Columbia-class SSBN (SSBN-X Future Follow-on Submarine)

Scott Kenny said:
It's really too bad the US doesn't have a hot tub/sauna culture...
Click to expand...
Anecdotally, in the Finnish navy, every single ship has a sauna despite all of them being rather small (the upcoming four corvettes / frigates will also have saunas). Finnish and Estonian peacekeepers deployed to different parts of the world also always immediately build a sauna in their base no matter how hot or cold the climate. Interestingly, the world's largest wood-heated sauna, which is capable of simultaneously serving 200 bathers or roughly a full company, is located in the premises of the Finnish Naval Academy (Merisotakoulu / Sjökrigsskolan) on the island of Pikku Mustasaari / Lilla Östersvartön which is a part of the fortified islands and UNESCO world heritage site of Suomenlinna / Sveaborg just south of the city centre of Helsinki / Helsingfors. End of off-topic.
 
Moose said:
The electric drive is the single largest contributor to the extra size, but there are lots of things contributing to it. For example ORP will have a big upgrade in living conditions, with particular attention to accommodating mixed-gender crews, and that requires space.
Click to expand...
Why is the crew larger for turbo-electric? More systems to maintain?

1711121642243.png
 
TomS said:
Just because there was no mechanism in New START for automatic extensions doesn't mean it could not be extended or replaced by a follow-on treaty (Newer START). The Russians wanted that until at least 2020, if not 2021.

The Navy studies that led to Columbia looked at force numbers as well as missiles. Cutting the fleet below 12 boats doesn't leave enough subs at sea when you account for overhauls, crew turnovers, etc. so you can't get away with fewer than 12 subs, even if you add missiles to keep the total number of launchers constant.
Click to expand...
The British came up with 9 units as the minimum for maintaining a Polaris deterrent in the Indian Ocean as well as the Atlantic. As I recollect, when the UK looked at the possibility of 4 Trident missile tube SSN/SSBN hybrids to replace the Vanguard class, they came up with 9 units again, albeit in the context of single ocean deterrence.
 
Forest Green said:
Why is the crew larger for turbo-electric? More systems to maintain?

View attachment 723094
Click to expand...
It's not larger, but it's not really any smaller, either. You still need the M division guys who own the turbines, you still need E division to operate the electrical generation side of things, you still need Reactor Controls to keep the reactor working, and you still need those skirts in Reactor Labs to tell you how much radiation you didn't get.

I'd really love to see what they laid out for crew habitability space. With 8x fewer tubes (edit: and the same overall length), that opens up a good bit of space for things like exercise gear.
 
The Columbia's are supposed to have fully separate Male and Female crew berth areas, SSN-796 expected to be commissioned at the end of the year is the first Virginia class that will have separate berths and heads by gender along with ladders for bunk beds, signage mounted lower and extra showers. Ohios have been refitted with separate sleeping area but share the same showers and toilets while until New Jersey only female officers have been allowed on US SSN's not enlisted.
 
WatcherZero said:
The Columbia's are supposed to have fully separate Male and Female crew berth areas, SSN-796 expected to be commissioned at the end of the year is the first Virginia class that will have separate berths and heads by gender along with ladders for bunk beds, signage mounted lower and extra showers. Ohios have been refitted with separate sleeping area but share the same showers and toilets while until New Jersey only female officers have been allowed on US SSN's not enlisted.
Click to expand...
Nope, the Ohios were refitted with a separate head for the women. It replaced the Crew's Study in Missile Compartment 3rd level starboard side (and I believe relocated the COB's office). Ohios already had a bunch of 9-man bunkrooms outboard of the missile tubes on MC3L from the get-go, so assigning 1-2 to the females was no big deal. But there was no way to have them take over one head, there's only 4 showers for the junior enlisted and 6-8 toilets between the two heads on MC3L.
 
Yes, only a couple of female officers assigned to any US sub, no female enlisted, would give a new meaning to Berthing Compartment, on 9-month cycles of course.
 
TomS said:
The thought of a bunch of US sailors in a shared hot tub gives me hives.
Click to expand...

The thin film of bathtub scum when it meets the recycled oxygen and machine oil atmosphere of a fast attack: A true primordial soup.

Scott Kenny said:
It's not larger, but it's not really any smaller, either. You still need the M division guys who own the turbines, you still need E division to operate the electrical generation side of things, you still need Reactor Controls to keep the reactor working, and you still need those skirts in Reactor Labs to tell you how much radiation you didn't get.

I'd really love to see what they laid out for crew habitability space. With 8x fewer tubes (edit: and the same overall length), that opens up a good bit of space for things like exercise gear.
Click to expand...

Sorry, no gym, but we gave the engine room a dedicated space for half a rack and a scissor-type folding barbell: The Decapitator 9000. Afterwards, new old Navy is going back to 100 mph tape and TDU weights.

But yeah, even with the turbomachinery being bigger there might be space for a couple racks and ellipticals to just hang out hopefully.
 
Last edited:
Why does turbo electric machinery take up so much volume? I would think you just increase the number of turbines for power generation (maybe 4 ish) and then have an electric motor instead of all the reduction gears. I do not see why more length is needed to accommodate it.
 
Josh_TN said:
Why does turbo electric machinery take up so much volume? I would think you just increase the number of turbines for power generation (maybe 4 ish) and then have an electric motor instead of all the reduction gears. I do not see why more length is needed to accommodate it.
Click to expand...
An Ohio has about 65,000shp and 2x ~10Megawatt generators. 65khp is somewhere around 50 megawatts electrical (depends on drivetrain efficiency). So you need much bigger turbogenerators, and then a very big electric motor to drive the shaft. This electric motor is longer than the reduction gearbox.
 
So, this is likely well known and understood already but the Columbia's missile tubes are the same as the Ohio's 87 inch...
So somewhat like Ohio SSGN variant, can't some or all of the Columbia's be considered "Hybrid SSBN/SSGN"? Having ~%25 of tubes with VPM's installed allowing for(I think) ~6/7 x Tomahawk/UUV/etc and/or 3 x Hypersonic missiles and do so randomly so as to maintain aspect of "stealth/secrecy" leaving enemy questioning where "conventionally" armed boats are etc.
I'm just trying to address the concern that we lack enough "Strike-length" VLS tubes once Tico's and Ohio's are both gone, and no "Arsenal-USV's" or DDG(X) have arrived yet...
 
TeourdBeourglaer said:
So somewhat like Ohio SSGN variant, can't some or all of the Columbia's be considered "Hybrid SSBN/SSGN"? Having ~%25 of tubes with VPM's installed allowing for(I think) ~4 x Tomahawk/UUV/etc and/or 3 x Hypersonic missiles and do so randomly so as to maintain aspect of "stealth/secrecy" leaving enemy questioning where "conventionally" armed boats are etc.
Click to expand...

This would entail putting SSBNs with high-value ballistic missiles way too close to enemy operating areas for comfort, and it would mean that ANY conventional cruise missile or hypersonic launch might be revealing the location of a strategic missile platform.

TeourdBeourglaer said:
I'm just trying to address the concern that we lack enough "Strike-length" VLS tubes once Tico's and Ohio's are both gone, and no "Arsenal-USV's" or DDG(X) have arrived yet...
Click to expand...

Strike-length Mk 41 is the standard across the USN fleet, including all 73 DDG-51s and the dozen or more planned (and in the new FFGs, whenever they happen). Plus, the possibility of MUSVs/LUSVs carrying significant numbers of supplemental VLS tubes. Retiring the Tico's is hardly going to move the needle there, honestly.

And we are putting extra missile tubes in subs with the Block V Virginia Payload Module SSNs (which might well be called SSGNs). That's going to be a pretty good placeholder for a possible long-term SSGN design derived from Columbia
 
TeourdBeourglaer said:
So, this is likely well known and understood already but the Columbia's missile tubes are the same as the Ohio's 87 inch...
So somewhat like Ohio SSGN variant, can't some or all of the Columbia's be considered "Hybrid SSBN/SSGN"? Having ~%25 of tubes with VPM's installed allowing for(I think) ~6/7 x Tomahawk/UUV/etc and/or 3 x Hypersonic missiles and do so randomly so as to maintain aspect of "stealth/secrecy" leaving enemy questioning where "conventionally" armed boats are etc.
I'm just trying to address the concern that we lack enough "Strike-length" VLS tubes once Tico's and Ohio's are both gone, and no "Arsenal-USV's" or DDG(X) have arrived yet...
Click to expand...

All of SSBNs and their tubes are needed for the strategic mission. The Virginia blk5 will replace the SSGN fleet eventually. I think it likely that a lot of the Columbia class carries over to SSNX, to the point that it might just be Columbia with no launch tubes or perhaps only four like VA Blk 5.
 
TeourdBeourglaer said:
So, this is likely well known and understood already but the Columbia's missile tubes are the same as the Ohio's 87 inch...
So somewhat like Ohio SSGN variant, can't some or all of the Columbia's be considered "Hybrid SSBN/SSGN"? Having ~%25 of tubes with VPM's installed allowing for(I think) ~6/7 x Tomahawk/UUV/etc and/or 3 x Hypersonic missiles and do so randomly so as to maintain aspect of "stealth/secrecy" leaving enemy questioning where "conventionally" armed boats are etc.
Click to expand...
It probably could be done, yes.

The problem is that the Columbia-class buy was written around the minimum number needed to cover the strategic alert areas.

A sub carrying Tomahawks etc needs to be a lot closer to where you are going to send the missiles, and those cruise missile targets are nowhere near where the strategic alert areas are. Cruise missile launch areas are nowhere near the routes to or from the strategic alert areas, either.

Basically, the SSBN and SSGN jobs are too different to make the same hull try to do both at the same time.

I honestly expect that the USN will make some number of Columbia-based SSGNs, probably with 8x or 12x tubes (and 2 of those replaced with the big 102" Lockout Chambers like on the Ohio SSGNs). Number of tubes is likely going to be based on whether the SSNX uses any VLS systems up front like the Virginias do.
 
Online discussion from the Peter Huessy series sponsored by the National Institute of Deterrence Studies.

Early congressional discussions to ask the Navy what it would take to add two quad packs - missiles 17-24 - to Columbia number 8-12.
 
bobbymike said:
Online discussion from the Peter Huessy series sponsored by the National Institute of Deterrence Studies.

Early congressional discussions to ask the Navy what it would take to add two quad packs - missiles 17-24 - to Columbia number 8-12.
Click to expand...
Well there's a good indication why the Navy's pushing SSNX back another 5 years I guess.
 
bobbymike said:
Online discussion from the Peter Huessy series sponsored by the National Institute of Deterrence Studies.

Early congressional discussions to ask the Navy what it would take to add two quad packs - missiles 17-24 - to Columbia number 8-12.
Click to expand...
Short answer: quite a bit, you'd need to seriously mess with the ballast tank sizes!
 
www.bloomberg.com

US Nuclear-Missile Sub Delayed Up to 16 Months Over Bow, Generators

A delay of as much as 16 months in delivering the first of the US’s first Columbia-class nuclear-missile submarines — the Navy’s top weapons priority — stems from contractor delays in delivering the vessel’s bow section and power generators, according to an internal assessment by the service.
www.bloomberg.com www.bloomberg.com
 
www.heritage.org

Columbia Submarine Fleet Production Should Be Radically Expanded

For decades, the United States Navy has operated submarines capable of launching nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. First fielded in the 1960s, nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) patrol the waters of the North Atlantic and Pacific Oceans undetected, with only the ships’ captains knowing...
www.heritage.org www.heritage.org
 
that_person said:
I like how none of these solutions are workable.
Click to expand...
The Trident missiles can be uploaded back to their 1990s levels, not a technical problem. Adding more boats will not necessarily help, since you need crews for them.

Fortunately, four practical options are available to strengthen the credibility of our at-sea nuclear deterrence. They include retaining aging Ohio-class submarines past service life,
Click to expand...
Grossly impractical, there's a limit to how long you can run a reactor. It'd take a half billion dollars per Ohio to refuel them, and assuming that the refuelings took shipyard priority, they'd still take ~18 months or so.

