Home » Naval » A Sooner Boomer: DoD OKs SSBN-X

A Sooner Boomer: DoD OKs SSBN-X

By John Reed Tuesday, February 8th, 2011 5:31 pm
Posted in Naval

Well, it’s happening. About a month before Defense Secretary Robert Gates unveiled his budget plans that emphasizes strategic weapons, the Pentagon gave the Navy the green light to start developing technology for a 21st century fleet of ballistic missile subs.

The service received the go ahead, called Milestone A approval, after the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer Ashton Carter and the Defense Acquisition Board approved the project on Dec. 9.

Now, the Navy can figure out exactly what it wants the new class to do in terms of operational requirements and determine what technology will be needed to meet those requirements. This will pave the way for the purchase of the initial ship of the class by 2019, according to a Navy announcement.

The effort, which was sent back to the drafting room after it looked like its costs could balloon out of control, aims to replace the current fleet of 14 Ohio class boomers with a fleet of 12 boats able to carry 16 ballistic missiles. The Ohio class subs can carry 24 nuclear tipped Trident D5 ballistic missiles and some have been modified to carry Tomahawk cruise missiles, instead of nukes.

If the sea service wants to field a new class of boomer that quickly, it is almost sure to look at using existing technology to field the subs, much the way the Air Force is doing with its new bomber program. This may mean the Navy’s idea to develop the new boomers based on something like a modified Seawolf class attack sub design could win out over the alternate plan to develop an entirely new missile boat. This will be all the better given the cost-conscious environment we’re living in, especially considering that some estimates place the purchase price for the boats at $40 billion and total lifecycle cost for the new subs at about $100 billion.

Join the Conversation

	guest February 8th, 2011 at 7:33 pm Start developing.… typical Democrat code for pretend we care about defense but we will not build it… Jimmy Carter II anyone?
	greg February 8th, 2011 at 8:15 pm whine complain whine complain
	William C. February 8th, 2011 at 8:19 pm Well this effort has to start somewhere. I’m curious as to what improved capabilities the Navy wants in it’s next SSBN. Why can’t we dust off the plans for the Ohio class and start with some modifications to that? Does it have to be more quiet, faster, able to dive deeper? Also why not cut back to 20 SLBMs per sub rather than 16?
	bobbymike February 8th, 2011 at 9:42 pm Stratcom wanted 20 missiles per boat but the Navy thinks that will be too expensive plus the Navy is actually anticipating future arms control reducing our strategic arsenal under New Start limits. With 12 boats — ten deployable, two getting service, then they better be super stealthy and survivable. On a related note Sec State Clinton said New Start has literally prevented nuclear war between the US and Russia. Really out friend the Russians were going to nuke us without this waste of ink treaty. But maybe someone can tell me this why are the Russians with New Start limits of 1550 strategic warheads developing new systems all capable of holding ten RV’s? I posted this list on other blogs but I think DOD Buzz readers might be interested: US vs Russian strategic modernization plans: i) Bulava SLBM (up to 10 warheads) ii) RS-24 ICBM (up to 10 warheads) iii) SS-18 heavy ICBM replacement (if same throw weight as SS-18 then at least 10 warheads) iv) Blackjack bomber modernization v) PAK-DA (new strategic bomber) vi) Borei class new SSBN (first in class built, hull 2 and 3 being built) vii) New maneuvering RV (re-entry vehicle) viii) Active warhead production lines ix) Aggressive advanced warhead design R&D US i) New bomber (paper study) ii) New ICBM 2030 maybe iii) New SSBN 2037 maybe iv) New SLBM 2040 maybe v) New cruise missile maybe vi) No new warheads vii) No active production lines viii) Advanced concept initiative (warhead R&D) canceled Not a very encouraging picture is it?
	Byron Skinner February 8th, 2011 at 9:55 pm Good Evening Folks, Don’t get excited the new boomers have been funded for the past two years. What is not mention here is that it is likely the 14 Ohio’s will be converted into SSBM’s. The first four have been quite successful. A real game changer is the NSSN 774 Virginia Class Block 3 Batch 4/5. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	roland February 8th, 2011 at 11:19 pm Make it silent and long range mileage before engine recharging, deisel or electric.
	Oblat February 9th, 2011 at 3:17 am >aims to replace the current fleet of 14 Ohio class boomers with a fleet of 12 boats Better get started then. The plan fro 12 will be cut to 6 then only 3 will be built about 15 years late, but all up it will cost the same as 36 Ohio class boats. All the while Bailout Bill will be telling us there is no alternative to failure.
	Oblat February 9th, 2011 at 3:18 am Jimmy carter obviously bit him once as a child.
	Lloyd February 9th, 2011 at 6:11 am Jimmy Carter bit the nation and was tossed out as will bs Byron Barry obama.
	JRT February 9th, 2011 at 7:43 am They should increase the buys to 15 Ohio replacements with 12 SSBNs + 3 SSGNs. They can use a little over a dozen Virginia class block III SSNs to provide the capacity for TLAMs that one SSGN would provide. But the large Battle Management Center (BMC) that was added with the Ohio class SSGN conversions added a lot of C2 capability that you can’t do with smaller boats.
	William C. February 9th, 2011 at 7:43 am Oblat your alternative to any program regardless of it’s condition is to cancel it and get nothing. Sounds like failure to me. But I am sure it is a great success for whatever country your rooting for.
	William C. February 9th, 2011 at 7:46 am I imagine several more Ohios will be converted into SSGNs but I have my doubts if all of them will be kept in service when the time arrives. They are huge boats and undoubtedly rather costly to maintain. Yet 154 Tomahawks or next-generation cruise missiles is a lot of firepower.
	Liz February 9th, 2011 at 9:45 am Wasn’t Jimmy Carter a submariner? Looks like they might be spiking your party koolaid with some memory wiping enhancements.
	momomimamo February 9th, 2011 at 10:24 am yeah prepare the future with the idea of the past , never you are going to launch to mnay nuke in one time except in cold war ideology.
	BOOMER February 9th, 2011 at 11:45 am Carter was a junior nuclear officer kicked off subs for incompetence and total stupidity. should had been a clue to keep him from running for office.
	praetorian February 9th, 2011 at 12:40 pm Thats funny, then they go ahead and name a Seawolf Class sub in his name.…. Nice
	roland February 9th, 2011 at 1:35 pm It’s a matter of quantity and quantity.
	roland February 9th, 2011 at 1:36 pm I mean quality and quantity.
	BradM February 9th, 2011 at 2:01 pm We should just assume that Russia, China, and India all one day want to be as strong or stronger than the USA’s military if we allow them to do so. Its our responsibility as Americans to prevent that from happening by having superior technology and equipment and men in active duty and in reserves in sufficient numbers.
	Lance February 9th, 2011 at 3:19 pm Another Seawolf flop I see. I doubt it will be a reality since the DODs budget is slashed in half. But the General wish list still goes on.
	Moose February 9th, 2011 at 5:16 pm There will likely not be any further SSBN-SSGN conversions of the Ohio class. The cost of conversion and then maintaining further SSGNs plus SSBN-X plus a large SSN force is well above any sub budget the Navy is likely to get. Possible we might get some new-build SSGNs based on the SSBN-X hull at the end of the run, but the Ohios’ days are winding down.
	Moose February 9th, 2011 at 5:18 pm May happen, but the Boomer mission will be the focus.
	geetrue February 9th, 2011 at 8:53 pm Don’t forget the real purpose is to have a strike back capability against a sneak attack … How many do you need to cripple them and avoid them to reload … that should be the major question. They need their own base where there is no base, perhaps Alaska with a ready to go attitude instead of the laid back crews of the 70’s. Five patrols on SSBN 608–609 taught me how to be alert at all times, but we sure did goof off a lot. Keep them away from population centers …the day will come to go or no go Don’t be afraid … be ready
	Bronco46 February 9th, 2011 at 9:00 pm Yes! It needs to be quieter, first and foremost. And it should probably go deeper. As for the missiles why carry any fewer then we now have, unless it’s to build more smaller boats. The total number of missiles should not change. There is a target rich environment out there with the Chinese adding to their military.
	Bronco46 February 9th, 2011 at 9:02 pm HUH? They’re nuclear. They don’t have batteries.
	John February 9th, 2011 at 10:35 pm Roland, I’m diesel and electric went out in the 50s. Maybe they can make the new ones like the Toyota Prius?
	roland February 10th, 2011 at 12:28 am The real problem is when somebody becomes an enemy you will always found an additional enemy (ally). That is why quantity and quality counts.
	BOOMER February 10th, 2011 at 7:58 am Rickover was an a** and a screamer constantly on rants and firing people which he did to carter during dock trials telling him to get the hell off of his boat and not come back (rickover considered all boats his) Carter was xfered to a tender for the rest of his stay in the navy. he got a sub named after him for being pres and not for being a submariner.
	PolicyWonk February 10th, 2011 at 8:47 am That would be SSGN, sir. And I’d llove to see 80% of them swimming right off of China’s coast.
	beettejuz February 10th, 2011 at 9:32 am thats right lets just waste more money on a war we can not win and then cut the va’”s budget for the soldiers and saliors that come back all shot up just like the last one in charge
	mike j February 10th, 2011 at 10:13 am …funded on our Chinese credit card.
	Derek February 11th, 2011 at 3:11 am Ok so why are they talking about different SSBN-SSGN models. Why not combine both functions in one boat class. Say something along the lines of a self-contained 4 cell tomahawk insert for a SLBM tube. The insert will contain all appropriate launch equipment and 4 cells. That way the boat could sail with 64 T-Lams or 16 D5s or any combination there of. Shouldn’t be that difficult of an engineering feat. Now on to added capabilities. Except for maybe a built in swim out trunk or SDV bay/hanger, what else could you really ask for. I mean as far as quiet goes the Ohios are the penticle of design. Not once has there been a confirmed track of an Ohio and supposedly the Virginas surpass that. So just do what they did with the Washington-Skipjack class and weld in a missle bay to a Virgina, slap some extra electronics in there and poof insta-SSBN. The Virginas were already designed with mission modules in mind and for easy of upgrades so this should not be a hard choice in these trying economic times. Use the block buy program and keep the requirements for block 10(the first boats) to basic requirements and then upgrade and add capabilities as you build. Bring all boats upto the final block during the mid-life. Blah Blah my 2 cents. Thanx for reading
	freefallingbomb February 11th, 2011 at 7:05 am I don’t know what kind of movies you’ve been watching lately, but the correctly spelled name of that U.S. American submarine class is “Virginia”, not “Virginas”. (If in doubt, go to the kitchen, ask mom)
	bdmiller February 12th, 2011 at 5:35 pm The The idea of retrofitting the old Ohio subs is rediculous; the sub has been subject to stress’s that find their way to a critical compromise that could cause the death’s of all and the loss of a much needed sub. The lifecycle cost’s are the reason for the needed replacements; the cost of retrofitting and upgrades reach a point of the % of what it would take to build new; we are legally bound to replace them.
	bdmiller February 12th, 2011 at 5:36 pm Why after all this time have we never put camera’s on the outside to the sub to get a birds eye view of what is around us. I’ve never heard it spoke of them being a part of what they view internally; do we have an all around view or are they still only viewing radar signiture’s to know what is around the craft? Russians have the right idea by building them large and roomy; capable of carrying a sub/copter or any other number of unique craft to support the covert type of activities to support the missions of our hit and run folks. Even the remote control capability to go deeper or build it strong enough to go to the bottom safely. We’re on the moon and going to Mar’s, give these new craft the capability to go where no man has gone before and beyond. We have an obligation to our Submariners to give them all the tools to do the job, any job beneath the surface of our oceans. Every time we went cheap, live’s are lost. Go Navy to the limit.
	Oblat February 13th, 2011 at 5:17 am Wasnt a suggestion just a prediction of what happens when lazy men like yourself get involved in our defense.
	SSN770Sonarman February 14th, 2011 at 2:34 pm From a Fast Attack — that’s SSN — submariner veteran: Yes. Yes they (SSN’s AND ssbn’s) DO have batteries AND diesel generators for BACKUP power in case of a reactor SCRAM (emergency shutdown). Also, nuclear reactors don’t have an ON/OFF switch and/or key ignition like a car—-the Rx has to be “warmed up” raised to operating temp prior to start up (becoming critical); which requires electricity, i.e. the batteries, which are kept charged by the diesel.
	William C. February 14th, 2011 at 3:00 pm Lazy? You just want to hand over the keys to the Chinese or whatever other world power wants military superiority.
	BOOMER February 15th, 2011 at 10:56 am The D5 is a huge bird, which is why the Ohio boats are so huge, you could litteraly put a Virginia boat inside of an Ohio thus it would be impossible to add a missile compartment to a VA. The polaris missiles carried on the first boomers were a whole lot smaller than the latter posiden and C4 tridents which are also dwarfed by a D5 trident. The sheer size of the SSBN also means it cannot get as close to shore as a SSN to conduct survelence and covert ops performed by SSN’s. So we will always need various sub designs, Plus all current fleet subs can actualy carry torpedo tube launched tomahawks.
	nonito d. cabato February 16th, 2011 at 5:40 am just replace the old ones with new one called ohio II class ballistic submarine with 18 missile tubes!
	Bob August 9th, 2011 at 4:16 pm SSBN-X is a fitting name for a proposed replacement for the 14 Trident SSBN’s at the end of their life cycle around 2029. At Trinity in 1945 Robert Oppenheimer quoted a Hindu scripture which referred to the third manifestation of the Hindu Trinity which is the Hindu god of destruction and reproduction. The SSBN’s started with Polaris the North Star, followed by Poseidon the Greek god of the sea, and Trident the three pronged sceptre of Poseidon. The third, the Trident, is the one which strikes. SSBN-X has no name. 2029 is the end of the second millenium of the Church Age from the Resurrection in Christianity. SSBN-X may never become operational.
	Mastro February 3rd, 2012 at 6:36 pm Amazing how his time in the service he avoided two wars. He was in the Academy during the war– graduated in 46– so missed the whole WW2 thing. Could have seen action if he was a 90 day wonder or enlisted– didn’t. Korea– plays with nuke subs. His dad dies and he has to take over the business– OK Nice to be connected.

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

DoD Buzz

A Sooner Boomer: DoD OKs SSBN-X

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments