NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future

Grey Havoc said:
However given the hostility of McNamara to the CVN-68 program
Click to expand...
McNamara was supportive of the CVN-68 program and approved the funding the for the first few ships of the class. The CVN and DXGN programs mostly post date his time in office. I don't know where the 40 ship program comes from, around 1970 there were proposals for 23. By and large the program seems to have died prior to FY75 because the the ship's combat system was obsolete, and they were incapable of accommodating Aegis.
 
www.navalnews.com

Electric Boat awarded $1.3 billion contract modification for long lead time material for Virginia-class submarines - Naval News

The U.S. DoD awarded Electric Boat a $1.3 billion contract to purchase long lead time materials for Virginia Class Block VI submarines
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

www.navalnews.com

U.S. Navy Launches 26th Virginia-class Attack Submarine - Naval News

One of the U.S. Navy’s newest attack submarines, the future USS IDAHO (SSN 799), was launched from General Dynamics Electric Boat’s shipyard
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

www.spacewar.com

Sidus Space Secures $2 Million Contract for U.S. Navy Propulsion Project

Los Angeles CA (SPX) Aug 21, 2024 - Sidus Space, Inc. (NASDAQ: SIDU), a provider of precision space infrastructure solutions, has been awarded a $2 million subcontract by Craig Technologies. The contract involves manufacturing two Fle
www.spacewar.com
 
Last edited:
Grey Havoc said:
The supposed excessive costliness of nuclear powered cruisers and the like is mostly a myth, dating back primarily to the 1960s and the shenanigans of the McNamara era. For example, back in the 1980s it emerged that the cost of the Virginia-class cruiser (originally nuclear powered frigates prior to the great cruiser panic of the Carter period) was exaggerated by among other things the amortisation of the costs of a shore infrastructure originally planned to support around 40 ships having to be spread among only 4 ships. The original plan for what was then the DLGN program was to have at least 4 frigates for each of the then 8 planned CVN-68 (Nimitz) CVBGs, for a minimum procurement of 32 frigates. However given the hostility of McNamara to the CVN-68 program, the carrier admirals were increasingly forced to resort to drastic tactics to keep the program alive, among which I believe was not only quietly shifting funds and other resources from the DLGN program to the beleaguered CVN-68 program, but also moving R&D and other costs from the balance sheet of the latter program to that of the former. All of which ultimately ended up drastically reducing procurement of the DLGNs while (seemingly) driving their costs sky high, even before one took into account shore infrastructure designed for a much greater number of nuclear powered frigates.



Indeed, the so-called Carrier mafia have made a total mockery of that law, along with their entirely fallacious criteria for CGN survivability, all to ensure that any and all resources for nuclear powered surface vessels goes solely into CVNs. However, I rather suspect that the end result of all that is going to bite them in the butt in the near future big time, pardon my French.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the first part, but Rickover tried to kill US Navy gas turbine experimentation precisely because he knew that if their proponents in the Navy could present their own evidence to Congress about their effectiveness, then he'd never get another nuclear surface combatant built. Which is exactly what happened - gas turbines, being quick to start, much less manpower intensive, lightweight, standardizable, and *powerful beyond belief* for their size, were so much more bang for their buck that even if a lot of people hated the Spruance-class on general principle, the "four LM-2500 gas turbines" power plant is is only *now* getting replaced, 50 years later. And even in the 70s, gas turbines changed the affordability equation from "We can buy 3 conventional steam ships for the price of two equivalent nuclear ships" to "we can buy four gas turbine ships for the price of two equivalent nuclear ships"

And the "CGN survivability" criteria are based on the Stark, Samuel B Roberts, Sheffield, and Belknap incidents, and reinforced by the Cole bombing - they now know what a modern weapon will do to modern ship construction, with empirical evidence, and they've decided that this is what it takes to adequately protect a nuclear reactor in a surface ship.

The "CVN" mafia you speak of used to be Rickover's supporters in team "Nuclear power for everything" as compared to the "nuclear is too expensive for anything except subs" crew.
 
bobbymike said:
Click to expand...
One of the two boats is for the specialized special operations forces and seabed warfare and speculating cost an additional $1billion or so and if so makes the current post-pandemic pricing of a 10,000t Block V with its VPM approx. $5 billion per boat and expect the follow-on Block VI may cost around $6 billion? What other programs will the Navy have to cut in able to fund two per year or as in FY2025 budget cut to a single buy of a Virginia per year?
 
Cordy said:
One of the two boats is for the specialized special operations forces and seabed warfare and speculating cost an additional $1billion or so and if so makes the current post-pandemic pricing of a 10,000t Block V with its VPM approx. $5 billion per boat and expect the follow-on Block VI may cost around $6 billion? What other programs will the Navy have to cut in able to fund two per year or as in FY2025 budget cut to a single buy of a Virginia per year?
Click to expand...
If Congress allocates funds for 2x Virginia-class, Navy buys two boats.
 
Last edited:
Update on Navy planning revealed on Virginia, SSN(X) and Columbia at the early November Naval Submarine League’s annual symposium.

Virginia build will extend to the 2040's with Block VIII when the SNN(X) takes over, possibility of additional Columbia numbers required
Virginia build rate only approx.1.3 per year, target 2.3 by 2028, but severely limited by industrial capacity both in manpower and materials, current industrial base less than half that in the Cold War.

Navy in negotiation with GD Electric Boat for the two FY24 Virginia's, Baltimore (SSN-813) and Atlanta (SSN-813), but short by $2 billion from Congress authorization which understand $9.4 billion, $2 billion seems big difference as it was based on the original Navy 2023 estimate in the FY2024 Justification Book

 
As in every lame duck phase, the outgoing US Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro announced the names of three Virginia-class submarines to be the future USS Potomac (SSN 814), the future USS Norfolk (SSN 815), and the future USS Brooklyn (SSN 816).
Source:
www.navy.mil

SECNAV Del Toro Names Future Virginia-class Submarines SSN 814, SSN 815, and SSN 816

WASHINGTON – Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro announced the names of three Virginia-class submarines to be the future USS Potomac (SSN 814), the future USS Norfolk (SSN 815), and the future
www.navy.mil
 
fightingirish said:
As in every lame duck phase, the outgoing US Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro announced the names of three Virginia-class submarines to be the future USS Potomac (SSN 814), the future USS Norfolk (SSN 815), and the future USS Brooklyn (SSN 816).
Source:
www.navy.mil

SECNAV Del Toro Names Future Virginia-class Submarines SSN 814, SSN 815, and SSN 816

WASHINGTON – Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro announced the names of three Virginia-class submarines to be the future USS Potomac (SSN 814), the future USS Norfolk (SSN 815), and the future
www.navy.mil
Click to expand...
Hrm. Potomac is an odd name for a sub. It's not one of the Legendary Fish, like Tang or Wahoo. It's not a city, like the old cruisers or 688s and half the Virginia-class. It's not a state, like the battleships, Tridents, and ~half the Virginia-class. It's not even a Sufficiently Important Person, like Rickover Himself or Jimmy Carter (or one of the captains of the Legendary Fish).

Norfolk and Brooklyn are classic city names for cruisers.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Hrm. Potomac is an odd name for a sub. It's not one of the Legendary Fish, like Tang or Wahoo. It's not a city, like the old cruisers or 688s and half the Virginia-class. It's not a state, like the battleships, Tridents, and ~half the Virginia-class. It's not even a Sufficiently Important Person, like Rickover Himself or Jimmy Carter (or one of the captains of the Legendary Fish).
Click to expand...
Previous POTOMACs have included two oilers, a tug, and a blockship. The only ones of any particular note were a Presidential yacht and a sail frigate. I'd understand breaking with tradition (such as it still is) for a compelling reason, but I'm not seeing one.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Hrm. Potomac is an odd name for a sub. It's not one of the Legendary Fish, like Tang or Wahoo. It's not a city, like the old cruisers or 688s and half the Virginia-class. It's not a state, like the battleships, Tridents, and ~half the Virginia-class. It's not even a Sufficiently Important Person, like Rickover Himself or Jimmy Carter (or one of the captains of the Legendary Fish).

Norfolk and Brooklyn are classic city names for cruisers.
Click to expand...

It is nominally named after the river, but I suspect also inspired by FDR's presidential yacht and the unincorporated community of Potomac, Maryland, right outside DC.
 
Yellow Palace said:
Previous POTOMACs have included two oilers, a tug, and a blockship. The only ones of any particular note were a Presidential yacht and a sail frigate. I'd understand breaking with tradition (such as it still is) for a compelling reason, but I'm not seeing one.
Click to expand...
Traditions are made to be broken. After all, we have an aircraft carrier named "Doris." At very least, the 1831-1877 frigate Potomac had a very long and fortunate career. It's also worth noting that the frigate was laid down in 1819 but wasn't fitted out until 1831. That makes the Constellation Class FFG-62 program seem very rapid in comparison.
 
TinWing said:
Traditions are made to be broken. After all, we have an aircraft carrier named "Doris."
Click to expand...
Named for a dude who carried his mortally wounded Captain to a place of greater safety and then manned guns at Pearl Harbor, officially shooting down 1 and other eyewitnesses said 4-6. As a messman (cook), he wasn't trained to operate a weapon at all. Nobody would have said anything if he had stayed with the Captain, and he still would have gotten a Navy Cross for that alone. But no, he went to an unoccupied AA gun and fought back.

Mister Miller did not survive 1943 (lost with USS Liscombe Bay CVE-56), else his Navy Cross would have been upgraded to a Medal of Honor. (dirty politics time: SecNav Frank Knox blocked all black Navy MoH nominations during WW2)


TinWing said:
At very least, the 1831-1877 frigate Potomac had a very long and fortunate career. It's also worth noting that the frigate was laid down in 1819 but wasn't fitted out until 1831. That makes the Constellation Class FFG-62 program seem very rapid in comparison.
Click to expand...
Yet the submarine is officially named after the River, not after the frigate.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Named for a dude who carried his mortally wounded Captain to a place of greater safety and then manned guns at Pearl Harbor, officially shooting down 1 and other eyewitnesses said 4-6. As a messman (cook), he wasn't trained to operate a weapon at all. Nobody would have said anything if he had stayed with the Captain, and he still would have gotten a Navy Cross for that alone. But no, he went to an unoccupied AA gun and fought back.

Mister Miller did not survive 1943 (lost with USS Liscombe Bay CVE-56), else his Navy Cross would have been upgraded to a Medal of Honor. (dirty politics time: SecNav Frank Knox blocked all black Navy MoH nominations during WW2)
Click to expand...
That, arguably, is a compelling reason to break with tradition. While I don't agree with it I do at least understand it. Some river (yes, I know which one it is) and/or a frigate with a long but not especially notable career... not so much. Not when there are better names available.

But ship names have always been political. Traditions don't so much remove the politics, as ossify the politics of a generation or three ago.
 
Yellow Palace said:
That, arguably, is a compelling reason to break with tradition. While I don't agree with it I do at least understand it.
Click to expand...
IMO, this is a mix of "sufficiently awesome person" and "apology for not awarding the MOH".

The name also sets an expectation of behavior for the crew. "Live up to the namesake of your ship."


Yellow Palace said:
Some river (yes, I know which one it is) and/or a frigate with a long but not especially notable career... not so much. Not when there are better names available.
Click to expand...
I agree here. I'd like a USS Ned Beach, or Mush Morton, or Dick O'Kane if we're going to name boats for awesome people.
 
Scott Kenny said:
agree here. I'd like a USS Ned Beach, or Mush Morton, or Dick O'Kane if we're going to name boats for awesome people.
Click to expand...
Throw in Eugene Fluckey, George Street, Red Ramage, Howard Gilmore and Sam Dealey as well.

I along with a friend of mine (former CO of one of the Flight III Virginias) were excited when the four WWII fleet boat names were announced. Then the next one was named for Defense Secretary Dalton (who at least was a submarine officer) and then city names.

Meanwhile, the first 3 Columbia Class SSBNs are named for District of Columbia (city), Wisconsin (state) and Groton (city, home of Electric Boat). You're going to need a scorecard to keep them straight.
 
TJDougherty01 said:
Throw in Eugene Fluckey, George Street, Red Ramage, Howard Gilmore and Sam Dealey as well.
Click to expand...
Absolutely!

TJDougherty01 said:
Meanwhile, the first 3 Columbia Class SSBNs are named for District of Columbia (city), Wisconsin (state) and Groton (city, home of Electric Boat). You're going to need a scorecard to keep them straight.
Click to expand...
DC is politically not-quite-a-state, so it still works under the Trident "SSBNs get state names" model. I mean, show me any other city in the US that has Federal representation!

IMO USS Groton should be an SSN. Keep the city names for SSNs, but the 774s already screwed that pooch.
 
Scott Kenny said:
IMO USS Groton should be an SSN. Keep the city names for SSNs, but the 774s already screwed that pooch.
Click to expand...
Yes, have to agree with you. If no longer using high scoring US Fleet submarine names of the past, use the city names for Virginia class SSNs. Especially since the Groton name was already used once for a Los Angeles class (SSN-694), as ws the Rickover name (SSN-709)
 
Scott Kenny said:
I mean, show me any other city in the US that has Federal representation!
Click to expand...

Most of the larger cities have their own Representatives. DC doesn't even have that. No actual, voting, representation at all.
 
Is it known how the 774 class came to be named after states, and why the USN are electing to not comply with their own pattern starting with SSN-804?
 
Scott Kenny said:
No, they don't.

Rep districts cover either parts of a city or cover multiple.



They can still talk. Same status as Puerto Rico.
Click to expand...

Not debating this at length here, but unlike Puerto Rico, DC residents pay Federal income taxes but have no say in how those taxes are spent, and surprisingly little control over their own local government (more than they used to, but we still have Reps from elsewhere regularly imposing their own demands on people who never got to vote for or against them).

Not for nothing DC licence plates have the motto "No Taxation Without Representation."
 
732 said:
Is it known how the 774 class came to be named after states, and why the USN are electing to not comply with their own pattern starting with SSN-804?
Click to expand...

They're being named in sequence for battleships, as opposed to fish, because some now retired man realized what that's what subs were.

Scott Kenny said:
Hrm. Potomac is an odd name for a sub. It's not one of the Legendary Fish, like Tang or Wahoo. It's not a city, like the old cruisers or 688s and half the Virginia-class. It's not a state, like the battleships, Tridents, and ~half the Virginia-class. It's not even a Sufficiently Important Person, like Rickover Himself or Jimmy Carter (or one of the captains of the Legendary Fish).

Norfolk and Brooklyn are classic city names for cruisers.
Click to expand...

Maybe they have a Bingo wheel with little plastic eggs with the ship name and a QR Code to the Wikipedia page.

That would actually be cool if they stuck to the naming themes though.

Scott Kenny said:
Named for a dude who carried his mortally wounded Captain to a place of greater safety and then manned guns at Pearl Harbor, officially shooting down 1 and other eyewitnesses said 4-6. As a messman (cook), he wasn't trained to operate a weapon at all. Nobody would have said anything if he had stayed with the Captain, and he still would have gotten a Navy Cross for that alone. But no, he went to an unoccupied AA gun and fought back.
Click to expand...

We name escorts after naval heroes, carriers after statesmen and historic battles, submarines after fish, and battleships after states.

I give Columbias three hulls before they go off the rails and name it USS Weyerhaeuser or USS Smithfield after the lumber or pork industry declare victory over Chinese land ownership. Arguably Wisconsin already breaks this, though, since that should be a 774.

The T-AGOS ships remain the undisputed champions of "sticking to the theme" thanks to this post-modern curse.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom