Opinion: A New Era in Anti-Submarine Warfare

China and Russia’s submarine forces are flexing their prowess in the undersea domain by operating further from their respective country’s homeport – in some cases within striking distance of the United States.

 

Given the expansion in operations, anti-submarine warfare (ASW) platforms on both coasts of the United States will be required to monitor and defend the nation more frequently.

 

Foreign submarine operations near the homeland are not necessarily immediate threats, but do require careful thought as the Navy prepares to execute future ASW missions. As budget and naval policymakers continue to plan for the future, ASW must remain a high priority for either homeland or overseas defense. The good news is that the U.S. Navy has new platforms and technology coming online that can provide a significant advantage in the undersea domain.

 

CHINA

An undated photo of a Jin-class Type 94 nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN). PLAN Photo

Adm. Sam Locklear, Commander, Pacific Command, earlier this year stated, “China’s advance in submarine capabilities is significant. They possess a large and increasingly capable submarine force.” China has expanded their undersea reach as evident in this year’s deployment of a Chinese nuclear submarine to the Indian Ocean. The deployment demonstrates extended submarine operations and the capability for China to deploy nuclear submarines within ballistic missile launch range of the United States, within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), or potentially closer to territorial waters. As China continues sustained undersea operations, proficiency will likely improve with time as well.

The expansion of China’s nuclear submarine fleet will also allow operations further from the Asia Pacific region in the coming years. China is in the process of building four new improved variants of the Shang class nuclear submarine and working on a robust diesel submarine fleet. Given China’s submarine capability to transit and operate in the Indian Ocean and with continued submarine growth, a future nuclear submarine deployment off the West Coast of the United States may occur in the next five years or possibly sooner.

 

The purpose of future submarine deployments may serve as a deterrence, presence or collection mission against the United States – creating an increased requirement for naval assets to monitor and ensure security for the nation. This development should not come as a surprise to those in the national security community. Senior policymakers and naval leaders should develop an operational and strategic plan in how to deal with Chinese submarine operations closer to the United States.

 

RUSSIA

Russian Borey-class (Project 955) ballistic nuclear missile submarine Yuri Dolgoruky during sea trials. RIA Novosti Photo

 

As China increases their submarine role in maritime operations, Russia is simultaneously increasing their Navy’s importance. “The navy, for our country, is her pride, strength and dignity,” Russia’s President Vladimir Putin last month said. “The power and strength of the Russian navy will only grow.”

The Russian submarine force is also set to grow.

 

In the next two years, Russia will begin construction on nine submarines. Russia has already commissioned two Borei class nuclear submarines and plans to build six more. This new submarine is a notable threat carrying sixteen SS-NX-32 Bulava intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and six SS-N-15 cruise missiles. In addition, the Russian navy plans to add seven Severodvinsk class nuclear attack submarines by 2020 with intentions for reaching a total of sixteen.

 

With Russia’s construction of new submarines and leadership touting naval strength, more submarine operations near the United States are possible. Since the end of the Cold War, Russia for the most part has been non-existent in operating nuclear submarines near the United States, but that may change. In 2012, a Sierra class nuclear submarine operated off the east coast of the U.S. – a trend that could continue in the future. In addition, Russia recently increased rhetoric against possible U.S. submarine operations. Russia publicly stated an IL-38 ASW aircraft chased away a U.S. nuclear submarine that was operating in the Barents Sea – a claim U.S. naval leaders quickly rebuked.

AMERICAN ASW

P-8A Poseidon, operated by Patrol Squadron (VP-16) in February, 2013. US Navy Photo

A future increase in submarine construction and operations by both countries are not the only development of concern in the undersea domain. Internationally, the development and use of unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) for military, education, and commercial use are expanding. In the military realm, developed countries are exploring UUV deployment from submarines that will create a new dynamic in the undersea domain. As autonomous technology becomes more mature, UUVs will also operate independently in areas of potential crisis or strategic importance. With a future increase in UUV operations, the ability to track UUVs in the undersea will be equally difficult and require improved sensor and processing capability.

 

To meet expanded foreign submarine operations and UUV technological advancements, the U.S. surface naval force employs state of the art ASW technology aboard numerous Arleigh Burke class destroyers. The SQQ-89A(V)15 Combat System, which will be aboard 64 destroyers by 2020, and the new Multi-Functional Towed Array (MFTA) are game changers in ASW operations. The combined capabilities alter how the surface navy searches and tracks submarines. With enhanced sensor capability and data processing, the surface naval forces have an increased role in integrated ASW operations. ASW surface ships can remain longer on station in comparison to aircraft and also provide real time command and control capability beyond that of a submarine.

