
Fleet of 12 Nuclear Submarines in Line for Pentagon Approval - JumpCrisscross
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-05/new-nuclear-armed-subs-win-pentagon-approval-before-obama-leaves
======
codewiz
For comparison, the entire Apollo program costed $110B in today's money [1].
In addition to other things, this budget covered the construction of 15 Saturn
V rockets and 3 additional ground test vehicles of the same size, plus 3
Saturn IB rockets, plus 35 Command Modules and 15 Lunar Modules.

Even if we just considered the 13 Saturn V rockets that were actually flown,
it comes down to 110 / 13 = $8.4B per launch... Slightly less than the
_projected_ $9B construction cost for each nuclear submarine, which will
presumably incur additional operational costs.

And they called the Apollo program a waste of money...

[1] Source:
[http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1579/1](http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1579/1)

~~~
nickff
On the other hand, the Saturn V launch system operated for about a week or two
each, whereas these submarines should last around 30 years in service.

------
yread
So they will be 112/12 = 9B$ per boat?

Ohio class [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-
class_submarine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarine) cost
2B$....

10 times more expensive then Russian Borey-class? If they are a strategic
deterrent why don't they just a build a sub around say 2 ICBM shafts and call
it a day

~~~
arethuza
The UK Trident replacements are estimated to be about 15-20 billion GBP for 4
boats - and given that there is every chance that the cost would be a fair bit
higher they look roughly comparable to the US costs.

The UK boats will presumably be smaller but won't have the benefits of scale
of the US fleet.

~~~
junto
Not to mention that the UK is then dependent on the US for servicing and
parts. It's not like you can shop around for a cheaper servicing contract.

~~~
arethuza
As far as I know the only parts the UK has a dependency on the US for are the
missiles themselves and re-entry vehicles - everything else (including the
warheads) are manufactured in the UK but to designs that are, to various
extents, "influenced" by US designs.

Edit: I just noticed that the new UK subs are to be called the "Dreadnought"
class - so they will probably all start with D and re-use old RN names - so we
might end up with an HMS Devastation and HMS Destruction...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ship_names_of_the_Roya...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ship_names_of_the_Royal_Navy_\(D%E2%80%93F\))

~~~
bencollier49
Or "Dainty" or "Desperate"!

~~~
arethuza
Also the "Dark" class of patrol boats is missing - could have a "Dark Avenger"
or "Dark Hero":

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark-
class_fast_patrol_boat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark-
class_fast_patrol_boat)

Edit: No coincidence that Iain Banks' father was in the RN - hence the
Culture's use of Cool Ship Names.

~~~
SEJeff
Unit motto: I AM THE NIGHT

------
gspetr
Submarine detection methods have been steadily improving for a long time now,
their usefulness is declining but they will still be viable for quite some
time.

A good discussion from 2 years ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9073740](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9073740)

~~~
throwaway1892
As said in the conversation you linked (which is interesting, thank you), the
obsolescence is for the attack submarines close to their target, whereas
missile submarines, like the Columbia, has still the rest of the ocean to
hide.

------
sschueller
I have a better idea, let us reconfigure the biggest 15 dirtiest ships [1]
with Nuclear reactors.

[1] [http://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships-create-
mo...](http://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships-create-more-
pollution-than-all-the-cars-in-the-world/8182)

~~~
wolf550e
Marine reactors need to be refueled after 25 years and that process is
extremely expensive. Also, after end-of-life, the reactor needs to be stored
securely, for an indefinite period of time.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_reactors#/...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_reactors#/media/File:Naval_Reactor_Compartment_Packages_in_Trench_94_at_Hanford,_WA.png)

------
api
Standard Republican military Keynesianism. Too bad we are so against domestic
Keynesianism. I'd rather have national high speed rail.

~~~
knz
To be fair, we could probably have both if national rail was a priority. The
interstate system was built over decades during periods of high military
spending and several conflicts.

Modernization of our nuclear capability isn't necessary a bad thing (if you
assume MAD doctrine is effective and that the nuclear triad is a key piece of
this).

~~~
halomru
Interstate spending can easily be viewed as defense spending. After all it's
called the "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense
Highways" and was partly inspired by Nazi Germany's Autobahn system that was
instrumental for fast troop movement.

~~~
knz
Indeed. I think you could make the argument that it was a better investment
than something like the F-35 though - at least the interstate system provides
continuous economic benefit etc.

------
dkbrk
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia-
class_submarine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia-class_submarine)

------
coldcode
Nothing that a good trillion-dollar bill can't pay for.

------
mrfusion
I really think they need to store frozen embryos on these subs. Sounds silly?

I'm thinking in any kind of civilization ending disaster subs underwater might
have the best chance at surviving and they could stay under for a few months
to wait out the worst of any kind of aftermath.

After that they'd need a large genetic stock to repopulate the species.

~~~
Hondor
Can you identify a specific type of disaster which would destroy all bunkers
around the world without evaporating the oceans?

~~~
pjc50
Even the global nuclear stockpile can't boil the oceans.

Even nuclear winter won't destroy all humanity. Just modernity.

------
jordache
the socialist jobs program

------
imgabe
> why don't they just a build a sub around say 2 ICBM shafts and call it a day

You say that like it should be trivially easy. Guess what, launching a missle
from underwater to hit a target a thousand miles away is actually pretty
difficult and complicated! Who'da thunk, right?

~~~
reacweb
I thought US was more advanced than France on this:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M51_(missile)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M51_\(missile\))

