start designing the next class of boomer, no current plans call for new boats.
If the attack sub fleet finds itself scrambling to justify its existence in an age of asymmetric land warfare, the missile subs have an even tougher task in convincing budgeters of the need for a massive nuclear deterrent in a post-Mutually Assured Destruction world. In fact, the four boats converted to SSGNs were to have been retired beginning in 2002 rather than undergo the upgrade to the D-5 Trident II missile.
How many ballistic missile subs are required to provide the US Navy the deterrent it needs? A study published last year suggests that a force of 10 SSBNs would strike the right balance between capability, cost-savings, and treaty agreements. Current treaty plans indicate a total of around 1440 nuclear warheads for US subs, meaning about 4 per missile if all 14 boats are retained. Each missile now carries up to 8 warheads. The report notes:
This distributes the available warheads across a large force which maximizes survivability but affords little savings in that additional missile airframes must be purchased to outfit a submarine force with a 45-year lifespan. The Navy should reduce the SSBN force to 10 submarines, which would increase the number of warheads per missile to six. Reducing the size of the SSBN force would save money in two ways. First, fewer D-5 missile airframes need be purchased. Second, depending upon the future missions assigned, the cost of continuing to operate four SSBNs in strategic service is eliminated. This second cost savings is reduced as the four submarines removed from the strategic mission would still be put to sea but not with the expense of maintaining a nuclear arsenal.
The study also recommends what to do with the four subs removed from strategic service. Two of them converted to SSGNs (bringing the total to six), particularly useful as special operations will continue to grow in importance in the coming years and talk of a intermediate range conventional ballistic missile means no shortage of work for the SSGN force. The other two could be used as training platforms, replacing two retired Lafayette class boats in that role.
Also, two recent columns by controversial Washington Post military blogger William M. Arkin noted the missile sub issue. In What the Weapons Makers Want he likened the boomers to the Air Force’s long-range strategic bombers, and received a response from an officer on an Ohio-class sub claiming that the boats are contributing nothing, nothing at all, to the national security of the United States. Arkin discussed this response in More Subs, Fewer Boots on the Ground. Read the letter and the response for yourself and see if there’s anything there. Also, check out Bubblehead’s commentary on the matter.
– Murdoc
...
> “How many ballistic missile subs are required to provide the US Navy the deterrent it needs?“
This is perhaps overly picky, but that’s just the way I am.
The US Navy doesn’t need a strategic nuclear deterrent. The United States of America probably does.
Decisions about what the US deterrent force should be should certainly be informed by input from the Navy and Air Force, but only in the context of higher-level considerations about what America needs.
More importantly, how much use is it to rerole SSBNs as SSGNs rather than just scrapping them?
An Ohio SSGN has two roles.
First, it can launch a lot of cruise missiles. But so can a surface ship, or an aircraft. Do we really need a ferociously expensive submarine to do a job that a modified frigate or destroyer could do?
Seriously. Take an old Burke-class destroyer, rip out the Aegis kit and the helo hangar, and replace it with lots and lots of VLS cells. Fast, cheap arsenal ship. Burkes already have 90 VLS cells and a crew of 300. Ditch the helo and the anti-air role and you could cut the crew by, say, 80 and double the number of cells — more cells than Ohio, slightly more crew.
Or just send two unmodified Burkes, or a squadron of B-52s with AGM-86s.
Don’t forget the range of these things. They can launch from well over the horizon — you don’t need a stealthy platform to get within a thousand miles of the enemy coast. You could hang them on a 747 or fire them off an oil rig if you wanted.
Next, SOF deployment. This is a hell of an expensive platform to put at risk sneaking around an enemy littoral. And, if you lose it, it’s carrying 154 SLCMs — big loss of capability for the fleet.
Are there really so many occasions on which we need to put large SOF teams on an enemy coast that we need lots of immense billion-dollar platforms to do it? Is this really such a valuable capability? Can it really not be done by, say, a current SSN, or HALO drop, or any of the other sneaky ways of inserting?
Yes, I’m sure there are some occasions where it would be necessary. There are some occasions where it would be necessary to have a VTOL hypersonic transport. But not very many; and given limited resources, maybe we should look elsewhere.
Ajay,
A surface vessel is a lot easier to find and sink.
The boomers are the most cost effective way of continuing a nuclear deterrent. The four that have been converted to cruise missle,s/f insertion subs are also more cost effective than a surface vessel. Dropping an s/fteam by helo has already shown, in Afghanistan, to be a quick way to loose the chopper and the team The subs already exist and only a complete fool would scrap vessels halfway through their life spans.
Better to have a weapon system already “on the
shelf” so to speak and not need it than to need
one and not have it.
If the boomer’s go they will probably never be
replaced considering the current tone in
Congress.
People have forgotten the Army and Navy pre
WWII when troops drilled with broomsticks or
limited ammo.
Do not scrap something just because it appears to not be needed at the moment
Training a boat crew to maneuver in littoral waters is time consuming and expensive. Littoral operations place the boat and crew at extreme risk for detection.(I still remember how it felt) The relatively compact size and maneuverability of fast-attacks makes them better platforms for such operations and does not expose a large number of nuclear warheads to capture. And in the event of a really bad day you don’t need as many scuttle charges with the smaller boats.
