New Mission for Old Subs

After initial resistance, the Navy's plan for its four oldest Tridents is winning converts

(snip)

In 3 1/2 years, the first Trident sub converted to guided-missile launcher will enter the Navy's force and be available for whatever conventional duties it's (sic) called to perform.

(snip)

"We need conventional capability," said U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Belfair, one of the key supporters of SSGN funding from the start. "We've got enough nuclear capability, I think. These are incredible platforms to do this on."

Dicks pointed out that the B-2 bomber, once with a strictly nuclear mission, is now a conventional threat, dropping bunker-busting bombs on Iraq during the spring.

"Taking a nuclear system and now converting it into conventional weapons is tremendous," he said.

(more)

It's like convering the aircraft carrier Nimitz into a helicopter carrier. Thank God we never needed the Tridents (IMO we never did), and don't need 'em now, but I'd like to see 'em converted to an undersea oil tanker or cargo ship or something similar. They are huge. Use that bulk. Instead of having them do the same job that Los Angeles-class (which are much smaller) do.

that should make life on a submarine interesting........

and the idea of packing them with conventional Tomahawk cruise missiles seems very good. The Tomahawk's range added to the sheer numbers an Ohio can carry would make this a significant weapon. It is the Seal platform that I am skeptical about.

Even with minisubs for transport, the Ohio subs would have to make a close approach to shore to deploy its Seal contingent. Ohio class subs were never intended for hostile coastal shallows.

This seems like a major disaster waiting to happen.

My father, a ww2 submariner, has always felt these nuclear subs would make perfect retirement homes for cash strapped admirals and other brass.

to steal.

Our tax dollars at work.

I'm sorry to be anal retentive about this, but I want to point out that The Sun's use of "...duties it's called on to perform" was perfectly correct. "It's" is a contraction of "it is", and so it has an apostrophe in it. There was no need for your 'sic'.