The US Navy’s SSN(X) submarine problem must be ended

Summary and key points: The U.S. Navy’s SSN(X) program, intended to produce the next generation of nuclear submarines, has been delayed by a decade due to budget and shipyard constraints.

– With an estimated cost of $6.2 billion per unit, far exceeding the cost of the Virginia-class submarines, the SSN(X) faces logistical and financial hurdles.

– With the Navy unable to meet current demand for submarines, there are concerns about the Navy’s ability to produce this complex platform.

-Rather than focusing on expensive, theoretical future warfare systems, the Navy should prioritize repairing shipyard infrastructure and improving the capabilities of unmanned undersea vehicles to meet today’s real threats.

The intention is to end the SSN(X) submarine program for good

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

Even now, the Navy cannot meet the basic obligations to keep its submarine fleet running, let alone issue a new requirement for an entirely new platform such as the proposed SSN(X).

A delay in the SSN(X) program, partly intended to concentrate resources on the ongoing DDG(X) destroyer program (itself a nightmare), will create serious shortfalls in America’s undersea capabilities.

The Pentagon is spinning this negative news as a positive. Some SSN(X) proponents argue that the delay will give the advanced technologies supporting the platform more time to mature.

I am skeptical.

On the other hand, the Navy has struggled with its underwater capabilities since it failed to build the Seawolf class submarines it originally planned to build. When the Cold War ended, Congress balked at the high price tag for the Seawolf and effectively canceled the program after only a handful were built.

Meanwhile, the Navy continues to struggle with construction of the Virginia class, while the older Los Angeles-class attack submarines are being retired at an alarming rate.

The SSN(X) is too expensive

The U.S. Congressional Budget Office has projected the SSN(X) to cost about $6.2 billion per unit. That’s an order of magnitude higher than the $2.8 billion price tag of the Virginia-class submarines. Given the high price of the SSN(X), Congress has been understandably reluctant to commit to it.

But even if that were not the case, the Navy’s shipyards would still not be able to meet the demand for these systems.

The real focus for the Navy should not be on acquiring yet another expensive weapons platform to fight the theoretical wars of tomorrow. Instead, the Navy should focus on reliably countering real threats today.

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

And the SSN(X) program is a completely unserious effort by the Navy.

You know it’s happening when enthusiasts of the online program start claiming that the system will meet the needs of warfare in some unclear future.

This of course begs the question: what if the future of warfare not as Navy designers think?

The future of warfare is never what they think it is

Consider the dreams of Washington’s war fantasists with the reality of war. No one in the 1990s, except for a handful of counterterrorism experts, believed that AK-47-wielding Islamists in the caves of Afghanistan would be the greatest threat to America in the 2000s.

Likewise, ten years ago, everyone believed that the U.S. military would be a permanent counterinsurgency and counterterrorism force. Few thought that the ubiquitous weapons of the Global War on Terror would be the improvised explosive device for the terrorists and the unmanned aerial vehicle for the Americans. It is better not to get bogged down in the details of dream warfare and focus instead on the practical.

The Navy already has suitable platforms.

For the aging Los Angeles class submarines, it is bizarre that these boats are not being sold to the Australians to keep them in service. For the Virginia class submarines, the Navy can only produce two, barely, a year because of the unfolding disaster in the American shipyards. If the Navy can’t produce the systems it needs now, how will it ever produce the complex SSN(X)?

Sure, the underlying technologies for the proposed SSN(X) sound pretty cool. Rumor has it that the Navy wants to incorporate biomimetic propulsion systems. These are engines that essentially mimic the movement of underwater animals to make it harder for enemy submarines to track the SSN(X).

What the Navy Needs

The Navy also wants to integrate unmanned undersea vehicles with the proposed SSN(X). This is similar to what the Air Force plans to do with their Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) sixth-generation manned combat aircraft and advanced UAVs (the Loyal Wingman system). As I said about the NGAD, why not cut out the middleman altogether and simply bolster the Navy’s UUV capability, and avoid the costly SSN(X) altogether?

We live in an age of austerity. The Navy, like the rest of the United States, cannot afford the lavish lifestyle to which it has become accustomed. If it continues to pursue that dream, it will end in a nightmare.

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

Author’s Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former congressional staffer 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, will be published October 22 by Encounter Books. You can follow Weichert on Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the vault

Russia in Panic: Why the US Navy Hasn’t Recommissioned the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Cruiser: Iowa Class vs. Russian Kirov Class (Who Wins?)