US Navy Regulus SSGN

[Triton]

Design proposal for USS Halibut (SSGN-587) featuring a rotary launcher holding four Regulus II missiles. This concept did not get past the model stage.

Source: Regulus: America's First Nuclear Submarine Missile by David K Stumpf, Turner Publishing Company, 1996.

Discussion of Chance Vought SSM-N-9/RGM-15 Regulus II land-attack cruise missile:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8226.0.html

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of Permit-class nuclear-powered guided missile submarine (SSGN-594). The Permit-class would have a surface displacement of 4,000 tons and a submerged displacement of 5,000 tons. Length of approximately 350 feet (106.7 meters) and powered by the S5W nuclear reactor. The Permit was to carry four Regulus II missiles in four hangers--two faired into the forward hull and two outboard of the sail. The four smaller hangers provided increased survivability in the event of damage or a hanger flooding casualty compared to USS Halibut (SSGN-587).

Source: Cold War Submarines: The Design and Construction of U.S. and Soviet Submarines by Norman Polmar and Kenneth J Moore, Brassy's, Inc., 2004.

The big dome shown abaft the missile guidance radar was a radiometric sextant. As in Halibut, attack and navigational periscopes would have been mounted alongside each other forward of the missile radar. Abaft of the radiometric sextant would have been the MF/HF whip antenna alongside the Type 11 star tracker and the VLF loop, then the BPS-4 search radar and the snorkel induction and exhaust. A somewhat similar scheme for a missile conversion of the big Triton was also considered.

Source: US Submarines Since 1945: An Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman, US Naval Institute, 1994.

Early Navy planning had provided for the first three Permit SSGNs to be funded in fiscal year 1958, a fourth in 1959, and subsequently seven more for a class of 11 submarines. The Navy's long-range plan of 1958 showed an eventual force of 12 SSGNs armed with Regulus II or later cruise missiles. This was in addition to the 40 or more nuclear submarines armed with Polaris.

Source: Cold War Submarines: The Design and Construction of U.S. and Soviet Submarines by Norman Polmar and Kenneth J Moore, Brassy's, Inc., 2004.

USS Permit (SSN-594) would later be built to the Thresher-class design (SSN-593). After the loss of USS Thresher on April 16, 1963, the class was renamed to Permit-class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Permit_%28SSN-594%29

 

[Triton]

Regulus/Submarine Advanced Reactor (SAR) feasibility study No. 2, January 29, 1954 by BuShips. At a length of 322 feet, this was the shortest possible design that could store the Regulus I missiles in tandem, as was then required. Each of two 35-foot compartments abaft the three-deck section (officer's quarters forward of the control room) accommodated four Regulus I missiles. Abaft them were 32-foot reactor and 40-foot engineering room, paired abreast (two SAR power trains). Proposed characteristics of the submarine was a displacement of 6,500 to 7,000 tons, a submerged speed of 28 knots, and a complement of 120. All circular-section hull sections (both single and figure eight) had 29-foot diameters. This version did not balance longitudinally and later version were longer.

Source: US Submarines Since 1945: An Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman, US Naval Institute, 1994.

 

[Triton]

Later in 1954, a somewhat different approach to a fast Regulus submarine was sketched by BuShips. By moving the missiles up out of the main pressure hull into a hanger alongside the sail, the designers could drastically shorten the submarine. Dimensions were 327 x 45 feet; 6,700 tons submerged displacement; estimated submerged speed was 27 knots. This submarine carried eight Regulus missiles plus ten torpedo tubes with 38 torpedoes. A total of 126 Guppy I batteries would have been carried just abaft of the forward torpedo room. At this time, with Nautilus not yet at sea, the dual-Submarine Advanced Reactor (SAR) was credited with an endurance of 2,000 hours at full power.

Source: US Submarines Since 1945: An Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman, US Naval Institute, 1994.

 

[Triton]

The Fiscal Year 1956 Regulus submarine, SCB 137, as drawn in 1955 by BuShips. In this version all 12 torpedoes and their four tubes were aft, the entire bow as occupied by a big Regulus hanger carrying four Regulus II or eight Regulus I missiles firing forward. It would have been relatively easy to swamp; the ships built had their hangers aft, presenting a blunt watertight bow to the sea.
Dimensions: 356 feet by 29 feet; 2,800 tons light and 4,200 tons submerged. Performance: 5,000 SHP for 14 knots submerged, using 378 Sargo II batteries, and 13 knots snorkeling; endurance 17,000 nm at 7 knots snorkeling. Estimated cost in FY 1956 was $36.5 million.

An alternative design eliminated the launching rail altogether; the submarine would have fired missiles directly out of her hanger, trimming down aft to elevate it above sea level. This design had a three-level arrangement amidships, with two engine rooms (total 8,000 SHP for 20 knots) aft.

Source: US Submarines Since 1945: An Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman, US Naval Institute, 1994.

 

[marcd30319]

The USS Permit (SSGN-593) class nuclear-powered cruise missile submarines had the following characteristics as set forth in the following Ship Characteristic Board (SCB) design specifications:

SCB 166 (May 1956 - May 1957):

Length: 360 feet (109.73 m)
Beam: 31 feet 6 inches (9.60 m)
Displacement: 4,500 tons (surfaced); 6,000 tons (submerged)
Speed: 16 knots (surfaced), 19 knots (submerged)
Reactor: One (1) S5W type
Weapons: Single hanger for four (4) Regulus II cruise missiles
Four (4) torpedo tubes (eight (8) torpedoes)
Test depth: 700 feet
Crew: 10 officers and 88 enlisted

SCB 166A:

Length: 370 feet (112.78 m)
Beam: 36 feet 4 inches (11.05 m)
Displacement: 4,470 tons (light); 4,800 tons (surfaced); 6,770 tons (submerged)
Speed: 17.5 knots (surfaced), 16 knots (submerged)
Reactor: One (1) S5W type
Weapons: Quadruples hanger for four (4) Regulus II cruise missiles
Four (4) torpedo tubes (eight (8) torpedoes)
Test depth: 1,300 feet
Crew: 10 officers and 88 enlisted

Unlike the USS Halibut (SSGN-587), which was originally laid down as a conventional diesel-electric submarine, the USS Permit (SSGN-593) and her sister ships were design for the outset to be cruise missile submarines. Like the Halibut, the SCB 166 design would have a single hangar to house its Regulus missiles. The Navy determined that this single hangar arrangement was vulnerable to flooding, and the SCB 166A reflected a redesign to incorporate a four-hangar arrangement, with the minor loss in operational launch flexibility offset by enhanced ship safety.

Source: U.S. Submarines since 1945: An Illustrated Design History by Norman Freidman (Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 1994), pages 183, 264n14

 

[20421]

Check out the following link:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08574a.htm

1/4 scale Grayback mock-up.

Have fun,

Erik

 

[RyanC]

Found at USN Photo Archives at Navy Yard.

 

[marcd30319]

What is the main URL for the above USN Photo Archives at Navy Yard (695039)?

 

[RyanC]

Um. There is no URL. The number is the photo number, so anyone can go back and find it by looking through the actual physical photographs at the Navy Yard.

 

[marcd30319]

Which Navy Yard?

 

[RyanC]

Washington DC Navy Yard; sorry for that.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Yet another promising program clobbered by Polaris' huge cost overuns.

 

[Dilandu]

Yet another promising program clobbered by Polaris' huge cost overuns.

Promising? This monstrosity? With all respect, but in comparison with Soviet cruise missile submarines, this project was hopeless. The whole idea of basing missiles in the hangars was a total dead end.

More interesting would be, if USN decided to scrap hangars earlier, and demanded that Regulus must be transported in and launched off outer-hull pressurized container (like Soviet P-5)...

 

[Dilandu]

Speed: 17.5 knots (surfaced), 16 knots (submerged)
Reactor: One (1) S5W type
Weapons: Quadruples hanger for four (4) Regulus II cruise missiles
Four (4) torpedo tubes (eight (8) torpedoes)
Test depth: 1,300 feet

For comparsion: Soviet Project 659 cruise missile sub run at 29 knots, dived to 300 meters, and could carry six P-5 missiles in outer containers, requiring mere minutes after surfacing to release the whole salvo.

Lets admit, guys: Regulus program was a dinosaur. Nothing could save the bad idea of hangar-based submarine missile.

 

[Tzoli]

Regulus II was quite large missile almost as large as a fighter jet!
Regulus I was more compact.
Long Beach with Regulus II:

USS Long Beach as Laid Down by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

One of the preliminaries with Regulus I:

Long Beach Preliminary Scheme V-1 by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

 

[Grey Havoc]

More interesting would be, if USN decided to scrap hangars earlier, and demanded that Regulus must be transported in and launched off outer-hull pressurized container (like Soviet P-5)...

Though that approach did have some major maintenance issues.

 

[Dilandu]

Though that approach did have some major maintenance issues.

Not at all. The missile was placed in dry nitrogen atmosphere inside the container. It reduced maintenance demands greatly.

 

[Grey Havoc]

They still had to replace the missiles pretty often though (and on occasion their canisters as well). Although to be fair, this was partly down to the fuel they used I believe.

 

[Dilandu]

They still had to replace the missiles pretty often though (and on occasion their canisters as well). Although to be fair, this was partly down to the fuel they used I believe.

Yes, but the ability to quickly surface, shoot & dive in several minutes, worth it operationally)

 

[Grey Havoc]

Yes, but the ability to quickly surface, shoot & dive in several minutes, worth it operationally

Reliability concerns would offset that somewhat.

 

[Dilandu]

Reliability concerns would offset that somewhat.

Not significantly. I did not find any data that there were any reliability problems with the P-5 missiles during deployment. Storing the fully fueled and launch-ready missile in dry neutral nitrogen atmosphere in the shock-absorbing container essentially was the solution. Container launch of cruise missile replaced hangar storage everywhere since early 1960s.

 

[isayyo2]

Making a small injection, the ramjet powered Triton cruise missile was to be fitted within Polaris sized launch tubes. So at least for a brief moment in the late 50s, a Polaris armed vessel could also carry cruise missiles too.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.31.7889&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Subsequent to the Talos, the Navy in the early 1950s was addressing ways to deliver strategic ordnance at long range. Consequently, the second Bumblebee task undertaken by APL was to develop a ramjet-powered surface-to-surface cruise missile capable of traveling 2000 nmi at Mach 3 flying at an altitude of 70,000 ft, designated the Triton missile. Several configurations were investigated; the final version was capable of launch from an SSBN/Polaris launch tube. Although engine component tests were successfully conducted and the vehicle concepts met the established mission requirements, the Triton/SSGM (Surface-to-Surface Guided Missile) program was canceled in 1958 in favor of the Polaris solid-rocket ballistic missile.

 

[Grey Havoc]

US Navy's Super Cruise Missile Submarine: USS Permit's Original Design
H I Sutton - Covert Shores

 

[sferrin]

US Navy's Super Cruise Missile Submarine: USS Permit's Original Design
H I Sutton - Covert Shores

When it comes to compactness and packaging for the missiles the USSR had the USN beat hands-down.

 

[Dilandu]

When it comes to compactness and packaging for the missiles the USSR had the USN beat hands-down.

Yep. The irony was, that US seems to pushed us into that direction, by ensuring that we would not get our hands on any Japanese aircraft-carrying submarines. As a result, USN, due to access to Japanese experience, became fascinated with hangar basing of the missiles (which was a technological dead end) - while USSR, without Japanese influence, considered hangar basing only temporarily and rejected it as impractical...

 

[GTX]

USS Growler (SSG-577) ready to launch:

 

[Scott Kenny]

Lets admit, guys: Regulus program was a dinosaur. Nothing could save the bad idea of hangar-based submarine missile.

They definitely took way too long to set up to fire. And I think seeing the missiles as "small aircraft that are stored in hangars" instead of "missiles that are stored in a launch canister" made a mess of things.

Not that Regulus and Polaris were competing systems, though. Regulus had a completely different target set than Polaris did. It's just that Polaris was the monster from the deep that ate all the funding for a lot of years!

Early Navy planning had provided for the first three Permit SSGNs to be funded in fiscal year 1958, a fourth in 1959, and subsequently seven more for a class of 11 submarines. The Navy's long-range plan of 1958 showed an eventual force of 12 SSGNs armed with Regulus II or later cruise missiles. This was in addition to the 40 or more nuclear submarines armed with Polaris.

That probably would have been a good setup, even if the SSGNs were nuclear armed instead of conventional. The issue was how vulnerable the SSGNs were before they launched. IMO, putting Regulus onto the cruisers etc instead of Polaris tubes would have been the better setup. And IIRC Regulus would fit onto the elevator of the WW2 cruisers to stow the missiles in their stern hangar...

Of course, by the time Tomahawks were available, any sub could swap some torpedoes 1-for-1 with TLAM-Ns and have 4-12 cruise missiles onboard. But that gets into the complexity of loading a submarine torpedo room. You have 18-24 spaces in the torpedo room, plus 4-6 torpedo tubes. Need to leave one tube empty for training and drills. You have 4-5 different weapons you can carry: Torpedoes, SUBROCs, Tomahawks (both nuclear and conventional), and Harpoons. How many of what type do you load?

Then came VLS, which added 12 Tomahawks to every sub's loadout, on top of the ~24 torpedoes they could carry. That made the "Torpedo Tetris" a bit easier!

 

[Yellow Palace]

That probably would have been a good setup, even if the SSGNs were nuclear armed instead of conventional. The issue was how vulnerable the SSGNs were before they launched. IMO, putting Regulus onto the cruisers etc instead of Polaris tubes would have been the better setup. And IIRC Regulus would fit onto the elevator of the WW2 cruisers to stow the missiles in their stern hangar...

The ultimate answer there would have been the Triton missile, which - as noted above - ultimately fitted in a Polaris-sized tube. I assume different equipment fits would be needed so you couldn't just rerole on the fly.

It was one of many things sacrificed for Polaris, of course.

 

[Dilandu]

They definitely took way too long to set up to fire. And I think seeing the missiles as "small aircraft that are stored in hangars" instead of "missiles that are stored in a launch canister" made a mess of things.

Yep. USN apparently got inspiration from Japanese plane-carrying submarines, but it led them to a wrong direction.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yep. USN apparently got inspiration from Japanese plane-carrying submarines, but it led them to a wrong direction.

Fortunately we had admirals that had commanded submarines under air attack in WW2 saying "I have to be surfaced for HOW LONG?!?" to correct that issue.

And as a side note the Regulus boats made great diver support boats after their missile days were over. Or other things that may or may not have involved divers in places the US never had a submarine...

 

[BlackBat242]

Fortunately we had admirals that had commanded submarines under air attack in WW2 saying "I have to be surfaced for HOW LONG?!?" to correct that issue.

And as a side note the Regulus boats made great diver support boats after their missile days were over. Or other things that may or may not have involved divers in places the US never had a submarine...

Like operation Ivy Bells, featuring USS Halibut?

 

[freds4hb]

Wow. Very cool! I had no idea it was on active display either! https://museumships.us/subs/growler next to the intrepid in Brooklyn

 

[Scott Kenny]

Wow. Very cool! I had no idea it was on active display either! https://museumships.us/subs/growler next to the intrepid in BrooklynView attachment 737512

Ah, yep.

That's the sub I used for the model for an Submarine Strike patrol pin I proposed when I was in the USN, shortly before the Ohio SSGNs were recommissioned. I'd honestly expected them to have shot a lot more than they have.

You see, the Submarine Combat Patrol Pin was defined in WW2 to only be awarded when the sub sunk tonnage of enemy ships. The subs that launched cruise missiles to kick off Desert Storm applied for the SCP pin, but were turned down because they hadn't sunk anything. There had been times during WW2 when a submarine blew up a train on shore, but didn't sink anything, so that was not a "successful combat patrol" (and I'm pretty sure there was some hate about that then).

And the Strategic Deterrent Patrol Pin is for going out and not launching.

I wanted a pin for those times when a submarine launched a successful land attack. A sub would only be eligible for the SCP or Strike Pin, so on any patrol where you'd both launched cruise missiles and sunk something, the captain would need to decide which to claim.

Got denied at Squadron level.

 

[TomS]

Wow. Very cool! I had no idea it was on active display either! https://museumships.us/subs/growler next to the intrepid in BrooklynView attachment 737512

The Intrepid museum is in Manhattan. That's Growler's long-term berth, Brooklyn was just a temporary location.

 

[Yellow Palace]

And the Strategic Deterrent Patrol Pin is for going out and not launching.

Interestingly enough, I checked the current regulations. The Combat Patrol Insignia is now permitted for 'a combat mission of comparable importance' to sinking an enemy vessel. That may be a new addition, of course, and requires a judgement call from the command chain.

The Deterrent Patrol Insignia doesn't actually specify what constitutes a 'successful patrol', only that you need to complete it. It would seem remarkably vindictive to deny submariners the pin because they carried out their wartime mission. And remarkably petty to surface in whatever was left after an exchange and start demanding recognition for your part in it.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Interestingly enough, I checked the current regulations. The Combat Patrol Insignia is now permitted for 'a combat mission of comparable importance' to sinking an enemy vessel. That may be a new addition, of course, and requires a judgement call from the command chain.

Hrm. That is new to me, so may have been done after some discussion around the SSGNs and all the boats with Tomahawks onboard these days.

The Deterrent Patrol Insignia doesn't actually specify what constitutes a 'successful patrol', only that you need to complete it. It would seem remarkably vindictive to deny submariners the pin because they carried out their wartime mission. And remarkably petty to surface in whatever was left after an exchange and start demanding recognition for your part in it.

IIRC, StratCom defines the successful patrol, but the usual definition is "Did you go out to sea? Yes? Did you launch? No?" because it's a Strategic Deterrent Patrol. Your deterrent has failed if someone has to launch. And your deterrent has succeeded if nobody launches.

My proposal was about a combat patrol pin for a patrol when nobody gave you a ship to sink but you dumped a couple dozen Tomahawks at a bad guy.