Support NeoGAF

[Coins]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/politics/new-navy-sub-uss-john-warner/

It's 7,800 tons, 337 feet and $2 billion worth of steel and stealth, with war-fighting controls that look like a big arcade video game.

That new-boat smell may have worn off a bit during sea trials, but the man in charge was pumped with pride as the U.S. Navy's newest submarine joined the fleet in a commissioning ceremony at Norfolk Naval Station on Saturday.

"The shiniest and coolest thing I've ever seen in my military career," Cmdr. Daniel Caldwell, a 22-year Navy veteran and the first captain of the USS John Warner, told CNN. "It's going to make whatever I do next anti-climactic."

Remember those old war movies with a captain looking through a periscope and calling out coordinates for a torpedo attack? Well, this ain't that sub.

For one, it doesn't even have a periscope. Instead, the John Warner will go about its business using a photonic mast, a piece of electronic wizardry that includes high-definition and infrared video to enable the Warner, the 12th in the Virginia class of attack submarines, to see and to not been seen like nothing else under the seas.

The video information is displayed on large screens in the command center. A joystick, much like the kind you might use to play video games, controls the whole show.

In front of that is where two sailors drive the sub, like a pilot and co-pilot seated before a curved wall of video screens. Driving a sub used to take a crew of four, Caldwell said, but technology has cut that number in half.

The John Warner is armed with 12 Tomahawk cruise missiles that are launched from two huge bays at the front of the boat, sort of like the chambers in a revolver, as well as MK48 torpedoes that are fired from four tubes, two on each side of the ship.

The firepower is all arranged and configured so the Warner can do other things the mission might call for, like launching UUVs -- unmanned undersea vehicles, or the drones of the deep -- or carrying a team of Navy SEALS and setting them on their way without breaking the surface.

"Every mission that we do, we're just better at it than previous classes of submarines," Caldwell said.

Fucking badass. Makes me feel old having served on an SSBN.

 

[Viewt]

Sounds cool, but can someone explain to me why we need this? I'm not knocking its existence, I'm just legitimately ignorant as to why we need something this advanced and expensive? Are submarines still a big part of our vital military operations? Just curious.

 

[Jeevesmeister]

Sounds cool, but can someone explain to me why we need this? I'm not knocking its existence, I'm just legitimately ignorant as to why we need something this advanced and expensive? Are submarines still a big part of our vital military operations? Just curious.

You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want. As awful as it was at the time it was said by Rumsfeld, it's still true.

 

[Quixzlizx]

Sounds cool, but can someone explain to me why we need this? I'm not knocking its existence, I'm just legitimately ignorant as to why we need something this advanced and expensive? Are submarines still a big part of our vital military operations? Just curious.

Submarines are mobile weapons platforms that are difficult to detect and/or pre-emptively strike.

 

[Fenderputty]

I'm not claustrophobic, but serving on a sub seems like it would wear on me.

 

[SliceSabre]

Sounds cool, but can someone explain to me why we need this? I'm not knocking its existence, I'm just legitimately ignorant as to why we need something this advanced and expensive? Are submarines still a big part of our vital military operations? Just curious.

Need something to spend those hundreds of billions upon hundreds of billions of dollars the us military has.

 

[Abounder]

Sounds cool, but can someone explain to me why we need this? I'm not knocking its existence, I'm just legitimately ignorant as to why we need something this advanced and expensive? Are submarines still a big part of our vital military operations? Just curious.

Navy needs to replace submarines designed circa 1976, it's surprisingly a good deal when it comes to military projects, and nuclear submarines rule the seas as well as aircraft carriers

 

[CharlieDigital]

You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want. As awful as it was at the time it was said by Rumsfeld, it's still true.

Submarines are mobile weapons platforms that are difficult to detect and/or pre-emptively strike.

Because all of this firepower will help us defeat ISIS, right?

This sub is built for an era that doesn't exist anymore. As crazy as Putin seems, he's not going to war with the US and the West because everyone understands the value of trade. There is more to be gained from trade than there is from war. The same can be said for China. Our economies are so intertwined, that it would be insane to start a war.

Navy needs to replace submarines designed circa 1976, it's surprisingly a good deal when it comes to military projects, and nuclear submarines rule the seas as well as aircraft carriers

I do agree that compared to a program like the F-35, this is a better investment.

 

[fuzzyset]

Sounds cool, but can someone explain to me why we need this? I'm not knocking its existence, I'm just legitimately ignorant as to why we need something this advanced and expensive? Are submarines still a big part of our vital military operations? Just curious.

