USS HONOLULU transplanted to USS SAN FRANCISCO-- ?!?

[Nords]

I sure am glad I'm not at COMSUBPAC for this analysis.

The USS HONOLULU (SSN 718) is decommissioning after its current deployment. It has a lot less fuel remaining than its sister ship, the USS SAN FRANCISCO (SSN 711), which refueled in 2002.

However the USS HONOLULU has an asset the SF lacks-- an operations compartment that actually passes all the pertinent QA tests. SF has been up on the blocks for over a year while the nation's best naval architects stand around uttering variations on "Gee, uh, I awlways wanted to work on one of they-em!" and jack up the repair bill.

Refueling the HONO and scrapping the SF would have been one option-- about $170M.

But it turns out that it's cheaper to slice the front end off the HONO and weld it to the rest of the SF. $79M and no radcon-- a bargain at any price.

I'm sure it's going to turn out to be more complicated than that. But what a project!

BTW in 1986 the U.S. Navy calculated that covering all its mission requirements would require 125 SSNs. Today we're struggling to stay above 50 while building multi-b-b-b-BILLION submarines, so $79M is truly worth watching your tax dollars at work.

[azanon]

Except for deploying nuclear missles to closer range, i dont see how we have much need for them anyway.* We dont have to be covert when we have the most advanced crusiers and destroyers in the world.* *And i know of some friends who have told me bits and pieces of even newer and more cool cruisers to come (like the DD-X and particle weapons!)

Let them see us coming (on the surface).* Its not as if another country could do anything about it.** Further, an AEGIS cruiser can defend itself from a counterattack much better than a sub (say after firing some harpoons and/or tomahawks on something).* * Once a sub fires at something, say something that has helicopters with torpedoes and sonarbouys; its in trouble.* *

My thinking is.... WWII and the Cold War called;* they want their subs back.

Azanon

[2soon2tell]

Azanon,

You might want to read "Blind Mans Bluff" if you have not already done so. It chronicles our spy submarine missions during the cold war. I think many of the reasons for having these subs still exist today when the cold war is over. The world in many ways is a much more dangerous place today than when we were eyeball to eyeball with the Russians.

Just my humble opinion,

2soon2tell

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Whats that old saying about how everything seems easy when you dont know anything?

[azanon]

I'm not saying the world isn't dangerous.* I'm just saying what can a sub do that we need today that isnt done just as effectively by surface ships;* which also happen to be able to defend themselves beyond just running, hiding, and diving.

CFB, some things really are easy to understand.* Its the masses that make simple things, hard.* Again, what do we need (many) subs for today?* *Subs are primarily attacking weapons, not defensive weapons.* I'm tired of us butting our noses where it doesnt belong and paying billions to do so.* I read today more americans died for a cause i dont believe in.

If we really needed many of them in a short period of time for some unforseen reason, we only have to think back to WW2 to recall what the mighty american factory engine can do in just a year or two's time if need be.

And for the record, the world is far more safe than it was during the cold war.* We were always one red button from the end of humanity during all of it.*

I agree with something Angelina Jolie said recently; we have our priorities really out of wack right now.

Azanon