Ssbn(X) - Il Più Grande Battello Statunitense Di Sempre

[lazer_one*]

Ecco alcune indicazioni sui nuovi SSBN...

 

 

http://news.usni.org/news-analysis/news ... nt-details

 

http://news.usni.org/news-analysis/docu ... nt-program

 

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... ents/page2

[Totiano*]

piu largi, piu lunghi ma con meno carico pagante... a meno che non pensino a un carico differente (portarsi dei seal o cose simili).

 

l'ipotesi piu accreditata, comunque, è di una maggiore vivibilità e, ovviamente, maggiore silenziosita

[dott.Piergiorgio]

io non credo che rischierebbero il loro strumento strategico più importante in operazioni tattiche, per quanto possano essere altamente paganti; più probabilmente effettueranno economie di scala usando lo stesso progetto per futuri SSGN (onestamente, per me gli Ohio SSGN rivaleggiano con Lady Lex e Sara come genialità di riutilizzo....)

 

Saluti,

dott. Piergiorgio.

[Totiano*]

I cantieri navali americani che costruiscono battelli, ovvero Groton e Newport News, sono in oggetto di grande rinnovamento, sia in strutture che in aumento di personale a assunzioni. Dopo i Virginia, divisi tra i 2 cantieri e costruiti a 2 per anno, è i lmomento di sostituire gli anziani Ohio e il nuovo programma procede, seppur tra alti e bassi. Forse i progressi e i problemi con la Cina non sono estranei a questo sviluppo. che ha ricevuto, in marzo scorso, una forte spinta la Congresso

 

mentre vi propongo un interessante video sui SSBN(x)

ecco qualche dato da http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ssbn-x-subs-america-going-nuclear-to-end-graying-boomers-024836/:

 

The USA aims to begin construction of the new SSBN in 2021, and have the new type enter service with the fleet in 2031. A total of 12 boats would be produced, with the last boat expected to leave service around 2085. That’s a very long lifetime for a submarine, whose hull is alternately squeezed and released by water pressure as it dives and surfaces. Unfortunately, delays in starting the program mean that the USA is likely to end up with just 10 SSBNs from 2029 – 2042. If the Ohio Replacement Program suffers further development delays, this high-risk period will see corresponding extensions.

America isn’t alone in their pursuit. At present, Britain, France , India, Russia , and China are all working on new sub-launched ballistic missile systems and/or SSBN submarines. The American SSBN-X will be the end product of intense debate, especially given its aggressive production cost target of FY10$ 4.9 billion. So far, what’s known about the design includes:

Basics: The submarines will be about the same length as the Ohio Class at 560 feet, but may be a bit wider. They will be powered by a new-design reactor using 90% enriched uranium. Like the current SSN Seawolf and SSN Virginia Classes, the new reactor won’t need refueling during the submarine’s lifetime.

SSBN-X propulsion will be all-electric, which decouples the drive train from the turbines, and the pump-jet propulsor will use shrouded technology taken from the Virginia Class. The usual sail-mounted dive planes will be present, along with X-shaped stern surfaces.

One suggested way to save money was to reduce the submarine’s maximum speed from 20 to 15 knots. That would cut maximum power needs sharply, and reduce maximum required diving depth because the submarine won’t require as much space to pull out of a jam dive. The penalty would be poorer evasion of enemy torpedoes if the sub is found.

Sensors: SSBN-X is expected to use the horseshoe-shaped Large Aperture Bow Array (LAB) sonar that was developed for the Virginia Block III submarines. The submarines will undoubtedly deploy an array of other sensors, including flank sonars, towed sonar, fiber-optic masts that don’t have to penetrate the ship’s hull, ESM signal recognition and location technologies, etc.

The key will be making these sensors upgradeable at low cost. The 65 years from 2015 – 2080 is a huge amount of time in the technology world. If upgrades are too expensive, the entire SSBN force could find itself compromised mid-way through its life.

Weapons: The new CMC/AL assemblies are slated for production in blocks of 4 tubes, allowing the USA and UK to tailor the total number of missile tubes to their final submarine designs. Current American Ohio Class SSBNs have 24 tubes, but SSBN-X currently plans to reduce that to 16 tubes. The Trident II D5 missiles, which are being refurbished and improved, will switch over to the new boats as their initial nuclear weapons.

Beyond that, there are questions. Should the new boats have torpedo tubes, in order to protect themselves from enemies under, on, or even above the water? Or should they eliminate that feature and its accompanying space? Sometimes the best defense really is a good offense, but even if the torpedo or missile destroys its enemy, the act of destruction is a beacon to enemy forces as soon as they’re aware of it. Attention is the last thing an SSBN wants, so this is a last resort action. On the other hand, torpedo tubes are useful to keep up SSN training and testing roles, ensuring that American submariners remain proficient enough to be assigned between types.

Then there’s the question of non-nuclear payloads in some of the CMC missile tubes. Converted Ohio class SSGNs, for instance, have already replaced nuclear missiles with American special forces, land attack missiles, and UAVs. In a similar and related vein, the Virginia Class Block III fast attack submarine replaced their 12 vertical-launch cruise missile tubes with 2 Common Weapon Launcher (CWL) “six-shooters” derived from the SSGNs’ converted missile tubes. The size of those CWLs allows Virginia Class Block III submarines to launch cruise missiles, UAVs, UUVs, and more from these same tubes.

Nuclear missile submarines are a nation’s most strategic assets, because they are its most secure and certain deterrence option. One does not commit them casually, to any purpose. As key trends like cheaper sensors and the Robotic Revolution grind onward, however, the next 40 years will see big changes underwater warfare. SSBNs will need the flexibility to adapt and leverage these changes if they intend to survive. For the USA and Britain, their weapon launchers need to be part of that adaptation.