US Navy APHNAS (SSN with UGM-89 Perseus / STAM) 1971

[Triton]

The APHNAS (Advanced Performance High-speed Nuclear Attack Submarine) from 1971 was armed with four torpedo tubes and 20 cruise missile tubes aft of the sail.

Specifications
-------------

LOA (ft): 400
Diamater (ft): 40
Surfaced displacement (tons): 12,075
Submerged displacement (tons): 13,649
Mean draft (ft): 32.8
Officers: 12
CPOs: 15
Enlisted: 84
Reserve bouyancy: 13%

Image and specifications from US Submarines Since 1945: An Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman.

U.S. Submarines Since 1945

"The role of U.S. submarines is currently the focus of an intense debate, and this book contributes to that discussion in the belief that an understanding of the past is necessary to make wise decisions about the future. In the tradition of his acclaimed warship design history series. Norman...

books.google.com

The new submarine was the first one designed for an entirely passive operation, that is, detecting targets passively at long range and then obtaining an entirely passive fire control solution. She was therefore designed at the outset to have a towed array. The active bow sphere had to be retained as a hedge against Soviet silencing.

(Page 170)

The project was killed by Admiral Elmo Zumwalt in late 1972.

If built, the ship would have been classified as an SSGN. SSGN-01?

The cruise missile tubes were supposed to carry 20 STAM (submarine tactical missile).

 

[Triton]

Found information about STAM (Submarine Tactical Missile) or UGM-89 Perseus:

In March 1969, the U.S. Navy issued a requirement for the STAM (Submarine Tactical Missile), a new submarine-launched dual role (anti-sub/anti-ship) attack missile. It was to have a range between 9 km (5 nm) and 55 km (30 nm), and carry a new high-performance homing torpedo. STAM was to be a large missile with a length of about 7.6 m (300 in) and a diameter of 76 cm (30 in). This made it too large for torpedo tubes, and therefore a new attack submarine (SSN) type was proposed which would carry 20 STAMs in vertical launch tubes. This new SSN would have been much larger, and therefore much more expensive, than existing SSN classes. The STAM project and the new submarine class were eventually cancelled in 1973. As a replacement, the submarine-launched UGM-84 version of the Harpoon missile was developed and fielded on existing SSNs.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-89.html

 

[TomS]

If built, the ship would have been classified as an SSGN. SSGN-01?

Nope. The USN has numbered specialty combatant subs (e.g, ballistic missile and cruise missile boats) in the same SS/SSN sequence as the original attack boats, save for the odd exception for SSN-21, -22, and -23. There had already been one nuclear cruise missile sub -- USS Halibut (SSGN 587) -- and lots of boomers, so the practice was well-established. The precise hull number of APHNAS would depend on when the first one was ordered and how the previous production line was closed out, but something in the low 700s (e.g., SSGN-710) seems likely.

 

[Tzoli]

This site featuring data on the United States Missile and Rocket systems mentions a "New" Nuclear Submarine class to be equipped with 20x UGM-89 Perseus / STAMs (Submarine Tactical Missile) but both the submarine and the missile program cancelled in 1973.

UGM-89 Perseus / STAM

Do anybody know more about this 1973 USN SSN proposal? By the time frame it looks like a follow up / improved Los Angeles or earlier VLS Los Angeles class?

 

[isayyo2]

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/us-navy-aphnas-advanced-performance-high-speed-nuclear-attack-submarine-1971.7192/#post-62212

Topics merged, thanks for the clue

 

[isayyo2]

Found this Cruise Missile development history on DTIC, @Tzoli might be interested to read it on page 151.

 

[Tzoli]

No. not really, Submarines ain't my favourite ship type.

 

[Dilandu]

Found this Cruise Missile development history on DTIC, @Tzoli might be interested to read it on page 151.

Are there more details about the missile itself? Guided weapons is my interest)

 

[isayyo2]

Found this Cruise Missile development history on DTIC, @Tzoli might be interested to read it on page 151.

Are there more details about the missile itself? Guided weapons is my interest)

Asides from cruising the the DTIC archives I don’t have anything else, sorry mate.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

There's more in Norman Friedman's US Submarines since 1945, including a table of the specifications of 3 different designs.

 

[Grey Havoc]

D1W Surface Ship Reactor thread.

 

[Scott Kenny]

This site featuring data on the United States Missile and Rocket systems mentions a "New" Nuclear Submarine class to be equipped with 20x UGM-89 Perseus / STAMs (Submarine Tactical Missile) but both the submarine and the missile program cancelled in 1973.

UGM-89 Perseus / STAM

Do anybody know more about this 1973 USN SSN proposal? By the time frame it looks like a follow up / improved Los Angeles or earlier VLS Los Angeles class?

Predecessor to Los Angeles class, IIRC. Looks like it would have been a probable replacement for Flight II, SSN-719 through SSN-750. 688 design started in 1967, STAM design in 1969.

Size wise, it's a stretched Seawolf., roughly the size of Jimmy Carter.

 

[Scott Kenny]

If built, the ship would have been classified as an SSGN. SSGN-01?

SSGN-719, it looks like, likely replacing the second flight of 688s (intended IOC in 1979). Or at least bumping the 688 VLS down the line. For whatever reason, all submarines are in a single series of numbers, regardless of type. SS, SSK, AGSS, SSN, SSG, SSGN, SSBN... The only exception is the Seawolf class that got slapped with SSN-21, -22, and -23.

