Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Cost Cutting the Super Sub

The Navy's submarine force is in trouble. A shrinking number of boats is struggling to meet steady demand from regional commanders. Meanwhile, the cost of the only U.S. submarine currently in production, the super-high-tech Virginia-class attack boat, has risen to $2.3 billion apiece. At that price, the Navy can afford to buy only one per year. Do the math: since attack boats last only 30 years, building one boat per year means your fleet is eventually going to shrink to 30 boats from the current 55. Long-range plans call for 48 attack subs, so how is the Navy going to get there?

virginia.jpgSome observers have called for the Navy to start production of new, smaller and cheaper boats, perhaps even diesel-electrics rather than nukes. But the long ranges that U.S. boats must travel, their need for big hulls (for mission flexibility) and the strong pro-nuke culture of U.S. submariners means diesels aren't a realistic option.

Plus, no U.S. shipyard has built diesel boats in more than 50 years, so where would you get them from? Germany? Sweden? Both countries build fine diesel boats, but Congress ain't likely to go begging to these reluctant allies for cheap submarines. No, nukes are where it's at, and nukes never come cheap. The Navy wants to buy two Virginias per year to sustain fleet numbers, but it refuses to do so unless the price drops to $2 billion. The two U.S. submarine manufacturers -- Newport News and Electric Boat -- want the work, but can they knock $300 million off the Virginia's price?

Aviation Week has run a story on efforts to trim Virginia's cost:

The most effective way to lower the per-hull price of Virginias, by more than $150 million apiece, is a more efficient build rate to distribute overhead costs and increase learning efficiencies, according to [Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Ships Allison] Stiller, Vice Adm. Paul Sullivan, head of Naval Sea Systems Command, and Rear Adm. Charles Hamilton II, program executive officer for ships. An additional $25-$80 million in savings is possible through a "reallocation" between the shipbuilders, they said.

A second story goes into detail:

Seven capital-expenditure (capex) projects have been approved or are in development to help General Dynamics Corp.'s Electric Boat and Northrop Grumman Corp.'s Newport News slice costs off the Virginia-class submarine program, Navy Rear Adm. William Hilarides said April 17. ...

Five capex efforts have been approved, including a light fabrication project at Electric Boat's Quonset Point shipyard. There also is a centralized coating facility there, and Electric Boat has a module transportation project underway as well. For its part, Newport News has a modular outfitting facility and has upgraded its horizontal machining center. ...

Meanwhile, the boat's bow design will be simplified under new design work already budgeted and should be implemented in the FY '10 sub, Hilarides said. The design will move sonar hydrophones and the vertical launching system, but it will not affect any expected capabilities. ...

Nevertheless, Hilarides said the Navy would consider removing the special forces' lock-out chamber on the Virginia boats if capabilities had to be cut. Other options include using passive instead of active sonar and a classic propeller instead of the "propulsor," which provides more stealth, he said.

The lock-out chamber in question allows SEALs to exit and enter the sub while it's submerged. If the chamber goes, the subs lose much of their special operations capability -- one of their major selling points. If this happens, the U.S. Navy won't be the first sea service to surrender submarine-based special operations. This year, on cost grounds, the Royal Navy retired its only sub with a lock-out chamber.

--David Axe

UPDATE: 9:59 AM: Speaking of commando-carriers, the star-crossed, $446 million mini-sub known as the "Advanced SEAL Delivery System" has finally been sent to Davey Jones' locker. But I hear SOCOM is still going to have to pay through the nose for the one System that's actually (kinda, sorta) working.

UPDATE: 11:39 AM: "I've been on USS Virginia, and, trust me, her ability to deploy SEALs and their gear is not severely compromised by the proposed removal of her special nine-man commando lock-out chamber," says Joe Buff, who knows a thing or two about subs. "One could, in extremis, make the case that this new chamber is redundant."

