The U.S. Navy plans to begin constructing two nuclear-propelled attack submarines (SSN) per year beginning next year — Fiscal Year 2010. For the past decade the Congress has authorized SSNs at an average of one a year. However, in response to the Newport News/Northrop Grumman and Electric Boat/General Dynamics shipyards reducing construction costs for submarines of the Virginia (SSN 774) class to $2 billion per submarine in then-year (FY 2005) dollars, the Department of Defense and Congress have approved the doubled construction rate.
Now some in DoD and Congress are having second thoughts about the increased submarine building rate. The reason is primarily money. The cost in today’s dollars for a Virginia–class SSN is closer to $2.5 billion per unit.
The Navy’s annual shipbuilding budget from FY 2002 through 2009 averaged about $10 billion. The FY 2010 budget is about $12 billion. The Navy — which currently has 283 active ships — has a goal of 313 ships. Navy estimates of the shipbuilding funds needed to reach that goal have been steadily increasing over the past few years and is now about $16 billion per annum. However, the Congressional Research Service, General Accountability Office, and other, non-government institutions and individuals, estimate the cost at more than $20 billion per year and possibly as high as $24 billion. And, these numbers do not include the “mission packages” for littoral combat ships (LCS), the planned new class of strategic missile submarines (SSBN), and the proposed ballistic missile defense cruisers (CG(X)).
This analyst believes that with the current financial situation in the United States, the costs of the Iraqi and Afghan conflicts, the Navy and Air Force shortfalls in aircraft, and other factors will make shipbuilding budgets of more than $12 billion highly unlikely; probably less money will be available for that purpose. Will DoD and the Congress — and even the non-nuclear segments of the Navy — permit almost $5 billion per year, i.e., some 40 to possibly 50 percent of the annual shipbuilding budget, to be spent on two attack submarines?
Today the Navy has 53 attack submarines; a building rate of two per year would increase the number to about 60 “boats.” A rate of 1–1/2 annually would mean 45 submarines, while one per year would lead to a 30-submarine force.
The situation is exacerbated as some observers are questioning the role of the attack submarine on the “war on terror” — a component of what DoD calls “irregular warfare.” While SSNs are useful for clandestine surveillance in forward areas, and possibly for tracking North Korean merchant ships, their role in irregular warfare is not clear. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has called for a military force structure that is 50 percent focused on conventional warfare, 10 percent focused on irregular warfare, and 40 percent focused on dual-use capabilities. The category — or categories — for attack submarines is not completely clear.
Thus, with the current fleet of 283 or even the planned 313 ships, how many attack submarines are needed is not completely clear.
Also, increasingly the U.S. Navy is operating in relatively shallow, coastal or littoral waters. While nuclear submarines can operate there, some believe that their efficiency is limited for several reasons, and their vulnerability is increased. There have been three collisions of U.S. nuclear submarines with surface ships in the Gulf of Oman/Strait of Hormuz area in the past couple of years. Are those submarines there to support irregular warfare — U.S. participation in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or are they to deter or fight Iranian aggression? If the latter, what is their contribution when significant U.S. surface and air forces are also in the area? What is their contribution to the new U.S. Africa Command?
The larger SSN building rate and force level may well be justified. But questions of future SSN roles as well as the fiscal implications should be addressed before the United States begins a two-per-year SSN program.
Lest we forget the lessons of history, there are two types of ships on the sea: submarines and targets.
Our adversaries seem to be keenly aware of this and are building significant numbers of conventional boats. Unfortunately, we do not have the advantage of operating in or near territorial waters, so we must rely on nuclear (read more expensive) propulsion systems.
An interesting dichotomy is referenced in this article: we increasing are turning towards the littorals while other countries are increasingly turning towards the blue water. That was evidenced by the incident with the USS McCain (just handed off the NORK merchant ship to another DDG) and the Chinese sub off the coast of PI.
Iran has subs, North Korea does too. I also believe Venezuela purchased 9 Russian subs in 2007.
Also based on the numbers provided, we are looking to procure 2 subs per year just to get to 7 more boats than we currently have.
The Virginia boats were designed for irregular warfare. That includes delivery of SEALS.
However my main concern is China. They are building themselves up to be quite formidable in the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. Without those new subs, our ability to deter aggression from China is greatly diminished.
