• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

USN submarine fleet numbers at issue

CougarKing

Army.ca Fixture
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Another article that is related to
a similar article posted at the China superthread.


http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,193737,00.html

Submarine Numbers at Issue
Norman Polmar | June 29, 2009The 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.
 
A notable update from Defense Industry Daily:

Sept. 13, 2013: The Coming US Submarine Shortfall

Sep 13, 2013 11:05 UTC by Defense Industry Daily staff During a hearing  at the US House Armed Services Committee, Rear Admiral Richard Breckenridge outlined significant shortfalls in the future submarine fleet – which today counts 55 boats – but while the Navy says they need to maintain a fleet of at least 48 SSNs:

“Over the next 15 years, the forward presence of SSNs and SSGNs taken together will fall by over 40%. Roughly half of this reduction is due to the decline in the number of SSNs and half is due to the retirement of the SSGNs. [...] Between 2025 and 2030, the SSN force drops to 42, all 4 SSGNs retire and the SSBN force drops from 14 to 10.”
 
In a period of tight budgets the USN will use its smaller budget to fund the surface and submarine force.They will attempt to raid the USAF and Army budgets to fund both.
 
Apologies for the duplicate thread at this other topic with an article from last month. I'd like to please request a merge?

Defense News

US Navy Stretches Submarine Fleet in Latest Fleet Plan
Christopher P. Cavas, Defense News 9:03 a.m. EDT July 16, 2016
But sub force is still shrinking


WASHINGTON — The US Navy is stretching the lives of some of its submarines, if only by a year or two.

In the latest version of the 30-year fleet shipbuilding plan, submitted to Congress July 9, the Navy juggled the schedule for ships it plans to dispose of in the next five years. The number of ships planned for inactivation in 2017 dropped from 10 to six, and four submarines gained a modest lease on life.

But overall, the service plans to inactivate a dozen Los Angeles-class attack submarines from 2017 through 2021, reflecting a general decline in the undersea fleet. From today’s 52-ship level, the attack boat fleet drops to 48 boats in 2022 and hits a low of 41 hulls in 2029, afterwards steadily rising to 51 subs in 2046. Those levels are consistent with what the service forecast a year ago.


(...SNIPPED)
 
General Dynamics stock looks like a buy with their USN orders. 8)

http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/07/17/general-dynamics-could-get-the-go-ahead-to-remake.aspx?source=yahoo-2&utm_campaign=article&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=yahoo-2&yptr=yahoo

General Dynamics Could Get the Go-Ahead to Remake the Submarine Fleet
Contracts keep coming in near-$1 billion effort to upgrade America's subs.

China's submarine fleet is bigger than America's.

That's according to U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces. What's more, according to Forbes, at the rate China is building new subs -- and at the rate the U.S. Navy is retiring submarines -- China could have "twice the number of submarines we have in just over a decade."
 
The Virginia class are going to get more missile launch tubes enabling it to fire 40 Tomahawk cruise missiles. :o

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/revealed-us-navy-plans-triple-the-amount-missiles-per-17213

The Navy will soon finish initially prototyping new weapons tubes for its Virginia-Class submarines designed to massively increase missile firepower, bring the platform well into future decades and increase the range of payloads launched or fired from the attack boats.

The new missile tubes, called the Virginia Payload Modules, will rev up the submarines’ Tomahawk missile firing ability from 12 to 40 by adding an additional 28 payload tubes – more than tripling the offensive strike capability of the platforms.
 
Back
Top