Navigating an undersea mountain range or plotting airholes is child’s play compared to littoral operations. Littoral operations place a boat near the surface; the surface is where targets live.
I served on the USS Lafayette, SSBN 616 74–78. I have heard several reports that it was our submarine service and technology that brough down the Russians. The Cold War, although seldom acknowledged may have been the greatest war ever fought, and we won without firing ashot. How many more wars can be handled this way, if we keep our fleet prepare at all times. China’s technology is looming on the horizon, they are a communist nation and a potential threat to our security. Our missile boats may be the only thing that is keeping them is restraint.However, our paroblem is gong to be the lack of leadership and confidence in our government, that they will use the big guns, when needed.
The deterence value of the SSBN is severely limited. We already have an ICBM force and a nuclear bomber capable force. How much deterence do we need?
and this ‘we need them to stike back after the first wave of the nuclear war’ bit above is simply delusional.
And if anyone is concerned that we dont have the money, well we now pay approximately 165 billion dollars a year in debt service. courtesy of RR, GHWB, and GWB. want more money available for weapons? vote democrat in 08.
Oh and its not the subs that defeated the USSR in the cold war. It was the Saudis.
Check this link from notorious rightwing ‘thinktank’ AEI:
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/5975.html
hey
first question:what is the point of our enemies present and future being affraid to start a war if they develope gama weapons or what have you that instead of nukes they use gamma or whatever warheads. weapons that except for a few minerals leave no radioactive fallout only destroying biologicals.(i know half the ppl reading this just rolled there eyes) but think about it say to defend against air attack he developes weapons capable of intercepting missiles and any fighter or bomber because of the flight time maybe develope hipervelocity nuke missiles that fly low and fast.……the future is here anything above the waves will either have to accept it may not be possible to go without armor on the surface or mount enough defences to keep afloat and satelites get cheaper and easier to deploy. being able to go silent and deep and then pop up and attack then fade away may be our biggest deturent.….and for everone who thinks there wont be anymore large wars…how many would have said there couldnt be another before ww2.…people will always take advantage of a weakness were hunters its our nature it cares nothing for logic or reason its about millions of years of evolution
fact is no one likes us..hell even canada thinks were bad ppl we have to be able to play a good bluff and let them know or hand is far better than theres
We MUST keep the 14 SSBNs and the 4 SSGNs the US Navy has in the works.….The newly modified SSGNs carry 22 MACs in their 24 missile tubes, the 2 spares are for SPECIAL OPS, MACs are multiple all round up cannisters that each hold 7 improved Tomahawk land attack missiles, that’s gives the SSGN 154 cruise missiles that can be volley fired in 6 minutes.
The Russian navy under Putin’s guidance is building 3 new SSBN’s armed with the new Bulava ICBM, which apparently now works, after a few dismal failures, this missile has 6 MIRVS. The PLAN, China’s navy is build new project 094 SSBN’s to be armed with the JL-2 sub launched missile. While China’s new Project 093 SSNs are being built to replace the older Han class nuke attack boats, they’ll carry the newest versions
of wake homing and wire guided torpedoes, high speed anti-ship cruise missiles and are aimed at keeping US Navy Carrier Strike Groups well away from China’s mainland.…The new Chinese “String of Pearls” defense plan is also aimed at keeping the USN at bay. China plans to equip each of her three naval fleets with a small deck carrier which will use the naval variant of the Russian SU-27 Flanker, fighter bomber, the SU-33. China’s has just purchased several of these SU-33’s from her main weapons supplier, Russia. Eventually they will build their own versions with Chinese engines. The SU-33 has “fold up” wing tips and extra canards as well as additional hard points under the wings for weapons, like anti-ship missiles.
We now have the 21st century version of the COLD WAR being set in place, the US at odds with Russia in the Atlantic, North Pacific, and maybe South America and a growing threat from China in the Pacific and SE Asia. China now has “access” to several ports in the Indian Ocean, courtesy of Pakistan…One is near the Strait of Hormuz..the good news is that India is now becoming a US ally
and hopefully she’ll act as a counter-balance to China in the Indian Ocean.
Sometime before 2050, the date set by Beijing as when they’ll be able to face down the US, we’re going to have a serious military conflict with either of the above two “baddies,” or with them both at the same time. We need to build our military resources and focus on the strategic issues wew confronted by in the 21st century,
and at the same time end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by destroying the outsiders who are
killing our troops every day.
It is in China’s and Russia’s best u=interest to have the US bogged down in a prolonged war draining our vital resources of PEOPLE and arms.
WE desparately need real people of vison in Washington, our country deserves nothing else at this time.
One thing history shows is that the future is never certain and threats keep evolving. The first Cold War may be over, but Putin’s increasing belligerence and China’s rapid advancement in both conventional and nuclear capabilities means that it would be premature for the USA to cut it strategic missile boat fleet too much.
the old say is…walk softly and carry a big stick (the Boomer is that Big Stick)…i served on 2 boomers and it was the biggest honor of my military service…