Submarine Los Angeles is decommissioned from active fleet (alert sparky!)

[The Village Idiot]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-submarine24-2010jan24,0,1935053.story?track=rss

The nuclear-powered attack submarine Los Angeles had been in the fleet for a dozen years, mostly patrolling the Pacific to keep a close watch on Russian subs, when Caleb Schrum was born.

On Saturday, Schrum, now 21 and a Navy petty officer second class, gently lowered the American flag on the aft of the Los Angeles at the conclusion of a tradition-rich ceremony in San Pedro in which the submarine was decommissioned from the active fleet.

The vessel that entered service in 1976 as the Navy's most innovative underwater warship is headed for retirement as its oldest submarine. Soon the Los Angeles will head for the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Washington, where its nuclear reactor will be removed.

Under a clear sky at the Port of Los Angeles, several hundred former submariners and invited guests gathered to hear the Los Angeles described as "the first and the finest" and praised for a career that included 18 long-range deployments. The Los Angeles was the first of a new class of submarines, the Los Angeles class.

"I'm going to miss her," said Chuck Wells, 54, who was the submarine's first helmsman, guiding it to depths that, because of the need for secrecy, he can only say were "beyond 400 feet."

John Christensen, 74, who served as the first captain of the Los Angeles, remembered the sub's speed and agility. "We had an order: 'Rig the ship for high speed,' " he said. "What that meant was 'hang on.' "

True to the submariners' nickname, "the silent service," members were not allowed to talk about their Cold War adventures. "We did things you couldn't tell the civilians about," said Frank Lister, 72, the sub's first top enlisted man

[NHSparky]

Yeah, saw that.  However, pretty hard to get broken up over it, considering that while it was the first 688, it wasn't the first one decommissioned.

You have to remember--it's not the Navy I miss, it's the people. 

[SVPete]

I remember at the time that several Los Angeles class subs were decommissioned during the Clinton Presidency. Such things do have a useful life, but was//is it really impractical to update the Los Angeles class subs? Frankly, I'm skeptical that this is really the case and reason for the decommissionings.

[DefiantSix]

Yeah, saw that.  However, pretty hard to get broken up over it, considering that while it was the first 688, it wasn't the first one decommissioned.

You have to remember--it's not the Navy I miss, it's the people. 

Yeah, don't I know it.  I was working as a shipwright at PSNS - designing drydock settings for refit and salvage evolutions - when the Clinton DoD put the first 688s on the 'scrap' list in 1995. 

[NHSparky]

I remember at the time that several Los Angeles class subs were decommissioned during the Clinton Presidency. Such things do have a useful life, but was//is it really impractical to update the Los Angeles class subs? Frankly, I'm skeptical that this is really the case and reason for the decommissionings.

Actually, it is--like the Virginia-class boats, the later 688's were designed with the concept of one core loading to last the lifetime of the boat.  A few (like my first boat, USS Buffalo) were refueled, but it is a very expensive and lengthy process.  Better to build a boat with a 25- to 30-year core than one with a 12-15 year core which will need a refueling overhaul at some point.

There are a few assclowns who think we can get away with 35 attack submarines (Cato included), but even as early as 2002, Admiral Bowman was concerned that the 58 we had at that point weren't enough to cover NCA mission requirements (and they weren't.)  We were supposed to have 18 Virginia-class boats by 2015.  We currently have six in service: Virginia, Texas, Hawaii, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and New Mexico.  There will only be six more ready by 2015.  NONE of those boats has yet completed a full six-month deployment (although VIRGINIA started her first last October.)

The problem is now that we have fewer boats taking on more missions, which of course means more time at sea.  A second crew for SSN's has been kicked around, but not seriously.  Women on submarines?  Stop already.  It's hard enough finding qualified men as it is.  Bottom line, the decomissioning has been going on for quite some time, and at $2 Billion per Virginia-class, it's going to take a while to build back up to the 60-boat level (by 2035!) that DoD thinks is a bare minimum.  Oh yeah--we'll be bottoming out around 45 boats sometime later this decade.

[Oceander]

Not knowing anything specific one way or the other, I would think that, since the Los Angeles class were relatively early nuclear boats, there might be problems with metal fatigue and embrittlement in the frame near where the reactor sits, even though I have no doubt that the reactor wasn't a health problem.

[NHSparky]

Not knowing anything specific one way or the other, I would think that, since the Los Angeles class were relatively early nuclear boats, there might be problems with metal fatigue and embrittlement in the frame near where the reactor sits, even though I have no doubt that the reactor wasn't a health problem.

