Home » Sea » Navy Considers Future After Virginia-Class Subs

Navy Considers Future After Virginia-Class Subs

by Kris Osborn on February 12, 2014

Virginia-Class SubThe Navy’s Virginia-class fast attack submarines are slated to serve for the next 50 years, but service leaders are already debating what submarine or system might replace it.

The Navy’s 2014 30-year shipbuilding plan calls for the construction and delivery of Virginia-class submarines through at least 2043, an acquisition strategy which plans for a total of 48 to 50 boats, Adm. David Johnson, Program Executive Officer, Submarines, told Military​.com.

Since the expected service life of a Virginia-class submarine is 33 years, the timeline means they will be expected to serve well beyond 2060, Johnson explained.

“We are starting to think about what upgrades do you need to make to the Virginia class to keep it relevant and competitive out into the mid-century. We’re also looking at options and concept studies of what should the new SSN (attack submarine) do,” Johnson said.

Given the importance of payloads to the future, Johnson said Navy developers are making moves today in order to prepare for the payloads of tomorrow.

“I think a couple things are pretty clear, acoustic quieting and non-acoustic quieting – they matter and payload matters. I don’t envision a small ship.”

Alongside early conceptual discussions of what a submarine platform should look like in 2060, Navy leaders have also engineered the Virginia-class attack submarines so they are upgradeable and can accommodate new technologies, such as payloads or electronics, as they become available, Johnson added.

“The Navy looked to the future with the Virginia-class and designed the submarine to be flexible enough to adapt to and address new requirements and technologies,” Johnson added.

Navy engineers are now working on requirements and early designs for a new, 70-foot module for Virginia-class submarines engineered to house an additional 28 Tomahawk missiles. The Virginia Payload Modules, or VPM, are slated to enter production in fiscal year 2019 as part of a Virginia-class Block V contract. While designed primarily to hold Tomahawks, the VPM is being engineered to handle different and potentially emerging payloads as well.

“You want to build inherently flexible platforms that you can plug in and out payloads as the demand and threat environment changes. You build a very flexible host platform,” Johnson said.

With the VPM, Block V Virginia-class submarines will increase the vertical launch missile capability from 12 to 40, Johnson explained. The missile tubes are engineered such that they could accommodate a new payload, new missile or even a large unmanned underwater vehicle. The fiscal year 2014 budget includes $59 million dollars for VPM development, he said.

Virginia-class submarines, engineered to replace the 1980s-era Los Angeles-class attack submarines, are being built in block increments. Blocks I and II, totaling 10 ships, have already been delivered to the Navy. Block III boats are currently under construction. The first Block III boat, the USS North Dakota, was christened this past November and is slated for delivery this coming April.

The fiscal year 2014 budget passed by Congress appropriated $3.8 billion for two Virginia-class submarines to be built in 2015 and $2.3 billion more for advance procurement dollars for two more submarines to be built in 2016 and 2017.

In total, all eight Block III boats are being built under a $14 billion Navy deal with General Dynamics Electric Boat from December 2008.  A contract for Block IV construction is currently being finalized and Block V is slated to begin construction in fiscal year 2019. Blocks VI and VII are planned for the mid to late 2020s and early 2030s.

The Navy plans to build two Virginia-class submarines per year for less than $2.5 billion each and build the Ohio Replacement Program submarine, a next-generation nuclear-armed submarine,  for less than $5 billion.

Virginia-class submarine developers have also implemented a software and hardware upgrade rotation in order to ensure that the ships keep pace with technological change and incorporate the latest technical designs and developments, Johnson said.

A program known as Submarine Warfare Federated Tactical Systems model, or SWFTS, involves upgrading all attack submarines (SSNs) and guided missile submarines (SSGNs) sonar, combat system, and imagining systems once every four to six years, Navy officials said. This upgrade utilizes commercial hardware, called technology insertions which are delivered on even years, and open architecture software upgrades every odd year.

“We do an upgrade of the ship. That way we stay ahead on capability because the threat keeps evolving. We’re able to incorporate new sensors like a new towed array,” Johnson explained.

This approach, which involves examining on-board electronics, sensors, combat control systems and imaging, to ensure the submarine avoids obsolescence and remains effective, he said.

This upgrade approach will also be applied to the Navy’s guided missile submarines, or SSGNs, as well as its next-to-be-built nuclear-armed Ohio Replacement ballistic missile submarines, or SSBNs.

The Virginia-class boats will serve alongside the the Ohio Replacement ballistic missile submarines slated to enter service in 2031. Once the Ohio Replacement begins construction, there are several years wherein one of each, one Virginia-class submarine and one ORP, are slated for production.

“We’re going to try to contractually tie those two programs together so that we can use the volume benefit of a multi-year procurement,” Johnson said.

Share |

{ 69 comments… read them below or add one }

wjcollinsaz February 12, 2014 at 8:42 pm

Shouldn't we be working on a replacement for the F-35 instead? Just asking.

Reply

bobbymike February 12, 2014 at 10:35 pm

Google 6th Generation Fighter

Reply

Dale Christopher February 13, 2014 at 9:50 am

How much longer until extremely powerful, cloud bank bursting lasers, will be able to kill anything in the sky as soon as it takes off? The only problem is that this will dump huge amounts of heat into the atmosphere, making global warming far worse than it already is and these storms are really bad already.

Reply

dr. agreeable February 13, 2014 at 10:23 am

Probably a while.

Reply

Dale Christopher February 13, 2014 at 10:37 am

I give it 25 years, remember the Israeli army passed over a laser system in favor of a missile one for Iron Dome. The competition was close though.

Reply

blight_ February 13, 2014 at 10:28 am

David Drake's powerguns will take care of everything.

Reply

Tom February 14, 2014 at 9:21 am

You do realize that it would be a completely different group of people….right. The Navy is pretty big and different program offices work on different platforms. It is hard to believe someone would actually think that the entire Navy is only capable of working on one thing at a time.

Reply

Sam Cro February 15, 2014 at 12:47 pm

The Obama Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton want more money for Defense. HOW WILL WE DEFEAT THE TERRORIST FLEET OF NUCLEAR SUBMARINES?

Ron Paul has it right; pull out our military from places we should not be, like Germany, Australia and Israel. The Democrats are no better at cutting the Defense budget than Republicans; they are both influenced by lobbyists and the power hungry. Congress could substitute corporate welfare reductions for most of the $110 billion of across-the-board cuts in defense and domestic programs due to hit March 1.

Congress doesn’t cut corporate welfare because the relationships and special access that companies cultivate in Washington — or as economists call it, the rent-seekers — are part of the quid-pro-quo between companies needing favors and lawmakers needing campaign contributions. The givers and takers transcend ideology and geography. The favors often grow out of backroom deals. As such, they are the hardest form of government spending to reverse

Reply

Perry Haynes February 19, 2014 at 10:01 am

We are, It is called the global hawk. We will no longer be putting pilots inside the cockpit. It is not cost effective to place a pilot and all her safety systems in an aircraft anymore. We can use those funds to provide more operational jet drones.

Reply

Rocky Johnston February 12, 2014 at 8:50 pm

The future is Chinese. As more and more of the federal budget goes to social programs less and less goes to the US military. On the other hand, the Chinese military continues to grow, will surpass the US likely by 2020 and cause problems for the US around the world for decades to come.

Reply

009 February 12, 2014 at 8:38 pm

I hear ya, lots of people luv Chow Mein

Reply

Kurt Montandon February 12, 2014 at 10:36 pm

You sound like someone who gets all your information from World Nutjob Daily.

I'm guessing you couldn't name the U.S. military budget within a hundred billion dollars.

Reply

Stephen February 13, 2014 at 9:41 am

There is no way the Chinese will surpass the US in defense spending by 2020. Their defense spending is still only 1/4 of what ours is and it has only risen 10-15% yearly for the past decade or more. Not to mention as soon as a True Republican hits office their ass is grass.

Reply

blight_ February 13, 2014 at 10:28 am

You mean a Free Trade Republican?

Reply

Dale Christopher February 13, 2014 at 10:38 am

And India will grow stronger, outnumbering China by 2020.

Bernard February 13, 2014 at 12:38 pm

We already have a Republican in office, he's doing everything the last Republican in office did.

Reply

Dustin February 14, 2014 at 4:38 pm

China isn't where you think they are. They lack a capable naval or land force, their first (Russian built) Aircraft carrier still isn't operational and is only a fraction of the size as ours, their "5th gen fighter" is a crappy, non stealth copy of the F22 with inadequate engines. They still aren't listed as a first world country. You're under selling the US military and over estimating the Chinese. By 2020 they might catch up with Russia, it'll take another couple decades of us not developing anything for them to catch up to us. Remember the government only shows us a fraction of our capabilities. No one knew about stealth fighters until Desert Storm, no one knew we flew stealth choppers until UBL. I believe the media has spent so much time bashing the US that even Americans forget what we can do. Were having budget issue but we're still the same country capable of destroying 2 nations at once in a fairly small about of time. A war with China right now would end up with China looking like Iraq. Only the people would be smart enough to rebuild their own damn country instead of rely on free handouts. Look at the facts not the media. No other nation could even consider doing what we do. Britain for example release that when they attacked Libya their ships were only half armed and their coast was left completely undefended. They ended borrowing missiles and fuel from us. Most nations can only put up a limited temporary fight at any point and time. That includes China and Russia for that matter. And none of them have the reach that we do. We comfortably cover the entire planet and still maintain the ability to react without leaving another area uncovered. Give credit where it's due. China doesn't deserve it and it will be a while before they can be considered a global power. They are an Economic power, not military. And even still their economy is second to ours.

Reply

Dustin February 14, 2014 at 4:40 pm

Forgive the typos, my phone sucks.

mpgunner February 22, 2014 at 2:08 pm

Spot on. The synergy of years of large defense building (US only now) just isn't passed by a budge line.

As one ex-carrier pilot friend told me. "We could give the Russians one of our carriers and they still couldn't operate it in 20 years". That was 30 years ago and I still think it is a very true statement.

Tad February 13, 2014 at 3:46 pm

So this is a really good time to make a wise, long-term investment in upgrades to an already-capable submarine. This might be the most cost-effective way for the United States to influence world events as subs can both control and deny shipping lanes. And with the Chinese building up their navy, and the fact that the US would rather project power than have it projected into our neighborhood, this sounds like just the thing I'd like to see our military invest in. Just my .02.

Reply

hibeam February 12, 2014 at 8:54 pm

Social Justice is all we need. We don't need a defense department. Social justice is all we need. And this lamp. Social justice and this lamp and that's all we need.

Reply

give-me-a-break February 12, 2014 at 11:29 pm

"Social Justice" code for theft, tyranny and mass murder.

Reply

octopusmagnificens February 13, 2014 at 2:53 am

Well said.

Reply

Dale Christopher February 13, 2014 at 9:43 am

Damn you guys have such a defeatist attitude.

Reply

Dale Christopher February 13, 2014 at 9:48 am

We are experiencing a second industrial revolution in America and another Gilded Age. Don't eat everything your mind is fed.

$20MIKE February 13, 2014 at 7:58 pm

STEVE MARTIN REFERENCE !!!

WHAT DID I WIN ???$$$

Reply

Tom February 14, 2014 at 9:23 am

Nice! I get the movie reference and the humor…. seemed to go over the heads of a few others.

Reply

gdadl February 18, 2014 at 6:11 pm

The Chinese, North Koreans and Iran will give hibeam his social justice — at the labor camp !!!!!

Reply

mrmustangaz February 19, 2014 at 3:01 pm

Awesome reference to one of my favorite "boat flicks" starring Steve Martin. OK, I really watched it for Bernadette Peters!

Reply

Dave Simon February 12, 2014 at 9:42 pm

Everything underwater after 2050, and probably long before, will be unmanned. Including SSBNs.

Reply

Curtis February 14, 2014 at 11:44 am

I agree, especially if we are still around and have not blown the planet up.

Reply

PolicyWonk February 12, 2014 at 9:42 pm

The newer class (Virginia replacements) will probably take advantage of the direct electric drive design being put together for the ORP boats. Removing the gears and going with a direct drive will simplify the boat and make then quieter.

Silence is golden…

Reply

anonymous February 13, 2014 at 2:15 am

Gears are loud, main engines are loud, reactor cooling pumps are loud, TDU ops are loud, steam generator blowdowns are loud, water slugs are loud, . . .

Reply

Dale Christopher February 13, 2014 at 9:45 am

Why not use magnets instead of gears? We need diesel-electric boats that can be launched from a mothership sub.

Reply

shipfixr February 19, 2014 at 4:54 pm

Actually, the steam turbines aren't that loud, cooling pumps are loud but the new natural circulation ('new' = 30+ years) does away with a lot of it. You don't do a SG blowdown when you're running silent mode; gears are becoming a thing of the past , particularly with the direct drive systems.

Reply

Dennis Barrett February 12, 2014 at 9:57 pm

So how do they do upgrades on a submarine? Does everything go thru the hatch or does the sub get spit in two?

Reply

blight_ February 13, 2014 at 9:32 am

The Ohios have logistics hatches for pallet delivery. I imagine this places an upper limit on the size of things you can bring in. Not sure if the VA's have the same.

Reply

Dale Christopher February 13, 2014 at 9:46 am

Drydocks are cool places, look one up. I had the privilege of visiting some as a kid. I suspect the hatch port can be widened in drydock.

Reply

Dustin February 14, 2014 at 5:03 pm

My understanding was that the VA class uses plug and play modules where you replace the whole section with another premade section.

Reply

RogCol February 15, 2014 at 3:24 pm

Generally, they cut a big hole wherever necessary. Some have been extended by cutting them in half, also. The big question is what criteria is used to determine when a sub is ready for the scrap yard? My first boat was a WWII diesel powered submarine commissioned in 1943 and decommissioned in 1969. 26 years! Beware the military industrial complex.

Reply

Kimberly Burgess February 18, 2014 at 6:11 pm

Both. Depends on the upgrade. For COTS that can fit in the Forward Escape Trunk or Weapon Shipping Hatch (my experiences were with 688s and 726s), in they go. If the hull has to be cut and rewelded for an upgrade, it will be done in drydock.

Reply

Lance February 12, 2014 at 11:21 pm

Called blowing much depleted money on things we wont need for 30+ years! Yes more VA class boats are fine but looking beyond now is pointless. Wee need to trash the JSF and look faster into that future than worry about subs. heck the LA class is still soldering on strong today no complaints.

Reply

Tiger February 13, 2014 at 10:12 pm

The LA’s have a design life & a reactor life. It is not Forever…..

Reply

Guest February 14, 2014 at 2:11 pm

A third of them have already been retired.

Reply

Afraize February 14, 2014 at 3:48 pm

The LA Class is an already 20 year old design. Both Russia & China have already built newer subs that are as quiet or quieter and seriously threaten the abilities of the class. There is a serious gap now developing in the submarine lead the US has enjoyed for a long time.

Reply

RogCol February 15, 2014 at 3:26 pm

For good reason, it was an excellent class of boat. Almost as good as the class it replaced. The 637 Sturgeon Class, My old home.

Reply

blight_ February 13, 2014 at 9:32 am

"“You want to build inherently flexible platforms that you can plug in and out payloads as the demand and threat environment changes. You build a very flexible host platform,” Johnson said."

Uh oh, more modularity yakyak.

