The Navy’s new sub comes in a year early. How?

The Navy’s new sub comes in a year early. How?

Who says that defense acquisitions are broken and no one cares?

This week, General Dynamics’ Electric Boat yard delivered the Navy’s newest fast attack submarine, the future USS Mississippi, almost one year ahead of schedule. The sub’s contract delivery date was April 30, 2013, and the Navy got the metaphorical keys on Wednesday.

Service officials and industry leaders are seldom so pleased. And not only did the ship come in early, the Navy said, it’s the best-built, most-complete one yet.


“It should not be missed that with this one year early, under cost, delivery came the most complete, combat-ready Virginia-class submarine yet delivered. Mississippi received the highest marks to date from the Navy’s independent assessor — the Board of Inspection and Survey. This program continues to set the standard for DoD acquisition,” said Rear Adm. David Johnson, the Program Executive Officer for submarines, in a statement. “As the demand signal for these multi-mission platforms increases, we are working to intelligently drive down schedule and put the world’s best submarines into the hands of the operators to execute missions of national importance.”

All right, but how is this possible? Electric Boat spokesman Bob Hamilton told DoDBuzz there are no smoke and mirrors, just a whole lot of “process engineering.”

“It’s a thorough review of the entire process, to make sure there are no steps that aren’t adding value, nothing being done in anything but the most efficient way possible,” he said. “We have a huge team of process engineers working on every aspect of the program.”

The Virginias are “designed for affordability and designed for producability,” Hamilton said. “It’s just basically looking at the whole process, from the time we start bending steel to the time we turn over the ship, to make sure every step is needed.”

Electric Boat and its major partner, Newport News, set a record of 62 months with the Mississippi. That’s compared to the 74 months engineers initially estimated they would need, and down from the 86 months it took to build the class-leading USS Virginia.

Hamilton acknowledged that the submarine-builders might “plateau” after the Mississippi, reaching a point at which they just could not physically build ships any faster. Future copies also will be different from the boat EB delivered this week, including a new bow section and later, probably a new weapons section. But Hamilton said EB engineers don’t anticipate those changes will add much time to the ships’ construction. The submarines, just like today’s surface warships, are built in modules — giant steel  blocks assembled like Legos to form the final product. A new bow or a new weapons compartment would just mean different blocks to put together, the sub-builders hope.

None of this really answers the question, though: How can the Virginia class be doing so well compared to the rest of the acquisitions world? DoD and big contractors are chock full of process engineers. Everybody understands the importance of looking at the whole “kill-chain.” Money definitely isn’t an issue.

The answer may be the (in)famous fastidiousness of the Navy’s nuclear reactors officials. Security restrictions and technical complexity mean Naval Nuclear Propulsion is a world into itself, a “benevolent dictatorship,” as you’ve read here, responsible for nuclear plants from before they go critical until they’re recycled. But just because a ship is nuclear doesn’t mean it’s going to be a perfect 10 every time — Huntington-Ingalls’ USS Gerald R. Ford will likely come in more than $1 billion over budget.

And the dark lining to the silver cloud of the Virginia class is that even today’s breakneck pace probably will not be enough to give the Navy the fleet it says it needs. Here’s what shipbuilding expert Ron O’Rourke of the Congressional Research Service said in his report about this last month:

The Navy’s FY2013 30-year SSN procurement plan, if implemented, would not be sufficient to maintain a force of 48 SSNs consistently over the long run. The Navy projects under that plan that the SSN force would fall below 48 boats starting in FY2022, reach a minimum of 43 boats in FY2028-FY2030, and remain below 48 boats through FY2034.

That means older ships might have to serve longer, but submarines aren’t like surface ships — a boat’s pressure hull can only do so many dives, so it’s much more difficult to stretch out their lives than with a destroyer, for example. Mostly it will mean submarine crews have to take longer deployments and commanders may have to turn down missions.

Join the Conversation

Maybe Electric boat just has a lot smarter people. Sometimes the simple obvious answer is the truth. In LMs case, maybe they just have a bunch of idiots working on the F35.

But can the Navy afford to have this early???

If the US Navy wants to keep the Virgina class SSN line open. The US Navy should see if Australia and Canada is interested in buying a couple of Virgina class SSN in a group buy. Both would make the down payment for them and the US Navy would incur the Maintenance and Nuclear refueling cost.

The boat is probably already paid for, or at least the money has been set aside.

that may very well be true, just look at any organization out there, some are successful and others fail. It’s a combination of leadership, motivation, people (and their skills), and mostly importantly the culture of the organization.

But overall, I’m glad something is working well for the Navy and especially glad that we have “take no shit from anyone” Nuke officers running things over there.

I wish Australia would buy these boats (or the British Astute class) but I don’t see it happening considering the socialist/green government in power. They’ve just announced a program to build 12 diesel electric boats, of an unspecified design, despite the fact that the last boats we built domestically have been an unmitigated disaster, with only two of the fleet of six actually sea worthy. This government is a disgrace and has a hard on against all things nuclear for some reason.
The fact is, with the vast length of Australia’s coastline, nuclear boats are the only realistic option, but not one this corrupt union led government will ever consider, as building twelve piece of crap boats domestically will keep their union pals in jobs for the next two decades.

Somewhere in the 14+ Trillion debt.

Based on experience, any savings is probably fictitious. That is, the Navy “over estimated” the cost, and then came in under. I’d go back to the original estimate, the year the development program started, and see what the average procurement cost was (including the trend down the unit cost curve). Compare that with the current estimate and see if the current claim about savings is true. I’d add that the original estimate increased over time first and then came down just a bit. Thus, savings!

There would be definite interest here for that idea. Not from the present Labor government but they will be replaced next year. Considering the cooperation between the USN and RAN on subs, there would be a case for Virginia Class subs in Australian service. 40 Billion Dollars Australian will buy more than a couple of Virginias! I would rather see 8 Virginias than 12 yet to be designed diesels.

The main reason is that the requirements were frozen. They are still adding requirements to the Ford and LCS. Each requirement change, no matter how small, necessitates a lot of re-engineering. And that is expensive!

Please Educate Lockheed Martin. Obviously they can not figure out how to build complex machines. I bet the oxygen system in the sub is working.……and I bet the sub can actually fulfill its mission as apposed to the F-35.

From what I can find tonight, the plan envisioned was the buy them for $1.8 billion. The current budget plan is to buy them for $2 billion a piece (in FY05 dollars), but the last few built were around $2.4 billion. According to the press releases, the last few subs built were $30-$50 million under budget and built months early, and on track to shave $300-$400 million off each boat. The contract for the next flight is $14billion for 8 subs. If they stay on track, the subs commissioned from here on out should cost less than $2billion. Compared to other big weapons purchases, they don’t seem to be doing too bad.

Absolutely mate, couldn’t agree more, but I just don’t see Gillard and that turkey Stephen Smith going that route, they’re too determined to build domestically in South Australia to bend to the wishes of unions. Plus the Greens would never allow a nuclear option, they’ll probably suggest a solar powered boat or something more environmentally friendly.

If Russia, China and it’s allies attack all our missile shield in Europe, 43 subs would not be enough to defend the allies and us.

I hope I’m not the only one who giggle’s a little, every time they read about the Astute Class. they need to re-name Ambush and Artful, too Fart and Fluff. Ya, maybe I need to grow up a bit.

Time for Lock Mart to be TOLD they will send a team of their process engineers to Electric Boat to learn how it’s done. F-22 and F-35 PMs should be sent to learn from the Nuke Prop PMs as well. This is proof that it can indeed be done and done well if strong leadership is in place.

I completely agree Big-Rick, especially your comment “It’s a combination of leadership, motivation, people (and their skills), and mostly importantly the culture of the organization”.

Are 43 subs enough to protect the USA? At some point our allies need to start protecting themselves…

Leadership is a key factor but not the only factor (although many so called leaders claim it is the only factor). As Big-Rick stated above there are many other factors: “motivation, people (and their skills), and mostly importantly the culture of the organization”.

A question I have is how much political interference did this program get compared to the F-35? Leaders are a key ingredient but they have to have their hands free to make the hard decisions without being over ridden by politicians.

So they can learn how to make jets for an Air Force customer like submarines are made for the Navy? I am not following you.

It’s not “the F-35″, it’s the F-35’s. Three simultaneous aircraft. The oxygen system in the F-22 is designed to keep the pilot alive in chemical and biological warfare conditions, and is far more complex than the 80’s designs. The F-35 is in a sense more software than hardware, and that is the real bottleneck, that and the fact that the company knows that even one crash might destroy the contract, thus the extremely careful progress.

Has it occurred to anyone that this announcement might just be political? The moment Congress began considering huge cuts in the DoD budget(s), Marines/AF/Navy and Army announcements began to appear, lamenting the falling readiness of helicopter fleets, aging navy vessels, the elderly F/A-18’s, and so on. If we are to believe the news reports, the U.S. military needs to replace it’s fleet, air force fighters, AF/navy/Marine/army helicopters, etc. Considering the conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan, at least some of this is true, but it is also true that these services are competing for fewer dollars.

How long would it take you to write 1,000,000 lines of code? Block 2 software is running, but Block 3 is short a million lines or so. Takes time.

Well they have been building them long enough you would thng they would eventually get one right. What contract are the bidding on???

The reguirements are frozen for each block buy. VIRGINIAs, like LOS ANGELOS, are evolving, but each block buy is frozen — no changes once the techical baseline is set.…

Aren’t nuclear subs still largly designed by the Navy’s Newport News engineers?

The ones the Australians are looking at are the Type 212,214 Subs. The French Scorpène class submarines and the Spanish Navy’s S-80 class. I also heard that the RAN wants to go with Sweden and look at the A26. I think if Australia wants a Large SSK, they should have gone with the German Type 212,214 or the French Scorpène class submarines. If Japan was an option, their latest and greatest SSK, the Sōryū class submarine and the Oyashio class submarine

The oxygen system in the F-22 is NOT designed to keep the pilot alive in chemical and biological warfare conditions. An OBOG makes O2 by “pressure swing absorption”, basically taking outside air and squeezing it through filter media to seperate the O2 atoms. Although it may incidentally filter out the larger chemical compounds and (presumably) carbon monoxide, it is not certified to be a CW filter. In fact, the F-22 capability document originally rejected individual protection of pilots as an interference in the man-machine interface.

And it doesn’t hurt to start at ridiculously expensive with massive cost overruns which keep expectations low. Then when you bring down costs to only outlandishly expensive (perhaps reasonable, submarines everywhere are expensive), it looks better.

When they first put out the idea of the Virginia, they wanted $1.8billion per boat. When the program officially started, the target was $2billion each. The first batch was around $2.4 billion, and the next flights were contracted for right about $1.8billion. The last couple boats to be built were built tens of millions under the $2.4billion price tag and months ahead of schedule. The Mississippi came in a year ahead of schedule and the previous boat was 8 months ahead. When does that ever happen in DoD acquisitions?

If they are going to go with the type 216, Australia needs to be hands on all the way and need set the requirements before the first steel is cut. Also not make the same mistakes they made on the Collins. They need to let the Germans design and built it with Australian oversight.

Submarine ahead of schedule and under budget? Can’t have that, lets cut that program back from 2 boats a year to 1 until they get back in line. It doesn’t pay to stick your nose out in front in a socialist ruled country don’t ya know.

Just focus on two program at a time say Sub production and BM production for defense. Then after it obtained the goal jump to the next program.

Those 43 subs are all fast attacks (SSN)…they have a minimum role in retaliatory strike capability on a global basis…that’s the SSBN. The Ohio class Trident submarines are the retaliatory strike force. The SSNs are primarily submarines that attack other submarines. Of course they do carry cruise missiles that have nuclear capability but we’d be long gone before cruise missiles could reach most of their targets if fired against the big boys (China and Russia) in retaliation for a pre-emptive attack.

And I agree, Europe needs to defend themselves…

The answer is probably really simply a clear defined concept and a stable funding with a reward system for the producers. This is what nearly all other US Military programs like the F35, the LCS and some more don’t have. So they all suffer under a unclear defined concept (for exampel the F35 or the LCS) and not to meet requirements like the dead FCS Program and they are also all unsteady funded.

Who’d have thought that with solid, consistant funding, a military procurement program could be efficient? Maybe we should try that with all the other programs. (Ha, ha. Who are we kidding? Politicians live to dick around with program funding and to hell with efficiency. F-22 line was running like a Swiss watch so they kill it.)

And fire all your workers in between and run the companies out of business? Great plan.

Airplanes aren’t subs. Why not just send them to McDonald’s so they can see REAL efficiency? About as relevant.

@sferrin, this is exactly what happens with some but not all US Program how fail. It exiting three kinds of Programs in the DOD Acquisition the stable funded and evolutionary designed Programs like the Virginia, DDG51 and Cold War era Programs like the AH64, the F18 and the some other of this time this are the Programs how have nearly no cost overruns get virtually cheaper with every new build Unit why the developing cost are split on more Units.

The second type are the underfunded or not stable funded Programs and somehow there killed because of ideology like the F22, the RAH-66 Comanche and the B2 how are at last only expensive because of low buy Numbers and the high developing cost what some people don’t understand is what this are at Money what is already paid. For example about the half of the cost of a F22 are already paid money or better sad dead capital by the B2 is it about 2/3 of the Unit cost how are indebted on the developing costs. Love Unit Numbers means always extremely high Unit and later upgrading costs and also a significant higher live time cost because why every spare part are also rare and expensive.

And the third type, I called them the ideological Programs how are designed under ideology and blinding like the War on Terror/Asymmetric world only Ideology like the LCS and also Programs how there started under the revolutionary and joint concept in the late nineties the best example the FCS and partial also the F35 this programs can be with infinite funding not successfully completed because of the not working concept.

It is hard to believe but before the end of the cold war and the madness of the nineties how have effectively broken the Acquisition process and the Industrial base it was normal what a Military Program become a success and not a fail. So nearly all actually US weapons are developed and build in this time.

umm, Honeywell makes the F-22’s OBOGS, not Lockheed.

Thats why we love Australians. They always put out needs first.

I lol’ed. +1

Solar powered subs… Oh, man. Hilarious. Maybe they can run it on Algae? Recycled farts? Maybe anew section for rowers… Lol. +1

No, first of all the Navy does not have Newport News engineers. . the engineers in Newport News are civilians who work for Newport News Shipbuilding. Secondly, the subs are largely designed by Electic Boat Comnapy, a Division of General Dynamics.

Could someone translate this to English???

I’m glad that the navy can deliver early. I hope they have better people then they had at Mare Island here in california.
The people at Mare Island were doing drugs when they were building their boats and going over them. And the only reason I know this is that one of the guys that worked on the Boats worked with me in Vallejo.
He used to joke about how they would smoke Pot before going back to work and they were never tested for drugs. I hope they have a better program for drugs then they did back in the 70’s and 80’s.
The Navy needs great Boats and named after great states, I’m an x seal who did deploys on subs and if it weren’t for them it would of been hard to get where we were going.

If the subs are coming in early and under budget, then I want one.

Really, are you going to be around after that exchange to say I told you so?

There is no known translation.

I honestly believe he is doing that on purpose. My man Araya is one of a kind. Who needs the Sioux as code talkers, when we have Araya.

If so, you need to go to EB, the original and always and forever the BEST!

Lorne Thompson has written about the methods used to contain costs (etc.) with the Virginia SSN class boats. The article can likely still be found as lexingtoninstitute,org

Los Angeles and Seawolf Classes were Newport News (NNS) Design, both Electric Boat (EB) and NNS Contractor (Huntington Ingalls — aka Northrup Grumman Newport News) built.  OHIO and VIRGINIA Class were both designed at EB, with work performed in both shipyards building them.  For VIRGINIA, there is a “forced partnership” between the two yards, with each one supplying ‘modules’ to the other yard for final build/test and each trying to out-perform the other.  Competition is great for driving down costs, and is fueled by bragging rights.  The cost of each sub is directly tied to how many hours are worked on each, and the goal is to keep them cheap enough so that the Govt can buy more, sooner.

The number of months to build the first of the Class SSN774 was 86 months (not including ‘deferred work’).  The time to build has now decreased to 62 months as seen on the SSN782 USS MISSISSIPPI and there was very little work was ‘deferred’.  These planned improvements are from Process Improvement Engineers and from listening to the deck plate guys ideas, but are successfully executed by the blood sweat and tears of the Operations men and Women:  pipe fitters, steel tradesmen, machinists, electricians, testers, deck-plate engineers and the USS MISSISSIPPI Crew, who worked countless hours of unpaid/paid OT to achieve the schedule you guys see, at the reduced cost to the Government.

NNS builds Subs, Carriers, etc… EB has been in business for more than 100 years building submarines.  That is what they do — one thing — and they do it extremely well.  But to keep US manufacturing healthy, America must retain the knowledge, invest in technology, and have some security that the Customer will continue to buy the products 5, 10, 20 years in the future.

Los Angeles and Seawolf Classes were Newport News (NNS) Design, both Electric Boat (EB) and NNS Contractor (Huntington Ingalls — aka Northrup Grumman Newport News) built.  OHIO and VIRGINIA Class were both designed at EB, with work performed in both shipyards building them.  For VIRGINIA, there is a “forced partnership” between the two yards, with each one supplying ‘modules’ to the other yard for final build/test and each trying to out-perform the other.  Competition is great for driving down costs, and is fueled by bragging rights.  The cost of each sub is directly tied to how many hours are worked on each, and the goal is to keep them cheap enough so that the Govt can buy more, sooner.

The number of months to build the first of the Class SSN774 was 86 months (not including ‘deferred work’).  The time to build has now decreased to 62 months as seen on the SSN782 USS MISSISSIPPI and there was very little work was ‘deferred’.  These planned improvements are from Process Improvement Engineers and from listening to the deck plate guys ideas, but are successfully executed by the blood sweat and tears of the Operations men and Women:  pipe fitters, steel tradesmen, machinists, electricians, testers, deck-plate engineers and the USS MISSISSIPPI Crew, who worked countless hours of unpaid/paid OT to achieve the schedule you guys see, at the reduced cost to the Government.

During WWII the U.S. built 3 destroyers a week. Of course they were not as complicated as todays ships, but it goes to show, when the chips are down, it can be done. GO NAVY!

Building a new & improved, less expensive mouse trap is every engineer’s dream. It happens every once in a while. But that’s it. Don’t count on it happening with regularity. It’s just not in the cards. Too many variables in the quotion. “But, I do love it when a plan comes togther!!”

I know usually when you build more ships of a class the more the refined the proceedures and the less time and exspense. I understand the navy does not want to pay for a 5,000 dollar toilet for the captain but EB can’t give a sub to the Navy for free either.

*required

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

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.