By Kris Osborn, President, Center for Military Modernization Members of Congress are making a push to secure funding for a continued fast-paced, revved up attack submarine construction plan to address the longstanding concern many Pentagon leaders and Combatant Commanders have been trying to counter…… a growing “submarine” deficit in the force. This concern was of specific relevance in the Pacific, as Combatant Commanders there for years echoed a familiar refrain … that operational demand for Virginia-class attack submarines massively outmatched available supply. This concern goes back as far as 10-years or more. Years ago, the Navy’s 30-year Shipbuilding Plan regularly cited submarine fleet-size numbers and pointed out that the pace at which Los Angeles Class submarines were retiring was much faster than new Virginia-class submarines could be added. Congress has for many years been working with the Navy to address this, as years ago the Navy anticipated a submarine “deficit” to worsen as more legacy boats retire, Virginia construction ramps up and industry begins to build a new generation of Columbia-class SSBN submarines. Following all these efforts, lawmakers did indeed succeed in increasing annual Virgina-class submarine construction, yet in recent years decision-makers in both the Republican and Democratic parties have expressed grave concern about large-scale reductions in annual submarine construction funding. The conversations have focused upon budget as well as discussion about ways to “flex” the industrial base such that it could accommodate a much-increased op-tempo. Many Navy weapons developers, commanders and members of Congress have for years been advocating for an “increased” Virginia-class attack submarine construction pace to help mitigate the growing deficit. At one point, the US Navy’s now former acquisition executive Mr. James Geurts supervised a special expert driven industrial base capacity study intended to explore this question, and indeed the results showed that the submarine-construction industrial base could in fact “stretch” to increase construction of Virginia-class by at least one extra boat per year after production of the Columbia’s got fully revved up. As former Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition), Geurts was naturally quite familiar with the US industrial base capacity. Following this study in subsequent years, the industrial base building submarines in the United States did, in fact, massively expand, with close support and cooperation with the US Navy. General Dynamics Electric Boat and HII both added new skilled personnel, manufacturing equipment and even constructed new facilities to absorb an expected “uptick” in submarine construction. In particular, General Dynamics Electric Boat did build a new facility in Rhode Island and added capacity in New London as well. ACIBC Given these adaptations and subsequent efforts to build “two” Virginia-class boats per year alongside and in addition to new nuclear-armed Columbia, a large group of 14 members of Congress have combined to write a letter to the US Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense asking that the “two-Virginias” construction per year pace be maintained. The letter, highlighted by the office of Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss, included a bipartisan group of lawmakers interested in supporting ongoing Virginia-class production accelerations. “U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., Chris Murphy, D-Conn., Tim Kaine, D-Va., Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., Rick Scott, R-Fla., Ted Budd, R-N.C., Mazie K. Hirono, D-Hawaii, Bob Casey, D-Pa., Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., John Cornyn, R-Texas, Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, and Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz.”, also signed the letter, according to an essay from Sen. Wicker’s office. “Cutting funding for the Virginia-Class program sends a terrible message to the submarine industrial base working vigorously to rebuild in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis,” the senators wrote. “Preserving a consistent production schedule is essential for shipyard and industrial base stability, and to meet the Navy’s operational requirements.” Wicker recently voted for an April 2024 national security supplemental which included $3.4 billion for US industrial base submarine construction. Why More Attack Submarines There are many reasons why Navy and Pentagon leaders have for years been asking for more attack submarines, and they naturally align with the threat equation. One variable is a sheer question of mass, given that Global Firepower [https://www.globalfirepower.com/] lists the US and China to operate an equivalent number of submarines. The site lists the US as operating 64 submarines, as compared to China’s 61, and it’s likely this small gap is closing quickly. Sheer numbers of available attack submarines are certainly needed to blanket the vast-maritime expanse which is the Pacific theater. Aside from the pure size and reach of the Navy’s submarine fleet, there are also specific reasons why new, upgraded Virginia-class submarines are in great demand in the Pacific theater. In the event of a Chinese amphibious assault on Taiwan, the presence of forward-operating Virginia-class attack submarines could, quite simply, save Taiwan. Large surface ships in position to project power and counter an air-surface PLA-Navy assault would of course be seen from miles away by Chinese sensors and satellites. Carrier launched aircraft might be challenged to get there fast enough in decisive numbers to destroy an attacking Chinese fleet from the air, a reason why the Pentagon regularly operates its Navy carriers “forward” in the Pacific theater. Virginia-class submarines, by contrast, can conduct forward clandestine missions to track and target Chinese surface ships. Technological advances in recent years, involving quieting technologies and undersea communications equipment, have enabled Virginia-class submarines to embrace a larger “surveillance” role alongside its known mission to project undersea attack firepower. Also, while much is likely unknown about the technological sophistication of China’s growing attack submarine fleet, its Type 094-Jin class of attack submarines are widely described as highly threatening platforms. Although scientific researchers as far back as 2007 (Erikson & Goldstein) reported that Type 094 subs operated with an acoustic signature of 120 decibels, a level said to actually “noisier” than most Los Angeles submarines at the time, there have likely been upgrades. A 2009 Office of Naval Intelligence report, called The People's Liberation Army Navy: A Modern Navy with Chinese Characteristics [https://irp.fas.org/agency/oni/pla-navy.pdf] said that Chinese Type 094 attack submarines were “noisier” than 1970s Cold-War era Soviet submarines. The PLA-N is reported to operate between 6 and 8 Type 094 boats, (according to a 2015 report from Jane’s Defence), however the PLA-N submarine force has also been developing more upgraded Type 093A and Type 093B Shang II-class submarines armed with more firepower and possibly engineered with improved quieting technologies. Virginia-Class Submarines The US Navy’s Virginia-class boats are certain to be much quieter than the Los-Angeles class, so it is conceivable that indeed the US Virginia-fleet may operate with an undersea superiority in the realm of detectability and acoustic signature. It is unclear how long this might last, although Navy senior weapons developers have said publicly that Block III Virginia-class submarines do operate with a new generation of “quieting technologies,” because the PLA-N is now building a new Type 096 submarine slated to emerge by the end of this decade. This Type 096 submarine, according to several public Pentagon reports to Congress [https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2017_China_Military_Power_Report.PDF] on China in recent years, may be quieter, more lethal and in position to better challenge US undersea superiority. However, PLA-N progress with Type 096 may well be countered if not overmatched by the US Navy's cutting-edge Virginia-class boats. Block III Virginia-class boats, for example, are built with a computerized "fly-by-wire" navigation system in which a human operator uses a joystick-kind-of-approach while depth, speed and some navigational details are automated by an advanced computer system. This automation replaces the noisier and more cumbersome hydraulic-mechanical navigation system. Block III Virginias are also built with a special "Lock-Out" trunk enable Special Operations Forces to exit more easily beneath the surface and fiber optic cable in which commanders can view periscope images from anywhere within the submarine. Apart from the question of acoustic signature and fleet size, however, is the simple question of firepower. Chinese Type 094 submarines are now armed with a massively upgraded JL-3 nuclear-armed missile which greatly expands PLA-N submarine targeting range from 8,000km to 10,000km, a distance from which Chinese submarines could further threaten Hawaii and the continental US from parts of the Pacific Ocean. Nevertheless, should the US submarine fleet operate with an advantage in the realm of “quieting” technologies with its Virginia-class submarines, the US Navy will still need to “mass, disperse and forward position” these submarines. This is a likely reason why, among many other factors, the Navy and Congress want to maintain a fast-paced construction of Virginia-class attack submarines. Kris Osborn [https://warriormaven.com/author/krisosborn] President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.