It's not particularly possible to "just idle along" due to how the reactors work when at end of life. I don't understand the details, just that when I was on Georgia we were generally power limited due to the reactor being close to end of life. The occasional transient kick was okay, no prolonged medium to high power runs.

uploading more nuclear warheads on each missile in today’s Ohio-class SSBNs,
Click to expand...
That's the easy one, except for a sheet of paper called a treaty.

Scrap the treaty and you get to upload. Cost you a lot of international political capital to do that, but it's the least technically challenging option. Also possibly the least likely to happen.

modifying Columbia-class SSBNs to carry more missiles, and
Click to expand...
That's a joke. It'd take such a redesign that they wouldn't be the same class anymore!

A single quad-pack of Trident tubes is ~32ft/10m long. That's also ~1350 tonnes more (submerged) displacement. You'd have to redesign the ballast tanks, making them larger, to have the appropriate safety margins.

building more Columbia-class SSBNs faster.
Click to expand...
Took a long time to get the workers hired to make the Columbia class as is, so building them faster isn't humanly possible for a couple of years. Not to mention that the first boat isn't in the water yet. I would like to make sure that the lead ship is relatively trouble-free before committing to a production increase.

Best option would be to extend production of Columbias for 6 more boats at 2 per year, then shift to SSGN production for ~6 boats, then have the line build SSNXs. In the meantime, the Virginia class line would also be building SSNXs.

This still means you'd need 12 more crews of ~150+ each, including the rare commodities of submarine captains and executive officers.
 
The Treaty is currently suspended and I would bet good money that the other party is no longer adhering to it.
 
Scott Kenny said:
That's the easy one, except for a sheet of paper called a treaty.

Scrap the treaty and you get to upload. Cost you a lot of international political capital to do that, but it's the least technically challenging option. Also possibly the least likely to happen.
Click to expand...

New START expires in February 2026. The Russians have said that they will not discuss any extensions or discussions of future arms control treaties as long as the US supports Ukraine. So, that treaty probably evaporates without replacement in about 20 months.
 
TomS said:
New START expires in February 2026. The Russians have said that they will not discuss any extensions or discussions of future arms control treaties as long as the US supports Ukraine. So, that treaty probably evaporates without replacement in about 20 months.
Click to expand...

I do not think there is even a mechanism for renewal, though a new treaty could be negotiated. But I think the Biden administration has zero interest in doing so without restrictions on China. One imagines a Trump administration would have even less interest.
 
Josh_TN said:
It expires before any Columbia will hit the water regardless. Non issue.
Click to expand...
In the mean time the least they could do is reload existing 240 D5s with 8 warheads and reload the 200 W78-equipped MMIIIs with 3 warheads, for a total of 2,720 deployed (with the 200 W87-eqipped MMIIIs). Amore extensive plan would be to reintroduce the other 50 MMIIIs with 3 warheads and the recently removed 48 D5s for a total of 950 + 2,304 = 3,254 warheads. Even without bringing back the disabled 4 tubes on the Ohios, there's still 14x20 =280 tubes, which gets you to 3,190 warheads.

Josh_TN said:
I do not think there is even a mechanism for renewal, though a new treaty could be negotiated. But I think the Biden administration has zero interest in doing so without restrictions on China. One imagines a Trump administration would have even less interest.
Click to expand...
The current war environment will prevent any renewal anyway.
 
Dumb question - do we have enough tritium to enable us to redeploy a significant number of warheads?
 
Forest Green said:
In the mean time the least they could do is reload existing 240 D5s with 8 warheads and reload the 200 W78-equipped MMIIIs with 3 warheads, for a total of 2,720 deployed (with the 200 W87-eqipped MMIIIs). Amore extensive plan would be to reintroduce the other 50 MMIIIs with 3 warheads and the recently removed 48 D5s for a total of 950 + 2,304 = 3,254 warheads. Even without bringing back the disabled 4 tubes on the Ohios, there's still 14x20 =280 tubes, which gets you to 3,190 warheads.


The current war environment will prevent any renewal anyway.
Click to expand...
I’ve asked during various online discussions with very knowledgeable nuke people “how many and how quickly can we upload from the ready reserve stockpile?”

No one knows and no one is even asking the question in DC.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom