That's impressive. Hope it's as good as the hand out.
Random observations:
"Recyclable Steel" Well thank God for that. I'd hate to not be green with this weapon of war that could single handedly send humanity back to the stone age.
"The reactor core so 'quiet' it will make less noise than a 20W light bulb." This of course begs asking "what type of light bulb?" Incandescent bulbs are likely quieter than LED which are quieter than neon bulbs. And of course one has to wonder what the quotes around quiet mean. Hmmm... And of course that's all for naught if the pumps, drive engines, auxiliary equipment, etc. is as loud as a rock band in a small venue.
"In April 2014, the Navy completed a 300-page specification report for the Ohio Replacement Program submarines. There are 159 specifications including weapons, escape routes, fluid systems, hatches, doors, seawater systems, and a set length of 560 ft (170 m), partly to allow for sufficient volume inside the pressure hull."
Hey thanks Captain Obvious, I’m well aware that Columbia is the personification (not synonym) of America. And if they’d named the boat for that, that would be really cool. But they didn’t. They named it for the District of Columbia, which isn’t the same thing and has an entirely different connotation.
Especially for a program massively delayed and over-budget like this one, the jokes write themselves. But I made one anyway. Maybe you just missed it the first time. I typed slower this time, hope you can keep up.
You wrote that a vessel named 'Columbia' is named for D. C. No, it's not: that would be USS District of Columbia, numnutz.
One can't be blamed for the impression you're unaware of the etymology. One can only go by what you wrote, and you wrote the USS Columbia is named for DC. It's not, and if your fellow numnutzes (probably officers) say so, they're unread.
Something can be a personification & a synonym, Maxwell Perkins. "A personification synonymous with..." is a bit prolix, ne c'est pas, mon enfant?
The Unlearned here in the community around Port Canaveral have a refrain "open the locks," as a supposed cure for the pollution-fouled Indian River Estuary. Folks don't understand how unnatural Port Canaveral is, and how quickly sand can move.
Port Canaveral would not be a seaport were it not for constant dredging. Narragansett Bay, it aint.
I have two comments, based on the infographic. 1. Who was the mushbrain that thought putting 70% of our nuclear capability in one bucket was a good idea? 2. Hydrodynamically, the only way that an X stern configuration, by itself, lessens the chances of a fatal depth excursion at high speed is if it also retards movement in the vertical plane at all speeds. Maybe not something you’d want to claim as a feature. Or is “elephantine” now on the list of bragging rights for future naval vessels?
Of course not. Occasionally I’m a bit slow, but not *that* simple. I was thinking about class-specific equipment; they will all have the same model of reactor, pumps, thruster, etc. Those oh, so nearly identical components will be exploited to the maximum extent possible. Just like we would.
Sure, but it's also not going to be the only class of sub in the fleet. I dunno, maybe it's a problem, but subs are a lot harder to strike at while deployed.
Every weapon or weapon system will generate a counter. In the 19th century and into the mid 20th century, there was a continual tech battle between cannons and armor. We can still see the results of this ashore in the design of existing forts. Since every system or ship has vulnerabilities, how long do you think it will be before Russia or PRC finds them? If I were either country, I'd already have a team exploring possibilities that could be tested as early as the Columbia's sea trials. A small number of targets with a given vulnerability is a bad plan, one of the reasons we didn't build the Arsenal Ships.
Neither of those countries has found that "vulnerability" yet in previous classes of submarines. Their best defense has been to steal our technology and incorporate it into their subs in order to decrease our advantage. When our boomers are on patrol, we don't know exactly where they are, just a general, very large, patrol area. That makes it extremely challenging for an enemy to find them.
Full disclosure: I'm biased as I am a submarine veteran of both fast attack and Trident II boats.
My only exposure to submarines was a single SSBN patrol as a Midshipman, and conducting post-overhaul sea trials on two fast attacks as an EDO. My comments were based on an over abundance of caution. Since we have not yet traded fire with either country, we can’t know for sure what information they have stolen.
I have to admit that it *does* take a certain mindset to do that. At the end of my one patrol, I knew that I really liked submarines, but hated the (required) rigidity of nuclear power. My class advisor, a nuclear sub recruiter, told me that was *not* a career path. So I went surface navy. In the long run, through a very roundabout way, it all worked out. Men make plans, and God laughs.
So after the missiles have been launched, we can look out over the devastation of our once-beautiful planet and say, "designed and built by Americans." And then, die. You people amaze me. You think this prevents that. Instead, this all but assures that.
Who said one fucking word about scrapping anything? Billions per hull? Just launch a new sub that can basically blanket a continent, hell, what can go wrong? Peace loving? How about fucking idiots at the fire buttons, everywhere in the world? How would YOU like to be the proud owner of a bridge??
Well wise guy, what exactly ARE you suggesting? You disparage our building them, so... what? We shouldn't build them? Those are the only options, build/not build. And the Ohios won't last forever so they will be scrapped. Billions per hull... yes, how much do you think they should cost? Yeah there are idiots at the button everywhere in the world, again WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION? Or are you just ranting to rant?
You don't make any sense, you just rant and curse like a moron who can't form a rational thought.
Let me enlighten you. There is nothing in any way rational about nuclear war. The fact that it will be the LAST war, does disturb me. Isn't it enough that we can already wipe out all life on earth, seven times over? That we spend hundreds of billions every year to deliver munitions worldwide in minutes?
Here's a cheat-sheet for you. Ohio-class could easily be replaced with more Ohio-class, electric if you like. I understand fully that deterrence is strength. But that behemoth is just nuts. Okay? Satisfy your warmonger ass, for about a minute?
There is no profit to war. No gain. Its all for show, baby I'm tougher than you. It isn't to determine who's right, but who's left.
Following nuclear conflict, there will be no one to count.
Restarting the contruction of Ohio-class submarines would cost as much as new Columbia-class ones. Ohio-class are 1970s design, their production ended long ago, they use equipment no longer produced. And new batch of Ohio would be relatively obsolete, not suited to fit modern standards of survivability and stealth. Let me remind you, that boomer submarines are the weapon of DETERRENCE, their main goal is to make sure the enemy could not knock your retaliation capability with first strike. So they must be quiet and survivable enough for modern warfare - and submarine detection/destruction technology leaped forward much since the end of Cold War.
I do understand that. I also understand that the electric drive takes up all of the space, but, if the subs were nuclear powered, were they not also, electric? Why does it have to carry so many missiles? Does it not have a larger sonar imprint?
Seems to me, that money should have been directed to construction of Trump's defensive dome. I'm objecting because its size and its cost are overwhelming and Palantir is involved, just how long will it take for the shit to hit the AI fan? Should AI control the fire buttons?
“Let me enlighten you. There is nothing in any way rational about nuclear war.”
I never said there was, Mr Strawman.
“The fact that it will be the LAST war, does disturb me. Isn't it enough that we can already wipe out all life on earth, seven times over? That we spend hundreds of billions every year to deliver munitions worldwide in minutes?”
Again, I ask…. WHERE did I state otherwise and WHAT is your solution?
“Here's a cheat-sheet for you. Ohio-class could easily be replaced with more Ohio-class, electric if you like. I understand fully that deterrence is strength. But that behemoth is just nuts.”
So your cost and world saving solution is that we just build 40 year old technology 18k ton Ohio class boats with her 24 nuclear missiles and then everything will be just fine as compared to 20k ton Columbia and her 16 nuclear missiles…. How does that math work out in bizarro world? A 2,000 ton displacement savings is all that is required to save the world… interesting. Or do you really think new built Ohio’s would be significantly cheaper than Columbia? Or do you want us to build old technology boats because it would be easier for China to find/track them, comrade?
It’s really difficult to find ANY sanity in what you are proposing.
Okay? Satisfy your warmonger ass, for about a minute?”
Again, moron, I never said anything “warmongery”.
“There is no profit to war. No gain. Its all for show, baby I'm tougher than you. It isn't to determine who's right, but who's left.”
You’re ranting against your own strawman… again. Why are you even commenting on this board that is pretty much dedicated to the art of war fighting? Shouldn’t’ you be on the Kumbaya Basket Weaving blog?
”Following nuclear conflict, there will be no one to count."
You must be heavily invested in the straw market given your penchant for strawmen.
May I ask, seriously, were you drinking when you wrote all of that? Heavy meds?
