Virginia Heads For Block III

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Submarines Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Virginia Heads For Block III
SYSOP 6/11/2012 5:47:04 AM

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Nichevo Wow 6/21/2012 12:11:28 PM

That worked.

Quote Reply

Reactive 6/21/2012 5:00:31 PM

What was the B-52's anticipated operational life? That's my whole point. In 33 years I'd expect the Virginia will still outclass any enemy submarine with the possible exception of the Soviets', excuse me, the Russians' best effort. It will be perfectly cromulent in sea control applications against, say, the Iranians, Norks and probably the Chinese. "Seavionics" are probably easy to upgrade, or if not, that's where some design effort should be focused, on modularity of systems.

There's a major difference here though, the CVN's and indeed B52's are useful because they operate as delivery node for other assets that are evolving, the B-52's are primarily useful because air-to-ground munitions have grown smarter and longer-ranged but most especially because they can be placed safely out of harms way and still be useful in the low-intensity conflicts that have been the order of the day.

But just on the reactor issue, what would be the marginal cost of a refuelable design, all else remaining equal? How much money? Any performance sacrifices in speed, range, quietness?

By refuelable you man a design whose core can be replaced, containment and navalisation prohibit civilian-type operation. I'm quite sure the cores of the new designs can be accessed just as before, they're just not intended to be replaced because it's expected that they'll outlive the useful life of the vessels.

I would have compared it to refueling a carrier, which, yes, is not tiddlywinks, but who would design a CVN for no refills?

Again, I think you're missing the point, it's not that the reactor can't be refuelled, as with previous reactors it involves removing and replacing the core, if it was possible to design a reactor that could go say 60 years without refuelling sure they'd fit them to the next generation of carriers. The singular point is that the reactor design is expected to outlive the class of submarine, not that it is impossible.

I suspect that the Chinese sea-hunting ballistic missile concept will endanger the carrier more quickly than the sub; if we want to, say, paste Beijing, it may be easier to get a subful of Tomahawks within range than a flight of F-35s/F-18s in and back.

I agree about the ASBM being a greater immediate threat, longer term China will be developing subs that increase in technological complexity, either that or the EU embargo on tech sales to China will be lifted (the French already advocate this) and you'll have capable systems (SSK's represent a real danger) in their hands, assuming the PRC is going to forever be unable to field advanced designs is a chimera imo.

Why ten years? I would have assumed (IANAS) it would be good for another full lifecycle, i.e. 33 years. Who knows if we will have the dosh in 30 years for new subs? look how poor Seawolf got smushed.

But why bother, what is the saving here? Other than the pressure hull itself you actually wouldn't want/need any of the components, for 30 years useful service you have to strip and entirely replace the power systems, the sensors, the IT, the weapons bays potentially (to accommodate changing requirements, the propulsion system (these are always getting quieter and more efficient), and probably re-coat the entire sub with whatever anechoic coatings materials are the order of the day. Lastly, how much of the reactor housing, containment etcetera requires replacement to live as long as you suggest? Aren't you just hobbling yourself trying to plan for future requirements that are completely unknown.

The Ohio's becoming SSGN's aside, there's not a great history of submarines being repurposed, generally speaking towards the end of their service lives they become dangerously run-down and defunct. We could design PC's that lasted 40 years if only we knew what components to fit them for, the same logic applies here, in any case it's not at all clear that the new PWR designs are any harder to refuel than they've ever been.

Quote Reply

HeavyD 6/21/2012 10:23:33 PM

Think it's time to re-inject politics into this discussion: The US will simply NOT be able to replace multi-billion dollar ships en masse 20 - 30 years from now, so we better be prepared to stretch operational life-span.

Why? In one word: Healthcare.

Not only does the US spend more than any other county in the world on defense, but we also spend more, but significantly a higher percentage of GDP (16 - 17%) on healthcare, and we're still getting fatter and sicker.

For the next 18 years we will have over 10,000 Baby Boomers, PER DAY, turning 65. And right now 26.9% of US adults over 65 have diabetes. In 20 years we'll have 10,000 people per day turning 85! Fully 40% of our current GDP will go toward healthcare in 2035, 23 years from now.

This is not hype or hyperbole - it's based on existing populations and existing levels of expenditures.

Medical expenses are already the #1 reason for personal bankruptcy, and large corporations (GM, American Airlines, etc) are going BK to get out from under the crushing burden of funding retirement benefits. This trend will trickle up to municipalities and states who also cannot afford to pay the healthcare benefits for their retirees, and the military will also be paying IN FULL for all of the 'Nam vets health care bills, which have yet to peak.

This has nothing to do with Obamacare, or any of the other Supply-side (i.e. who is insured, who pays for insurance) issues. No budget, no healthcare system can afford the care our Boomer and X-generations will demand, given their current health status and trajectories.

And anyone who wants to flame this argument better look at the numbers first, and tell me where the money will come from:

Take the Healthcare commitments

Add Social Security commitments

Add Debt servicing commitments

And then tel me how much is left over for everything else, including Defense. Replacing 50 nuke attack subs? Got Diesel?

By the way, it's a fact that the 10 most obese and lowest-educated states all voted Republican in '08. That means that for all of his claims of intellectual superiority (which in and of itself is a red flag...) it is more likely than not that Nichevo is overweight, and I'd even say 50-50 that he's pre-or full-on diabetic...

Quote Reply

HeavyD 6/21/2012 10:36:08 PM

oops...forgot the summary so read it as a preview:

Unless we can make the next generation of nuclear attack submarine out of fat, sick old people, we ain't gonna be able to afford to build many, if any, in 20 - 30 years.

That said, Whales seem to work pretty good and they are made largely out of blubber. I just can't see trying to get more than one or two VLS cells on them though....but we could try it. "I christen thee the USS Nichevo!" Bonk. Bonk. bonk-bonk-bonk-bonk. BONK. Ah, fuck it. Pssshht. Glub glub glub...why waste good champagne?

Quote Reply

Reactive 6/22/2012 8:36:09 AM

Well then you better legalise euthanasia

Seriously, it just requires healthcare to be more efficient, unfortunately the US care system is roughly twice as expensive as most of those in European nations, the problem being that profiteering exists at all levels in the system, over medicating patients, endless batches of largely needless CT/MRI scans for routine conditions that don't require them. What you essentially have is a private system that is being forced to do charity work. A national healthcare system is a far better solution in that it doesn't worry about shareholders margins (and why should it?) the 'private' element of the system is voluntary private medical insurance that some have (a lot cheaper than the US equivalent care) and the many contractors, suppliers and pharmaceutical companies.

It works a lot better imv, no one has given me a convincing explanation for why state-funded healthcare is a form of evil socialism (the objective being to keep people alive) while a state-funded military is not (the objective being to keep people alive).

Anyway, that aside, the doomsayers will always predict the end of the system, they've been doing it for the last 50 years, the problem being that using current trends and statistics to predict future outcomes never works because in a fast-changing technological and social environment they quickly become irrelevant. The point being that looking at current unfunded liabilities is not necessarily an accurate means of predicting the future. Developments in treatment might reduce costs enormously for the most expensive classes of illnesses, we may have hordes of cheap Japanese care-bots with cute anime faces to look after the elderly, we may even see the legalisation and perhaps even promotion of euthanasia "get two for the price of one", but whatever happens I can guarantee you, promise you, that money will always be found to replace nuclear submarines, they underpin the nuclear balance that literally keeps the world vaguely stable.

So the current reactor designs are just fine, I think with subs you're dealing with very specific factors that really aren't analogous to other examples of system classes whose service lives are less certain.

Quote Reply

Nichevo heavyd 6/22/2012 12:33:11 PM

I am a native New Yorker. (And a frequent blood, platelet, occasional BMSC donor, which has certain implications for my general level of health, thanks.) You are a jerk. I've been long absent from these forums. Now I remember why. No further value can be had from talking to you. (People like you take that as a win, so lap it up.) Reactive, I may get back to you when convenient re: the ACTUAL TOPIC; the funny thing is that till he went off the rails, heavyd was making some sense. look at the Brits and how they skimp and stretch...and toy with their deterrent, their capital ships, to pay for NHS and the rest of their welfare state. Meanwhile i think you kinda answered your own question about why defense is in the Constitution but welfare, in the modern sense, is not. I guess I'd say a PC can last 40 years, you replace the power supply, replace the mobo, the CPU, etc. I can take an IBM PC from 1981 and piece by piece swap it up into an ivy bridge world class system, a piece at a time as I can afford it, all at once or over time. This is because everything is standardized and modular and there are upgrade paths. A 1911 may be "obsolete" whatever that means, but if you're holding a loaded 1911 made in 1911, you're still holding eight men's lives in your hand. I would think as of now you could do quite well with a 688-class off, say, the Malacca Straits. And i think there may be a lot of demand for SSGNs in the ASBM future. Now, going further as I said I'll have to get back to you, your technical arguments are well formed and deserve better response than i can crank out on this crappy windows phone. Everybody but heavyd, let me advise you, avoid windows phones like the freaking plague. Heavyd, want to buy a nice windows phone?

Quote Reply

HeavyD Thank you 6/22/2012 3:01:42 PM

Nich, In light of your contributions I'll apologize for being an ass. I lived in NY from '96 - '03, worked on the 79th floor of the North Tower in the late '90s, and moved out of Battery Park City in August 2011. I used to stand against the Twin Towers, look up, and wonder how, in 200 - 300 years they would be replaced. I had wanted to give blood after 9/11 but was told to wait a month or two...they had all they needed and unfortunately there was not a spike in demand as we know.

Defense is in the Constitution, yes. And guess what immediately follows it? "...promote the general welfare..."

It is beyond the scope of this thread to dissect what that means, but I believe that the health of the country is related to the health of it's citizens. And the agriculture 'welfare' policies that make it cheap for the average American to consume 170 pounds of sugar and corn syrup annually is driving the increase in medical welfare. In fact the US Military is very cognizant of this, I don't know if they are doing enough though.

So yes, Defense and Welfare are both in the Constitution, and the fact is that we as a society will not fund yet another nuclear sub or carrier or 1000 more F35s if we have people literally dying in the line to get into the emergency room...at the local VA.

Quote Reply

Nichevo 6/22/2012 3:38:33 PM

Thank you. As I was saying it is essential to discuss policy, even heatedly, without descending to the personal. And yes, at times I am no less guilty than others.

Defense is in the Constitution, yes. And guess what immediately follows it? "...promote the general welfare..."

Yes, that's what I meant by "in the modern sense." As you say below...

This can go many places but in essence I think that the historic Constitutional authorizations for, e.g. the Mint (but not the Federal Reserve, just to be strict Not that I want to chase THAT hobbyhorse!) and the Post Office are about where we belong. Of course the notions of the possible (free cell phones?!?!?!) were not what they are today but I don't agree...well, I don't agree with a lot of what we have come to. Suffice it to say my dad's lost six-tooth bridge cannot be replaced under Medicare, which he (and I) paid for, but could if he went on Medicaid (which I pay for). Go figure...

Quote Reply

Nichevo continued 6/22/2012 5:31:42 PM

In the time of the Founders they had private charity. Today they have private charity. I think the "public charity" functions of the modern Federal government are chiefly market distorters and have come to be the tail that wags the dog. Remember even back to the Pilgrims - the colony was failing till they finally said "He who does not work will not eat!" It's one thing for charity, in whatever form, to pick someone up who has fallen down, another to carry him through the rest of his life.

I am sympa to the anti-corn syrup theories, but in fact look at the crap (or was it?) the Pilgrims, the pioneers, the Founders ate just for breakfast - read accounts of their groaning tables. I personally think the difference is in our lack of exercise - and also the modern emphasis on low-fat and high-carb. But again we are not here to talk diet...

I agree wholeheartedly that today it's all about the butter, not the guns. We may not, deliberately, hollow out the armed forces, anymore than they were, deliberately, hollowed out after Vietnam. For a long time I have been preaching cost-cutting for the military, which can take many forms - PGMs are great but the prices have got to come down, is one hobbyhorse I like to ride. And I do think that SLEPs are the name of the game.

Why not? How much would a nexxt-gen B-52 cost? Why did we throw away the plans and the tooling for B-52 and so many other successful aircraft like the A-10? Rockwell at least canned the B-1 line so we could make more of those. I think that should be part of every program, complete with the ability to modularize and mobilize production so that if, say, Boeing's Renton plant is nuked, they can order a suitable pod of machine tools from some repository and open up the production of, say, 737s in Wichita, or in Arizona or Brooklyn or wherever a suitable site can be found. We don't take that sort of thing seriously, of course, for many reasons including MIC greed if you like, but IMHO chiefly because "we're not at war anymore."

I had assumed - Reactive disagrees - that the VA subs had been designed not to have their nuc plants renewed - I figure this largely means they are built in, e.g., there is no hatchway capable of removing the core and the vessel will have to be cut up to get at it. That saved a few mil per sub, I guess, but we'll pay for it and a half when time comes and we say, Gee, those hulls still got a lot of life left on 'em...

Gotta let you go for now. At least next time I'm phoning it in it will be from my new Evo, hooray.

Quote Reply

Reactive Part 1 6/23/2012 8:25:03 AM

Well, we're never going to quite agree on whether universal healthcare provision is another form of idleness-supporting welfare, personally I think it is simply good sense to cover health expenses through taxation in that there's no profit margin to sustain at any level of the system - what is demonstrated by European statistics is that a far better overall provision of care is provided for an awful lot less money overall. The problem is that you have to pay for healthcare one way or another and the private-public mix you currently have is particularly inefficient. Anyway I accept it's a contentious issue, but the NHS is basically the only public service that almost everyone in the UK is fully supportive of and grateful for. The point is that however the US does healthcare provision there has to be a better solution than the current mess.

Now, to PC's, you might be able (possibly) to go back about 10 years, but not much more, PC cases are built to fit motherboard designs and not the other way around, in the early/mid 90's for example, there was no USB, people were still using serial cables (remember hating them?) to connect their printers, there was no PCI slot provision (not widely used until 96) because graphics cards etc were still in their infancy. Worse still there was (generally) very limited expansion room for IDE devices, and usually absolutely no provision for frontal cooling, 30-100mhz chips simply didn't require extensive air flow nor did they require much in the way of power supply units. So basically, no, your new sandybridgeE or ivybridge motherboard won't fit in a case that is much older than a few years, all outputs/modules front and back will either be in the wrong place or non-existant, in fact, the only parts of the case that could be considered useful are the two sides, top and bottom (assuming a stack system).

It turns out though that this was a particularly good analogy because there's a cost argument that applies here, even if you could perform your incremental modular upgrades to leading edge products, the expensive, critical parts of your PC, the Mobo/CPU/Ram/GPU might easily cost $2000-4000 but the case itself might be $40-100 depending on the degree of luxury you want thus explaining why cases are built to fit motherboards and not the other way around. As with submarines it raises the question, why bother constricting the expensive internal components (propulsion/sensors/IT/missile cells/torpedoes/guidance/comms) with the relatively simple and inexpensive hull (our PC case)? You may well disagree that my 10 year absolute maximum (PC) argument stands but you certainly wouldn't dispute that the figure certainly wouldn't come close to 30 years, and even less so 60 years, but the same logic and development paths apply equally to both sets of systems.

In 30 years I would bet any money that submarines will have to be significantly quieter to avoid detection, I would also hedge my bets and say that there is quite a high likelihood that the problems of using electromagnetic sensing through water will be overcome to a greater degree making it possible to detect submerged metal objects via satellite or UAV and it might well be the EM spectrum that subs also have to be signal managed for. In either case the easy thing to change is the outer shell to accommodate known (predictable) advances in IT systems, cabling, propulsion, weapon systems etcetera. Modern submarines tend to be built in sections (slices of sausage as it were) of the hull and are fitted together as pretty much complete functional entities (complete with cabling, pipework, ducting etc), so operating within the confines of an existing hull for a significant systems upgrade to newer technology is massively more difficult.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT