The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 8, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Submarines Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Conversion of USS Georgia From SSBN to SSGN
gf0012-aust    10/17/2005 8:47:13 PM

US Naval Sea Systems Command
Mon, 17 Oct 2005, 08:47

The Navy today has awarded General Dynamics Electric Boat (GDEB) a cost reimbursement modification, valued at $162,359,000 for the conversion of the USS Georgia from an Ohio Class ballistic missile submarine (SSBN 729) to Ohio Class guided missile submarine (SSGN 729).

?This contract modification represents the final contractual step in transforming the first four Ohio Class SSBNs into the most capable strike and Special Forces platform in the Navy," said Capt. David Norris, who is the Program Executive Officer, Submarine?s SSGN Program Manager (PMS 398). ?USS Georgia is the last of four ships to enter the conversion phase,? Norris continued, ?and it comes almost one month to the day before Ohio returns to the Fleet as an SSGN.?

The USS Georgia's conversion will be conducted concurrently with its Engineered Refueling Overhaul (ERO) work already being performed at Norfolk Naval Shipyard (NNSY). Seventy-seven percent of the ship's conversion work will also be performed at NNSY, with 16 percent of work at Quonset Point, Rhode Island and seven percent in Groton, Connecticut.

USS Georgia began its ERO at NNSY in March 2005, and is expected to complete conversion in September 2007.

The SSGN program leverages the expertise of private and public shipyards. General Dynamics Electric Boat (GDEB) is responsible for the ship design and conducts and manages the conversions. The Naval Shipyards are conducting the refueling overhauls, providing government furnished services to GDEB, and providing some conversion labor under Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence agreements with GDEB.

Under the direction of PMS 398, the first four Ohio Class submarines, USS Ohio (SSGN 726), USS Michigan (SSGN 727), USS Florida (SSGN 728), and USS Georgia (SSGN 729) are being converted into the new SSGN class. All four submarines in the program are in Naval Shipyards now for overhaul and conversion; specifically, Ohio and Michigan are at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, and Florida and Georgia are at NNSY.

The SSGN program oversees the development and installation of the modifications to the four Ohio Class ballistic missile submarines to provide a conventional strike capability using Tomahawk cruise missiles, as well as the SOF capability. These modifications include integration of the Tactical Tomahawk Weapons Control System and conversion of the existing strategic fire control system to support the launch of Tomahawk Block III and IV missiles. The missiles are housed in a modular Multiple All Up Round Canister subsystem within the submarine missile tubes.

The SSGN program is producing important capability on a time-compressed schedule, at about $1 billion per ship. The cost is significantly less than the cost of a new submarine platform.

The primary missions of the SSGN will be land attack and Special Operations Forces (SOF) insertion and support. Each of the converted submarines will have the capability to launch up to 154 Tomahawk or Tactical Tomahawk land attack missiles, as well as support enhanced Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and joint special operations. The space capacity of the SSGN provides the room needed for several SOF platoons to train and maintain physical conditioning for a sustained deployment. Clandestine insertion and retrieval of SOF operators via lockout chambers will be enhanced by the ability of the SSGN to host dual Dry Deck Shelters with SEAL Delivery Vehicles and/or the Advanced SEAL Delivery System.

"With our rapid design and construction cycle, intelligent use of existing ships and support infrastructure, and unequalled land attack and special operations capabilities, the Ohio Class SSGN program is a major submarine transformation success story. SSGN provides an exceptional capability in the near term for the Global War on Terrorism at an affordable cost," said Norris.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2
EW3    RE:Conversion of USS Georgia From SSBN to SSGN   10/18/2005 8:47:04 PM
The SSBN to the SSGN conversion is an interesting lesson in American politics. As I understand it the Navy wanted no part of it, and it was forced on them by congress. (gf correct me if I'm wrong, my sources are weak) The SSGN is one of the best weapons for the next 20 years. Less than a month to the Ohio being recommisioned.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:Conversion of USS Georgia From SSBN to SSGN   10/19/2005 7:31:48 PM
" As I understand it the Navy wanted no part of it, and it was forced on them by congress. (gf correct me if I'm wrong, my sources are weak)" actually I have NFI on the politics of this. I was lucky to be able to sit in on a presentation by NG's head of the Virginia/Seawolf project and CINCPAC last year as they crunched the capbility though. comment was made that the SSGN was literally the most powerful platform available to throw non nuclear weapons of any country in the world. It was referred to as the underwater version of the arsenal ship - amongst other things. I would guess that USN-MID or the other USN boaties would be a lot closer to knowing the history of the political machinations.
 
Quote    Reply

Galrahn    RE:Conversion of USS Georgia From SSBN to SSGN   10/24/2005 1:51:36 AM
For background on the concept you can check out COMING OF AGE: THE SSGN CONCEPT By Rear Admiral John D. Butler, USN 3 part study. Summery: 4 Ohio's were going to be put on the table for decommissioning as apart of the START Nuclear Reduction Treaties. The Bush administration did a study, followed by the treaties themselves during the Clinton administration. Congress liked the SSGN conversion ideas because it fit their idea of "Transfermation." The Navy didn't like it because they were scared it would take away from other platforms they wanted, like the Seawolf (at the time) and later the Virgina class. The surface fleet people also didn't like it because they originally didn't see a use for it. With Sea Power 21, 9-11 and the GWOT, and increased reliance on Navy stealth for SOF and the possibility of premptive cruise missle strikes against GWOT targets, the SSGN grew in popularity once the idea was fully realized prior to the Ohio conversion. Also, it became clear that congress wasn't interested in replacing other ideas, simply forwarding their own 'transformation' strategy they could claim as their own in Navy circles. The advent of UAV, UUV, and USV technologies and concepts has only forwarded the SSGN potential within the Navy, and now the Navy is enjoying the increased R&D money they have been provided to forward the SSGN concept as a result from it being 'Congresses' idea. It isn't really congresses idea, but the Navy has no problem letting them think it is as long as they see the extra R&D money associated with it being their idea.
 
Quote    Reply

Factor X    RE:Conversion of USS Georgia From SSBN to SSGN   10/24/2005 8:46:43 PM
I see it as a transformation from "Deterring" to, well, actual "Doing" the types of missions we see forthcoming. are 150+ Tomohawks really a heavy impact on a coastal city? I can't recount any really decisive Tomohawk actions. FX
 
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:Conversion of USS Georgia From SSBN to SSGN   10/24/2005 9:22:28 PM
are 150+ Tomohawks really a heavy impact on a coastal city? It depends on what city you're talking about, but 150 Tomahawks into NYC would make 9/11 look like a holiday. Start by destroying all the bridges, and that wouldn't take more than 50 missiles. Would cripple the city for years.
 
Quote    Reply

683spa    RE:Conversion of USS Georgia From SSBN to SSGN   10/25/2005 1:57:49 PM
kinda depends on what type of missile.
 
Quote    Reply

EW3    Converted Ohio ready for sea trials   10/28/2005 11:14:25 PM
Getting close. Have to wonder why it will take to 2007 for it to be ready to deploy. But still good news. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Converted Ohio ready for sea trials By Christopher Munsey Times staff writer The guided-missile submarine Ohio, the first of four former Trident ballistic missile boats undergoing conversion to the new SSGN mission, is scheduled to start sea trials soon. Ohio recently finished a nuclear reactor refueling and conversion process at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Washington, said Kevin Sykes, a Naval Sea Systems Command spokesman. Four former Trident submarines, including Ohio, Georgia, Florida and Michigan, are being converted to SSGNs, at a total cost of approximately $4 billion. Instead of Trident nuclear-warhead tipped missiles, the new SSGNs will carry an arsenal of up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles, and serve as special operations platforms. As part of the conversion, the battery of 24 Trident missile tubes were removed, freeing up space for cruise missile canisters and storage space. Officials have said an SSGN will be able to host as many as 66 SEALs or Special Operations forces, along with transporting a mini-submarine called the Advanced SEAL Delivery System, and a dry deck shelter with a SEAL Delivery Vehicle. Following sea trials and after completing testing and training, Ohio is expected to be available for deployment sometime in 2007, Sykes said. Conversion work is on schedule on Georgia, Florida and Michigan, with all three conversions complete by September 2007. from: link
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    RE:Converted Ohio ready for sea trials   10/29/2005 12:54:59 AM
> Have to wonder why it will take to 2007 for it to be ready to deploy. < We require additional time to (1) develop her offensive employment schemes in various bodies of water throughout the world (2) improve safeguards for such a valuable but detectable platform in the littorals and other risky environments (3) create, test and refine her computers, networks and systems which will make or break (1) and (2) above (4) place more national technical resources into their atmospheric and extra-atmospheric orbits so the orchestra can play as unity v^2
 
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:Converted Ohio ready for sea trials   10/29/2005 1:06:36 AM
Thanks v^2, excellent explanation. That actually makes the delivery date of 2007 for the other 3 boats kind of interesting. The Ohio will have improved the baseline systems, so these improvements would get incorporated into the other 3 boats.
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    RE:Converted Ohio ready for sea trials   10/29/2005 7:06:29 PM
Eventually the class will become known as having been one of three things. It was: (1) an expensive experiment a la Regulus or Lipscomb that never fired a shot in anger and therefore the project was never justified in view of our other commitments, (2) a naval masterstroke which takes down an Abu Musa, scuttles an attempted Formosan Straits crossing or some such validation of the expenditure, or (3) a national blunder and an albatross which kills a lot of Navy personnel or results in their capture and drowns the Navy budget going forward. I bet those who pushed the concept through are now considerably more cognizant of the downside risks including that boats or large numbers of SEALS may get trapped and plutonium reactors may be bottomed and they appreciate the destabilizing influence the class may exert in a genuine crisis and possibly even recognize that the powers who be will likely default to the aircraft carrier assuming the political stakes are high. The CNN-consuming public can get its arms around the defensive, anti-surface and land strike aspects of the aircraft carrier and the anti-ship and strategic missions for the submarine, however, I?m not sure they, or anybody else for that matter, fully comprehends the two-edged nature of an arsenal-assault submarine employment and its attendant risks, military and political. I favor the class but only time will tell whether it actually made sense, as with similar national projects, I s'ppose we can always re-install the SLBM tubes if an SSBN goes down. v^2
 
Quote    Reply

Dominicus    RE:Converted Ohio ready for sea trials   10/30/2005 3:18:20 AM
First of I think it's a great idea, since it saves an assload of cash by not actually creating a new class of warship. Secondly, to the post below, Trident Subs don't use plutonium in their reactors. It uses uranium like everything else. Lastly, I think that the fact that this thing could be parked 50 miles offshore and could basically rape a city in about 10 minutes, makes it a better and useable deterrent. Why have the firepower to end mankind when all you need is enough to disable an entire city, and basically trash the command and control abilities they have in a single stroke. I mean like a previous poster said, if this were used on a major US city, it would take out nearly all the major bridges, plus any sort of command structures, or even destroy most of the anti-aircraft ability of a city(I.E. take out all of their radar). That saves a ton of money, as it doesn't require you to use billion dollar aircraft to get the job done.
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    RE:Converted Ohio ready for sea trials   10/30/2005 2:50:50 PM
> Secondly, to the post below, > Trident Subs don't use plutonium > in their reactors. It uses uranium > like everything else. Oh my. I really did say that. I'll have to get myself checked out for the Alzheimers. Now back to your regularly-scheduled show ... v^2
 
Quote    Reply

hybrid    RE:Converted Ohio ready for sea trials   10/31/2005 2:55:27 AM
Um V^2 just so ya know ATK is actually working with the Navy to have those missile tubes on those Ohios also launch medium range SLBMs of a conventional warhead variety. In terms of force projection with the exception of the SEAL delivery issue I think this is a great force projector on par of the arsenal ship concept with few of the drawbacks (stealth for instance is retained because its not on the surface and it can potentially fire outside of enemy waters depending on which block Tomahawk it uses or even if it gets equipped with Harpoons).
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    RE:Converted Ohio ready for sea trials   10/31/2005 4:14:16 AM
> Um V^2 just so ya know ATK > is actually working with the Navy > to have those missile tubes on > those Ohios also launch medium range > SLBMs of a conventional warhead variety. Identify a ship of the four who won't have her SLBM tubes extracted in refit please. Then tell me how we'll launch an SLBM without the tubes. Mushrooms only on my pizza, thanks. I mean, I've already demonstrated the Alzheimers in a previous post (more!) ... v^2
 
Quote    Reply

Galrahn    RE:Converted Ohio ready for sea trials   10/31/2005 10:53:54 AM
Considering the US has fired 1900 Tomahawk cruise missiles since the first Gulf War, and used just over 800 in Operation Iraqi Freedom, these ships represent a better way to use cruise missiles in conflict. During Operation Iraqi Freedom as an example, the Navy launched Tomahawks from 21 ships, 5 of those were submarines. That means 16 surface ships loaded their VLS systems with Tomahawks. While that is no big deal in a conflict against a country like Iraq where there is a very limited air defense requirement, in the future the Navy AEGIS VLS ships will be much less likely to want to carry large numbers of tomahawks, because the MK-41 launcher will likely be loaded with SM-2 Block IV or ESSM AAW missiles. Because the current VLS surface ships are not rearmed at sea, a surface ship that uses up missiles will have to return to port to reload. Had the US had the SSGN during Operation Iraqi Freedom, the 4 subs could have fired over 600 of the estimated 800 tomahawks fired in that entire conflict, or roughly 75% using just 4 ships. That is a major upgrade in my opinion, particularly in future conflicts when the air threat might be higher or the reality surface ships might be denied from getting close enough for a deep strike, against say Russia or China (examples only). Like VV said though, I'll take a wait and see approach to the whole 'special mission' possibility for the ship. It could work out, but probably not where it would be most useful like the Persian Gulf for example, considering the deepest areas in the entire Persian Gulf is actually shallower in total length in ft. of any SSGN, which means against a legitimate ASW threat SSGN deployment in the Gulf would be foolish to say the least.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy