• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Virginia Class Upgrades

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Inactive
Reaction score
63
Points
530
The USN goal is to maintain 66 attack subs by 2048. The class will see the sub lengthened by 84 ft to carry 40 tomahawks.


https://news.usni.org/2019/06/25/report-to-congress-on-virginia-class-attack-submarine-program

https://insidedefense.com/insider/navy-award-block-v-virginia-class-sub-contract-next-month

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/navys-new-virginia-class-attack-stealth-submarine-coming-soon-74601
 
Never really understood the USN not having a small group of SSKs. I'm sure there's a reason somewhere, and a decision made along the line, if anyone knows...

Could field a larger number of slightly smaller SSKs with that money, cover more area and with a smaller crew complement. Sell them abroad even. Yes, the rebuild would cost time/money/etc... due to the loss of that capability decades ago, but the hull cost would be worth it no?
 
40 'hawks is a significant weapons load increase IMO.

What would be the benefit of a handful of SSKs for them if they can have SSNs? 
 
Littorals.

An SSK can, in some circumstances, be more effective in Littorals than a SSN.  They are also generally quieter when running on batteries.  As new AIP systems become available, time under water (or ice) in a SSK is seeing improvements. 

That said, doubling up a training system, or, re-creating an older one would also be an obstacle.

NS
 
Lots more on Virginia-class Block V upgrade, cruise missile load useful for trying to deal with, say, China (a huge problem now for USN, see https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/129967/post-1591343.html#msg1591343):

Here’s what you need to know about the US Navy’s new deadly (and expensive) attack subs

The U.S. Navy inked a deal with General Dynamics Electric Boat on Dec. 2 to be the lead contractor for the newest iteration of the Virginia-class attack submarine.

The largest shipbuilding contract in the history of the service — in excess of $22 billion — the Navy has big plans for Block V. It is destined to be a true multimission submarine, with a strike capability and the ability to delivery large-diameter unmanned underwater vehicles in addition to the more traditional surveillance mission.

Here’s are the four things you need to know about the vessel:

1. A bigger boat

Most of Block V is going to be bigger (much bigger) than its older sisters in the class. Of the nine — potentially 10 — boats in the class, eight of them will have 84-foot sections plugged into the hull that will include four large-diameter tubes rated for seven Tomahawks each. In addition to the 12 in the bow, that means each Block V will have the capacity for 40 cruise missiles.

But it’s not just the traditional Tomahawk land-attack missiles that will be stuffed in the payload module. Submariners are envisioning a whole range of missions for the big tubes, such as:

    Deploying large-diameter unmanned undersea vehicles for various missions.
    Launching hypersonic prompt-strike missiles.
    Launching Tomahawk’s new maritime strike iteration against ships in addition to the existing Harpoon missile.
    Torpedoes.
    Really anything they can get to fit in there that could benefit from being deployed off a submarine.

2. Responsibilities galore

Because the Navy designed a lot of versatility in the platform, the Block V will act as a Swiss Army knife for undersea warfare, taking on a range of missions that traditionally have gone to the retiring guided-missile submarines, or SSGNs, said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

That’s going to require a cultural change inside the submarine community, Clark said.

“The Block V will be a marked difference in terms of the concept of operations for a multimission ship,” he said. “For strike, that mission has largely been sent off to SSGNs: They’ve focused on Tomahawk missions and SEAL delivery; the rest of the attack submarines have focused on focused on traditional intelligence-gathering missions.

“With the introduction of Block V, those missions are going to expand to a larger percentage of the force.”

Much of that is already part of submariner training, but the emphasis will have to be increased, Clark predicted.

“Submariners were always trained on Tomahawk missions, anti-ship missions and swimmer delivery: Those are all things you train for in case you have to do them,” he said. “But with the advent of Block V, those missions are going to have to be a bigger part of submariner training. And with [the] Tomahawk maritime strike missile coming into the fleet, they are going have an anti-ship mission alongside the older [Los Angeles-class] 688s having the torpedo-tube launched harpoon.

“So in a lot of ways the submarine community is going back in [the] direction it was during the Cold War — it was a much more expansive mission then back then. Then It narrowed with the introduction of the SSGN. Now its set to expand again.”

3. Quiet...
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/12/06/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-us-navys-deadly-and-expensive-new-attack-submarines/

Mark
Ottawa
 
Chances of us piggybacking on the tail end of this deliverable with 4-6 of our own?
 
Canada doesn't seem to like nuclear powered vessels. I think that would have to change both with the public and in Ottawa.
 
Czech_pivo said:
Chances of us piggybacking on the tail end of this deliverable with 4-6 of our own?

:rofl:

tomahawk6 said:
Canada doesn't seem to like nuclear powered vessels. I think that would have to change both with the public and in Ottawa.

The public doesn't care enough about the CAF to go one way or the other.  I wonder how many people actually know that there are a few nuclear reactors located not too far from populated areas in Canada (specifically Ontario).
 
Some video of the control room Interesting that sonar was no longer in its own space but on the port side allowing for free flow of conversation in the control room.

https://www.cnet.com/news/inside-the-worlds-most-advanced-submarine/
 
Czech_pivo said:
Chances of us piggybacking on the tail end of this deliverable with 4-6 of our own?

Not only was the Canadian public opposed to us acquiring nuclear powered subs back 30 years ago when it was proposed in the Defence White Paper, but (according to this piece in the Canadian Military Journal) so were the Americans.

Despite the White Paper’s assertion that a Canadian submarine force would be a valuable addition to NATO, and despite the DND contention that Canada’s allies welcomed the acquisition,31 some sections of the American navy and government were “appalled” at what they saw as Canadian military interference aimed only at resolving a Canadian-American sovereignty dispute.32 During a 1987 trip to Washington to secure the transfer of American nuclear technology from Britain to Canada, as was required by the 1958 US Arms Control Export Act, Perrin Beatty and his associates were told in no uncertain terms by the U.S. Defence Department and submarine service officials that a Canadian nuclear submarine program was unnecessary and even unwelcome.33

Of course, the Americans might have been a bit more amenable if the first and only choice for a boat was their Seawolf class - they were still in the design/build phase of that class at the time before circumstances and the exorbitant cost limited it to only three vessels.
 
Back
Top