Home » Naval » Navy may need to extend lives of attack subs

Navy may need to extend lives of attack subs

By Philip Ewing Wednesday, June 1st, 2011 1:47 pm
Posted in Naval

A projected shortfall in the number of attack submarines may force the Navy to examine whether it can extend the lives of some subs and keep them in the fleet beyond their scheduled retirements, a top Navy admiral told Congress on Wednesday. Vice Adm. John Blake, the service’s top requirements officer, acknowledged that that the Navy’s sub fleet will grow smaller than its own acceptable minimum, which could force it to look for ways to keep boats serving longer.

But that may be difficult, cautioned a top naval analyst. Shipbuilding expert Ron O’Rourke of the Congressional Research Service, appearing after Blake before a panel of the House Armed Services Committee, warned lawmakers that it may be hard to extend the service of the Navy’s fast-attack subs because of limitations on the lives of their pressure hulls. The Navy keeps its nuclear submarines in excellent condition, but the ships were built to meet exact tolerances and specifications, and it may be more expensive than it’s worth — or even impossible — to keep submarines sailing for much longer than their planned lives.

Blake told lawmakers the Navy’s projections showed its submarine force dipping to as low as 39 boats — from 55 — and that that could warrant “looking at the inventory and seeing what the best of breed is,” and the possibilities of service life extensions. If that’s not feasible, commanders also could look into scheduling longer deployments for the Navy’s existing submarines, so they’d spend more time at sea and as such be available for more missions.

Blake also said the Navy was considering trying to add another attack sub to its long-term plan for fiscal 2018, a decision he said would be made next year. The submarine shortfall, which has been a reality for some time as part of the Navy’s long-term planning, is a microcosm of its larger shipbuilding situation: The service wants to grow its fleet to at least 313 ships overall, but congressional analysts say it would need billions more dollars than it’s likely to get in order to buy enough ships.

Meanwhile, the existing fleet continues to operate at a high tempo: According to the Navy’s daily operational update, 26 submarines were underway away from their homeports on Wednesday and 21 of them were on deployment — about a combined 86 percent of the fleet, according to the service.

Join the Conversation

	BOOMER June 1st, 2011 at 1:53 pm This has come up before and was short lived. they capped the depth on older subs but soon learned this made them less efficient not being able to perform to full designed operational limits. One thing they could do however is build new conventional subs (4 for the cost of 1 nuclear) as many of our allies do. Yeah they will be smaller (no ward rooms or separate officers quarters or goat lockers) but they can perform pretty much all the current missions and some new ones (submerged shallow water ops).
	Araya June 1st, 2011 at 2:43 pm Sorry but SSKs are not an option for the US Navy. Why SSKs have a very limited operational range and the US Navy is a Global operating Navy and how needs Submarines how can also operate far beyond there home Ports. SSKs make only sense them you have ports in the nearby of enemy territory for example ports in Japan and South Korea our in Kuwait, but them you decided to maintain a big fleet off SSKs you have to build also a infrastructure for this Ships and this can possible be more expensive them to build simple more SSNs. The best solution is to buy 3 Virginias pro year from 2016. Simple why the Virginia SSN is single Big ticket program how has hit is cost projections and every additional Virginia sub cost cheaper than the previous. To extend the life of the Los Angeles class can be also an Option why the 688 Class remains ones of the most sophisticated Submarines worldwide and other countries like the Russians has also extended the life of their SSN far behind there calculated life time. I believe the US can do this also with an acceptable risk but it is better to buy for the money new Virginias .
	Jeff June 1st, 2011 at 2:47 pm I don’t think its as simple as buying conventional; as you say they’d be smaller… but not just in amenities, they’d likely lose some degree of capabilities, possibly demanding more than the 4 for 1 tradeoff. Add to that, that nuclear vessels while more expensive to build have lower lifetime service costs. In general our Navy actually wants to go the other way and put nuclear reactors into classes of ships that traditionally don’t have them.
	William C. June 1st, 2011 at 3:02 pm Can’t they refurbish all of the 688i Improved Los Angeles class boats?
	Byron Skinner June 1st, 2011 at 3:07 pm Good Morning Folks, I must take exception with Boomer on this one. The SSN and SSGN are the two weapon systems that if either the Russian or Chinese got serious about, which they have not and have shown no interest in do so, are nuclear submarines. The current Virginia class is generations ahead of of any body else in technology. The Virginia 774 Batch 3 Block’s IV and V will widen that gap. While I agree with Boomer on the service life extension statements he made, I can see any reason why production of the SSN 774’s can be extended like the DD 51 have been. The Navy Air Force appear to be wanting to get back into the 1950’s game of either Carriers or SAC and of course the AF won. To any reasonable person like SAC the AF has worked itself out of another mission. The manned war plane is in the twilight of it existence. The Carrier Battle Group is far more flexible, faster responding, harder target to attack, and cheaper them maintaining Air Force ground based strike units in CONUS. These options are what the insanity of the F-35 and B-3 are costing. The issue is no longer what is the best defense for American, but what is the most profitable for the defense industry. Its fools folly to think that defense spending is going to be reduced, real threats to the United States are out their and new one will emerge. It will coos money to defense against these new threats. The new threats appear seeing what is being done now by potential advisories in the air but on and under the sea where most of the world wealth is transported. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	STemplar June 1st, 2011 at 3:22 pm SSKs have uses but they are no replacement for the mission the SSNs perform, range limitations and speed limitations. The USN is going to have to do some soul searching I would think and decide what is more important, 55 LCS or dozen extra SSNs. I don’t see defense budgets dropping significantly, but I certainly douby they will increase and the USN already doesn’t have enough cash for all it wants.
	BOOMER June 1st, 2011 at 3:50 pm OK here is the deal — an SS (conventional diesel/electric submarine) built to known modern tech would not be limited by range or need any more support than a nuke boat. No it wont be able to stay at sea for 180 days at a time but hey neither do nuke boats (supprise). An SS could reasonably deploy from port for about 60 days wich is more than sufficient time to transit — sit off a coast or harbor to collect data or deploy SPRECWAR and then come home. Unlike the old fleet boats or even the Barbell class that had to come to the surface daily to charge the batteries, this is now a weekly requirement with modern propulsion tech, you can actualy run the diesels without surfacing now days along with the ability to make thier own air and water. No an SS wont have VLS (thank god because sub ssn vls sucks) or carry as many Torpedos but can carry all the SSN sensors and electronics. The VA’s are gonna happen (not crazy about them but better than any other nuke avail)., just a bit slower than expected — we could realisticly close any gaps by investing in SS hulls. As far as buying LCS vs Subs vs planes and carriers, that as always depends on what warfare pin the CNO is wearing.