 

In stride with the surface navy’s technological advancements, the aviation community has new platforms to meet the ASW mission. The MH-60R Sea Hawk helicopter and the P-8A Poseidon aircraft are to be fully integrated in the fleet by 2020. The new platforms are already providing an improved ASW capability in fleet operations. The MH-60R has been forward deployed in Japan and operating in the Asia Pacific region since 2012.

 

Additionally, the rotary aircraft has an enhanced active dipping sonar advertised to increase detection ranges from three to seven times compared to legacy systems.

 

Earlier this month six P-8A aircraft completed an inaugural and successful deployment to the Asia Pacific. The P-8A adds an improved sensor search capability by utilizing a multi-static active coherent (MAC) system, which is comprised of sonobuoys (source and receiver) and advanced processing. In addition to the new platforms and technological advancements, all ASW ships and aircraft in the future will employ the Mk 54 lightweight torpedo, which integrates several years of weapons technology. By 2020, these new improvements collectively in the surface and aviation communities will create a powerful ASW capability. However, the Navy must further improve requisite training to meet the new capabilities, and foster a fleetwide culture that prioritizes the ASW mission.

 

The CNO’s Sailing Directions offers, “The Navy will continue to dominate the undersea domain using a network of sensors and platforms.” The navy is building a fleet (sensors and platforms) with enormous ASW capability that will create an integrated ASW machine. Additionally, the CNO has articulated that warfighting is the Navy’s primary mission and people are the Navy’s foundation. To ensure the U.S. Navy succeeds in ASW, a focus on warfighting and people must occur in tandem.

TRAINING

Lt. Richard Ray discusses the bi-lateral U.S. and Republic of Korea Navy’s Surface Ship Anti-Submarine Warfare Readiness and Effectiveness Measure (SHAREM) exercise with Lt. Hyeoung Seok Noh, Republic of Korea Navy, in the combat information center aboard USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) on June 3, 2014. US Navy Photo

ASW is a complicated warfare area, and proficiency can only develop through extensive textbook and practical training, at both the officer and enlisted levels. In his book, Destroyer Captain, Adm. Jim Stavridis (retired) described that “submarines are like steel sharks – quiet, silent, and deadly. They are designed to hunt and kill. Occasionally, it becomes necessary to find and destroy them – to keep open sea-lanes of communication, to sweep an area and make it safe for Allied shipping.

 

Destroying a submarine is the hardest task in naval warfare.” Learning ASW takes time, training, and experience to fully understand how to plan and execute ASW operations. Of all the topics associated with ASW, oceanography (undersea environment) is the most difficult to grasp and essential in dominating the undersea domain.

 

When comparing the undersea with other warfare area such as anti-air warfare, the science and understanding of the ASW operating environment is a more complex tactical problem. Given the complexity of ASW, training personnel in mastering oceanography and anti-submarine operations must remain a high priority. For the last twenty years or more, ASW has not been a significant operational requirement as a result of the Cold War ending and a decade of fighting in the war on terrorism. A culture change from a primarily air warfare centric navy to an emphasis more in ASW must occur to improve proficiency among naval personnel at all ranks. This culture change must occur from the top down led by the Navy’s senior officers afloat and ashore.

 

Today and in the future, ASW will be required to deter and deny future foreign submarine operations against U.S. national interests at home and abroad. Combatant and Fleet Commanders must carefully balance the allocation of naval forces in both these areas to sustain undersea dominance. The navy’s new platforms and technologies in the surface and aviation communities increase the ability to detect, localize, and track submarines. These new platforms and technologies have established a new era of ASW operations from the days of the Cold War. As the U.S. Navy moves forward, officers and enlisted personnel must have the necessary training to operate the improved platforms and sensors given the potential rise in foreign submarine operations as well as unknown UUV technological advancements.

Russia Playing Politics With Alleged Submarine Confrontations

Confrontations—and alleged confrontations—between the Russian armed forces and those of the United States, Europe and Japan have been on the uptick in recent weeks. The encounters have paced a general decline in relations between Russia and the West over events in the Ukraine.

 

This month Russian media have reported two alleged anti-submarine warfare operations undertaken against American and Japanese submarines. The confrontations are reminiscent of similar events during the Cold War, in which submarines of the Soviet Union, the United States and her allies played a constant cat-and-mouse game against one another.

 

This time however, the rationale behind the incidents appears more complex, undertaken by Russia as often for internal reasons as for making a larger point to the international community.

 

According to Russian state media, on Aug. 7 a foreign submarine was allegedly expelled from Russian-controlled waters in the Barents Sea. A Northern Fleet spokesman stated that Russian anti-submarine forces, consisting of surface ships and an Ilyushin Il-38 Maymaritime patrol aircraft had chased off what was presumed to be a U.S. Virginia-class attack submarine.

 

A spokesman for European Command later denied that the event took place, saying that no U.S. submarines had been operating in the area.

 

The incident—as well as an incident a week earlier, in which a U.S. Air Force RC-135 V/W Rivet Joint aircraft was harassed in international airspace over the Baltic Sea—appears meant to send a message to Russia’s neighbors. The message to pro-NATO countries such as Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, is that Russia is more than capable of successfully confronting the U.S. presence in Europe and ejecting American forces if necessary.

 

Meanwhile, on the other side of Russia came a report last week about a similar incident involving a Japanese submarine. A report in the Russian business daily Kommersant, citing a source in the Defense Ministry, said Russian anti-submarine warfare units had forced a Japanese Oyashio-class submarine to cut short a patrol near the border between the two countries.

 

The alleged incident occurred in the La Perouse Strait, known to Japan as the Soya Strait, a narrow passage between the northernmost Japanese island of Hokkaido and the Russian island of Sakhalin. The La Perouse Strait is a mere 43 miles across, and depth at the strait is approximately 60 meters. Japan claims an international water boundary of a mere three miles at the strait, instead of the usual 12, allegedly to allow nuclear-armed American warships crossing the strait to skirt and not enter Japanese waters.

 

The La Perouse Strait has been an important defensive bastion for Japanese submarines since the Cold War, when it was feared that Soviet forces would launch an invasion of Hokkaido from Sakhalin. In wartime, two or three Maritime Self-Defense Force submarines would guard the strait to prevent an amphibious invasion.

 

The Oyashio-class diesel attack submarines are older members of Japan’s submarine fleet, having been superseded by the newer Soryu class. The submarine involved would have been from the Maritime Self Defense Force base at Yokosuka.

 

On Wednesday, according to ITAR-TASS, the Russian government took the unusual step of denying a confrontation had actually took place. “The Japanese submarine detected in the La Perouse Strait on Wednesday did not violate international law and did not cross the Russian state border,” a source at the Russian General Staff reported. Why the story of a confrontation came to light in the first place is unknown.

 

The incident took place while Russian forces, including 1,000 ground troops, five Mi-8AMTSh armed transport helicopters, and 100 military vehicles staged an exercise on the Russian-held southern Kuril Islands. The southern Kurils, four islands seized from Japan by the Soviet Union at the end of World War II, are still claimed by Japan. Japan, where the islands are known as the Northern Territories, has tried to get Russia to return the islands for decades without avail. Japan protested the exercises, calling them “totally unacceptable.”

 

Japan also recently imposed sanctions on Russia for its part in events in the Crimea. The exercise, as well as the reported encounter with the Japanese submarine, are likely signals to Japan that Russia is still in control of the southern Kurils and can be a complicated neighbor, to put it mildly.

 

Another, more direct reason for these events is to divert attention within Russia from negative news harmful to the government of Vladimir Putin. Unlike the Cold War, in which the Soviet government did not have to compete internally with the Western narrative of world events, the Russian government must do so. The controlling relationship between Russian state media and Moscow makes it possible for the Putin government to promote alternatives to negative news and events.

 

The alleged expulsion of the Virginia-class submarine from the Barents Sea likely had another purpose as propaganda. The news broke in Russia on a Saturday, when it could dominate Russian news for the weekend. The following Tuesday, 12 August, was the 14th anniversary of the sinking of the Russian cruise missile submarine Kursk. Kursk sank with all 118 hands aboard in the Barents and the rescue effort by the government of then-president Putin was later criticized by many as inept. The anniversary was marked in Murmansk, Kursk, and several Northern Fleet bases with commemorative events.

 

Russia Today, in reporting the alleged expulsion, said “Such actions by the NATO undersea fleet have led to a number of navigation incidents in the Arctic”and then quoted a source in the Russian navy as stating that that, “A collision with (sic) U.S. nuclear submarine, Toledo, was one the main explanations of the Kursk submarine tragedy in 2000.” The net result was that the anniversary of the Kursk sinking was overshadowed by an incident that illustrated Russian strength.