 

[NASA]

Some ACM figures from Norman Friedman's US Submarine book

 

[Tzoli]

Looks like my post did not made it before the forum issues.
None the less, here is my question again:

Did anybody seen drawings or sketches of the Perseus missile?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Looks like my post did not made it before the forum issues.
None the less, here is my question again:

Did anybody seen drawings or sketches of the Perseus missile?

No, not even in the back lot at SUBPAC HQ... (Not that I got to spend a lot of time there, I was basically panicking trying to find our mail and managed to run into the SUBPAC Flag Lieutenant, who saved my bacon and tore a very, very long strip off the dudes who were holding mail not addressed to them and addressed to a ship! But I had to hang out for a couple of minutes while he made phone calls instead of me running all over Pearl Harbor on foot.)

But for some reason I'm picturing a Polaris A3 shape...

 

[CommanderRenHoek]

Looks like my post did not made it before the forum issues.
None the less, here is my question again:

Did anybody seen drawings or sketches of the Perseus missile?

Only image I could find online is this shipbucket sketch of APHNAS with the artist's interpretation of STAM which kinda looks like some kind of mega-ASROC (note the blunt nose), probably extrapolating from the original 1969 requirements calling for a dual-role ASW/anti-ship torpedo carrying weapon, per the info in designation-systems.

The 1971 STAWS/ACM with the three options for subsonic, supersonic and strategic-range cruise missiles per the Friedman and Werrell sources might be later proposals that grew out of STAM, or maybe are separate programs that just happen to also be slated for APHNAS' use until the whole program was cancelled in 1973.

But for some reason I'm picturing a Polaris A3 shape...

I myself am thinking containerized reduced size (34" from 50") Regulus II for the supersonic STAWS version.

 

[Dilandu]

Did anybody seen drawings or sketches of the Perseus missile?

As far as I understood, the Perseus was never finalized. The original design was basically -

looks like some kind of mega-ASROC (note the blunt nose)

- essentially the idea was to have a short-to-medium range rocket-powered missile, armed with heavy 21-inch homing torpedo. It was essentially viewed as conventionally-armed alternative to nuclear-only SUBROC.

But later the project became much less clear, with multiple radically-different varieties - sunsonic anti-ship long-range missile, supersonic strategic nuclear missile - appearing. My personal suspision, that at some point "Perseus" shifted from weapon development into "justification for APHNAS".

 

[Scott Kenny]

But later the project became much less clear, with multiple radically-different varieties - sunsonic anti-ship long-range missile, supersonic strategic nuclear missile - appearing. My personal suspision, that at some point "Perseus" shifted from weapon development into "justification for APHNAS".

That's sure what it sounds like to me.

I could see a development from Super-ASROC to big AShM, but supersonic strategic nuke?!? Nah, that's trying to score funding money.

Super-ASROC to big AShM makes sense in terms of having a long range strike weapon for subs or ships.

But the AShM was competing with both the Tomahawk AShM for long range and the Sub-Harpoon for short range AShM, and both of those could fit through a 21" torpedo tube. No reason for a new sub with fat VLS tubes to give Rickover one last War Boner. But nuclear strike would go through a different funding channel.

 

[Dilandu]

I could see a development from Super-ASROC to big AShM, but supersonic strategic nuke?!? Nah, that's trying to score funding money.

Essentially yes. The program, started initially as more or less specific idea of "super-ASROC" (or conventional SUBROC, to be exact) basically became "look what else we could fire from this awesome super-submarine". The submarine was clearly first in Rickover priorities - and Perseus mainly the way to force it into reality.

 

[Grey Havoc]

I could see a development from Super-ASROC to big AShM, but supersonic strategic nuke?!? Nah, that's trying to score funding money.

On the other hand, during the timeframe in question, the Cold War was increasingly going poorly for the United States and her allies, not least in the areas of tactical and strategic nuclear systems, thanks to insanities such as 'Strategic Sufficiency'.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

The concept of Strategic Sufficiency was fine, in the era of Stagflation and the Oil Crisis defence spending could not rise uncontrollably, it's not like the Nixon administration was especially stingy when it came to the procurement of strategic systems, they did after all start the MX, Trident and B1 Bomber programs. You get the idea from some people on here that the US lost the Cold War because of insufficient defence spending.

Notably the Soviet Union's MIC was very good at getting what they wanted with very little in the way of limits or oversight, and that is ultimately one of the causes of their collapse.

As for the appearance of UGM-89 Perseus, Lockheed won the STAM contract in 1969, I wouldn't be surprised if the supersonic variants were related to their near contemporary CLAM and CLAMP studies that were being studied for the US Air Force earlier in the 1960, but adapted for being stored in missile tubes and launched underwater, although this is conjecture. I can't imagine the subsonic variants being much of a departure from later subsonic cruise missiles in terms of aerodynamics, on that UGM-89 would be much bigger.

The Shipbucket one in entire conjectural, iirc the person who drew it depicted a Mk 48 with some boosters.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What I mean is that a supersonic, heavy AShM roughly the same range as the "Conventional SUBROC" makes sense in terms of how far your submarine can reach and engage targets. It's a weapon for an extremely urgent target, say a boomer on the surface and launching or something similarly weird. Something that you cannot spend the time to sneak up on like submariners normally want to do.