DC2
Good Morning Folks,
I would like to get on this before the foul mouths show up, and while the discussions are still on a gentlemanly level.
I basically agree with both DC2 Jennings and BAJ, submarines are at this point the most needed and operationally the most cost effective vessels the Navy has. This has not escaped notice by potential enemies of the future or even current enemies.
Not log ago Putin announced that Russia would by 2015 make and EXPORT at least 40 fourth generation diesel submarines (Kilos). Current customers already include Iran, China and India, one would guess that others would be added to that list. While we can only assume this to be a Russian intent, after all Putin makes a prediction a week, it seems and so far his pronouncements have come up 100% short, this or any surge in submarine output for export must be paid attention to.
Also it must the U.S.N. must pay attention to other and newer players in the manufacture of submarines, besides already established manufacturing for export countries as Sweden, Germany, Italy, China, Brazil, India, and other countries such as South Korea, Argentina have show an interest in making military submarines.
It is not unreasonable to thing that unfriendly states and non state groups such as terrorists organizations and the narcos would consider cost effective submarines to support their enterprises.
The issue of Nuclear vs. non nuclear is a non starter. While under certain conditions non nuclear subs can remain un detected, and at a speed of around 4–7 knots, once their power sources run low and the have to either go to snorkel or surface and start their diesels to charge their underwater poser supply the become targets.
It must be remembered that the nuclear submarine is the only true submarine, all the others are only surface vessels that can operate underwater for a short period of time before having to surface, where they become rather easy pry for the nucs.
The robust Virginia Class nucs, are still the world standard for an attack submarine, which by the way is the best weapons platform to hunt and kill other submarines. In the current wars on terror the role for the attack submarine has grown and expanded more then any other weapon platform and those missions will increase.
The question of the need for a non nuclear boat is still as one might say questionable. It must be noted that in the new budget the Navy will get funds for the next generation nuclear boats, bother SSBM’s and SSN’s, as well as R and D for non nuclear submarines.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
That means that while 2 boats a year comes out to 60 for a 30-year cycle, yet your article leaves out the rest of the info. There are not 60 Virginias currently programmed, and our LA class boats are retiring en masse fairly soon. The 688 boats are retiring, and they were built at a much higher rate than the Virginias. There was also a huge gap between the last 688s and the first Virginias, with only 3 Seawolf-class built in that time. With the current rate of building and retirement We’ll be down to LESS than 45 boats in the 2020s.
And yes, they’re worth it. They keep tabs on the world’s SSBNs, they are excellent intelligence platforms, they protect our surface fleet from underwater threats, they are the most secure cruise missile platform we have, they’re an unparalleled SOF platform, and they’re the biggest threat to enemy surface ships out there.
Excellent discussion!
I have to say, I pretty much agree with all of the previous posters. Subs are an incredibly valuable asset, and to run risk of cutting the numbers of us WILL hurt us in the future.
And even as an ex-nuke myself, I do see the usefulness of the USN looking into it’s own non-nuclear boats. That is more about economies of scale, and if we could produce multiple SS’s or SSI’s for the cost of one SSN, then that could take some of the load off of nuclear powered boats on the waterfront.
In addition, they could be great training platforms –and excellent OPFOR for the US SSNs to work against. Yes, we often train with foreign allied boats, but there is nothing like working on the “other side” to see how they think, operate and use your own technology against you. But Rickover’s influence in the sub community will be difficult to overcome, and I doubt many in the fleet would want to push for a US SSI fleet.
But at the same time, the SSN does hold its own and more. As BAJ so rightfully said, “two types of ships on the sea: submarines and targets.” I’d much rather be on the sub.
Has anyone else even heard of AIP here?
I’ll stand on my soapbox & say it one more time that the submarine is the “Capital Ship” of the 21st Century,replacing the aircraft carrier in importance. a diesel/AIP submarine could replace the LCS in littoral waters,& the nuclear subs could concentrate on the “blue” waters.
God,could you imagine building a “true” submersible/semi-submersible aircraft carrier,not anything like the token sub carrier that Japan had in WWII,but the real deal?
Good Afternoon Will,
Will we all have heard of AIP’s as well as the German U212. A Swedish AIP has been exercising with the USN since the Summer of 2006 here in San Diego. The AIP has during that time exposed some weakness that have made it a less stealthy underwater platform, it like the U 212 are still formable weapons platforms under the command of a good Captan and a skilled crew but are not the invincible boats they were at first advertised as.
The U.S.N’s. Virginia Class Submarines with there 12 vertical launch tubes has the potential with the GMLRS 8″ missiles, and the Standard 3 Ground to Air missile to become a had to beat ground support and anti aircraft and anti satellite launch platform. All while submerged and out of sight.
I won’t go as far as to say the SSN’s are the capital ship of the USN, but as thing are working out the have become an economical way of filling many roles that the USN has to take on in the 21st. Century.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
2 huge things for the navy right now.
Either more billion dollar attack subs or
Cheap fast frigates for anti sub duty.
LCS doesnt count its one of those ships that somebody decided to make into a swiss army knife.
Another idea is small pocket carriers that operate drones and helicopters for sub hunting. Hell maybe even have room onboard for a marine detatchment.
Subs and a heavy saturation by small cheap missile boats is probbly our biggest threat.
Anyways ust my 2 cents.
Why not work with the Coast Guard more? They are supposed to experts at coastal waters right? And they are in need of boats so why not transfer some LCS’s over to them? Let the CG handle the coast and littorals and the Navy handle the blue water. Plus it promotes inter-department cooperation.
block II of the virginia class program is a HUGE success story for DoD procurement.
last i checked, being able to deliver SEALs with impunity anywhere waves break was an irregular warfare asset. many of y’all have said the same but i think it bears repeating.
@Will, re: AIP
i don’t know if you’re presenting AIP as a threat or as an alternative to the virginia class. either way, the boat with the reactor will be able to run detection gear when the other boat cannot. the nuke will disappear when the other cannot. the nuke will appear where the other cannot. my understanding of the situation is that any non-nuke alternative in the USN will be an “in addition to” not an “instead of”.
@Lighthouse, re: Coast Guard
coastie shipbuilding is still reeling from Deepwater.
Given the proximity of US naval bases in Japan, conventional subs would be ideal for operating in the littorals off the South China coast and in the Straits of Taiwan.
Use SSNs to deploy SEAL teams for recon etc from sub aside sub tracking enemy shipping etc.
Have them deploy more SEAL units to make viable for war on terror.
Remember, the USS Hawaii was able to help interdict drug traffic. That’s a good example of a Virginia-class performing in an irregular role.
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=45106
Good Evening unmaddedanimal,
I can only go so far with the AIP story because of security reasons, but submarine officers have in the media said that they don’t consider the AIP’s to be a threat to the United States Navy.
As far as I can tell the U.S. Navy is not considering the deployment of non nucs with the fleet. They may endorse a U.S. shipyard building a conventional powered boat for export to countries such as Taiwan, Canada, Chile and other friendly countries with an interest in starting a submarine fleet and perhaps a small, very small number like 2–6, that would deploy and under the control of the Spec. Ops. forces.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Interesting.
I read the headline as there being an issue with numbers on the subs.
You know, like no one willing to serve on SSN-666.
Let us enjoy the vagueness of English.
Morepheus,
Not a Bad idea just unrealistic. Subs cost a LOT of money and to get the same type of service from them that a carrier does would be even more expensive not to mention a great technical and engineering challenge. Anyways one thing carriers can do is support ground action so there realy isnt any use for being a sub if your on the surface collecting and launching aircraft/drones.
Attack subs are great and well need SSBN’s for the forseable future.
Though the idea is cool though. The russians reaserched making a huge transport sub once.
Good Morning Folks,
To morpheus on an all submarine Navy. An interesting idea but has already been tried by Germany in 1937 when Hitler decided to build more U Boats and cut back on surface ships. Since England is not a german speaking country today, it would appear that Hitler made a bad decision.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Nuclear subs can easily perform a variety of missions that other platforms simply cannot. The war on terror isn’t the only problem faced by the United States by any stretch of the imagination, especially in light of the surging Chinese Navy and recent events in the Pacific.
If costs are the primary concern (which is understandable), the bolstering our sub fleet with modern AIP boats and forward basing them nearer to the littoral locations they are best suited for is what really makes sense.
AIP is not a replacement for nuclear power, but I feel as a submariner, that they would be a valuable asset for ops closer to home, defense, etc. For a fraction of the cost, you get a sizable portion of the effectiveness combatwise. Lower crew requirements also translates to lower operational costs. I would expect that we’d still have subsafe program related costs (and I do NOT advocate removing those costs!), the SSKs would not have nuclear-lifecycle related costs.
Just because HItler lost does not mean surface ships trump U-boats. Hitler also introduced cruise missiles and ballistic missiles with the V-1 and V-2. Does that mean we should not use lots of them either?
The tide turned against the U-boats due to radar, sonar, and breaking the German codes like Enigma. We also had a lot more resources too. We all know the Allies overwhelmed the Nazis with quantity both on land and at sea.
So SKinner, your conclusion still might be right, but I do not think your reasoning supports your conclusion.
I know sub carriers have been tried before, but times are different. UAVs and cruise missiles are a whole new ball game. I know carriers are always launching and trapping but most of that is for defense reasons. It is not only the cost of the carriers but the operations budget too that must be taken into account.
I see carrier subs that are more like frigates with a helo pad or two. The carrier sub could have a half dozen UAVs that have VSTOL capabilities. Something like the F35 but smaller and unmanned. Thus I do not see massive carrier subs but something smaller. To get the strike power of a traditional carrier, you would mass a dozen of these sub carriers together.
Carrier subs would not have to dive deep either. How deep under the surface does a sub have to go before it counters most detection and weapons?
Good Evening morpheus,
You got it partly right on the U Boat in WW II. The critical flaws in Hitlers logic in going to the U Boat vs. the surface fleet was that the U.S. could build ships faster then the german could sink them and ASW technology out paced advances in submarines.
One item that you and most others who take about U Boats and their demise, is the still partly classified Mk. 24 air dropped torpedo, still referred to as the Mk. 24 Mine, to cover its identity accounted for at least 89 U Boat sinkings, most likely, more.
Their is no indication that if a major war broke out today and one side relied heavily on submarines that some such weapon would be invented to defend against the submarine.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
NAVSEA would screw-up any chance for a successful alternative to Nuclear boats. Those guys could spend 5 days figuring-out how to run an RC sub in a swimming pool and still come up with a plan that wouldn’t be as good as you or I could do in 5 minutes.
As a former submariner, I agree with the arguments for more Virginias. But…
Submarine offense and defense using Mk48-based weaponry is a secret weakness in the US Navy. They are horrible weapons; instead of spending money on nuclear-alternatives, we should at least try to field a decent torpedo.
Please raise your hand if you’ve been embarrassed during a TRE by the Mk48’s performance.
MT2(SS)
Why is it so many people seem to remember the cliche of “we always plan to fight the last war” yet that wisdom goes out the window on something like the Virginia SSN build rate topic.
The terrorists etc have been getting their @sses handed to them and them may be effectively toast in 5-10yrs, i.e. the WOT may wane. No one has a crystal ball but if we build up SOF etc only and a real war does break out with a major enemy we’re going to want much of the capability we’re talking about scaling back now. And once you slow sub production you can’t just switch it back on as a lot of those skilled workers may have moved on to other careers.
With so many of the 688s due to be retired, unless USA decides to no longer want to be a blue-water force, we must replace (a good portion of) the 688s IMO. They are not B52s that will be around forever.
To the poster Mr. Byron Skinner:
You wrote: “The issue of Nuclear vs. non nuclear is a non starter.“
“Vs.”?! Who versus what? What makes you think that conventional and non-conventional submarines were conceived to fight each other? They complement each other at best, but each has its specific hunting ground and better stay in it.
For example, even a handful of modern, well-maintained diesel submarines would have made a significant difference in this Second Gulf War: If Saddam Hussein had bought six modern vessels “and positioned three of them on either side of the Strait of Hormuz, that would have complicated matters,” according to U.S. vice admiral James Williams. “One diesel sub can make a great difference to how you drive your ships.“
During the Falklands / Malvinas War a single ( CONVENTIONAL ! ) Argentine Type 209 managed to elude l5 British frigates including all the anti-submarine carriers. The San Luis maneuvered into torpedo range of the British fleet and launched three torpedoes, although all three shots were unsuccessful.
Earlier in the conflict a British submarine sank the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano with two straight-running torpedoes of design dated to World War II design.
And now Iran’s Kilo class subs even have the Russian hyper-speed torpedo “VA-111 Shkval” (370 km/h) …
Do you feel lucky, punk?