The "Taiwan Scenario". Most of our big non-drone military advancements are for countering China. Submarines are also very useful in the Mideast. We basically did the whole Libya campaign with Tomahawks launched from sea vessels.

 

[Quixzlizx]

Because all of this firepower will help us defeat ISIS, right?

This sub is built for an era that doesn't exist anymore. As crazy as Putin seems, he's not going to war with the US and the West because everyone understands the value of trade. There is more to be gained from trade than there is from war. The same can be said for China. Our economies are so intertwined, that it would be insane to start a war.



I do agree that compared to a program like the F-35, this is a better investment.

Not that I'm saying that he wants to start WW3, but Putin doesn't seem to understand the value of trade, considering he'd rather invade Ukraine and face sanctions (which are the opposite of trade).

 

[Siegcram]

least threatening name ever

 

[DBT85]

I have to say I prefer the names of the British subs.

Astute Class - Astute, Artful, Ambush, Agamemnon
Vanguard Class - Vangard, Vengence, Victorious, Vigilant
Trafalgar Class - Talent, Tireless, Torbay, Trenchant, Triumph

 

[CharlieDigital]

The "Taiwan Scenario". Most of our big non-drone military advancements are for countering China. Submarines are also very useful in the Mideast. We basically did the whole Libya campaign with Tomahawks launched from sea vessels.

China has realized that they don't need to take Taiwan by force. It's a scenario that will never happen given how much trade and exchange of capital takes place between China and Taiwan.

I visited Sun Moon Lake about 3 years ago and basically 90-95% of the tourists were from the Mainland. Same with the hotel I stayed at in Taipei: pretty much all of them were from China. My uncle was a captain of a container ship that shuttled goods between China and Taiwan. My cousins all work for companies that "outsource" and manufacture textiles and circuitry in China.

The economics of a forceful takeover doesn't make sense for China. It's not as if Taiwan is rich in resources or something that makes it strategically important to China; they are much better of in this configuration.

Not that I'm saying that he wants to start WW3, but Putin doesn't seem to understand the value of trade, considering he'd rather invade Ukraine and face sanctions (which are the opposite of trade).

He also hasn't pushed any further or escalated the situation. The sanctions pretty much put a stop to their plans, especially given tumbling energy prices.

 

[fuzzyset]

China has realized that they don't need to take Taiwan by force. It's a scenario that will never happen given how much trade and exchange of capital takes place between China and Taiwan.

That doesn't mean the US military isn't preparing for something like that. References: [1] [2] [3] [4]

 

[Netherscourge]

Sounds cool, but can someone explain to me why we need this? I'm not knocking its existence, I'm just legitimately ignorant as to why we need something this advanced and expensive? Are submarines still a big part of our vital military operations? Just curious.

Haves vs. Have Nots.

The Have Nots will not screw with the Haves.

 

[turtle553]

Because all of this firepower will help us defeat ISIS, right?

This sub is built for an era that doesn't exist anymore. As crazy as Putin seems, he's not going to war with the US and the West because everyone understands the value of trade. There is more to be gained from trade than there is from war. The same can be said for China. Our economies are so intertwined, that it would be insane to start a war.



I do agree that compared to a program like the F-35, this is a better investment.

It seems like this one is built to be more versatile in case of smaller combat scenarios other than launching missles.

The firepower is all arranged and configured so the Warner can do other things the mission might call for, like launching UUVs -- unmanned undersea vehicles, or the drones of the deep -- or carrying a team of Navy SEALS and setting them on their way without breaking the surface.

 

[Days like these...]

Submarines are driven? I thought the were steered or piloted. That is my take away.

 

[CharlieDigital]

That doesn't mean the US military isn't preparing for something like that.

Sure, but that also means that procuring weapons systems with this scenario in mind is a waste of time and money because it's a scenario that's so unlikely, that it's just taking money away from programs that can be used to deal with real threats to US national security.

 

[Jeevesmeister]

Because all of this firepower will help us defeat ISIS, right?

This sub is built for an era that doesn't exist anymore. As crazy as Putin seems, he's not going to war with the US and the West because everyone understands the value of trade. There is more to be gained from trade than there is from war. The same can be said for China. Our economies are so intertwined, that it would be insane to start a war.

People also said the same in the leadup to World War 1: The Great War. Shit happens and the collective madness of humanity is unpredictable chaos. Also consider our reliance on finite resources like fossil fuels and rare earth minerals - combined with global warming's rapid advancement. Things could change very quickly.

Again, shit happens.

 

[Dictator93]

"It kills real gud and could eventually help start WWIII. Are you not impressed?"

 

[Drifters]

New SEGA arcade game inbound?

For one, it doesn't even have a periscope. Instead, the John Warner will go about its business using a photonic mast, a piece of electronic wizardry that includes high-definition and infrared video to enable the Warner, the 12th in the Virginia class of attack submarines, to see and to not been seen like nothing else under the seas.

The video information is displayed on large screens in the command center. A joystick, much like the kind you might use to play video games, controls the whole show.

I can see it now....

 

[Zaptruder]

Basically nuclear subs are the tools by which we preserve MAD.

We gotta have them if we're to prevent large scale conflicts between advanced nations.

The rest of the toys should be reexamined under a future oriented strategic microscope.

If your strategic assumptions are going to be undermined by developments in the forseeable future, then maybe we should just not fund that shit, because by the time we get it off the ground, you know... they'll be essentially obsolete.

 

[CharlieDigital]

People also said the same in the leadup to World War 1: The Great War. Shit happens and the collective madness of humanity is unpredictable chaos.

We have seen many acts of aggression from both Russia and China and it should be pretty clear that a war of that scale is simply not possible given how critical the global economy is.

WWI and WWII happened in a different era. Commerce and the interdependence of our economies looked very different than they do today. All of that oil and natural gas in Russia doesn't do them any good if they don't have a market for it. The same is true for China and their manufacturing capacity. What good is it if they don't have global markets to push the products of their labor?

The explosion and commercialization of commercial aviation, the Internet, offshoring, outsourcing, etc. All of these have changed the economic realities for Russia, China, the US, Germany, Japan, etc.

No one wants to fight these types of wars. Look at what happened in the Ukraine. Look at what happened in Georgia. Look at what's been happening with the islands in the South China Sea. Look at what's happened in Syria. And look at how the situation in Iran will be resolved. None of these have drawn wider engagements from global powers.

 

[DeFiBkIlLeR]

HMS Ambush is waiting to play....

 

[MogCakes]

This sub is built for an era that doesn't exist anymore. As crazy as Putin seems, he's not going to war with the US and the West because everyone understands the value of trade. There is more to be gained from trade than there is from war. The same can be said for China. Our economies are so intertwined, that it would be insane to start a war.

Naval control is arguably the most important area to invest in for the military. From the sea the US can monitor other nations and routes of trade for months at a time without detection. This isn't about being in wartime. The majority of the reasoning justifying the $2 billion price tag for this and public announcement thereof is likely political chest-beating and assertion of dominance. Political/power image is a big deal on the international stage. There are likely more advanced submarines the military is hiding from the public eye that are already in operation. Keep in mind that anything relating to the military and 'new weapon/vehicle' is likely going to skew towards propaganda and/or politics.

 

[Ke0]

America has always fascinated me when it comes to the military budget in how the typical American perceives it.

Your politicians always talk about the budget and being "fiscally conservative" and they "achieve" this by cutting budgets of things that actually affect American citizens like education, health, social welfare which all amounts to a few billion at most. And at the same time they increase the military spending budget and Americans are completely fine with this.

 

[Jeevesmeister]

We have seen many acts of aggression from both Russia and China and it should be pretty clear that a war of that scale is simply not possible given how critical the global economy is.

Again, you are assuming the world is ran by reasonable people with positive agendas.

WWI and WWII happened in a different era. Commerce and the interdependence of our economies looked very different than they do today. All of that oil and natural gas in Russia doesn't do them any good if they don't have a market for it. The same is true for China and their manufacturing capacity. What good is it if they don't have global markets to push the products of their labor?

They'll adapt and change to the circumstances of the market.

The explosion and commercialization of commercial aviation, the Internet, offshoring, outsourcing, etc. All of these have changed the economic realities for Russia, China, the US, Germany, Japan, etc.

You're not wrong in this. Again, a great deal of this is relying upon the world's finite resources. When they start running out, we will see resource wars return.

No one wants to fight these types of wars. Look at what happened in the Ukraine. Look at what happened in Georgia. Look at what's been happening with the islands in the South China Sea. Look at what's happened in Syria. And look at how the situation in Iran will be resolved. None of these have drawn wider engagements from global powers.

Russia is running a campaign of non-linear warfare and many Europeans are willing to let them fend for themselves. ISIS is a growing, powerful movement of violent oppression that offers security people are willing to abandon democracy for. Iran's deal was nearly thwarted by the Republicans on multiple occasions.

You're making silly assumptions in a world of unpredictable chaos where everything can break at a moment's notice.

 

[Lucky Forward]

least threatening name ever

USS Jimmy Carter

 

[Bregor]

We have seen many acts of aggression from both Russia and China and it should be pretty clear that a war of that scale is simply not possible given how critical the global economy is.

WWI and WWII happened in a different era. Commerce and the interdependence of our economies looked very different than they do today. All of that oil and natural gas in Russia doesn't do them any good if they don't have a market for it. The same is true for China and their manufacturing capacity. What good is it if they don't have global markets to push the products of their labor?

The explosion and commercialization of commercial aviation, the Internet, offshoring, outsourcing, etc. All of these have changed the economic realities for Russia, China, the US, Germany, Japan, etc.

No one wants to fight these types of wars. Look at what happened in the Ukraine. Look at what happened in Georgia. Look at what's been happening with the islands in the South China Sea. Look at what's happened in Syria. And look at how the situation in Iran will be resolved. None of these have drawn wider engagements from global powers.

Look at what happened in the Falklands, where the British were in the process of decommissioning their carriers because there was no conceivable scenario in which they would be needed, and then suddenly the exact scenario where they were needed occurred.

You claim that there is no regime that could conceivably poise a threat requiring such a vessel, yet regime changes can occur suddenly, and warships cannot be built quickly. A flexible submarine is a good investment IMO.

 

[SliceSabre]

America has always fascinated me when it comes to the military budget in how the typical American perceives it.

Your politicians always talk about the budget and being "fiscally conservative" and they "achieve" this by cutting budgets of things that actually affect American citizens like education, health, social welfare which all amounts to a few billion at most. And at the same time they increase the military spending budget and Americans are completely fine with this.

They push the "Brown people that worship a different god are scary these big toys will keep us safe!" and then people don't question it no matter how absurdly high the budget is or how much that high budget negatively affects government funding of things that actually have an impact on their lives.

 

[fuzzyset]

America has always fascinated me when it comes to the military budget in how the typical American perceives it.

Your politicians always talk about the budget and being "fiscally conservative" and they "achieve" this by cutting budgets of things that actually affect American citizens like education, health, social welfare which all amounts to a few billion at most. And at the same time they increase the military spending budget and Americans are completely fine with this.

National defense, whether you agree with the size of the spending, is explicitly listed as an obligation/responsibility of the federal government in the Constitution. Those other things are not which is why defense spending gets a "free pass".

 

[Dennis]

Read that as USS John Wayne at first and was like "that is a little on the nose....."

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

"Photonic Mast" just sounds awesome.

 

[MogCakes]

The next sub should be named Big Daddy. Giggity

 

[MisterFalcon]

Protecting overseas trade has always been important, all the way back to the First Barbary War where it became clear having a navy was cheaper then paying 1/6th the federal budget as tribute to pirates in Northern Africa.

 

[NH Apache]

I wonder if they included female accoms by default or if they'll have to retrofit.

 

[BigDug13]

Vessel names lost all coolness once they went with only using names of people. We will never see USS Constellation or its like again. We will get USS Barrack Obama instead.

 

[Mindlog]

Sounds cool, but can someone explain to me why we need this? I'm not knocking its existence, I'm just legitimately ignorant as to why we need something this advanced and expensive? Are submarines still a big part of our vital military operations? Just curious.

Probably one of the few large military projects that still make sense. It can fulfill multiple rolls while being very resistant to conventional attack and stands a chance of surviving combat with a modern adversary.

This isn't like asking an F-22 to jam IEDs or provide CAS. The Warner launching Seals or UUVs actually makes sense.

 

[Hilti92]

I'm not claustrophobic, but serving on a sub seems like it would wear on me.

I haven't served on one but have done work on one. They are cool to be in but they can be cramped and stinky.

 

[E92 M3]

 

[DBT85]

Vessel names lost all coolness once they went with only using names of people. We will never see USS Constellation or its like again. We will get USS Barrack Obama instead.

I thought they were going to stop using president names?

Or has that only been decided now that the Repubs think that the USS Obama might be painted in rainbow colours, have a deck covered in grass and flowers and run on solar power?

 

[adj_noun]

We've come a long way from that Confederate sub.

 

[commedieu]

America has always fascinated me when it comes to the military budget in how the typical American perceives it.

Your politicians always talk about the budget and being "fiscally conservative" and they "achieve" this by cutting budgets of things that actually affect American citizens like education, health, social welfare which all amounts to a few billion at most. And at the same time they increase the military spending budget and Americans are completely fine with this.

Its that obvious? As you can see, we are supposed to ignore that we cant have healthcare, good education, and livable wages, and cheerlead military waste. Its the american way! Never focusing on the real issues, but the ones we are told to.

 

[Ke0]

National defense, whether you agree with the size of the spending, is explicitly listed as an obligation/responsibility of the federal government in the Constitution. Those other things are not which is why defense spending gets a "free pass".

I understand that since almost every first world country has a similar view on the role of their federal government (really, America isn't that special). Some countries also believe that quality of life (and life itself) is an obligation of the federal government. Yet in America huge swaths of people reject the idea wholeheartedly. They see life/heath/education as a privilege or worse yet, something one needs to "earn".

If you even joke about cutting the military budget many Americans start foaming at the mouth and how by doing so terrorism wins and other nonsense, but you talk about something like increasing education or worse a single payer system...they again foam at the mouth about freeloaders, "them" and other code words. And it's like hey...this effects you too! This increases your quality of life as well as your children's. This means you save money that you can now invest in sending your kids to college so they can get degrees that help out the economy or even better they get a degree that allows them to work with the federal government on contracts for weapons (if they go in such a field). I feel that Americans still haven't quite realized that by "screwing" the "others" they're screwing themselves and their country at large.

I mean when you're spending $1.58t on a jet that has yet to see real world use, but demand to slash the education budget because "fiscal conservative". I think something is wrong. I'm not saying don't spend money on your jets, guns, tanks and other ways to kill somebody, but at the same time...what about the things that directly affect the people?

 

[Coins]

I wonder if they included female accoms by default or if they'll have to retrofit.

I'm sure females have been accounted for since othe subs in the class accommodate them.

 

[MJPIA]

Under budget and ahead of schedule with no crippling compromises in design?
What is this madness.

With its own nuclear power plant and systems that make its own drinking water and air (a machine separates the oxygen from the hydrogen in water to make that happen), it could stay on patrol for decades, except for one thing.

"The only reason we have to come back is because our freezer isn't big enough," Caldwell said.

The ability of a submarine to lurk somewhere for a long time and is only limited by the amount of food they can carry always amazes me.

http://news.usni.org/2015/08/03/navy-commissions-attack-boat-uss-john-warner

Reminds me of a revolver.

 

[maniac-kun]

Any pictures of the inside or is that stuff classified?

 

[FeenixRising]

Vessel names lost all coolness once they went with only using names of people. We will never see USS Constellation or its like again. We will get USS Barrack Obama instead.

Virginia class subs use names of U.S. states, only this one breaks the mold. Same thing happened with older Los Angeles class subs which were all named after American cities and one senator.

Aircraft carriers all use names of U.S. Presidents these days, except the upcoming new U.S.S. Enterprise.

Though the U.S.S. Scorpion was probably my favorite name for a sub, but that one was sunk, and they stopped naming them after fish and other things.

Though destroyers and other ships have different naming conventions.

 

[ParityBit]

My friend from the Navy always said .... He would never serve on a ship meant to sink.

 

[fuzzyset]

I understand that since almost every first world country has a similar view on the role of their federal government (really, America isn't that special). Some countries also believe that quality of life (and life itself) is an obligation of the federal government. Yet in America huge swaths of people reject the idea wholeheartedly. They see life/heath/education as a privilege or worse yet, something one needs to "earn".

If you even joke about cutting the military budget many Americans start foaming at the mouth and how by doing so terrorism wins and other nonsense, but you talk about something like increasing education or worse a single payer system...they again foam at the mouth about freeloaders, "them" and other code words. And it's like hey...this effects you too! This increases your quality of life as well as your children's. This means you save money that you can now invest in sending your kids to college so they can get degrees that help out the economy or even better they get a degree that allows them to work with the federal government on contracts for weapons (if they go in such a field). I feel that Americans still haven't quite realized that by "screwing" the "others" they're screwing themselves and their country at large.

I mean when you're spending $1.58t on a jet that has yet to see real world use, but demand to slash the education budget because "fiscal conservative". I think something is wrong. I'm not saying don't spend money on your jets, guns, tanks and other ways to kill somebody, but at the same time...what about the things that directly affect the people?

We have some wacky priorities. We're a very hawkish nation. For better or worse, that 1.58T$ basically all gets funneled back into the US economy though. Virtually all that cost is being spent on American workers building things. It's basically a massive jobs program.