	Josh June 1st, 2011 at 4:30 pm The “manned warplane” being in the twilight of its existance is simply untrue. A true UAV/UCAV option is quite a ways off, if ever. There are logistical and technical obstacles we simply can’t overcome yet. Your third paragraph is full of factual inaccuracies including your conclusion a carrier group is harder to attack. I do agree that the procurement process for new systems is utterly in shambles thanks to defense contractors and their lobbyists in DC. If Congress would truely address this issue the current DoD budget could remain at current levels and contractors would be held accountable to budgets and deadlines. (Not that I think this would actually happen in a million years.)
	PMI June 1st, 2011 at 4:53 pm Where is the institutional knowledge base to build diesel boats going to come from? The last diesel electric attack boats were what, the Barbels built in the late 50’s? And the last of any class was the Dolphin in the late 60’s correct? Is there anyone in Groton or Newport News still around who had anything to do with those programs? Not saying diesels are a definite non-starter, but it’s going to be a lot harder to build one from scratch when they’ve effective been out of the (US) design system for 40+ years.
	Grumpy June 1st, 2011 at 5:56 pm To all, a very interesting discussion. “BOOMER”, you make a very interesting point, “… that as always depends on what warfare pin the CNO is wearing.” As I see it, I see some truth in that line, but that could also be the real home of the problem. This World is going through so much change, that our minds cannot get a firm grasp by the Nation. Let’s just take a look back at the last 20 years. I am talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. This puts the 9/11 Attack on this nation in the center of that timeframe. I would hope that the CNO could rise up above his own warfare pin. This means his plan needs to be “Full-Spectrum Warfare”. No, I don’t have some kind of crystal ball, but we all need to work together, as one Military and one Nation. Thank you, for the commentary and your Military service.
	Forrest Cantrell June 1st, 2011 at 7:12 pm Despite their limitations, I can’t but believe that a squadron of 4–6 SSK’s forward deployed to Guam and Japan wouldn’t be very useful. Regarding range, remember that German U-Boats had no problem attacking shipping in the Caribbean. And as for the institutional knowledge base (if such is even required) European expertise could be employed. And where were the conventional boats that were offered to Taiwan to come from?
	pfcem June 1st, 2011 at 7:43 pm You’re dreaming. While not EVERY deployment, SSNs DO regularly spend 6 months (180 days) at sea with the VAST majority of that time submerged. At best “current technology” SSKs may manage 1/3 (1/2 would require extended time on the surface & GREATLY limit effectiveness) of that. And NO WAY are you going to be able to buy (much less operate) 4 ‘top of the line’ SSKs (which is what would be needed to even THINK of doing what SSNs do for the cost of 1 SSN.
	FastBoat June 1st, 2011 at 9:02 pm Not sure about the cost difference but why would anyone want a cheaper, quieter submarine, think of the advantage to our fleet to be able to operate regularly against a 212 class. Capable of 28 days underwater with just the sound of electrons moving across the fuel cell. It will never happen though. Every officer in the Submarine Service is a Nuc and prays to the 08 throne…
	Bronco46 June 1st, 2011 at 9:17 pm SLEP’s are economically possible with submarines. If we wish to have an effective deterrent we need to keep building the Virginia’s. And make sure the R&D continues on the next class.
	Drake1 June 1st, 2011 at 10:28 pm How about shaving some super carriers off the wishlist to afford subs.
	MLS June 1st, 2011 at 10:42 pm Interesting discussion guys — my first time viewing an article form this site. It’s feasible that the the US Navy could change it’s approach in future, reduce patrols length and achieve some ratio (2:1?) of conventional subs to nuclear subs in terms of price per unit. The point about the current industry & ecosystem revolving around nuclear submarines is HUGE however and would be hard to overcome. You could also argue that we could see a mix of technologies in the future fleet, but this is probably doubtful as well — surely there’s some economy of scale? Site added to my favorites!
	STemplar June 1st, 2011 at 11:37 pm A submerged SSK cannot keep up with a potential adversarial task force. It is not fast enough.
	muscimol June 2nd, 2011 at 1:37 am A country such as the US cannot afford not having a had full of SSKs. If a technological jump occurs in those boats that may leave the US cornered, or give a tremendous advanrage to oppositors that could buil/field in larger quantity. Don’t ask which technology, just remember that in previous conflits things like that happened.
	STemplar June 2nd, 2011 at 3:15 am SSKs are defensive weapons. You use them to deny passage of an area. They are not used to challenge on the open sea. Their speed is restricted to short sprints at very short ranges or extremely slow speeds for long range cruising. They are no replacement for SSNs.
	muscimol June 2nd, 2011 at 5:18 am Dear STemplar, I agree with you but you did not payed attention to what I said. ITS not to replace SSNs. Imagine that during a conflict, or before, there is a substantial imporvement in diesel engines…something that would allow SSK’s to be as much as fast, or a significant improvement, and still easy and much faster to build/field. Just like the Nazis were about to field faster (first jet planes), when the war was in the end. Can you imagine if those planes had come during the battle of Englan? .…besides being able to field a less qualitative sub but in much greater number by China can pose problems…or cannot and I’m tottally wrong?! .….would you be comfortable if China can build 10 or more SSKs per year?! Technological jumps did hapen before and certanly will hapen in the future again.
	BOOMER June 2nd, 2011 at 8:40 am OK — once again, I am a qualified submariner. road on diesels — 637’s — 688’s — 627’s — 640’s — 688I’s — t hulls — sea wolfs — va’s. also been on German — Korean — Japan — UK and other countries boats at one time or another. We built current tech convention subs in Texas and Mississippi for other countries. Nuke boats do not stay at sea for 6 months — been on to many Med and Pac runs to know better, Nuke boats cannot keep up with a fast moving surface fleet either, they go deaf at certain speeds I wont mention but its well known it happens. Modern conventional subs can run just as fast under sonar as a nuke boat — they have a rebreather type system that lets them snorkle submerged — they charge themselves while running on the battery vs negative drain like the older ones. Continued below
	BOOMER June 2nd, 2011 at 8:45 am There is a company in Florida, google US subs — they make yacht subs for civilians that are trans oceanic with 10man diver lock outs and 1000 ft depth and windows. We have the capeability right here and now to do it. Yeah sub officers will fight it because they are all nukes for the most part. but they are viable and would be very useful to us and we would not need to piggy back on other countries or involve them to do the missions a nuke cant. The only Americans in combat on Japanese soil in WWII was a submarine crew that sat undetected for days after sneaking in and blowing up ships then sent a team ashore to blow a munitions train, all in less than a 100 ft of water — cant do that with any nuke and would never risk one in water that shallow. Diesel boats can transit the straights into the gulf submerged — nukes cant and are always a bobbing target during that transit.
	Acera June 2nd, 2011 at 10:41 am ’The only Americans in combat on Japanese soil in WWII was a submarine crew.….….…..” Boomer remember Okinawa? That was Japanese soil, and WWII.
	bigdave June 2nd, 2011 at 11:39 am Want to pay for the SSNs we’re going to need? Why not put a bullet in the plan to build a new class of SSBNs? Talk about nostalgia! Why not cut the current SSBN fleet in half (if you actually think we need any of them) and just SLEP the remaining boats?
	BOOMER June 2nd, 2011 at 11:49 am OK — your correct, I should had said mainland Japan.
	STemplar June 2nd, 2011 at 12:26 pm Because they are old. There are some things that can ‘t be SLEPed or only so much. You submerge a structure repeatedly into high pressures and it gets squeezed over and over, it just wears out.
	STemplar June 2nd, 2011 at 12:35 pm You haven’t paid attention to the part about budget. There isn’t enough money already for what the USN wants. That means there certainly isn’t enough more for more things on top of it. With limited funds and multiple needs and having to choose between 1 SSN or 4 SSKs, I’d go with the SSN because it does more of what we need a boat to do or might need one to do.
	sferrin June 2nd, 2011 at 1:43 pm How ’bout we shave money off entitlements to afford, well, everything we need.
	Byron Skinner June 2nd, 2011 at 3:40 pm Good Morning Folks, Hi Boomer. You may want to tap into the USNI for June 2011. It has some good stuff and especially an article be RA Michael J. Conner “Investing in the Undersea Future”, there is an article dealing with a new class of light carrier the America Class. The light carrier would be powered by conventional means, perhaps using the technology of the DD-1000, and carry a somewhat reduced Air Wing. From the sound of intent of the article it wants to go back to the CVA/CVS format of the 1950’s and early 1960’s. RA Conner doesn’t agree with you and SSK’s though Boomer. The article is to the point and sound in it’s judgement and the realization that money is going to be a problem. The American Class Carrier might be the solution for sea control in low threat areas and convoy escort in area such as the emerging Northwest Passage. It seems that not everybody in the sea services are all that smitten with the F-35C. It appears that dumping the F-35C and keeping with the development with the more adaptable E/F-18G airframe is a better way for the Navy. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	BOOMER June 2nd, 2011 at 4:04 pm I saw that and like the ideal of light carriers as long as they dont hose them up like the did LCS, yeah money is gonna be a big issue, and alsways has been. Nuke boys are goona fight for every sub to have a tea kettle just as they always have but the facts remain that conventional boats will always be around and a threat to nuke boats and surface shipping. currently 377 known conventionals in other countries and numbers growing with more orders. Hugo chavez has purchased 3 kilos with Krubs for petes sake. A security report where these and other concerns came out indicating they are a major threat to us not only for thier weapons but because they are too difficult to find or track and impossible in littoral waters due to all the shipping noise — our subs cant operate that shallow and surface boats never have stood much of a chance of locating a sub period. Russia has a back log of orders selling new kilos with krubs for 2 mil each, investing all their profit from sub sales back into sub infrastructure, france is selling their scorpines for 3 mil each and countries are in line for them.
	Belka June 3rd, 2011 at 3:49 am I’ve seen this argument before over SSN vs SSK/SSIs, and when faced with costs, they all end up to one undeniable fact. While yes SSK/SSIs are cheaper per unit, the startup cost of operating them, ie landbased infrastructure, always kills it as our infrastructure is meant for SSN and will balloon the overall costs and destroy any savings you got from switching to SSK/SSIs. Also, Russia is selling Kilos for 200 mil, not 2mil. <_< Same with Scorpene, with sells at 450 mil…
	BOOMER June 3rd, 2011 at 8:20 am Yeah they do pull that quite often — despite the fact that an SS doesnt require anything that we are not already providing for SSN’s (actualy a lot less) plus on numerous occasions we have done major drydock work and overhaul/upgrades on ally SS boats. Ingalls shipyard builds these for other countries so there is no argument in that we can build them here again like we did for germany and some other countries.
	Belka June 3rd, 2011 at 12:11 pm AFAIK, we don’t build SSK/SSIs, just SSNs. What class of SSK/SSIs do we build?
	BOOMER June 3rd, 2011 at 1:32 pm Not sure to who or what your asking — I do know in the mid 80’s some SS boats were built here for Korea and germany. I also know that Ingals was originally goint to be part of the dolphins for Isreal but it feel through waiting for paperwork and funding approval and they all wound up being built over seas. I also know that honolulu shipyards and bath both used Pearl harbor Naval shipyard to do repairs and upgrades to ally SS boats.
	Belka June 3rd, 2011 at 3:55 pm Mind posting sources for building those subs? I just can’t see the US building Germany of all nations Submarines.
	BOOMER June 3rd, 2011 at 4:33 pm The US did not — Civilian shipyards did the work under contract to customer specifications just as civilian contractors build ships and aircraft for other countries with US approval and oversight.
	BOOMER June 3rd, 2011 at 5:21 pm Also note in 2000 Ingalls built 2 Dutche moray class subs for egypt. they have also built five SA’AR5 class corvetts for Isreal and overhauled the Armada clas frigates F21 & F22 for venezuela. Stuff like this is done all the time just as with other countries buying our helos and planes modified to their specs.
	jimonthebeach June 15th, 2011 at 1:47 am All of this is moot because Obama and the Democrats have spent our country into bankruptcy. We don’t have the money to follow any of these suggestions no matter how well reasoned. While India and China have thriving economies and are leaping ahead us in technological gains, we are well on the way to becoming a Third World country. Welcome to Greece!

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

Navy may need to extend lives of attack subs

Join the Conversation

LIVE Coverage: Paris Air Show

Recent Comments

Navy may need to extend lives of attack subs

Join the Conversation

LIVE Coverage: Paris Air Show

Most Read

Recent Comments