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

Desertfox said:
The Russians don't want us uploading any more than we want them, they will play ball until the treaty ends.
Click to expand...
The Russians have specifically stated they have withdrawn from all parts of New Start except the warhead limits. That said, the elephant in the room is the chinese, and what will happen there.

As for SSGN(X) - you definitely don't want to mix nuke subs + conventional weapon shooters, as boomers are your secure second strike. If the program picks up pace, I would expect congress to accelerate the last few ships in columbia class, and then finish out with a few conventional shooters, who have had some pricey bits removed.

The problem with modern over-optimized dod mega programs is that every ounce of slack and margin is removed - so whether we like it or not, the original plan will continue, or capabilities will get cut.
 
zevets said:
As for SSGN(X) - you definitely don't want to mix nuke subs + conventional weapon shooters, as boomers are your secure second strike. If the program picks up pace, I would expect congress to accelerate the last few ships in columbia class, and then finish out with a few conventional shooters, who have had some pricey bits removed.
Click to expand...
Exactly my thoughts.

Once EB and NNS get a couple of Columbia class built, they'll have ideas for how to simplify and speed up construction (see what happened to the Virginias), and will be able to speed up production. Then build ~6x SSGNs at either full Columbia size or slightly shortened so the conventional shooters can be identified from satellite. If the timing works out, the UK might have bought the first of the diver quadpacks.
 
How are the current Ohio based SSGNs different so they can be identified?
 
bobbymike said:
How are the current Ohio based SSGNs different so they can be identified?
Click to expand...
Externally they are not, unless they are carrying a dry deck shelter. Though I would argue if you are not physically in Kings Bay or Bangor that you are almost certainly looking at an SSGN.

There is no reason to make SSGNs visibly identifiable; physical inspections can confirm the nature of the platform in the unlikely event there is an new arms control treat.
 
bobbymike said:
How are the current Ohio based SSGNs different so they can be identified?
Click to expand...
The turtleback is wider where the DDS sit. The standard BN turtleback tapers up, the GN turtleback up forward goes straight up.

Here's a picture of USS Flordia SSGN without DDS, you can see where the turtleback is wider.
USS_Florida_%28SSGN-728%29.jpg

Also, note the lack of nonskid for a long stretch of the turtleback.
 
TomS said:
I think it was done to keep the two DDS from overhanging the sides of the turtleback. You can really see it here:

View attachment 731654
Click to expand...
^^ That was the picture I was looking for and didn't find quickly, Tom, thank you!

And yes, it's more likely to have been done for making a place for the DDS to land square to the turtleback. Look at the line of nonskid and how it basically lines up on the inner rails for the DDS.

But it also makes a convenient "Look at this spot, it's different from the SSBNs" for the Compliance folks to look at. See also the Yankee Notch sub on the Russian side.

As a side note, that SSGN is sitting deep in the water by a couple of feet, you should be able to see the limber line clear of the water and a bit of pressure hull out of the water, not just the turtleback.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom