Is it time to end the Navy’s SSN(X) submarine program?

What you need to know: The US Navy’s SSN(X) program, intended to replace aging Los Angeles-class submarines and enhance undersea capabilities, has been delayed for a decade due to budget constraints and limitations. shipyards. The cost of the SSN(X) is estimated at $6.2 billion per unit, much higher than that of current Virginia-class submarines.

-Critics argue that instead of focusing on expensive new platforms for future conflicts, the Navy should prioritize expanding and modernizing shipyards to meet current demands.

– With shipbuilding capabilities lagging and future warfare unpredictable, some suggest canceling the SSN(X) altogether and instead focusing on upgrading existing platforms and improving unmanned systems.

The future of American submarines in danger: the SSN(X) delay explained

The US Navy is in crisis. Its needs and ambitions cannot be met by America’s ailing infrastructure. One casualty of this painful reality was the Navy’s proposed SSN(X) program. Scheduled to begin construction in 2034 and an inaugural deployment nine years later, the Navy decided to delay the program for a decade due to budget and shipyard limitations.

Even today, the Navy cannot meet its basic obligations to maintain its submarine force, much less impose a new requirement for an entirely new platform like the proposed SSN(X).

A delay in the SSN(X) program, which was intended in part to focus resources on the ongoing DDG(X) destroyer program (itself a nightmare), would create serious gaps in U.S. submarine capabilities.

The Pentagon presents this negative news as positive. Some SSN(X) proponents insist that this delay will give the advanced technologies underlying this platform more time to mature.

Color me skeptical.

Then again, the Navy has been struggling with its submarine capabilities since failing to build the Seawolf-class submarines it had originally planned to build. At the end of the Cold War, Congress balked at the Seawolf’s high price and virtually canceled the program after only a handful of them were built.

Meanwhile, the Navy continues to struggle to build the Virginia class, even as older Los Angeles-class attack submarines continue to be retired from service at an alarming rate.

SSN(X) is too expensive

The US Congressional Budget Office projects that the cost of SSN(X) will be approximately $6.2 billion per unit. That’s an order of magnitude higher than the $2.8 billion price tag of the Virginia-class submarines. Due to the high price of SSN(X), Congress is understandably reluctant to commit.

Even if they weren’t, Navy shipyards could not meet the demand for these systems.

The Navy’s true goal should not be to purchase another expensive weapons platform to fight tomorrow’s theoretical wars. Instead, the Navy must focus on reliably fighting today’s real-world threats.

The Navy should focus its efforts on rapidly expanding and modernizing America’s stalled shipyards. This would address the root cause of all the branch’s problems: failing infrastructure.

And the SSN(X) program is a totally unserious effort on the part of the Navy.

You know, this is where online program enthusiasts start talking about the system as meeting the needs of war in an ambiguous future.

This of course raises the question: what if the future of war was not as the Navy designers think?

The future of war is never what they think

Consider the dreams of Washington’s war fanatics with the realities of war. In the 1990s, no one except a handful of counterterrorism experts believed that AK-47-wielding Islamists in the caves of Afghanistan would become the primary threat to America in the 2000s.

Likewise, ten years ago, everyone still believed that the U.S. military would be a standing counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism force. Few people thought that the ubiquitous weapons in the global war on terror would be improvised explosive devices for terrorists and unmanned aerial vehicles for Americans. It’s best not to get too deep into the weeds of the dream war and instead focus on the practical side.

The Navy already has high-performance platforms.

For the aging Los Angeles class submarines, it is bizarre that these boats are not sold to the Australians to keep them in service. For Virginia-class submarines, the Navy cannot even produce more than two, barely, per year due to the disaster unfolding in American shipyards. If the Navy cannot produce the systems it needs today, how will it ever be able to produce the SSN(X) complex?

Of course, the technologies underlying the proposed SSN(X) look pretty interesting. Rumor has it that the Navy wants to include biomimetic propulsion systems. These are engines which essentially reproduce the movements of underwater fauna in order to make it more difficult for enemy submarines to pursue the SSN(X).

What the Navy Needs

The Navy also wants to integrate unmanned underwater vehicles into the proposed SSN(X). This is similar to what the Air Force plans to do with its sixth-generation Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) manned fighter jet and advanced drones (the Loyal Wingman system). However, as I noted about the NGAD, why not cut out the middlemen altogether and simply build the Navy’s UUV capability, completely avoiding the very expensive SSN(X)?

We live in a time of austerity. The Navy, like the rest of the United States, cannot afford the lavish lifestyle it is accustomed to. If he continues to try to live this dream, it will end in a nightmare.

It’s time to kill the SSN(X) program for good.

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

National Interest National Security Analyst Brandon J. Weichert is a former congressman and geopolitical analyst who contributes to The Washington Times, The Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the safe

Russia panicked: why the US Navy didn’t withdraw the Iowa-class battleships

Battleship versus battlecruiser: Iowa class versus Russian Kirov class (who wins?)