Why all the push for Jobs Building Submarines?

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@robby

But with all that said, there seems to be a real push to build the U.S. submarine force back up after a couple of decades of decline (in terms of quantity, not quality). This will take at least a couple of decades to accomplish, so there may be some career job security. Unless they change their minds again.

It should be noted that the design and construction of submarines is a highly specialized industry which is very different from building surface vessels; while a large commercial shipyard could at least build out the hull and powerplant of a conventional frigate, destroyer, or light cruiser, only Newport News and Electric Boat could built a Virginia class nuclear submarine. Not only are the processes and requirements different for a hull that has to withstand many times atmospheric pressure but there are an enormous number of features on a submarine that are classified, requiring a cleared workforce and secure facilities. I’d agree it is the work of a decade just to build up the workforce, and more to start building modern attack submarines in large quantities.

@robby

Exactly. The U.S. and its allies (like Australia) are worried about China. I think the Pentagon is realizing that aircraft carriers and other surface vessels are vulnerable to drones and missiles, which can overwhelm a surface ship’s defenses.

But it is still very, very difficult to detect a submerged submarine at sea. And modern submarines are absolutely lethal in a shooting war, especially against anything that floats. They are also the best platform to counter an enemy submarine.

China has a large navy in quantity but it is not a ‘blue water’ navy that could operate either in the open Pacific or even sustain itself in the Indian Ocean. However, it isn’t intended to operate that far; it has enough reach and firepower to cover the East and South China Sea and provide enough targets to dilute a technically more capable naval force while throwing mass quantities of missiles and drones at opponents. Whether that strategy would ultimately be successful or not (I have my doubts) they could likely make it costly enough for the US to not want to enter into direct conflict, and the loss of an aircraft carrier or even one or two Virginia or even older Los Angeles or Seawolf attack submarines would be a substantial blow to prestige and billions of dollars of lost investment.

Agreed that it is difficult to detect a submarine out in broad ocean area; however, within the shallower depth of the East China Sea and confined space in the Taiwan Strait, US submarines may find much of the advantage from features designed for North Atlantic and Pacific blue water operations somewhat blunted, and even operations in the deeper South China sea may be more difficult as China deploys their surveillance network. With the home court advantage of having land based air cover and missile basing they can keep surface ships at bay, forcing the submarine fleet into what is essentially guided missile frigate duty with fraction of the VLS capacity at two or three times the cost of an Arleigh Burke destroyer.

I can’t see how trying to build more subs in the next couple of decades is really going to prepare the US Navy for such a conflict in the near term; certainly not before the plans for a 2027 invasion of Taiwan that Xi and his military leaders have been strongly hinting at. Maybe someone in the Department of the Navy is a nostalgic fan of that SeaQuest DSV show which predicted vast colonies of people in undersea settlements and submarine piracy.

Stranger