PDA

View Full Version : Texas is in the Navy again



Okla-homey
9/9/2006, 08:42 AM
http://img458.imageshack.us/img458/472/bbbb040730n1234e002yh6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Very cool new addition to the fleet. SSN 775 at around $2B is a bargain IMHO seeing as how with this one ship, we can level cities anytime, anywhere and launch all manner of covert monkeyshines while retaining plausible deniability. Me likey.

I also find it absolutely amazing this thing can prolly exceed 50 knots while submerged.:eek:

Now, given the fact we don't have battleships anymore which were named for states, and this class of ship now bears states' names, I think its time our congressional delegation gets busy so we can have a USS Oklahoma too.;)


This Texas lady is a high-tech killer
By MIKE TOLSON
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

GALVESTON — The long, black cylinder sits baking at water's edge in the oppressive coastal heat, its upwardly protruding wedge making it instantly recognizable as a machine not to be trifled with.

A raft of images comes to mind: tense moments of confrontation with the enemy inspired by a score of old movies and television shows. The sonar operator makes contact. The captain orders the ship to periscope depth. Everyone in the crowded command center watches the depth gauge. Finally, he climbs a few steps up to the conning tower, pushes a button and a sleek metal pole rises toward the surface.

Wait a minute ... wrong sub. That's your father's submarine, the USS Cavalla, permanently berthed a few miles away at Galveston's Seawolf Park.

This dark tube is the latest and greatest the U.S. Navy has to offer: a $2.7 billion, state-of-the-art, fast-attack sub bearing a nuclear power plant, a formidable array of weapons and every electronic bell and whistle imaginable.

But no periscope. That has been replaced by a "photonic mast," essentially a fancy digital camera that displays what it sees on a large screen. An operator moves the camera with a joystick. Submarine movies will never be the same.

The 377-foot SSN 775, to be formally commissioned as the USS Texas in a dockside ceremony this morning, is to the diesel electric subs of yore as today's F-16 is to the P-51 Mustang that battled over the skies of Europe. Both have lethal potential, but ...

The Texas' command and control center, for example, is a dark, cool and quiet place. But for its cramped quarters, it could be the nerve center of any high-tech operation. Flat-panel displays cover the walls. Highly trained technicians sit at consoles, communicating via headset. Nobody barks orders.

Like any nuclear sub, it can remain submerged for weeks at a time. It has machines that create oxygen from seawater and other machines to clean the recirculating air. The only things that compel it to surface other than a medical emergency or mechanical breakdown are food and sanity.

The Texas is the second of 10 authorized Virginia class fast-attack subs. Its home port will be in Groton, Conn., where it will serve in the Atlantic fleet.

Virginia class

The Navy has three iterations of fast-attack vessels — the fourth sub class, the Ohio, carries ballistic missiles and is much larger — with each new version featuring improvements in design and hardware. The ultimate goal is to build an attack sub that can be reconfigured for different needs, can perform a variety of missions and can be built for $2 billion.

The last goal has proved the hardest to attain.

The Virginia class, the first without a traditional periscope, has improved sonar arrays and electronic surveillance equipment, significantly more integration among the various information systems and a more flexible platform that allows it to carry special operations forces for ground missions. Its large "lockout chamber" — an airlock that allows up to nine people to move into an attached mini-sub or into the water — is a first.

"The Texas has really impressed me," said Capt. John Litherland, who will relinquish command soon as the ship goes through the final year of preparations before deployment. "Everybody says it's a revolutionary sub, but this is an incredibly new and different ship. It gathers more information together in the control room than ever before. You had to do a lot of that manually in the past."

Like all attack subs, the Texas will carry torpedoes, mines and vertically launched Tomahawk cruise missiles. Its stated speed is a vague "in excess of 25 knots," though it is widely known that attack subs can travel underwater at twice that speed. It carries a crew of 134, with no women allowed because of privacy issues.

For all its improvements — from a better backup diesel engine to a new computer-controlled oxygen generator to easily upgradeable off-the-shelf commercial computer equipment to a roomier torpedo bay — the Texas shares many traits with Cavalla and subs everywhere.

The passageways are narrow, accommodations are tight, and you can bump your head just about anywhere. Anyone needing privacy had best serve on a carrier. Even the captain's quarters on the Texas would not make for a respectable closet in most homes.

"It takes a special person to serve on a sub," said Lt. Chris Lee, the boat's chief weapons officer whose fire control system also has been improved. "Not everyone is cut out for it."

Few creature comforts

Those who choose subs get longer deployments, up to six months, and fewer creature comforts. No workout rooms or theaters on board. Sunlight and fresh air become a distant memory. One's personal space is a bunk that measures roughly seven feet by three. It does have a curtain, though.

The good news is that because of enhanced communications equipment, sailors on the Texas can now receive e-mail almost daily. Before, weeks could pass with no communication from home.

Octavian
9/9/2006, 08:49 AM
But no periscope. That has been replaced by a "photonic mast," essentially a fancy digital camera that displays what it sees on a large screen. An operator moves the camera with a joystick.

thanks, Gene Rodenberry. ;)

Harry Beanbag
9/9/2006, 10:05 AM
Now, given the fact we don't have battleships anymore which were named for states, and this class of ship now bears states' names, I think its time our congressional delegation gets busy so we can have a USS Oklahoma too.;)



There's a chance. The Ohio-class subs were named after states with none of them being Oklahoma, so that's 18 states down. One of the three Seawolf-class boats was named Connecticut. This new class now has two completed boats, and the next one built is supposed to be Hawaii. So they're slowly running out of states.

Personally, I kind of liked the convention they were using: fast attacks named for cities and boomers named for states. It was reminiscent of the old days when cruisers were named for cities and battleships for states.

1stTimeCaller
9/9/2006, 10:14 AM
we still have the Oklahoma City sub in the fleet don't we?

Take that Tulsa!

afs
9/9/2006, 10:28 AM
what sucks is that this is the 4th US ship named the "Texas" and the 5th overall if you count the Confederate States.

I'm curious if the USN will rename ships that have been lost in combat. i.e Arizona and Oklahoma

BudSooner
9/9/2006, 10:33 AM
http://img458.imageshack.us/img458/472/bbbb040730n1234e002yh6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Very cool new addition to the fleet. SSN 775 at around $2B is a bargain IMHO seeing as how with this one ship, we can level cities anytime, anywhere and launch all manner of covert monkeyshines while retaining plausible deniability. Me likey.

I also find it absolutely amazing this thing can prolly exceed 50 knots while submerged.:eek:

Now, given the fact we don't have battleships anymore which were named for states, and this class of ship now bears states' names, I think its time our congressional delegation gets busy so we can have a USS Oklahoma too.;)

But the burning quiestion is will it work on the surface......if it's windy?:D


"Captain, we are getting a message.....it repeats....take....a.....knee, what does it mean Captiain?????


Or, like UT does it have limited weapons that are overrated?? or fake?



There is a reason it doesn't carry nukes, everyone knows Vince couldn't throw the long bomb.











i'm done.

Harry Beanbag
9/9/2006, 11:31 AM
what sucks is that this is the 4th US ship named the "Texas" and the 5th overall if you count the Confederate States.

I'm curious if the USN will rename ships that have been lost in combat. i.e Arizona and Oklahoma


Yes, they will. Helena was a light cruiser sunk in the Pacific during WWII, and there is a currently a Los Angeles-class attack sub with the same name.

SoonerBorn68
9/9/2006, 11:33 AM
We've got a B-2 named after us:

List of B-2 bombers
Designation Tail # Formal name
AV-1 82-1066 Spirit of America
AV-2 82-1067 Spirit of Arizona
AV-3 82-1068 Spirit of New York
AV-4 82-1069 Spirit of Indiana
AV-5 82-1070 Spirit of Ohio
AV-6 82-1071 Spirit of Mississippi
AV-7 88-0328 Spirit of Texas
AV-8 88-0329 Spirit of Missouri
AV-9 88-0330 Spirit of California
AV-10 88-0331 Spirit of South Carolina
AV-11 88-0332 Spirit of Washington
AV-12 89-0127 Spirit of Kansas
AV-13 89-0128 Spirit of Nebraska
AV-14 89-0129 Spirit of Georgia
AV-15 90-0040 Spirit of Alaska
AV-16 90-0041 Spirit of Hawaii
AV-17 92-0700 Spirit of West Virginia
AV-18 93-1085 Spirit of Oklahoma
AV-19 93-1086 Spirit of Kitty Hawk
AV-20 93-1087 Spirit of Pennsylvania
AV-21 93-1088 Spirit of Louisiana

Harry Beanbag
9/9/2006, 11:34 AM
we still have the Oklahoma City sub in the fleet don't we?

Take that Tulsa!


Yep, it's still active.

Okla-homey
9/10/2006, 09:18 AM
Yep, it's still active.

rust bucket.;)

Okla-homey
9/10/2006, 09:21 AM
We've got a B-2 named after us:

List of B-2 bombers
Designation Tail # Formal name
AV-1 82-1066 Spirit of America
AV-2 82-1067 Spirit of Arizona
AV-3 82-1068 Spirit of New York
AV-4 82-1069 Spirit of Indiana
AV-5 82-1070 Spirit of Ohio
AV-6 82-1071 Spirit of Mississippi
AV-7 88-0328 Spirit of Texas
AV-8 88-0329 Spirit of Missouri
AV-9 88-0330 Spirit of California
AV-10 88-0331 Spirit of South Carolina
AV-11 88-0332 Spirit of Washington
AV-12 89-0127 Spirit of Kansas
AV-13 89-0128 Spirit of Nebraska
AV-14 89-0129 Spirit of Georgia
AV-15 90-0040 Spirit of Alaska
AV-16 90-0041 Spirit of Hawaii
AV-17 92-0700 Spirit of West Virginia
AV-18 93-1085 Spirit of Oklahoma
AV-19 93-1086 Spirit of Kitty Hawk
AV-20 93-1087 Spirit of Pennsylvania
AV-21 93-1088 Spirit of Louisiana

That B-2 costs about half what the new USS Texas costs. Still pretty impresssive at $1B per B-2. And they trust it to just two guys to go fly and not break it.

12
9/10/2006, 10:43 AM
It is nice, but the property tax is a bitch.

SicEmBaylor
9/10/2006, 03:11 PM
I don't think it can flatten any city. It's a fast attack sub not a ballistic sub.

Flagstaffsooner
9/10/2006, 03:34 PM
I don't think it can flatten any city. It's a fast attack sub not a ballistic sub.Three big farts will flatten Waco.;)

SicEmBaylor
9/10/2006, 03:38 PM
Three big farts will flatten Waco.;)

But who would notice?
You could rebuild most of Waco's residential neighborhoods for 100 bucks.

Okla-homey
9/10/2006, 11:07 PM
I don't think it can flatten any city. It's a fast attack sub not a ballistic sub.

You ever heard of sea launched cruise missiles (SLCM) there slappy? Don't tell nobody but they can carry nuclear warheads.:eek:

SicEmBaylor
9/10/2006, 11:16 PM
You ever heard of sea launched cruise missiles (SLCM) there slappy? Don't tell nobody but they can carry nuclear warheads.:eek:

Yeah, I know they carry criuse missiles, but I don't know of a single attack sub in the entire US navy that has nuclear tiped warheads. Now, SSBN's on the other hand...

Okla-homey
9/10/2006, 11:26 PM
Yeah, I know they carry criuse missiles, but I don't know of a single attack sub in the entire US navy that has nuclear tiped warheads.

Somehow, I'm not sure you are on the Defense Department access list for that sort of information anyway now are you? ;)

SicEmBaylor
9/11/2006, 12:01 AM
Uh no..but if we're currently in the process of converting our SSBN's to carry conventional warheads instead of nuclear which they weren't designed to originally carry then why would we simultaneously be outfitting our attack subs with nuclear warheads which they weren't designed to carry?

In a pinch it probably wouldn't be that difficult to attach a warhead onto a conventional cruise missile in an attack sub but an attack sub isn't built to be a delivery system for nuke tiped warheads.

SicEmBaylor
9/11/2006, 12:03 AM
But you could be right, we could be weighing all of our fast attack subs down, including the Texas, to carry nuclear payloads. ;)

Ike
9/11/2006, 12:15 AM
Looks nice. Too bad it can't handle high winds.

Vaevictis
9/11/2006, 12:32 AM
Yeah, I know they carry criuse missiles, but I don't know of a single attack sub in the entire US navy that has nuclear tiped warheads. Now, SSBN's on the other hand...

Well, they don't actually *have* to carry nuclear warheads for the mission of deterrence. They just have to convince whoever you're deterring that it's *possible* that they're carrying them, right?

Also, just a thought, but low yield tactical nukes over deep water seem to me to be a fairly effective way to take out a whole group of ships with minimal secondary effects, and minimum exposure to return fire. I'd think that would be a capability the Navy would want, yes?

SicEmBaylor
9/11/2006, 03:01 AM
Well, they don't actually *have* to carry nuclear warheads for the mission of deterrence. They just have to convince whoever you're deterring that it's *possible* that they're carrying them, right?

Also, just a thought, but low yield tactical nukes over deep water seem to me to be a fairly effective way to take out a whole group of ships with minimal secondary effects, and minimum exposure to return fire. I'd think that would be a capability the Navy would want, yes?

Yes, but none of that is in question. We're dealing with types of nuclear submarines. Nuclear refers to the fact that their propulsion systems are nuclear not their respective payload. The Texas is a SSN which is a fast attack sub meant for anti-submarine warfare, anti-ship warfare, etc. SSBN's on the other hand are larger submarines whose primary purpose is to pose the kind of nuclear deterrence you previously mentioned.

Homey suggested (and I'm assuming his comment was in jest yet he's backing it up) that the Texas could take out an entire city. The Texas is a fast attack sub not an SSBN and while SSN's do carry tlam's they are conventional and not nuclear warheads which makes them small enough to design the sub to retain its "fast attack" status. Currently, the US is in the process of modifing and converting a portion of our SSBN fleet to carry conventional, rather than nuclear, warheads.

Anywhoo, the jest of my argument is that a fast attack sub almost certainly would not be carrying a nuclear payload at a time when our nuclear payload subs are being converted to conventional status.

Vaevictis
9/11/2006, 03:36 AM
Nuclear refers to the fact that their propulsion systems are nuclear not their respective payload.

Well understood. Having to provide for all of the stuff that goes with a combustion engine is problematic for a submarine.


Currently, the US is in the process of modifing and converting a portion of our SSBN fleet to carry convention, rather than nuclear, warheads.

Anywhoo, the jest of my argument is that a fast attack sub almost certainly would not be carrying a nuclear payload at a time when our nuclear payload subs are being converted to conventional status.

All I'm saying your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the facts we've seen so far.

Let's say you have a group of submarines, consisting of two types. One type can carry one type of missile -- nuclear OR conventional missile (which is what you suggest is the case of the SSBN fleet). Another type can carry both types of missiles (which Homey is suggesting is the case with this particular class of sub he's highlighting).

Now, let's say you have a conflict going on -- one that (hopefully!) does not require nuclear strikes. We'll call this hypothetical war "The War On Terror", or maybe the "War Against Islamo-Fascism." In spite of that, you still need a submarine fleet that can launch nuclear weapons.

In such a case, does it not then make sense to convert some of the fleet that can exclusively use one or the other to conventional missiles, and equip the other with a mix so it can fullfill both roles? Not coincidentally, you're simultaneously providing the other group -- whose primary mission is to take out ships -- the ability to take out an entire battle fleet with one strike.

Sounds like a good trade to me.

Okla-homey
9/11/2006, 05:24 AM
Yes, but none of that is in question. We're dealing with types of nuclear submarines. Nuclear refers to the fact that their propulsion systems are nuclear not their respective payload. The Texas is a SSN which is a fast attack sub meant for anti-submarine warfare, anti-ship warfare, etc. SSBN's on the other hand are larger submarines whose primary purpose is to pose the kind of nuclear deterrence you previously mentioned.

Homey suggested (and I'm assuming his comment was in jest yet he's backing it up) that the Texas could take out an entire city. The Texas is a fast attack sub not an SSBN and while SSN's do carry tlam's they are conventional and not nuclear warheads which makes them small enough to design the sub to retain its "fast attack" status. Currently, the US is in the process of modifing and converting a portion of our SSBN fleet to carry conventional, rather than nuclear, warheads.

Anywhoo, the jest of my argument is that a fast attack sub almost certainly would not be carrying a nuclear payload at a time when our nuclear payload subs are being converted to conventional status.

D00d,

Your contention that ONLY boomers could/would have special weapons aboard is kinda goofy.

I also assume you've never heard of nuclear-armed torpedos either?

Finally, it's "gist" of your argument...not "jest" -- although I'm wondering if "jest" is what you really meant given the context of your statement.

TexasLidig8r
9/11/2006, 09:13 AM
These toys are worthless unless we let it cut loose some time.

Whatsay we drop a turd on... North Korea's Yongbyon nuclear plants.

BeetDigger
9/11/2006, 09:42 AM
Somehow, I'm not sure you are on the Defense Department access list for that sort of information anyway now are you? ;)


I used to be. It was cool being able to go into the subs. Have walked all around the Ohio Class boats - truly luxurious compared to the old 637 class fast boats. They were designing the sonar back when I was working in the progam. The sad thing is that it is all state o the art when designed and about two generations out by the time built and about four to five generations out before they get the last one built. By then, finding parts is a pain in the arse.

Okla-homey
9/11/2006, 09:43 AM
These toys are worthless unless we let it cut loose some time.

Whatsay we drop a turd on... North Korea's Yongbyon nuclear plants.

Not true, those boats can covertly insert SEAL teams who can do all manner of dirty deeds.

GDC
9/11/2006, 10:08 AM
I onced toured the USS Texas, down there by Deer Park.