Like every U.S. Navy nuclear submarine in service, the Virginia-class also has at least two conventional lock-out chambers, otherwise known to the crews as escape trunks. While these escape trunks are smaller that the new-style lock-out chamber, and thus it takes longer for a full SEAL team to depart or reenter the sub, the existing trunks are perfectly functional for launching undersea commando missions. SEALs have used them quite successfully on American SSNs for many years. In addition, much of the SEALs' equipment is brought along externally, in a pressure-proof Dry Deck Shelter (DDS), a piece of equipment that has also been around for years and which the Virginia class is fully equipped to carry. A DDS can hold the latest mod of SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV) underwater scooter, or inflated rubber boats with milspec muffled outboard motors. While the failure of the ASDS project is a definite disappointment, SEALs are a hardy and adaptable breed. Again, they can get the job done, riding to and from their target the old-fashioned ways. As a case in point, the early-flight Los Angeles-class USS Dallas, still in commission, has been dedicated to supporting SOCOM ops in the Global War on Terror, with a very high op tempto and a great record of effectiveness. (I've been on her recently, too.) Her "special" warfare equipment? Conventional lock-out escape trunks, and a DDS on her back.

Comments

CUT NG bureucracy & Navy DC bureaucracy alone would Help.
Borrow from that Russian Hybrid sub:
Diesel Electric & Nuke power plant.
Nice.
Then we can have 48 subs.
Reduce the costs.
Bring in new blood for contracts.
Redesign VA???
If the Russians can, why cant we?

Posted by: stephen russell at December 31, 2007 07:09 PM


Ther are always the COLLINS Boats @ $800 Million Aust apiece from good Old Oz.

They are the largest conventional boats in the world and a damn fine piece of kit but then I may be biased being Australian.

Cheers,

POD

Posted by: POD at October 30, 2007 06:06 AM


I love this... "The best anti-submarine weapon is another sumbarine." Bron Skinner.

Is there equal truth in the reverse proposal, "The best antidote for a war machine is to eliminate all of them?"

Posted by: Idealistic Ideology at October 14, 2006 07:23 PM


Good Evening Folks,

I think what we are seeing here is not so much sticker shock as the fighting with in the Navy of the Carriers, Surface Fleet and Submariners interests for funds. The Virginia Class Submarine at $2-2.5Billion is a compariave bargain when the CVX is pricing out at $14Billion per copy and the DDX is at $3.6Billion and climbing.

During the 1990's the Navy asked for an attack boat fleet of 72 Boats, that was cut to 54 now we ar at 48 boats, I assume that will include the three Seawolfs. These are simplynot enought submarines to do all the missions not tasks to submarines.

If you look at the rate of retirements of the Los Angeles boats and the production of Virginia's it appears that there will be a period where the U.S. attack submarine fleet will fall well below 48 boats. Many Los Angeles boats such as the Portsmith are being scraped before even their first refuleing. This appears to be a wasteful and short sighted at the very least.

Future advasaries will more then likely graviate to the submarine because it is "cheap" and has a small crewing requirements. Beside the countries mentions in David's article you can add Pakistan, India, Brazil and Iran as countries who have either started toward the manufacture of conventional submarines or have expressed an interest in starting up a progrome.

The best anti-submarine weapon is another sumbarine. A good selling job on the value of submarines is made by retired Ad. James Watkins, his lectures are informative and worth the few buck charged to hear him speak even considering that he is employ of the industry he make some sound argurments or as he says in his lecture there are two kinds of ships targets and submarines.

ALLONS,
Bron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at April 19, 2006 08:13 PM


i believe Joe Buff.The only credible non Gov.person that has any credibility.

Posted by: Jay Strauss at April 19, 2006 03:46 PM


I thought that one of the original Virginia innovations was supposed to be a modular mission package, ie SEAL vs ASW vs ASuW, to enhance flexibility and save on cost. Don't know if that plan has disappeared.

For example, one of the old plans was, to create an SLBM module, so that the Virginia class can serve as a follow-on replacement for the Ohio class.

[Don't know how to practically implement this idea, just repeating what I read.]

So given this idea, it simply means that the Navy is not buying as many SEAL modules as they planned. Or that they'll buy the modules later.

Posted by: Jimmy Wu at April 19, 2006 02:45 PM


Is the submarine force really providing any strategic benefit to the country? I mean, something beyond employing submariners and shipbuilders?

Posted by: sglover at April 19, 2006 10:59 AM


So, lose the SEAL capability and you pretty much lose the raison d'etre for the thing...Now that's some cost cutting...

Posted by: JSAllison at April 19, 2006 09:23 AM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.