No, you never said there was. You said I couldn't form rational thoughts. How rational is the apocalypse of humanity you're planning? While international corporate elites pay off our Congress, you gleefully spend for destruction of Earth. I think you and all of your international apocalyptic cohorts and all of your weapons should be packed up in a super-sized spaceship and flown to Mars. This would solve the problem, of which little you is a very large part.
Wait ...So you Want me to Help Him form them ...Which you Claim he Cant Do ...& then Interpret them Once Formed ....I am starting to see the $$$ Signs in this ...DOD Thought Process to Pad my Invoices .
As you stated there is nothing rational about a nuclear war in fact it is insanity. But considering the human race is basically insane it goes hand in hand.
Called it deterrence, parity, mine is bigger than yours our what ever clever moniker you attach to it, it's an absolute necessity in an absolutely brutal world.
" The moment you stop being dangerous, you become edible."
I do have something to add. You are absolutely right, and your reply makes sense. Nuclear capability evolved following WW 2. I suppose it is too much to expect people, who have of necessity evolved to survive through competition, to similarly evolve.
But brutality is an animal trait, and one that you take with you into the stars, for your own protection and survival. Here on Earth we could, should and must learn to tone it down.
I've gotten old, watched people get crazier and while I likely won't be around to see it, where you are all headed for, honestly isn't where you want to go. You will one day awaken in the next world, where you will face God.
It's also foolish to think a nuclear war would be "the last" war. It might be the last one with world wide impact for a few hundred years or even millennia, but it would most likely not erase the human species completely, and "people are gonna people."
Sorry. I know opinions vary, and I don't wanna be proven right, but "all life on earth" means what it says. Weather systems disrupted, tornadic firestorms, global wipeout of everything including bacteria. The survivors following nuclear conflagration this time will not include crocodiles, that survived the dinosaur extinction. Now the warmongers have attempted to dumb down nuclear winter into "like fall." I got news. It's gonna be glacial, worldwide, for decades.
I strongly hope nobody starts "it", but nuclear winter is pure fantasy. The devastation and loss of life in a total war between great powers would be terrible indeed, it doesn't need to be the literal apocalypse to be scary.
Which is a ...Good Thing ...I think ??? They are a very Impressive Weapons of Mass Destruction System . Thank God ...Sean Connery ..Joined our Side in the 90's .
Hopefully they designed in the capacity for future stretches to accommodate additional missile modules and or different types of missiles. (Kinda' makes ya' wonder of there's a Yasen type hiding in there.)
I don't understand the graphic there at all. IIRC, the 16 Tridents can take a max load of 14 W76 (100kT) warheads, or a smaller number of W88 (475kT) heads. (Of which only ~400 were ever produced.) So max load would be somewhere around 200 warheads. I guess the 1,920 number is the treaty-limited size of the entire US arsenal.
Possible it is not the actual mission load out of warheads just showing maximum capacity.
Like My mag capacity and load carrying ability of my civilian AR-15 is 30 rounds, but I rarely load up more than 15 rounds if that, in my average carry patrol of my property in case of coyotes is 5 Rounds.
Seems it is using the Swedish-designed silent electric drive system?
A thought intent to sober things up: how much of the design and tech is due to the inventions and developments by other nations?
I'm not trying to rile anyone up (doubt this site needs a caveat but "internet gonna internet"), in this day and age cirtually nothing is completely home-brewed and most all stuff owes to for'n ingenuity.
Another thought: didn't the Soviets in the 1970s try to go all-in for super-subs, only to discover that the cost increases geometrically while efficiency increases linearly? Can't recall beyond their 'Dmitri Donskoy' being so big it can't pass in/out through Öresund (Baltic Sea gap between Denmark and Sweden) without Swedish and Danish pilot ships guiding it. Seems a bit of a bummer if the boat is too big to be able to leave/enter its home port, but the USA isn't the USSR/Russia in that regard, so maybe it just looks like the same set of problems.
Nope. The Project 941 Akula (NATO Typhoon) were designed so big due to A - generally larger size of Soviet missiles (our solid-fuel technology wasn't as advanced as American), and B - because they were intended to run continious patrols under Arctic ice sheet for months. When your crews is supposed to be locked up in metal hull for a long time with no leave, you don't spare money on comfort. And those old Akula's were designed to be as spacy and comfortable as possible; even simple sailors were given two-man cabins, not mere bunks.