Not in the frame, per se, although HY80 is pretty brittle stuff to start with.  Core embrittlement is a factor, which is the biggest limitation in commercial nuclear reactors as well.

[SVPete]

Los Angeles class SSNs are "early" SSNs? I'd defer to Sparky if he disagrees with me, but I don't think so. Prior to the Los Angeles class were the Sturgeon, Skipjack, Thresher, Skate, Seawolf, Sailfish classes of SSN and USS Nautilus. While the perspective 50 years from now would be different, I'd put the boundary of "early" somewhere around the Skipjack or Sturgeon class.

[NHSparky]

True, but the early 688's aren't all that "advanced" either.  I remember going over prints in the RPM (Reactor Plant Manual) which dated from the EARLY 1960's.

The stuff they have on the Virginia-class is some pretty whiz-bang shit, though.  Too bad they're even less habitable than 688's (read: more hot racking, more bunks in the Torpedo Room) and 688's weren't nearly as habitable as 637's, nor were they as deep diving, were pure ****ing pigs to handle at low speeds, and were next to useless in shallow-water ops.

[Chris_]

I have a cousin on the USS Hawaii,
and another on the USS La Jolla.

[dutch508]

I have a cousin on the USS Hawaii,
and another on the USS La Jolla.

hey....what are those two seamen gonna do in that little bitty boat?

[The Village Idiot]

hey....what are those two seamen gonna do in that little bitty boat?

don't ask and don't tell

[DefiantSix]

don't ask and don't tell

In other words, the same thing Army pukes do on their 'field exercises'... 

[Oceander]

Los Angeles class SSNs are "early" SSNs? I'd defer to Sparky if he disagrees with me, but I don't think so. Prior to the Los Angeles class were the Sturgeon, Skipjack, Thresher, Skate, Seawolf, Sailfish classes of SSN and USS Nautilus. While the perspective 50 years from now would be different, I'd put the boundary of "early" somewhere around the Skipjack or Sturgeon class.

Fair enough, I'm just a young 'un, and if a class of boats has been running around for 23 plus years, it's "early" to me.  I apologize for imputing my juvenility to the rest of the world.

[The Village Idiot]

Fair enough, I'm just a young 'un, and if a class of boats has been running around for 23 plus years, it's "early" to me.  I apologize for imputing my juvenility to the rest of the world.

The Los Angeles itself was out there for 34 years????!!!!! whoa nelly!!

[NHSparky]

The Los Angeles itself was out there for 34 years????!!!!! whoa nelly!!

Longer, even.  Launched in 1974, commissioned in 1976.

[Oceander]

Well, as I've already apologized for being a dunderhead, I'll just toot my own horn and point out that 34 is, in fact, covered by the phrase "23 plus"!

[SVPete]

  Well, I'm 2/3 of the way toward geezerhood and have a hard time calling stuff newer than me, "old". I should mention, BTW, that I am not in any sense an expert in USN history. I "cheated" and consulted the Submarines page of DANFS to learn of all those class names.

Design and life cycles for military weapons systems and sub-systems are very different from the commercial world (especially the consumer segment). A reactor being designed in the mid-'60s and actually deployed in the mid-'70s is very credible. The cost structures - mil-qualified parts, low quantities, qual and test standards, contract terms and requirements - are also very different. As one engineering type I worked with ~30 years ago pointed out, the testing a "simple" mil-spec transistor (for all you geeks, JANTXV) went through multiplied its cost by a factor of 100 and consumed half of the useful life of the device. And the stresses military equipment goes through makes that testing very appropriate. So take Congress-Critters peddling tales of the outrageous high price of military hardware with a block of salt.

Sorry for the threadjacking.

[Oceander]

Wow!  Thanks for the good info!  Doesn't sound like a threadjack to me ('course I've already proved how little I know about a lot of things, so that should probably be taken with a grain of salt, too ).

[docstew]

In other words, the same thing Army pukes do on their 'field exercises'... 

Now where are they going to find enough trees to start a fire? 

[DumbAss Tanker]

In other words, the same thing Army pukes do on their 'field exercises'... 

Not unless there is a canal beside that Gasthaus with the great beer, where the local German girls hang out.

[NHSparky]

Not unless there is a canal beside that Gasthaus with the great beer, where the local German girls hang out.

Well, we DO get to pull into Australia...

[Airwolf]

In other words, the same thing Army pukes do on their 'field exercises'... 

Your just jelous because the only submarine you have seen is yellow and comes with 4 guys in funny uniforms.