Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Foreign Affairs
Related: About this forumChina’s greatest fear: US Navy ‘cruise missile carriers’
http://atimes.com/2015/10/chinas-greatest-fear-us-navy-cruise-missile-carriers/Chinas greatest fear: US Navy cruise missile carriers
(From the National Interest)
By Dave Majumdar
The U.S. Navy is working on developing a new ballistic missile submarine to replace the services current Ohio-class boomers, but should the Navy build some of those vessels as cruise missile carriers?
The Navy should consider building additional Ohio Replacement Program (OPR)submarines to serve as cruise missile carriers. Or alternatively, the Navy should design the twelve planned boomers so that those vessels can accept the current seven-shot Multiple-All-Up-Round Canisters (MACs) found on the first four Ohio-class boats that were converted into guided missile submarines (SSGNs). That should not be a huge technical challenge because the OPR is being designed to use the same Trident II D5 submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) as the Ohios.
Indeed, former Navy Capt. Jerry Hendrix, director of the defense strategies and assessments program at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), has gone so far as to say that such a submarine could potentially replace the aircraft carrier as the centerpiece of the U.S. Navy fleet. If the Navy chooses to not pursue unmanned combat aerial vehicles in order to keep the carrier relevant in the future, then it is the time to move on to another generation of weapons, perhaps submarines carrying long range conventionally armed missiles and operating with impunity in the waters denied to the carrier, he wrote in a piece for The National Interest today.
Many on Capitol Hill and in the Navyincluding the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)share similar ideas. But cost is always a potential sticking pointthe twelve ORP boats are already breaking the bank with their roughly estimated $5.5 billion price tag. However, the Navy has no choice but to pay for those submarines since the research and development cost and production costs are mandatorythose boomers are part of the strategic nuclear deterrent. Since the upfront development costs are mandatory, the Navy might as well take advantage of it and extend the production run and gain additional economies of scale. Read more
--
"the twelve ORP boats are already breaking the bank with their roughly estimated $5.5 billion price tag"
I'm laughing my ass off on the $5.5 billion estimated cost - Virginia-class submarines cost somewhere between $7 ~ $9 billion a copy. Can you ever recall a replacement anything that costs less than the original?
To put this in perspective: One of these bad boys cost more than a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier ($4.5 billion).
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 481 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
China’s greatest fear: US Navy ‘cruise missile carriers’ (Original Post)
unhappycamper
Oct 2015
OP
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)1. Not counting the F-35(c) which runs $335,000,000 per
So 20 of them would be an additional $6.7 BILLION more