Thanks for answering and clarifying - Soviet submarines was something of a national pastime here (Sweden) in the 1980s, so my (obviously erroneous) recollections are wee bit out of date, to put it mildly.
Well, I admit, that "Whiskey on the Rock" incident was pretty outlandish) And it was really hard to believe, that submarine could bypass naval base defense perimeter, move along the rather narrow pass and ground itself near coast - all by pure incident. The whole case was so unbelievable, that while Sweden military suspected espionage/sabotage, Soviet military suspected betrayal/defection)
reactor quieter than a 20-watt bulb seems ... quiet.
Illuminated, or dark?
Man, wish I'd thought of that.
Unladen
Same length overall as our existing boats. Reduction in throw weight compared to a 726 though.
Ultima ratio res publica!
That's impressive. Hope it's as good as the hand out.
Random observations:
"Recyclable Steel" Well thank God for that. I'd hate to not be green with this weapon of war that could single handedly send humanity back to the stone age.
"The reactor core so 'quiet' it will make less noise than a 20W light bulb." This of course begs asking "what type of light bulb?" Incandescent bulbs are likely quieter than LED which are quieter than neon bulbs. And of course one has to wonder what the quotes around quiet mean. Hmmm... And of course that's all for naught if the pumps, drive engines, auxiliary equipment, etc. is as loud as a rock band in a small venue.
But, there's some promise here.
Yeah, when it comes to protecting the environment, I want my boomers to be especially green. Perhaps we can replace that kettle with a Tesla engine??
BTW, does that graphic actually list the length of this thing?
"In April 2014, the Navy completed a 300-page specification report for the Ohio Replacement Program submarines. There are 159 specifications including weapons, escape routes, fluid systems, hatches, doors, seawater systems, and a set length of 560 ft (170 m), partly to allow for sufficient volume inside the pressure hull."
That will make a statement.
great article and thanks for the reminder to subscribe to Midrats!
I’m sorry, I’d like to believe that this thing is both effective and cost-effective, but…it’s named for the District of Columbia.
ayfkm
'Columbia' is a synonym for America or the Americas.
UN-b'lee-va-bul
Hey thanks Captain Obvious, I’m well aware that Columbia is the personification (not synonym) of America. And if they’d named the boat for that, that would be really cool. But they didn’t. They named it for the District of Columbia, which isn’t the same thing and has an entirely different connotation.
Especially for a program massively delayed and over-budget like this one, the jokes write themselves. But I made one anyway. Maybe you just missed it the first time. I typed slower this time, hope you can keep up.
You wrote that a vessel named 'Columbia' is named for D. C. No, it's not: that would be USS District of Columbia, numnutz.
One can't be blamed for the impression you're unaware of the etymology. One can only go by what you wrote, and you wrote the USS Columbia is named for DC. It's not, and if your fellow numnutzes (probably officers) say so, they're unread.
Something can be a personification & a synonym, Maxwell Perkins. "A personification synonymous with..." is a bit prolix, ne c'est pas, mon enfant?
Professional editor here, btw.
Blocking. It's my anti-arrogant idjut policy.
Let's hope on her maiden voyage she doesn't run aground in a swamp.
Well if Home ported at Kings bay that might be possible!
Having been OOD in and out of Kings Bay many times, it was always an adventure.
My ustafish ran aground at Port Canaveral perfectly lined up in the channel after a hurricane ran through.
The Unlearned here in the community around Port Canaveral have a refrain "open the locks," as a supposed cure for the pollution-fouled Indian River Estuary. Folks don't understand how unnatural Port Canaveral is, and how quickly sand can move.
Port Canaveral would not be a seaport were it not for constant dredging. Narragansett Bay, it aint.
I have two comments, based on the infographic. 1. Who was the mushbrain that thought putting 70% of our nuclear capability in one bucket was a good idea? 2. Hydrodynamically, the only way that an X stern configuration, by itself, lessens the chances of a fatal depth excursion at high speed is if it also retards movement in the vertical plane at all speeds. Maybe not something you’d want to claim as a feature. Or is “elephantine” now on the list of bragging rights for future naval vessels?
I mean... it's not 70% of them on a *single* submarine...
Of course not. Occasionally I’m a bit slow, but not *that* simple. I was thinking about class-specific equipment; they will all have the same model of reactor, pumps, thruster, etc. Those oh, so nearly identical components will be exploited to the maximum extent possible. Just like we would.
Sure, but it's also not going to be the only class of sub in the fleet. I dunno, maybe it's a problem, but subs are a lot harder to strike at while deployed.
I would ask why you wouldn't put the bulk of your warheads on the vastly more survivable platform?
Every weapon or weapon system will generate a counter. In the 19th century and into the mid 20th century, there was a continual tech battle between cannons and armor. We can still see the results of this ashore in the design of existing forts. Since every system or ship has vulnerabilities, how long do you think it will be before Russia or PRC finds them? If I were either country, I'd already have a team exploring possibilities that could be tested as early as the Columbia's sea trials. A small number of targets with a given vulnerability is a bad plan, one of the reasons we didn't build the Arsenal Ships.
Neither of those countries has found that "vulnerability" yet in previous classes of submarines. Their best defense has been to steal our technology and incorporate it into their subs in order to decrease our advantage. When our boomers are on patrol, we don't know exactly where they are, just a general, very large, patrol area. That makes it extremely challenging for an enemy to find them.
Full disclosure: I'm biased as I am a submarine veteran of both fast attack and Trident II boats.
My only exposure to submarines was a single SSBN patrol as a Midshipman, and conducting post-overhaul sea trials on two fast attacks as an EDO. My comments were based on an over abundance of caution. Since we have not yet traded fire with either country, we can’t know for sure what information they have stolen.
“…fatal depth excursion at high speed”…This is why I’ve never wanted to be in a boat that sinks on purpose.
I have to admit that it *does* take a certain mindset to do that. At the end of my one patrol, I knew that I really liked submarines, but hated the (required) rigidity of nuclear power. My class advisor, a nuclear sub recruiter, told me that was *not* a career path. So I went surface navy. In the long run, through a very roundabout way, it all worked out. Men make plans, and God laughs.
Why so large for fewer missiles than an Ohio?
The electric drive.
Awesome, but still not as terrifying as the ability to deploy a fast food restaurant anywhere on Earth in 24 hours.
LOOK UPON MY WORKS YE MIGHTY, AND DESPAIR!
So after the missiles have been launched, we can look out over the devastation of our once-beautiful planet and say, "designed and built by Americans." And then, die. You people amaze me. You think this prevents that. Instead, this all but assures that.
So if Americans just scrapped all of our SSBN's and ICMB's etc the peace loving Russians, Chinese, North Koreans etc would do the same huh?
How would you like to be the proud owner of a bridge?
Who said one fucking word about scrapping anything? Billions per hull? Just launch a new sub that can basically blanket a continent, hell, what can go wrong? Peace loving? How about fucking idiots at the fire buttons, everywhere in the world? How would YOU like to be the proud owner of a bridge??
Idiot.
Well wise guy, what exactly ARE you suggesting? You disparage our building them, so... what? We shouldn't build them? Those are the only options, build/not build. And the Ohios won't last forever so they will be scrapped. Billions per hull... yes, how much do you think they should cost? Yeah there are idiots at the button everywhere in the world, again WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION? Or are you just ranting to rant?
You don't make any sense, you just rant and curse like a moron who can't form a rational thought.
Let me enlighten you. There is nothing in any way rational about nuclear war. The fact that it will be the LAST war, does disturb me. Isn't it enough that we can already wipe out all life on earth, seven times over? That we spend hundreds of billions every year to deliver munitions worldwide in minutes?
Here's a cheat-sheet for you. Ohio-class could easily be replaced with more Ohio-class, electric if you like. I understand fully that deterrence is strength. But that behemoth is just nuts. Okay? Satisfy your warmonger ass, for about a minute?
There is no profit to war. No gain. Its all for show, baby I'm tougher than you. It isn't to determine who's right, but who's left.
Following nuclear conflict, there will be no one to count.
Restarting the contruction of Ohio-class submarines would cost as much as new Columbia-class ones. Ohio-class are 1970s design, their production ended long ago, they use equipment no longer produced. And new batch of Ohio would be relatively obsolete, not suited to fit modern standards of survivability and stealth. Let me remind you, that boomer submarines are the weapon of DETERRENCE, their main goal is to make sure the enemy could not knock your retaliation capability with first strike. So they must be quiet and survivable enough for modern warfare - and submarine detection/destruction technology leaped forward much since the end of Cold War.
