US Navy might not have enough submarines

[Clouded Leopard]

Right now the US Navy has 54(?) nuclear-powered attack submarines: 48 Los Angeles, 3 Seawolf, and 3 Virginias.


But it seems that many years down the line, by the year 2025, the US Navy might have only 32 submarines (3 Seawolfs and 29 Virginias) after all of the Los Angeles submarines are retired.


What to do? They're not planning to expand the Virginia beyond its 29 subs planned, and in fact it's doubtful if the Virginias will even have their 29 subs total at all.

[Jeff Head]

Right now the US Navy has 54(?) nuclear-powered attack submarines: 48 Los Angeles, 3 Seawolf, and 3 Virginias.


But it seems that many years down the line, by the year 2025, the US Navy might have only 32 submarines (3 Seawolfs and 29 Virginias) after all of the Los Angeles submarines are retired.


What to do? They're not planning to expand the Virginia beyond its 29 subs planned, and in fact it's doubtful if the Virginias will even have their 29 subs total at all.In 2025 there will still be 13 LA Class boats in service (SSN 761-773).

In addition, there are 30 Virginias planned to be built through 2020 (SSN774-SSN803).

So, you add the 13 LA, the 3 Sea Wolf, and the 30 Virginias at that point and you have a force structure of 46 subs at that point.

By that time, the follow on to the Sea Wolfs and Virginias will be coming on line.

[bigstick61]

This is yet another concern of mine. Our sub force used to be much larger, and certainly larger than the projected submarine force. And this decline of our Navy is happening while those of our potential enemies are building up or experiencing a resurgence. Things don't look too good for the USN in general right now.

[Tasman]

In 2025 there will still be 13 LA Class boats in service (SSN 761-773).

In addition, there are 30 Virginias planned to be built through 2020 (SSN774-SSN803).

So, you add the 13 LA, the 3 Sea Wolf, and the 30 Virginias at that point and you have a force structure of 46 subs at that point.

By that time, the follow on to the Sea Wolfs and Virginias will be coming on line.

This is certainly a huge decline from the USN's submarine strength during the cold war era. I can understand the decline in SSBN numbers with the reduction in the threat of global nuclear conflict but 46 seems to me to be a very low number, particularly as the USN has also had a huge decline in its dedicated ASW forces and other countries seem to be building up their submarine strength.

Cheers

[IDonT]

This is certainly a huge decline from the USN's submarine strength during the cold war era. I can understand the decline in SSBN numbers with the reduction in the threat of global nuclear conflict but 46 seems to me to be a very low number, particularly as the USN has also had a huge decline in its dedicated ASW forces and other countries seem to be building up their submarine strength.

Cheers

The main reason is the lack of submarine threat. Of the nations that currently poses a threat to the US, none of them, even combined, poses the same level of submarine force as the old Soviet Navy in terms of quality and quantity.

[Clouded Leopard]

The main reason is the lack of submarine threat. Of the nations that currently poses a threat to the US, none of them, even combined, poses the same level of submarine force as the old Soviet Navy in terms of quality and quantity.



Well, there's the possibility of a resurgent Russia in the future.


And China also has 50+ diesels, and is in the process of building Type 093/094 Shang/Jin class nuclear-powered boats.


And diesel submarines are proliferating around the world.


46 subs might be a bare minimum requirement, and 50+ subs an ideal number to maintain.

[IDonT]

Well, there's the possibility of a resurgent Russia in the future.


And China also has 50+ diesels, and is in the process of building Type 093/094 Shang/Jin class nuclear-powered boats.


And diesel submarines are proliferating around the world.


46 subs might be a bare minimum requirement, and 50+ subs an ideal number to maintain.

Compare that to the old Soviet Navy Submarine Fleet in 1985, that force does not even come close. (Some not all)

SSBN's
3 Akula Class
14 Delta III
4 Delta II
18 Delta I
1 Yankee II
21 Yankee I

SSGN's
2 OScar I
6 Yankee Notch
6 Charlie II
9 Charlie I

SSN
1 Sierra Class
1 Mike Class
6 Alfa Class
48 Victor Class (versions I, II, III)

Conventional
60+ Tango and Foxtrot
9 Kilo Class

Add to the fact that the Soviet Navy trains constantly and have a long tradition of submarine service, you have a very capable force.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ship.htm

Here is also what Russia is projecting to retain

SSBN's
1990 63
2010 12

SSGN's
1990 72
2010 6

SSN
1990 64
2010 13

[adeptitus]

Right now the US Navy has 54(?) nuclear-powered attack submarines: 48 Los Angeles, 3 Seawolf, and 3 Virginias.

