Why do we need 18 Ohio class submarines? 14 of them carry up to 24 Trident

[old mark]

missiles, each MIRV'ed. The other 4 carry cruise missiles.

Why do we need 14 ballistic missile launching submarines? To protect ourselves from Cuba?

(The first one is scheduled to be retired in 2029, and there already are plans to replace them.)

I am by no means anti-military, but I think this is a ridiculous waste of money, as are many of our hugely expensive Navy vesels that have little usefulness now.

Should we at least review these things and see if we can really live without just a few of these money pits?

mark

[Motown_Johnny]

1. google "Eisenhower Military Industrial Complex"

[NoNothing]

2. They were budgeted and built during the Cold War

When we needed a strong doomsday deterrant. Now we don't need them so much, but they are awfully good and relatively new submarines to send to the scrap heap. They do serve some good, conducting undersea research. The bulk of their cost was in the construction; now that we have them we may as well use them.

[zonkers]

20. In case of an alien invasion.

[Swamp Rat]

22. It didn't help

[Robb]

3. I would assume the number has something to do with statistical failure rates

...in some study or other. But I've really got no idea.

[asdjrocky]

4. It's an employment program.

We just keep building lethal shit, and people keep working.

Welcome to America.

[SoCalDem]

5. Because congresscritters & senators are adicted to pork for their states/districts ..n/t

[NJmaverick]

6. MAD is still in affect even if the cold war is over

Sub launched nukes are the only ones that are pretty much immune from nuclear attack.

[old mark]

7. Maybe we could sell one or two to the Dalai Lama nt

[Ganja Ninja]

8. They're our last strike option.

The vengeful hand from the grave as we use to say when I was on subs.

[Statistical]

12. That it is.

It is a constant reminder to any current or future enemies that no matter how slick they think they are, no matter how many Americans they might kill, no matter how surprising their attack is, no matter how quickly they overwhelm our convention forces .... these carriers of death will be below the waves.

They can't be found, they can't be stopped, and if they ever get the orders they will wipe every single human off the face of a country, region, or world in less than 30 minutes. If one of those subs is ever used in anger it likely means the world as we know it has already ended.

That being said I think 14 is overkill. Likely we could cut that in half.

[Ganja Ninja]

13. You have to consider that not all are operational all the time.

Some are always in the shipyards being overhauled and some are always in port (for refit and crew change) and can't be relied on to be available after a first strike. So only half may be at sea and on patrol at any given time.

[Statistical]

14. According to Nuclear Posture review at least 9 are at on operational patrol at any one time.

I mean maybe we do need 14 but I think it is worth considering if that can be reduced to 12, or 10, or 8 when they reach end of life in 2030.

Would a fleet of 8 in which 4 are on patrol at one time be enough? I don't know but if it is that would save a lot of tax dollars.

The UK only has 3 SSBM on which 2 are on patrol and nobody has attacked them.

[Ganja Ninja]

15. By the time they reach the end of their projected life they will probably not need replacing.

New fast attack subs armed with cruise missiles will probably take up the slack. I think this is probably going to be the last class of ballistic missile subs. Their replacements will likely be some type of hybrid fast attack subs with weapons that aren't even on the drawing boards yet.

The way things are going Americans may be pointing missiles at each other by then.

[Statistical]

16. Politically that may not be feasible.

The federal govt made a big push to separate nuclear forces from non-nuclear forces at the end of cold war.
The reduce number of units that have access to nuclear weapons and reduce the risk a non-nuclear conflict would escalate.

There is no reason that current conventional forces can't carry nuclear weapons, only a lack of political will.
Even if technology can overcome technical limitations I think a dedicated boomer will still be preferable politically.

[Angleae]

17. Not unless cruise missiles suddenly become much better.

They lack both range (2500km vs 11300km) & payload (1 x 200kt vs 8 x 475kt) to do the same job.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Underwater corporate welfare.

[leftstreet]

10. Would you have us defenseless in the face of al-Qaeda's naval forces?

What are you a freeper?

:hi:

[bpj62]

11. 3rd arm of the Triad

We have closed up the missles silos. we no longer have a wing of B-52s in flight around the clock. The Russians will tell you that the one thing that still scares them to death are the SSBN. To date no one not even a US sub has been able to sucessfully track an Ohio Class Submarine. We still have bad guys in the world with nuclear weapons and just maybe the Ohio class keeps them honest.

[Angleae]

18. Because the russians & chinese also have nukes.

And lots of them.

[krispos42]

19. Safest place to have ICBMs.

When a boomer is at sea, it is immune to a surprise attack and to infiltration and theft of the warheads by terrorists. Every sub at sea is 192 thermonuclear weapons that are safe.

Other nations do have nuclear-tipped ICBMs, too. The international tensions that were characteristic of the Cold War can come back into being a lot faster than we can make a fleet of boomers.


The entire fleet is not at sea at any one time, either.

In addition, if we were to say we should use bombers instead, well, a B-52H (last one was made in 1962) can carry 20 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles with a quarter of the range of a boomer's ICBMs (1,500 miles vs. 7,000). It would take 20 B-52s to have the same firepower as a boomer. And it is far more costly and far more dangerous to keep a wing of B-52s airborne {look up "Chrome Dome") and on patrol than keeping a boomer at sea.

[upi402]

21. This may be startegically wise, ther's no bipolar power conflict anymore

So it's unstable. And the Republicans made it worse. Stealth lurkers help deter all those that aren't suicide bomber types.

[heli]

23. The U.S. military has an insatiable hoarding appetite for unneeded stuff

The more expensive and useless, the better.