Navy commissions new attack submarine in Norfolk

[Judi Lynn]

Source: The Virginian-Pilot

Navy commissions new attack submarine in Norfolk
By Kathy Adams
Lauren King
The Virginian-Pilot
© March 27, 2010
NORFOLK

During a waterfront ceremony this morning filled with all the usual traditions, the Navy commissioned its newest underwater warfighter, the fast-attack submarine New Mexico.

The sixth member of the Virginia class of submarines officially joined the fleet just before noon, when ship sponsor Cindy Giambastiani gave the order -- "Officers and crew of the USS New Mexico, man our ship and bring her to life!" -- signaling the crew to run onto the submarine and start its Naval career.

The ceremony, which drew about 3,000 people, took place at Pier 14 at Norfolk Naval Station.

Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding and General Dynamics Electric Boat built the 7,800-ton sub over approximately six years. It cost $2.25 billion.

The New Mexico is 377 feet long, has a 34-foot beam and will be able to dive at depths greater than 800 feet and operate at speeds in excess of 25 knots while submerged, according to a news release. It was designed with a nuclear reactor plant that will not require refueling during the planned life of the ship.


Read more: http://hamptonroads.com/2010/03/navy-commissions-new-attack-submarine-norfolk

[unhappycamper]

1. I'm laughing my ass off.

You lying motherfuckers

[NutmegYankee]

13. It isn't a lie - Ships are on a 5 year build cycle.

It cost 2.3 billion in 2004 dollars. Inflation sucks.

[SpiralHawk]

2. The Sub of Enchantment

(When you got $2.5 billion worth of enchantment going on, you ain't dealing with reality.)

[phusion]

3. Military spending - Our sacred cow? n/t

[IDemo]

6. More like cellulite-laden brontosaurus n/t

[bossy22]

4. good news

the u.s. navy's sub fleet is aging and getting very close to mass retirement. The Los Angeles fast attack subs have been in service for many decades and are falling apart. Hopefully the navy will start accelerating their procurement (currently at about 1-2 a year) to about 3 a year

[provis99]

8. how about zero new attack subs?

they are completely and utterly useless, since they only exist to sink Soviet ships in a global nuclear war. Attack sub procurement in today's era is a fitting example of the military-industrial complex gone mad.

[bossy22]

10. are you retarded

im serious....so according to your logic, attack subs can only sink soviet ships???? I guess they are incapable of sinking chinese ships or any other possibly unfriendly adversaries ships. Must have those special soviet only torpedoes.

Attack sub procurement is exactly what we need in this kinda of era...they allow us valuable power projection. Our attack subs are designed to attack any adversaries ships; soviets, russians, chinese, north korean....any.

Obviously you don't know much about military strategy or procurement else you would be realizing that our attack subs are retiring about 2 per year and by your logic by the year 2030 we will have 0. But obviously that okay since they are not important since only every other major power has a fleet of them

[SKKY]

14. I wish you knew as much about military technology....

...as you appear to think you do.

[Ryano42]

5. USS NEW MEXICO

The only sub serving RED OR GREEN CHILE!!!

:D :patriot:

[FarCenter]

7. Since "warfighter" is such a popular term, shouldn't we change DoD back to the Department of War?

[Rapier09]

9. Somehow we're still going to lose in Afghanistan

Even with those super cool new subs.

It is a good idea but in war-time you got to have your priorities straight and this isn't one of them.

[bossy22]

11. this is a major priority

the U.S. fast attack sub fleet is aging and retiring on avg about 2 per year. We need to replace these subs immediatly. If you do some research into the navy you will see that it is the only branch that really deserves major funding increase; many of our ships are reaching retirement age (all of our frigates will be retired by 2017 and our cruisers will start retiring in 2020).

[The Traveler]

12. Some things are best built before you need them

You just don't run down to CarMax and buy one of these babes off the lot. And while they will not be a much use in the conflict you mention, they add an important element to our ability to respond in other theaters and other scenarios. Terrorism is not the only potential threat on the horizon, and there is still much to be said for the idea of deterrence. So I don't really object to building new attack subs per se.

The broader question in my view is ... can America continue to afford "empire" ... and if the answer is not, how do we successfully retreat from that stature, shift self defense responsibilities to our allies (e.g. the Japanese ... who right now really like us launching new attack subs) and what weapons systems must we retain/develop for our own defense?

My own position is that we cannot afford empire ... and that we have other, finer fish to fry. But I cannot believe we can safely withdraw from that stature overnight, or without considerable planning and coordination. Until we revise our geopolitical thesis, we have to keep spending these levels on weapons and men to wield them, and our allies will continue to enjoy the financial advantages of having someone else (us) pay for the bulk of their defense. I say ... let the Brits and French launch a few new attack subs to protect the Pacific ... our turn for some socialized medicine!

Trav