But it seems that many years down the line, by the year 2025, the US Navy might have only 32 submarines (3 Seawolfs and 29 Virginias) after all of the Los Angeles submarines are retired.

What to do? They're not planning to expand the Virginia beyond its 29 subs planned, and in fact it's doubtful if the Virginias will even have their 29 subs total at all.


I think funding should be directed toward smart unmanned under-water attack vehicles that could operate in autonomous hunter/killer mode.

Large manned submarines are very expensive to build, and require heavy investment in crew, training, and maintenance. I believe the future armed UAV should be like cruise missiles, mass produced with long shelf life & stored in sealed, ready to use containers.

Rather than training hundreds of submarine crew and having to replace them every few years (as they retire out of navy), you reduce it to fewer UAV operators and on-site maintenance crew.

The basic gaol is to reduce your own capital and manpower investment, and mass-produce weapons on an assembly line that could be deployed with minimal risk to your men's life.

[Jeff Head]

Well, there's the possibility of a resurgent Russia in the future.


And China also has 50+ diesels, and is in the process of building Type 093/094 Shang/Jin class nuclear-powered boats.


And diesel submarines are proliferating around the world.


46 subs might be a bare minimum requirement, and 50+ subs an ideal number to maintain.Well, to be fair, you also have to add the 4 SSGNs that the US has, so you will be at 50 subs in 2025. I personally believe the US needs to retain more like 60+...and for the same reasons as we need the 62 Burke's because those aircraft carriers and large amphib groups need a couple of boats each for their escort IMHO. and that's 44 of them right there.

But 50 nuclear subs in 2025 will be a LOT more than anyone else will have...the question is, how many really good AIP DEs will be out there in that time frame. Quite a few.

[planeman]

I think a dozen or so SSBNs is enough - I doubt US would try to nuke France or UK who only have a handful of SSBNs because even one SSBN could quite easily put the US' economy into the stone age irrespective of what US could chuck back the other way.


Anyway, surely merchant ships and cruise missile armed deisel subs are a cheaper, and even if technically inferior still effective, way to deploy nuclear deterrence? 6 SSBNs to put at least two at sea at any one time, then nuclear cruise missiles on some of the SSNs, CVNs and maybe one or two merchent ships for added "shadows factor".

[Clouded Leopard]

I think a dozen or so SSBNs is enough

I don't think SSBNs are a problem; this thread is more about SSNs - nuclear-powered fast-attack submarines. :)

[szbd]

Well, the military goal of US can be simply put as "attack other countries". No matter what do you call, keep the freedom or anti-terrorism, after all, it's attack other countries. If you wanna always succeed in attacking other countries, you simply will never feel you have enough forces.

[Totoro]

Today, US SSN fleet has never been stronger, compared to what possible enemies might offer. (russia, china, iran, etc) Sure, it has less units than it had in the 80s, but russia has even less, so it all evens out. Even for a projected time period of 10-15 years, there is absolutely no sign of any enemy making a large submarine fleet to counter US one. China might have the alleged 5 type093 fleet, Russia might increase its fleet by 50%, but in absolute terms, those fleets combined would still not come even close to matching US numbers. So US has nothing to worry about.

[Jeff Head]

Well, the military goal of US can be simply put as "attack other countries". No matter what do you call, keep the freedom or anti-terrorism, after all, it's attack other countries. If you wanna always succeed in attacking other countries, you simply will never feel you have enough forces.I believe that is an over generalization. The US does not simply "attack other nations". It needs qualifiers..."attack other nations that are threatening you as a result of their track record or stated intentions, or their violation of treaties and agreements, or their material support of those who do those things".

Now, it is clear that when applying those qualifiers, the judgement and the intelligence (meaning G2) can come into play. But that is why the US has to get authorization from its congress before any major or long term conflict can be prosecuted. In the case of the current conflict...all of that was had and voted upon.

The congress also has the power to defund and stop the conflict at any time if they can gather the votes. It is not like any single indivdual or group of individuals are uniltaterally taking the nation or its military to war, despite what may be said now for political expediency, it simply did not happen that way.

Anyhow, that's just a little US civics. If the congress had the political clout (meaning the votes and the support that they claim) they would introduce a resoultion tomorrow to stop the funding and that would become law. They do not do this because they do not have the votes or the support to do it. Perhaps at some point they will./ When they think they do...that is what they can do, and will do.

As to submarines. Attacking other nations is not the real issue unless that becomes necessary. Having enough submarines to serve as a detrrent is the better rational to base it upon. Enough numbers so that others do not dare provoke conflict...and, to allow for the escort and support of all of those carriers and large amphibious ships we spoke of earlier in this thread. As long as the US maintains a force of 22 such vessels, it will demand a force of the size we are talking about IMHO.

[szbd]

I believe that is an over generalization. The US does not simply "attack other nations". It needs qualifiers..."attack other nations that are threatening you as a result of their track record or stated intentions, or their violation of treaties and agreements, or their material support of those who do those things".

Now, it is clear that when applying those qualifiers, the judgement and the intelligence (meaning G2) can come into play. But that is why the US has to get authorization from its congress before any major or long term conflict can be prosecuted. In the case of the current conflict...all of that was had and voted upon.

The congress also has the power to defund and stop the conflict at any time if they can gather the votes. It is not like any single indivdual or group of individuals are uniltaterally taking the nation or its military to war, despite what may be said now for political expediency, it simply did not happen that way.

Anyhow, that's just a little US civics. If the congress had the political clout (meaning the votes and the support that they claim) they would introduce a resoultion tomorrow to stop the funding and that would become law. They do not do this because they do not have the votes or the support to do it. Perhaps at some point they will./ When they think they do...that is what they can do, and will do.

As to submarines. Attacking other nations is not the real issue unless that becomes necessary. Having enough submarines to serve as a detrrent is the better rational to base it upon. Enough numbers so that others do not dare provoke conflict...and, to allow for the escort and support of all of those carriers and large amphibious ships we spoke of earlier in this thread. As long as the US maintains a force of 22 such vessels, it will demand a force of the size we are talking about IMHO.

I'm not talking about political intensions. I'm talking about the nature of US's military operations. You go thousands of miles away and bring the battles on other countries' territory. The US military forces are designed for this kind of operations and these are hard operations. So, you will never feel you have enough force.

As for nuke subs, if only used for protecting the surface fleet and some land attack missions, I think 50 is more than enough.

[Jeff Head]

I'm not talking about political intensions. I'm talking about the nature of US's military operations. You go thousands of miles away and bring the battles on other countries' territory. The US military forces are designed for this kind of operations and these are hard operations. So, you will never feel you have enough force. It is true that the US military force structure is designed for force projection and to carry the fight to the enemy. But that desire and design does not translate into the US people or leadership feeling that they never have enough force. That will depend on the circumstance and nature of the threat at the time.

For example, in World War II, when the threat was percieved as immediate and capable of ultimately invading the US, the size of the force increased dramatically. Then, after the threat had been eliminated, the force shrank just as dramatically.

During the Cold War, when the threat was again viewed similarly, the force grew again...and then shrank again dramatically when that threat diminished.

A lot of people are always concerned when the force structure shrinks that it may shrink too much. That is not new. After World War I, after World War II, and now, after the Cold War, those thoughts are there. How far do you shrink it? Are the threats really gone?

But historically it is evident that the US, particularly when it was in position to do otherwise relatively unopposed, has shrunk its force structure based upon the nature of the threat at the time.

As for nuke subs, if only used for protecting the surface fleet and some land attack missions, I think 50 is more than enough....and the projected force structure around 2025 is very close to that number.

[szbd]

I think one extraordinary thing now is, though the size of force is shrinking, the defense expense is not. I always have a feeling that the US military systems are too expensive. But you can't really argue with that because those are mostly the most advanced military systems in the world hence their quality may well worth the price. Yet still, you can't help wondering, why the hell that thing cost so much.

I got the number of 50 for nuke subs simply by, 11 CVN strike groups + 12 amphibious groups, prepare 2 subs for each group, then add the 4 SSGNs, that's 50. I think usually USN has 5 CSGs and 6 amphibious groups deployed or ready for action, and 1 nuke sub for each group. So that's about 1/4 of the total attack subs. You can have another 1/4 or more to track other countries nuke subs or do other missions, and 1/2 in maintanance. Should there're any big deal happen, you still have enough subs to protect your entire surface fleet.

Anyway, USN will still be the dominant force in oceans for a loooooooooooooong time. Nothing to be worry about.

[IDonT]

To put things in perspective:

100 years ago the Royal Navy, the world's largest, have a 2 power standard. It's navy must always be bigger than the 2nd and 3rd most powerful navy combined(Germany and France). They were barely able to make that doctrine.

The USN today has a 20 power doctrine. It is larger and more powerful than the next 20 navies combined.

[Totoro]

well, if then 'us navy might not have enough submarines' is refering to us navy not being able to make the 20 power doctrine (or 30 or 10 or whatever) maybe that's a clear sign that the doctrine itself should be changed. Because upkeeping such a VAST force in mighty expensive. One might argue that it would be needed in the future but one then forgets that no one can create a navy out of thin air. In my opinion, US should downsize its forces now, not waste so much money, and then IF and WHEN they notice someone building up their navy, then they might want to add a few ships. Current navy is way more than enough even for countering Russia and China's navies of 2020 combined. But hey, its not my money, US can do with it whatever it wants, its just the way its invested now - well, that's just bad business.

[IDonT]

well, if then 'us navy might not have enough submarines' is refering to us navy not being able to make the 20 power doctrine (or 30 or 10 or whatever) maybe that's a clear sign that the doctrine itself should be changed. Because upkeeping such a VAST force in mighty expensive. One might argue that it would be needed in the future but one then forgets that no one can create a navy out of thin air. In my opinion, US should downsize its forces now, not waste so much money, and then IF and WHEN they notice someone building up their navy, then they might want to add a few ships. Current navy is way more than enough even for countering Russia and China's navies of 2020 combined. But hey, its not my money, US can do with it whatever it wants, its just the way its invested now - well, that's just bad business.

The "Strength Beyond Challenge" part of the Bush doctrine.

The policy that "United States has, and intends to keep, military strength beyond challenge," indicating the US intends to take actions as necessary to continue its status as the world's sole military superpower. This resembles a British Empire policy before World War I that their navy must be larger than the world's next two largest navies put together. This aspect of the Bush Doctrine argues that global peace and stability require the US to assert itself around the world. Since the US also has a special role as the world's peacekeeper, the same global rules that it seeks to establish do not apply to it. Thus, for example, the US can develop and update its nuclear capabilities even as it argues against nuclear proliferation because it has a special duty to maintain peace, according to this aspect of the doctrine.

This is a continuation of the Wolfowitz Doctrine written in 1992 that states:

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to general global power."

Rewritten as:

"Our most fundamental goal is to deter or defeat attack from whatever source... The second goal is to strengthen and extend the system of defense arrangements that binds democratic and like-minded nations together in common defense against aggression, build habits of cooperation, avoid the renationalization of security policies, and provide security at lower costs and with lower risks for all. Our preference for a collective response to preclude threats or, if necessary, to deal with them is a key feature of our regional defense strategy. The third goal is to preclude any hostile power from dominating a region critical to our interests, and also thereby to strengthen the barriers against the re-emergence of a global threat to the interests of the U.S. and our allies."

Now we are off topic... But that should explain why the US still has a large navy.

[Totoro]

Okay, but it is all a matter of degree. Like i said, US can do what it wants, and if it wants larger navy than what other countries have - thats fine. But its a matter of how much larger. If 50% larger navy would do the job of making sure no rival is there, why have a 200% larger navy? It just goes to waste.

[Tasman]

Okay, but it is all a matter of degree. Like i said, US can do what it wants, and if it wants larger navy than what other countries have - thats fine. But its a matter of how much larger. If 50% larger navy would do the job of making sure no rival is there, why have a 200% larger navy? It just goes to waste.

We need to remember that the USN is maintaining a force of carriers and amphibious ships for power projection. The navy is not just structured to fight other navies. If that was the case the navy could be much smaller for the reasons you have given.

The USN needs to maintain a navy able to defeat any combination of powers it believes may simultaneously engage it and it needs to maintain sufficient carrier strike groups and amphibious groups to meet its power projection needs. The carriers and amphibious groups will need escorts and submarines are part of that requirement as well as part of the fleet it requires to take on other navies. Of course there is a crossover of roles. Carriers and submarines that are part of the power projection force will also be used against enemy naval forces but the point I am trying to make is that it is not just a matter of working out what size and structure of navy is needed to take on the next 3 largest, 5 largest, 20 largest, etc. If it is determined by military planners that 11 carrier groups are needed to meet the USA's projected needs then the supporting cruisers, destroyers and submarines, etc, must also be provided. The current projected fleet of SSNs seems to be about the minimum needed unless the US decides it no longer needs to be able to deploy as many carrier or amphibious groups.

Cheers