Posted on May 11, 2015
What's the most lethal vessel in the Navy's modern arsenal?
52.7K
347
196
16
16
0
What is the Navy's most lethal warship in today's fleet? The aircraft carrier? The submarine? Something else? What say you?
Navy
Weapons
Submarines
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 103
1
1
0
Put 22 years Navy and most of it was 4 fast boats and 4 boomers. I say the TRIDENTS considering what it carries and it's capability's
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I would say SEA WOLF with tomahawk cruise missles and perhaps nuclear tipped torpedoes. Fast super quiet and armed with most lethal hunter seeking Sonar systems on Earth ?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
IMHO, our Submarines followed by the Carrier Air Group. Together they are a formidable force with two different missions.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I'd say the LHD is for its air to ground capabilities, launches l-cacs that travel on water and land carrying marines and luanches aircrafts from its flight deck also has a crew of about 1500
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I was Army, so only a spectator here...most powerful single ship is the SSBN, but its role is very limited. Most powerful and versatile weapon in the fleet is the carrier battle group.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
That depends on the mission really. For ship to ship combat, I would say either the Arleigh Burke DDG, or the Virginia Class SSN. If you're talking about the ability to do damage inland and project power over the horizon, then you're talking a Carrier or an Ohio Class SSBN. With 14 SSBNs in the fleet (4 were converted to SSGNs) each carrying 24 Trident Missiles, which in turn are each carrying between 8 and 12 MIRVs (depending on the Trident I, or Trident II), The Ohio Class fleet can pretty much end the world all by itself.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Hands down it would be the TRIDENT class SSBN. 24 Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles armed with multiple nuclear warheads makes for one outstanding weapons platform.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
Lethal is the wrong question. The right question is what is the most effective ship in the Navy arsenal? Minesweepers are not lethal in the slightest, but their effectiveness at keeping the straight of Hormuz clear for shipping absolutely vital. Unlike the LCS, which is poised to be the worst example of mission creep and ineffective congressional bloat ever...
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The most lethal vessel in the U.S. Navy is a vessel with U.S. Navy Seals aboard. This thread is now complete. No other answers are needed.
(1)
(0)
SSG (ret) William Martin
Before I made that comment, I did consume some adult beverages but I still mean it.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
SSBN's and SSGN's as a far second. Their payload far exceeds any other vehicle that has ever been created in the US. They can destroy entire countries and small continents and you will never seem them coming. The true meaning of meaning of silent, but deadly. SSGN's have insane capabilities as well...154 of them.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
Okay okay. I was on boomers when I saw a report that listed all combat units and how long they would survive in an all out nuke war. Boomers were towards the bottom of the list. Once that first missile is launched you are targeted with a return missile. The #1 for survivability, remember this includes the entire military, was the fast attack submarine. Listed as "indefinite" it would all depend on the crew.
So in my mind it is the attack submarine. All the weaponry and capabilities make it the deadliest weapon in our arsenal.
So in my mind it is the attack submarine. All the weaponry and capabilities make it the deadliest weapon in our arsenal.
(1)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
Really? Anybody ever mention why the CO had a stopwatch in his hand at 1SQ? Actually the probability is pretty high that a few Ohio-class boats would survive (for whatever is left of the planet until nuclear winter wipes everything out), and given the much greater amount of stores that can be carried onboard, and their mission-familiarity with staying at sea for much longer periods of time between stores loads than fast attack subs (even on-mission), an SSBN will easily outlast the fast-attack. Don't forget about atmospheres, too... What's the longest a fast-attack can go without so much as equalizing, much less snorkeling? Because as soon as you pull in that fallout-contaminated air...
(0)
(0)
PO1 Donald Hammond
There were no Ohio class back when this was written and it was only concerned with surviving the battle, not future survival after the shooting stopped. But the report was part of what drove them to try and have the ripple launch with the Ohio. The thing was that when the first missile breaks the surface the location is known. By the time the 2nd missile was away a missile was being launched back. After the 3rd was fired it was all over for the boomer. Whereas an attack sub would hit and run.
As far as food etc, well, that would all depend on the point in time in the deployment. But in an all out nuke war, would it really matter?
As far as food etc, well, that would all depend on the point in time in the deployment. But in an all out nuke war, would it really matter?
(0)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
PO1 Donald Hammond - WHoa whoa whoa. You're saying an SSBN can't fire it's entire payload in, say 30 minutes? Because the only country hitting that SSBN after firing is Russia, and that distance takes time to cover, even for ICBM's. That sub would be long gone imo.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
The operative word in the question is, of course, "lethal"...And, while I would, as part of the Naval Air component, ike to say Aircraft Carriers fit the billot, there cannot be any argument that submarines are the most-lethal weapos we have. NOTHING screws up one's day quite like a "nuke", eh? I'll say! J~
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google