Reply

blight_ February 13, 2014 at 9:33 am
Dustin February 14, 2014 at 4:58 pm

Modularity is what allows a platform to be used over a longer period of time and become adaptable to more situations. It's hardly something to balk at. A simple example would be my current laptop vs my wife's old one. As my wife's laptop became more and more obsolete, the best we could do was completely and painstakingly disassemble it and replace the hard drive and ram. But she can never go past that and never really increase the performance or ability to use newer programs like Windows 7 or 8. My current laptop has pop off panels in the back that allow new drives, graphics cards, ram, even the processor and power supply to be popped out, and new modules plugged in place. My model laptop has been replaced by newer models twice so far, but instead of spending a couple thousand on a new one, it takes me less than a hundred dollars and a couple seconds to completely update. It currently benchmarks faster and better than its replacements and for less than I spent on gas for the week, all because of "modularity". As I've become more experienced every bit of gear and equipment I use has incorporated modularity that allows me to quickly adapt to whatever I needed. It saves me tons of money, time and increases my capabilities. It's hardly a theory to be mocked as "yakyak".

Reply

tiger February 15, 2014 at 12:11 pm

Lego technology is the way to go….

Reply

Benjamin February 13, 2014 at 3:06 pm

Be interesting to see what is in the Block VI and VII's. The discussion the Navy is having from what I see is something where they think a technology is going to come along that they cannot place in a modified Virginia class boat. If they can keep on putting new technology in the Virginia class, they may never need to build a genuine replacement

Reply

Rob C. February 14, 2014 at 12:06 pm

I think its all about the cost savings. Continuing produce and improve the same proven design helps to keep some aspects of the cost down while still introducing innovations to the basic design. Frankly, i think Block # system is same as new class of ship. They used do that with older generation submarines like the Sturgeons and Permit Class ships. Some mechanical differences and improvements, but they were similar enough you could call them Block II and Block I respectively.

Reply

Moondawg February 13, 2014 at 6:29 pm

How bout working on a good modern diesel-electric boat. More bang for our scares defense $$.

Reply

Kris February 14, 2014 at 12:00 pm

Because nuke is quiet and does not require an air supply? Is that a real question? Not to mention space requirements for fuel storage and limited duration of mission… there is a reason we switched away from diesel-electric

Reply

RWB123 February 15, 2014 at 7:43 pm

Actually diesel electric boats are quieter than nukes. The other points are valid tho'.

Reply

reality February 20, 2014 at 2:15 pm

Actually like the idea of a very large diesel electric boat that say costs the same as the LCS if possible (yes, angling to replace the 20 plus that are getting cut from LCS) to be forward based and do shorter patrols in the littoral areas. Think of it as the US black hole in the sea to basically sit off foreign coasts and sole intention of intelligence and times of war pick off targets of opportunity. The Nukes can continue to rule as fleet escorts, specialized delivery, dedicated open sea hunters. Think the diesels will put more fear into an adversary more than LCS will, and nobody will know where one is sitting at any one time.

Reply

PaulH February 13, 2014 at 10:06 pm

IMO unmanned vehicles (water and air) are already on their way to becoming the next disruptive technology our military will face. We have the upper hand for the next few years. After that the technology for asymmetric responses against monolithic systems will start entering the pipeline. We are working on a UUV capable of tracking a sub for months at a time. Enabling offensive capability on the same UUV is an obvious adaptation. So UUVs capable of tagging or eliminating our 'new' multi billion dollar platforms will be available long before the last 'new' attack sub is deployed.
It will be risky to use these costly platforms in high threat environments 20 years from now. That begs the question what will we be using?
In the computer industry a disruptive technology comes into play about every four years. Tech giants adapt to these changes or become impotent at best. UV and other technologies will move the military into a similar cycle. What we will need to use 20-30 years from now can't be answered with certainty today. But I doubt we'll be able to field new sub modules fast enough to keep up. Clearly the way we design, build, procure and test new systems needs significant modification. If we fail in this very pragmatic task, during the life cycle of the next generation of conventional weapons (sea and air) we will be bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Reply

Tiger February 13, 2014 at 10:45 pm

No money till new subs named for sea creatures & fish again. Plus I want a yellow Flying mini sub…

Reply

wtpworrier February 14, 2014 at 9:16 am

"The Navy’s Virginia-class fast attack submarines are slated to serve for the next 50 years, but service leaders are already debating what submarine or system might replace it."_____________________Hopefully something that will fly in outer space and at light speed.

Reply

Rob C. February 14, 2014 at 12:11 pm

I'm looking forward also to what General Electric has in store for what their next generation design could entail. Virginia is pretty successful design, which was based on the Seawolf Class. Seawolf development cost allot more, basicly got cancelled. However, the development done on the class translated into the Virginia Class. I wonder if that maybe needed again, with prototype class work out the bugs. You can do only so much with simulations on a computer.

Having Unmanned Attack Submarines is bad thing, underwater environment is complicated, you need experienced and thinking people to trouble shoot problems that can be coded and programmed. Supplementing manned ones seems to be more way to go, with the VPM system, they can launch some parasites to be force multiplier if future SSN get into trouble by itself.

Reply

ONTIME February 16, 2014 at 4:42 pm

Speed, weapons and stealth, it's all about surprise and destructive power and first strike delivery if needed….new space weapons are going to become a priority if they not already. Forearmed is a great defense…

Reply

CAllenDoudna February 18, 2014 at 7:14 pm

If the Navy would like flexibility and upgradability they should consider a submarine carrier. A hundred minisubs would allow a carrier sub to simultaneously strike from a hundred different locations over 10,000 square miles of ocean (100 miles by 100 miles)–and that would DEFINITELY make life much more interesting for the enemy. Each squadron of minisubs could be tailored for a range of related missions–which would make a lot more sense than trying to have ONE Big Submarine serve as a jack-of-all trades. With the submersible equivilants of each of the birds on an aircraft carrier we would have full command of the seas and could swiftly upgrade and increase flexibility faster than anybody can keep up with.

Reply

reality February 20, 2014 at 2:20 pm

While at it, why not a sub-based transport? Think of it along the lines of a Typhoon class but instead of the extremely expensive weapons systems and such, more short-range weapons for self-defense and leave most of the interior to be nothing more than a troop hauler and vehicle hauler to get troops across the sea without being a constant target of prying eyes and surface threats. It would be huge, probably 40k to 50k tons, but again steer clear of too much in the costly weapons and stick to it being quiet and just getting from point A to point B as its mission. Replacement for the next generation of transport after the San Antonio Class.

Reply

blight_ February 20, 2014 at 3:26 pm

The delta-mass of interior volume versus outside will determine how much a submersible transport can carry…similar to how exterior volume also defines how much an airship can transport.

Reply

Nevil Shute February 25, 2014 at 6:38 pm

It strikes me that the idea of a drone-sub could offer many benefits for long term patrol, reconnaissance and off-shore attack missions. Think of all the extra tech you could employ once you broke free of the shackles of human life support systems…

Reply

Allen EM1-SS March 4, 2014 at 2:43 am

Yeah, that is all we need. An unmanned nuclear armed SSBN that get tangled up in some trawler's net….

Reply

David Burrows April 12, 2014 at 4:35 am

hey we have small unmaned subs. they go out the torpedo doors. they look for other subs with active onar. they swim 100 miles away and ping away from the moter ship and relay the stuff back. thay way the know if it's safe to move in an area. you guys are way behind the times.

Reply

Dale Christopher February 13, 2014 at 9:44 am

Pre programmed attack patterns solve the talking problem…

Reply

kbsub February 19, 2014 at 3:36 pm

This will never work for SSBNs. Your plan would make them useless but survivable. At $5 billion each we would be wasting a lot of money. We will never put an unmanned reactor in the water.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: