US Navy might not have enough submarines

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.

Clouded Leopard said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 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.

Jeff Head said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Tasman said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

IDonT said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Clouded Leopard said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.



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

Clouded Leopard said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Clouded Leopard said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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".