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 Slips
SYSOP    11/20/2014 5:56:29 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
ka5s    Adjust for inflation   11/21/2014 5:38:53 AM
Dollar amounts don't mean much after fifty years; adjust for inflation and see how new procurement compares with times past.
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       11/21/2014 8:16:55 AM
How did we go from two years per hull to five years? What happened to our production base?
 
Quote    Reply

Nate Dog    Ka5   11/21/2014 10:22:29 AM
Figures are almost always released as an adjustment of equivalent xxxx years dollars.
Hence the comparison of Los Angeles would've cost an equivalent of $1.5 billion in 2012 dollars as opposed to $1.8 billion for Virginias.
 
Keffler. 
No idea. Systems going into the subs are more complex?
Thats a stretch i know. They do build the batches concurrently, so the production base is there.
I'd've said lack of skilled workers, but no other countries can release this volume of high end ships (at any one time, 2/3 arleigh burkes, 2 Aircraft carriers, 4 SSN's, 2 SSBN's, a bunch of LCS [Keffler, dont go there!] ) are under construction concurrently. Thats a LOT of hulls. 
 
Quote    Reply

CJH    lasers   11/21/2014 10:58:38 PM
 
Quote    Reply

Blacktail    Not again!   11/24/2014 10:43:32 PM
Quick reminder; the Seawolf class was cancelled primarily due to cost, as the project cost divided over the hulls planned would have resulted in a $2 Billion Submarine. This was twice what the Los Angeles class cost.
 
The Republicans wanted to resurrect the Seawolf, but the Democrats wanted it to stay buried. So they compromised, and had the Navy devise a redesigned Seawolf that was only to cost $1.5 Billion apiece, when all of the project costs were divided by all the hulls built. That was in the 1990s.
 
In the mid-2000s, when the Virginia was finally commissioned, the unit cost rose to $3 Billion. Derp.
 
Now we're stuck with it for the next couple of decades.
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       11/24/2014 11:31:39 PM
Not what happened.
 
Seawolf  was an open ocean boat, designed to fight in the deep blue sea. Virginia is designed to fight in shallower more confined waters.
 
BT, you REALLY need to research what you 'claim'.  
 
 
Quote    Reply

Blacktail    keffler25   11/26/2014 6:10:26 AM
"Seawolf  was an open ocean boat, designed to fight in the deep blue sea. Virginia is designed to fight in shallower more confined waters.
 
BT, you REALLY need to research what you 'claim'."
 
For a guy who claims that research is so important, it's rather amusing that you didn't do any;
 
"The Secretary of Defense in his October 1993 bottom-up review determined that production of the Seawolf class submarine would cease with the third submarine, and that the Navy should develop and build a new attack submarine as a more cost-effective follow-on to the Seawolf class, with construction beginning in fiscal year 1998 or 1999 at Electric Boat. The New Attack Submarine is the first U.S. submarine to be designed for battlespace dominance across a broad spectrum of regional and littoral missions as well as open-ocean, "blue water" missions."
[emphasis added]
 
That page's last update was in October of 2000, only a month after the SSN-774 Virginia was laid-down, and long before the US Navy began Moving the Goalpost in response to Diesel Submarines (but only when public pressure forced them to, as opposed to heading-off the threat at the pass).
 
It is also stated that "...the NSSN is expected to be as quiet as the Seawolf, will incorporate a vertical launch system and have improved surveillance as well as special operations characteristics to enhance littoral warfare capability", which contradicts the notion that the Virginia class was designed for littoral operations in place of blue water operations.
 
You can keep making comments on the matter, but it's pretty much pointless at this point.
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       11/26/2014 12:04:18 PM
BULL.
 
Like I said, you don't bother to do the work. 
 
Your information is old, outdated and inaccurate. 
 
1. The determination was made to solve the engagement problem in the weapon/sensor system and not in the launch platform.
2. New non-refuelable reactor had to go back to drawing board (more automation and safety features needed than Seawolf.)
3. The USS Peanut (Jimmy Carter) was pulled out of the OOB to become a special ops boat at a time when that mission was usually assigned to a 'second line' expendable unit. WHY? if it was such hot stuff?     
Length to beam ratio on a cylinder solution. Ever WONDER why US subs are LONG and SKINNY? Seawolf was the data outlier. Figure it out.
4. Ten years of sensors research and a whole new generation of electronics. 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics