Where are You?

American Submarines

My informations dated to 1996 but here goes:

In 1996 there were 54 active Los Angeles class nuclear powered attack submarines (SSNs) and 7 under construction. Additionally there were 14 active Ohio class nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and 4 under construction. The numbers range from USS Los Angeles SSN 688 to USS Cheyenne SSN 773. The numbers 626 to 649 were set apart for the Ohio class. Hence USS Ohio SSBN 726 to USS Louisiana SSBN 743. Keep in mind there were probably plans to build more units for both classes and these units were unnamed and unnumbered in 1996. That should explain any discrepancies in the numbering.

Pretty much all the Ohios are named after states, except for USS Henry M Jackson SSBN 730. The Los Angeles class also appears to be named after American cities but I can't be sure since I'm not familiar with US geography. The only exception to this rule, that I can find, is USS Hyman G Rickover SSN 709.
 
Well, aside from that, I do know that they ceased constructing the Los Angeles class subs. They're being supplanted by the newer Seawolf class ships, though they're only building 3 of those. I think there's another one in the works, but I'm not sure.
 
The navy is upgrading most of the 688 class attack subs with newer sonor and weapons since that would be less expensive then building a bunch of new seawolf class subs. As it is even the new russian akula class submarines aren't even as good as the first generation 688's and they used technology from the 70's and before
 
Everything I've read suggests the only fields where the Russians are inferior to the west in submarine tech is electronics and crew training. Otherwise the Akula and Sierra classes seem to be highly regarded.
 
Nobody has submarines on par with the US, nobody! Throughouth their service, we only lost 2, the Thresher, and another in in the Mediterranean.
 
Originally posted by Lunatic
Nobody has submarines on par with the US, nobody! Throughouth their service, we only lost 2, the Thresher, and another in in the Mediterranean.
Click to expand...

your forgetting the scorpion. it had a hotrun and the torpedo blew while the sub was trying to turn.
 
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
The Russians are far ahead of us in the area of "having submarines sink for no reason".
Click to expand...

Actually, if I recall it's believed the Kursk sank while test-firing an experimental torpedo.
 
I'm pretty sure the Russians have lost, if you'll forgive the pun, a boatload of submarines over the years...:)
 
::puts another mark on his chalkboard::

Thats number 14 in the past year... :)
 
The Russians have lost a lot of subs. In addition to the Kursk, there was the single Mike class sub that went down in 1989. There was another sub that washed up on Sweden. There was a ballistic missile sub, whose reactors nearly went critical just off the US eastern seaboard. Another that collided with a US carrier and so forth...

But Russian sub tech has definitely improved over the years. The first SSNs were the November class and those were so noisy the Americans apparently thought they were a joke. Then came the Alfa class but that was too expensive because of the titanium hull. But the newer Victor and Akula classes are considered effective.

Last point. We *don't know* how the Kursk sank. The theories range from collision with a NATO sub to friendly fire. As for the experimental torpedo, that coincided with the Russian incarceration of a US scientist on grounds of stealing info regarding it. He was later released, but the torpedo itself is supposed to be able to achieve extraordinarily high underwater speeds. I remember the article said the torpedo creates a bubble of gas around it which makes passage through water far easier. Of course I'm not a physicist so I don't know if that's even theoretically possible.
 
Originally posted by Penguin
The Russians have lost a lot of subs. In addition to the Kursk, there was the single Mike class sub that went down in 1989. There was another sub that washed up on Sweden. There was a ballistic missile sub, whose reactors nearly went critical just off the US eastern seaboard. Another that collided with a US carrier and so forth...
Click to expand...

How the heck did an "enemy" sub get close enough to a carrier to collide with it? Normally submarines are considered one of the biggest threats to carriers, and they're always on the lookout for subs.

Best, Raptor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top