Beyond Virginia?
Has anyone seen this report by Andrew Koch in Jane's about a possible follow-on/replacement to the Virginia-class? I'd love to get the scoop if anybody has details.The long-term health of the US Navy's Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN) - one of its most cherished programmes - appears in grave danger because of the growing cost of the war in Iraq, tightening defence budgets and mounting deficits.
According to US Department of Defense (DoD) documents, statements by senior navy officials and insider accounts, a combination of funding shortfalls and pressures from the highest levels of the DoD are moving decision-makers toward the conclusion that the Virginia-class programme should be cancelled well before its planned 30 boats will be built.
One well-placed source told JDW the navy could build as few as 10 of the boats before switching to a new design in about 2012. The service had planned to move to a substantially modified centre section design of the Virginia at about that time, which would allow far greater flexibility in the types of payload carried such as unmanned vehicles and weapons. If the new plan continues, the source said, the navy could start buying a new smaller SSN, possibly augmented by diesel-electric attack submarines (SSKs) with advanced air-independent propulsion (AIP). US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, the source said, recently visited Germany to inquire about gaining access to AIP boats, although JDW was unable to verify this before going to press.
In a directive issued at the end of December 2004, Wolfowitz directed the navy to "design a future undersea superiority system alternative ... that includes considerations of new propulsion systems" and applied $600 million to the effort over the next six years. The navy has been working on a design that uses distributed pump water-jet propulsion for the past year and the source said "those involved say its going to be amazing". The same directive - Program Budget Decision 753 - also removed funds for three Virginia-class boats, keeping production rates at one per year rather than two starting in Fiscal Year 2009 as previously planned.
posted by WillyShake @ 6:31 AM
4 Comments:
Zero Bubble, You make a good point--now let me play the Academian and complicate matters...the "political/business" deals you mention are very likely in play with the cropping of the VA class, but doesn't this also work to the advantage of the sub force? For all of the woes that our Defense Industry produces because of political and financial competition (nods to the New London community's current crisis), it has been shown, historically speaking, to be the best system so far. Witness the Soviet Union's inability to keep up with our technology over the long haul.
That said, I definitely see your point and share your concern over an apparent willingness to carve into the sub force's order of battle while promising to fill that numbers gap with the promise of new technology. What also comes to mind is the usurpation of the old 637 class (by all accounts a solid piece of technology for its day) by the promise of the faster 688's.
PBS, Respectfully, I think you're taking an example I used and substituting it for my larger point, which was precisely aimed AGAINST oversimplication of the issue and therefore largely in agreement with what you wrote.
Also, I'm not sure that we're developing technology simply for technology's sake while the rest of the world simply seeks cheaper options. This touches on a point often made by Victor Davis Hanson: namely, Western armies have historically succeeded because of the freedoms they instill in their societies--including the economic sphere, where entrepreneurship is inherently rewarded. The Iranians, the Chinese, and others have taken the low-technology route in *some areas* because that's their most affordable option. Note, however, that when high-technology proves cost-effective (as it does in the case of Iran's secret attempts to become a major player in the Middle East by developing The Bomb), these countries exhibit little restraint. If they had our enormous economy, I dare say that they would be opting for nuke subs, drones, space weapons, etc. etc.
So I want to encourage you to consider (as I was trying to do with Zero Bubble) the *advantages* of what you term "Beltway types...often dazzled by shiny new thing". Sure, nobody wants a military full of silly, politically-driven weapon systems like the Army's Crusader program, but consider, for example, that we could meet the Chinese Kilo threat in two ways: first, we could take the low-technology route and develop diesels to match theirs, OR we could continue to make strides in various technology pathways currently under development and come up with, say, a sonar suite that works more effectively in the littoral. (that example is just off the top of my head).
So, again, yes, I agree with you and Zero Bubble (as I stated in my response to him) in your concern about the politicization of defense assets (if I can use that scary academic phrase! LOL), but I think that the system works well enough to not go chucking it altogether.
Now, you state that the Virginia class is "a new, almost proven design" and this is what I'd like to hear/learn more about. Could you (or others) elaborate on the Virginia Class? This is why I posted the story in the first place--I honestly don't know enough about it as a platform in the current threat environment. Is it effectively designed, or are there problems (as I hinted at earlier by citing the 637 vs. 688 transition). An example of a problem with the "new and improved" technology of the Los Angeles class was that the VLS system was an afterthought--and therefore (speaking as a former AWEPS) something of a "Rube Goldberg machine".
oh...and how do I put a link in a comment as you did, PBS? :)
PBS: waay cool! thanks! I'll stay-tuned.
Post a Comment
<< Home