I do understand that. I also understand that the electric drive takes up all of the space, but, if the subs were nuclear powered, were they not also, electric? Why does it have to carry so many missiles? Does it not have a larger sonar imprint?
Seems to me, that money should have been directed to construction of Trump's defensive dome. I'm objecting because its size and its cost are overwhelming and Palantir is involved, just how long will it take for the shit to hit the AI fan? Should AI control the fire buttons?
It looks to me like I already bought that bridge.
When was the last actual nuclear war to happen?
WW 2 doesn't count.
So, you're saying that the nuclear triad has been 100% successful?
“Let me enlighten you. There is nothing in any way rational about nuclear war.”
I never said there was, Mr Strawman.
“The fact that it will be the LAST war, does disturb me. Isn't it enough that we can already wipe out all life on earth, seven times over? That we spend hundreds of billions every year to deliver munitions worldwide in minutes?”
Again, I ask…. WHERE did I state otherwise and WHAT is your solution?
“Here's a cheat-sheet for you. Ohio-class could easily be replaced with more Ohio-class, electric if you like. I understand fully that deterrence is strength. But that behemoth is just nuts.”
So your cost and world saving solution is that we just build 40 year old technology 18k ton Ohio class boats with her 24 nuclear missiles and then everything will be just fine as compared to 20k ton Columbia and her 16 nuclear missiles…. How does that math work out in bizarro world? A 2,000 ton displacement savings is all that is required to save the world… interesting. Or do you really think new built Ohio’s would be significantly cheaper than Columbia? Or do you want us to build old technology boats because it would be easier for China to find/track them, comrade?
It’s really difficult to find ANY sanity in what you are proposing.
Okay? Satisfy your warmonger ass, for about a minute?”
Again, moron, I never said anything “warmongery”.
“There is no profit to war. No gain. Its all for show, baby I'm tougher than you. It isn't to determine who's right, but who's left.”
You’re ranting against your own strawman… again. Why are you even commenting on this board that is pretty much dedicated to the art of war fighting? Shouldn’t’ you be on the Kumbaya Basket Weaving blog?
”Following nuclear conflict, there will be no one to count."
You must be heavily invested in the straw market given your penchant for strawmen.
May I ask, seriously, were you drinking when you wrote all of that? Heavy meds?
No, you never said there was. You said I couldn't form rational thoughts. How rational is the apocalypse of humanity you're planning? While international corporate elites pay off our Congress, you gleefully spend for destruction of Earth. I think you and all of your international apocalyptic cohorts and all of your weapons should be packed up in a super-sized spaceship and flown to Mars. This would solve the problem, of which little you is a very large part.
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
― Anonymous
Not calling you a loser Buddy.
...Butt...a...' Slanderer ' ???
No Of course not LOL You are a good guy!
KEN Did Not say or Imply that .
So you interpret for him since he can't form a rational thought.
Wait ...So you Want me to Help Him form them ...Which you Claim he Cant Do ...& then Interpret them Once Formed ....I am starting to see the $$$ Signs in this ...DOD Thought Process to Pad my Invoices .
Meanwhile...DILANDU...is having quite an Entertaining Conversation with KEN of the IRRATIONAL Thought Zone .
Dilandu has more patience with the irrational loon ranters than I do, God Bless him.
how long until we sit back and watch two or three ai bots argue with each other for entertainment?
As you stated there is nothing rational about a nuclear war in fact it is insanity. But considering the human race is basically insane it goes hand in hand.
Called it deterrence, parity, mine is bigger than yours our what ever clever moniker you attach to it, it's an absolute necessity in an absolutely brutal world.
" The moment you stop being dangerous, you become edible."
I do have something to add. You are absolutely right, and your reply makes sense. Nuclear capability evolved following WW 2. I suppose it is too much to expect people, who have of necessity evolved to survive through competition, to similarly evolve.
But brutality is an animal trait, and one that you take with you into the stars, for your own protection and survival. Here on Earth we could, should and must learn to tone it down.
I've gotten old, watched people get crazier and while I likely won't be around to see it, where you are all headed for, honestly isn't where you want to go. You will one day awaken in the next world, where you will face God.
Give that some thought.
It's also foolish to think a nuclear war would be "the last" war. It might be the last one with world wide impact for a few hundred years or even millennia, but it would most likely not erase the human species completely, and "people are gonna people."
Sorry. I know opinions vary, and I don't wanna be proven right, but "all life on earth" means what it says. Weather systems disrupted, tornadic firestorms, global wipeout of everything including bacteria. The survivors following nuclear conflagration this time will not include crocodiles, that survived the dinosaur extinction. Now the warmongers have attempted to dumb down nuclear winter into "like fall." I got news. It's gonna be glacial, worldwide, for decades.
But go ahead. Do your thing. Start it.
I strongly hope nobody starts "it", but nuclear winter is pure fantasy. The devastation and loss of life in a total war between great powers would be terrible indeed, it doesn't need to be the literal apocalypse to be scary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
Yep, solid science right there. Asked a few LLM's too, right? Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one.
Actually all the Boomers ever built have yet to totally destroy a single city.
Which is a ...Good Thing ...I think ??? They are a very Impressive Weapons of Mass Destruction System . Thank God ...Sean Connery ..Joined our Side in the 90's .
It is a very good thing! even not destroying one city is a very good thing! Boomers work they are peacekeepers.
Nobody will ever destroy just one.
Sadly that is the mission if things go tits up.
Hopefully they designed in the capacity for future stretches to accommodate additional missile modules and or different types of missiles. (Kinda' makes ya' wonder of there's a Yasen type hiding in there.)
The missile section is depicted as being made up of modular "quad packs"....
That's a lot of friggin' warheads.
I don't understand the graphic there at all. IIRC, the 16 Tridents can take a max load of 14 W76 (100kT) warheads, or a smaller number of W88 (475kT) heads. (Of which only ~400 were ever produced.) So max load would be somewhere around 200 warheads. I guess the 1,920 number is the treaty-limited size of the entire US arsenal.
I think that's the case, and the distinction in color is intended to show the "70%" number that will be carried by submarines.
Possible it is not the actual mission load out of warheads just showing maximum capacity.
Like My mag capacity and load carrying ability of my civilian AR-15 is 30 rounds, but I rarely load up more than 15 rounds if that, in my average carry patrol of my property in case of coyotes is 5 Rounds.
So are they still "boats"?
Tradition is a strong thing. Except for in US Navy ship naming conventions.
Yes.
Still way smaller than Project 941 Akula (NATO Typhoon). And still don't have swimming pool onboard.
Seems it is using the Swedish-designed silent electric drive system?
A thought intent to sober things up: how much of the design and tech is due to the inventions and developments by other nations?
I'm not trying to rile anyone up (doubt this site needs a caveat but "internet gonna internet"), in this day and age cirtually nothing is completely home-brewed and most all stuff owes to for'n ingenuity.
Another thought: didn't the Soviets in the 1970s try to go all-in for super-subs, only to discover that the cost increases geometrically while efficiency increases linearly? Can't recall beyond their 'Dmitri Donskoy' being so big it can't pass in/out through Öresund (Baltic Sea gap between Denmark and Sweden) without Swedish and Danish pilot ships guiding it. Seems a bit of a bummer if the boat is too big to be able to leave/enter its home port, but the USA isn't the USSR/Russia in that regard, so maybe it just looks like the same set of problems.
Nope. The Project 941 Akula (NATO Typhoon) were designed so big due to A - generally larger size of Soviet missiles (our solid-fuel technology wasn't as advanced as American), and B - because they were intended to run continious patrols under Arctic ice sheet for months. When your crews is supposed to be locked up in metal hull for a long time with no leave, you don't spare money on comfort. And those old Akula's were designed to be as spacy and comfortable as possible; even simple sailors were given two-man cabins, not mere bunks.
Thanks for answering and clarifying - Soviet submarines was something of a national pastime here (Sweden) in the 1980s, so my (obviously erroneous) recollections are wee bit out of date, to put it mildly.
Well, I admit, that "Whiskey on the Rock" incident was pretty outlandish) And it was really hard to believe, that submarine could bypass naval base defense perimeter, move along the rather narrow pass and ground itself near coast - all by pure incident. The whole case was so unbelievable, that while Sweden military suspected espionage/sabotage, Soviet military suspected betrayal/defection)
I think it was FUBAR and misdirection.
"incident" = "accident" I think. Autocorrect for the win again
Outstanding! Go Navy!