marauder2048 said:
Moose said:
And a 774 doesnt have the diameter to support a Trident anyway.
Not D5 but there has been some argument for something like C4:
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2016-10/build-strategic-fast-attack-submarines
IMHO, exploiting the gaping New START loophole on SLCMs is a better use of the Virginia class.
I'll reiterate, whatever works for GBSD
But to tie a bow on this SLBM discussion. I think a new SLBM and skipping CCS there could be US$100 Billion in additional funds for GBSD program.
Requirements include...
Need new GBSD
Planning on new Columbia-Class submarine - CCS
Need Virginia Class Replacement - VC(R)
Need new SLBM
Building 12 boats of a class is incredibly expensive
If a larger boat is required, making it the VC(R) and spreading cost, labor build efficiencies and total build time reductions (time in yard) will reduce costs significantly. Think F-35 (3k planes) vs B-2 costs (20 planes).
An exercise in identifying potential advantages:
1. Skip CCS and move design to Virginia Class Replacement - VC(R). CCS design work can be redirected with eye making it the VC(R). Perhaps VC(R) will need a larger diameter boat in future. Perhaps it won't be 43' but maybe it will. Modifying design work is cheaper than new boats. With additional time, new tech for use in VPT's can be developed and tested. Other uses for VPT's will be found. New electric motor and stern can be better developed and tested, reducing risk. Expect VC(R) design completed and ready for 1st boat build start in 2025 w/expected 7yr build.
2. It would be much easier to increase VCS production without CCS. Two VCS funded 2018, two VCS in 2019 with the 2nd accommodating the VPM. Modify shipbuilding plan by adding three VCS w/VPM in 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023.
Then 10 boats in the next 5 year MYB, 2024-2028 w/1 boat in 2025 and 1 boat in 2027 being VCS Replacement. New, larger boats may take up to 2x labor to build at first. Blk V production reduced to add labor for VC(R). Some labor moved to overhaul jobs for VCS.
MYB
Yr Blk V VPM VC(R)
2019 1 1
2020 3
2021 3
2022 3
2023 3
2024 3
2025 2 1
2026 1
2027 1 1
2028 1
2029 2
2030 2
2031 2
2032 2
2033 2
3. 2018 start new SLBM with deployment planned by 2026 when first Ohio is retired. By then you've got 7 VCS w/VPM commissioned and three new boats delivered for each of the next three years. Much quicker to produce new SLBM's than boats.
That's the equivalent # of warheads for ~2.5 CCS's by 2026 and 7.5 CCS's by 2031 using VPM Block V boats. All while saving ~US100Billion.
What's the risk? US can't build a new SLBM by 2026. OK, how about by 2031 when the 1st CCS was set to deploy? If the US can't build a SLBM in in 14 years...
4. Crew training. Everyone is on the same boats. Another reduction in cost. Even if SLBM function uses blue - gold crew the underlying boat is basically the same.
5. Wartime production. If VCS production is 2-3 per year, that's 2-3 replacements in the pipeline each year - with VC(R) accelerated.
6. Cost. 2-4 boats a year will increase labor knowledge and likely reduce build time to 48 months over time - saving more money. Increasing Blk V labor pool will prep for VC(R) and build capacity for overhaul teams - reducing costs.
7. Force level dramatically changes.
Year Proj. Force Proposed Force 688/SW/774 VC(R)
2022 48 +2 Blk IV VCS 2018 budget 48
2023 49 +1Blk IV +1 BlkV VCS 2019 budget 49
2024 48 +3 BlkV VCS 2020 budget 49
2025 47 +3 BlkV VCS 2021 budget 52
2026 45 +3 BlkV VCS 2022 budget 53
2027 44 +3 BlkV VCS 2023 budget 55
2028 42 +3 BlkV VCS 2024 budget 56
2029 41 +2 BlkV VCS 2025 budget 57 because 1st VC(R) has 7 yr build
2030 42 +1 BlkV VCS 2026 budget 58
2031 43 +1 BlkV VCS 2027 1 VC(R) 2025 60 1 total = 61
2032 43 +1 BlkV VCS 2028 61 1 total = 61
2033 44 +1 VC(R) 2027 62 2 total = 64
2034 45 + 1 VC(R) 2029 1@7yr build 62 3 total = 65
2035 46 + 2 VC(R) 2030 2@6yr build 62 6 total = 68
+ 1 VC(R) 2029 1@7yr build
2036 47 + 2 VC(R) 2031 2@6yr build 62 8 total = 70
2037 48 + 2 VC(R) 2032 62 10 total = 72
2038 47 + 2 VC(R) 2033 62 12 total = 74
VC(R) build time will likely drop as has VCS over time.
VCS Block 1 begin retirement in 2036.
Downside? UK may be upset but they're still getting the tubes they need.
It's late. I expect I'm missing something. Lot's of reasons to try and make this work. Over 100Billion reasons.
