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