SSGN(X)?

I guess you havn’t check out the range of said missiles, that CM launcher is far out of reach of any fighter.
and cargo a/c a’la Distiller is more available then SSGN’s any day

Funny, that the USN arms so many surface ships with Cruise Missiles. Which, would have to operate further from shore and are far more vulnerable than SSGN’s. Sorry, your argument is hardly holding water.

Nonetheless, in many cases Aircraft can be detected at far greater distances. Which, negates its range atvantage in many cases.

I guess you havn’t check out the range of said missiles, that CM launcher is far out of reach of any fighter.
and cargo a/c a’la Distiller is more available then SSGN’s any day

It’s akin to the difference between rocket artillery and tube artillery. Air launch gives more attack vector options and enables sustained attacks. I hold up my statement: On a system level a SSGN is not worth it. And the USN wouldn’t have built it if they hadn’t those “redundant” four SSBN.

I support a small hive (be it six) of VL tubes on the SSNs. That gives the SSNs an active offensive capability. Those tubes could also be used to house UAVs and mines and such.

Your assuming the required aircraft are available. Plus, unless you are talking 5th Generation Stealth Aircraft. They’re far more vulnerable than any SSGN…..

Your logic escapes me………..You don’t see the worth of a Stealthy Submarine. That can move close to shore and fire 154 Cruises Missile with little or no warning at any prospective adversary!:eek:

It’s akin to the difference between rocket artillery and tube artillery. Air launch gives more attack vector options and enables sustained attacks. I hold up my statement: On a system level a SSGN is not worth it. And the USN wouldn’t have built it if they hadn’t those “redundant” four SSBN.

I support a small hive (be it six) of VL tubes on the SSNs. That gives the SSNs an active offensive capability. Those tubes could also be used to house UAVs and mines and such.

The SSGNs were a good idea since the subs were going spare, but I don’t think its worth making such an investment again for a dedicated SSGN new build. The money would be better spent being ploughed into more SSN and some into the SSBN.

hmmm, could they cut a SSN in half and just add a small section with a number of tubes for the Cruise Missiles??? As the current tubes carry 7 Missiles each! Of course I am talking about older SSN’s already paid off or nearly so. Just like the current SSGN’s. (USS Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and Florida)

For example…..

6 Tubes = 42 Tomahawks

8 Tubes = 56 Tomahawks

10 Tubes = 70 Tomahawks

12 Tubes = 84 Tomahawks

The SSGNs were a good idea since the subs were going spare, but I don’t think its worth making such an investment again for a dedicated SSGN new build. The money would be better spent being ploughed into more SSN and some into the SSBN.

Considering that they are reportedly going to use on the Block III Virginia SSNs a variation on the Multiple All-Up-Round Canister (MAC) (a 6 round per with the 7th central tube for an access tube) currently being used on the Ohio SSGNs, if it were deemed advisable, in a future Block they could add a hull plug for one or two more additional such MACs if it were deemed a good trade off. That would in effect give you a mini-SSGN or if the MAC could be integrated into and out of current or future SSBNs, you could then have the option of different loadouts depending upon “current events” of a mix of SLCMs and SLBMs (and if they continue with the SLIRBM/SLGSM could be added to that mix).

Depends on scenario,
it would have been priceless for SU to have a couple of Oscar on the east coast off Iceland to destroy runway, but in a China scenario i’d pick B-1B/cargo plane loaded with CM for the amount of money spent on SSGN

Imagine what they could have done with one or two parked off the coast of Maryland and armed with nuclear land attack Shipwrecks. Lots of very juicy targets right next to the ocean. D.C., Norfolk, Newport News, Langley, the Pentagon. . .

The SSGNs were a good idea since the subs were going spare, but I don’t think its worth making such an investment again for a dedicated SSGN new build. The money would be better spent being ploughed into more SSN and some into the SSBN.

but in a China scenario i’d pick B-1B/cargo plane loaded with CM for the amount of money spent on SSGN

But a B-1 won’t be able to
1. Covertly monitor Chinese activities prior to hostilities to assess intentions and capabilities
2. Deploy sensors clandestinely for MCM or ASW as part of battlefield preparation and warfighting
3. Conduct SEAL missions to sabotage or capture facilities
4. Launch up to 154 Tomahawks in support of strike operations
5. Free up other SSNs and surface combatants from the above missions to focus on anti-ship/ABM/air defence instead

Depends on scenario,
it would have been priceless for SU to have a couple of Oscar on the east coast off Iceland to destroy runway, but in a China scenario i’d pick B-1B/cargo plane loaded with CM

The SSGN would be far more survivable against China. That said, it’s always better to have several options. As it give your enemy multiple threats to deal with…..;)

Depends on scenario,
it would have been priceless for SU to have a couple of Oscar on the east coast off Iceland to destroy runway, but in a China scenario i’d pick B-1B/cargo plane loaded with CM for the amount of money spent on SSGN

I never thought that the Ohio SSGN are worth the effort, or that doing a SSGN(X) is worth it.

If I wanted to do a cruise missile saturation attack I’d build a plug’n’play rack/conveyor combo to put it into the back of the large cargo planes. Gives a much more flexible and scaleable response over a much wider geographic area, opening a lot more attack vectors.

Your logic escapes me………..You don’t see the worth of a Stealthy Submarine. That can move close to shore and fire 154 Cruises Missile with little or no warning at any prospective adversary!:eek:

I never thought that the Ohio SSGN are worth the effort, or that doing a SSGN(X) is worth it.

If I wanted to do a cruise missile saturation attack I’d build a plug’n’play rack/conveyor combo to put it into the back of the large cargo planes. Gives a much more flexible and scaleable response over a much wider geographic area, opening a lot more attack vectors.

Doesn’t matter – the USN thinks it is a great deal of additional capability for minimal conversion cost. It is more than just an invisible arsenal ship that can provide more Tomahawk strike power than a CSG, which in turn can free up VLS cells in surface combatants for other duties like ABM. It has the capability to be loaded with Special Forces teams and to launch UUVs/UAVs in their support. Demonstrated capability in Giant Shadow exercise. And a less well publicised capability is their ability to seed an area with distributed sensors such as UUVs and sonar arrays for ASW by virtue of its large diameter and high volume missile tubes. There was a concept called PLUSNet that was tested. Think how powerful is the capability to covertly deploy and sustain such a network just off the coast of a notional enemy in event phase leading up to war but before hostilities break out.

I never thought that the Ohio SSGN are worth the effort, or that doing a SSGN(X) is worth it.

600 cruise missiles that you can park wherever you want whenever you want? Sounds worth it to me. Why not reuse the Ohios if you’re not going to use them as SSBNs? If you were starting from scratch that would be one thing but they already had the subs so it was just a matter of making the launchers and modifications. And it’s not like they NEED to be filled with cruise missiles. Imagine if they had 600 RATTLRs or Arc Lights. Those 4 SSGNs have the potential for GREAT meham in a war.

Well to truly realise the possibilities offered by an SSGN you’d have to equip the boats with something other than Tomahawk: a shorter-range, supersonic cruise missile. The idea being to launch from within the target’s outer defences thereby – in concert with the missile characteristics themselves – minimising the adversary’s opportunity and capacity to react.

It provides another “first day of war” option against a peer or near-peer adversary besides the B-2s/NGBs/F-22s, the latter of which may well be limited by basing constraints.

I never thought that the Ohio SSGN are worth the effort, or that doing a SSGN(X) is worth it.

If I wanted to do a cruise missile saturation attack I’d build a plug’n’play rack/conveyor combo to put it into the back of the large cargo planes. Gives a much more flexible and scaleable response over a much wider geographic area, opening a lot more attack vectors.

I personally think the later due to the fact that I don’t think dedicated SSGN have enough multi-role capabilities.

Many Thanks