"SSBN" - what does it stand for?

[Why_A_Duck]

*Originally posted by Crusoe *
**SSGN indicates a nuclear-powered submarine carrying guided missiles (as opposed to ballistic missiles). I would hazard a guess that it’s not commonly used as most submarines can now fire missiles via torpedo tubes, so there’s no need to point out the “G” as representing a unique capability. **

Quite right. However where the term really gets used is for SSBNs that get converted into boats that can only fire guided missiles.

Fer instance: The first four Ohio class (i.e. Trident) SSBNs are going to be converted over to SSGNs. Instead of being able to fire 24 ballistic missiles, they will be able to fire something foolish like more than 100 Tomahawks.

[tomndebb]

The switch in Navy aircraft designation systems came in 1962, when then-secretary of Defense McNamara supposedly got confused at a breifing and decreed that the USN and USAF would use the same system for this purpose.

Citation?

Unless you are making a smaller statement than it appears, you are saying that the Navy and Army went through the time and money to relabel every one of their aircraft (and the USAF did the same for about 20% of their aircraft) simply in response to a misstatement in a news conference–rather than letting some undersecretary “clarify” the misstatement?

[DrFidelius]

Why a duck wrote:

Quite right. However where the term really gets used is for SSBNs that get converted into boats that can only fire guided missiles.

Fer instance: The first four Ohio class (i.e. Trident) SSBNs are going to be converted over to SSGNs. Instead of being able to fire 24 ballistic missiles, they will be able to fire something foolish like more than 100 Tomahawks.

Launch tubes 3 through 24 would be fitted with 7-pack cruise missile canisters. The SSGN would have the potential to fire all 154 (22 x 7) missiles in as little as six minutes.

That firing rate would, I believe, count as a “unique capability.”

[Ringo]

So you’ve got 154 cruise missilesthat you can let rip in six minutes to…, where?

What’s involved in retargeting all those missiles?

[Johnny_L.A]

Citation?

Unless you are making a smaller statement than it appears, you are saying that the Navy and Army went through the time and money to relabel every one of their aircraft (and the USAF did the same for about 20% of their aircraft) simply in response to a misstatement in a news conference–rather than letting some undersecretary “clarify” the misstatement?

Here you go:

When Robert McNamara became Secretary of Defense under Pres. Kennedy, he found the differences between these systems so confusing that he ordered the Air Force, Navy, and Army to come up with a common, simpler naming convention. Thus was born the Tri-Service system of 1962. For the most part, this system is the same as the Air Force convention…

…the numbering of aircraft was restarted at 1 when the services switched to the new system. While Air Force aircraft in
service at the time retained their original designations (e.g. the F-111 and B-52), all Navy aircraft the in service were renumbered to conform wih the new system:

[Why_A_Duck]

*Originally posted by Ringo *
**So you’ve got 154 cruise missilesthat you can let rip in six minutes to…, where? **

Anywhere we want. Bwa-ha-ha…

(and Dr. F, although 154 is the max, current plans call for something like only 14 tubes to typically be used for missiles, the others will be for Special Forces stuff.)

Everything you wanted to know about SSGNs

[DrFidelius]

Ah. SEALS.

They always got all the neat toys…

[tomndebb]

he found the differences between these systems so confusing that he ordered the Air Force, Navy, and Army to come up with a common, simpler naming convention. Thus was born the Tri-Service system of 1962.

Which is rather what I remembered about the change and is quite a bit different than suggesting that it came about because of a slip of the tongue in a news conference.