 

Similarly, the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH 17 by Ukrainian separatists—and likely Russian complicity in the event—must now compete for attention against news reports of Russian forces defending their borders against American intruders. Creating incidents in which Russian strength is on display, offers a more positive alternative to reports of Russian ineptitude and involvement in the Crimea.

 

Confrontations between Russian and U.S., NATO and Japanese forces at sea will likely continue for the duration of the Putin administration. A major concern is that, aside from projecting the bellicosity of the Putin regime, such a confrontation could spark a major incident at sea. However, in an ironic twist, such events provide the West with an opportunity to study Russian military forces and detect strengths and weaknesses, as well as collect technical information on Russian equipment.

NAVSEA: North Dakota Attack Boat Investigation Complete

Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) has concluded an investigation into questionable third party components of its latest Virginia-class attack boat — North Dakota (SSN-784) — clearing the way for the submarine to commission in late October, NAVSEA told USNI News on Thursday.

 

“To date, all necessary inboard and outboard components have been inspected and all required repairs have been completed,” read a statement provided to USNI News.

 

NAVSEA inspected 58 components — mostly in the bow and stern sections — of the $2.6 billion attack boat and conducted an unspecified number of repairs, according to the statement.

 

“These components included stern planes and rudder rams, retractable bow plane cylinders, hydraulic accumulators, high pressure air charging manifolds, torpedo tube interlocks and shaft/link assemblies, weapons shipping and handling mechanisms, and other miscellaneous parts,” NAVSEA statement.

“The submarine was certified for sea trials and is tracking towards the Aug. 31 contractual delivery date.”

 

NAVSEA said other Block III Virginias would also be inspected. Neither the Navy nor Virginia-class prime contractor — General Dynamics Electric Boat —would identify the vendor to USNI News.

 

Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) — responsible for most construction of the bow and stern sections — referred comment on the program to NAVSEA and Electric Boat.

 

The commissioning delay and investigation are rare missteps in what is arguably the Navy’s best-run shipbuilding program in decades.

 

North Dakota is the first of the Block III boats. The revised design feature 40 percent of the bow retooled to accommodate a new water-backed Large Aperture Bow (LAB) sonar array and the addition of two Multiple All Up Round Canisters that can each hold six Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAM).

 

The redesign was led by Electric Boat and constructed by Newport News as part of the teaming agreement between the two yards for the Virginia-class construction.

 

Despite the delay, North Dakota will most likely still deliver ahead of its 66-month construction schedule.

 

The final Block II boat— USS Minnesota (SSN-783) — delivered 11 months early.

NAVSEA’s full Thursday statement to USNI News follows:

 

The commissioning of PCU NORTH DAKOTA (SSN 784) was postponed from May to address material issues with vendor-assembled and delivered components.

 

To date, all necessary inboard and outboard components have been inspected and all required repairs have been completed.

 

There were a total of 58 components investigated aboard PCU NORTH DAKOTA (SSN 784).
These components included stern planes and rudder rams, retractable bow plane cylinders, hydraulic accumulators, high pressure air charging manifolds, torpedo tube interlocks and shaft/link assemblies, weapons shipping and handling mechanisms, and other miscellaneous parts.

 

The submarine was certified for sea trials and is tracking towards the August 31 contractual delivery date. The commissioning is scheduled for October 25. All other Block III submarines are being inspected and any issues found will be adjudicated.

Submarine Albany enters naval shipyard

The submarine Albany went around the corner to Portsmouth on Wednesday for its midlife overhaul, traveling a short distance for a long stretch away from base.

 

The Albany, a nuclear-powered, fast-attack submarine homeported in Norfolk, will spend approximately 29 months at Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth. The scheduled work involves removing the shaft and sonar dome for maintenance and modernization of its combat systems, a shipyard spokesman said.

 

The overhaul also will incorporate some firsts for the shipyard, spokesman Jeff Cunningham said. The yard created a toolroom close to where the work on the submarine is being done, he said. That’s been the practice for aircraft carriers, but because of the layout of the shipyard, it wasn’t done for submarines in the past.

 

The team also has incorporated additional management training to streamline the project, Cunningham said.

 

The Albany was commissioned in 1990, the 43rd nuclear-powered, fast-attack submarine in the Los Angeles class and the fifth to carry the name of the New York state capital.

U.S. Navy Undersea Warfare Director Defends SSBN(X) Plans

With several defense analysts calling for the U.S. Navy to abandon its efforts to develop a new design for its SSBN(X) Ohio-class submarine replacements, the service’s undersea warfare director is defending the current course.

“Recently, a variety of writers have speculated that the required survivable deterrence could be achieved more cost effectively with the Virginia-based option or by restarting the Ohio-class SSBN production line,” says Rear Adm. Richard Breckenridge, in a recent blog. “Both of these ideas make sense at face value—which is why they were included among the alternatives assessed—but the devil is in the details. When we examined the particulars, each of these options came up short in both military effectiveness and cost efficiency.”

A Virginia-based SSBN design with a Trident II D5 missile, Breckenridge says, was “rejected due to a wide range of shortfalls.” The concept, he says, was not stealthy enough due to poor hull streamlining and lack of a drivetrain able to quietly propel a much larger ship; would have had longer refit times and a longer mid-life overhaul; would carry fewer missiles and warheads; would have exceeded cost targets because of the required extensive redesign of Virginia systems to work with the large missile compartment; and would have required a larger fleet of submarines.

“Some have encouraged the development of a new, smaller missile to go with a Virginia-based SSBN,” Breckenridge says. “This would carry forward many of the shortfalls of a Virginia-based SSBN, and add to it a long list of new issues. Developing a new nuclear missile from scratch with an industrial base that last produced a new design more than 20 years ago would be challenging, costly and require extensive testing. We deliberately decided to extend the life of the current missile to de-couple and de-risk the complex (and costly) missile development program from the new replacement submarine program.

“A smaller missile means a shorter employment range requiring longer SSBN patrol transits. This would compromise survivability, require more submarines at sea and ultimately weaken our deterrence effectiveness.”

Some have argued, he notes, that the Navy should reopen the Ohio production line and resume building the Ohio design SSBNs.

“This simply cannot be done because there is no Ohio production line,” Breckenridge says. “It has long since been retooled and modernized to build state-of-the-art Virginia-class SSNs using computerized designs and modular, automated construction techniques.”

Simply redesigning the Ohio-class subs to be built using new production methods and machinery would be a mistake, he says, since some of the newer technology would not carry over to the old design and building the ship to existing missile specifications could lead to some treaty issues.

General Dynamics continues project to upgrade submarine electronics with COTS computers

U.S. Navy officials are asking General Dynamics Information Systems in Fairfax, Va., to continue a project that seeks to upgrade the combat systems aboard U.S. missile and fast-attack submarines with commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) computers.

Officials of the Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington announced a $29.7 million contract modification to General Dynamics Wednesday for engineering and technical services in support of the AN/BYG-1 tactical control system aboard submarines.

The AN/BYG-1 is an open-architecture submarine combat control system for analyzing and tracking submarine and surface ship contacts, providing situational awareness, as well as aiming and firing torpedoes and missiles.

The program replaces central processors with COTS computers, and seeks to refresh submarine combat system processors with new COTS technologies every one to two years. The AN/BYG system is a counterpart to the Navy's Advanced Rapid COTS Insertion (A-RCI) program that uses COTS computers in submarine sonar signal processing systems.

 Submarine crews equipped with the AN/BYG-1 combat control system are able to analyze submarine sensor contact information to track submarine and surface vessels in open-ocean and coastal waters; aim and fire heavyweight torpedoes against submarine and surface ship targets; receive strike warfare orders, plan strike missions and employ Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles; and receive and synthesize sensor data and external tactical intelligence to produce an integrated tactical picture for situational awareness.

The AN/BYG-1 program includes a combat control system for the Virginia class attack submarine, as well as a replacement combat control system backfit for Los Angeles- and Seawolf-class attack submarines and for the Ohio-class ballistic-missile and cruise-missile submarines. General Dynamics also provides the AN/BYG-1 system for Royal Australian Navy Collins-class attack submarines.

The program uses biannual software upgrades called advanced processor builds (APBs) and hardware upgrades called technology insertions (TIs). The Navy began installing the AN/BYG-1 APB-09 system on Virginia-class fast-attack submarines in 2010.

The contract modification announced Wednesday calls for General Dynamics to continue upgrading the AN/BYG-1 Tactical Control System from a Technology Insertion (TI-10) baseline to a TI-12, integrate APB-13, begin developing the TI-14 baselines in several different variants suitable to the different classes of submarines.

The AN/BYG-1 modernization program separates development of the tactical control system (TCS) and the weapons control system (WCS) to enable independent yet parallel development and certification, General Dynamics officials say. Each of these systems uses a variety of APB software algorithms developed by industry, government, and academia.

The TCS portion of BYG-1 integrates sensor inputs to provide a secure common operational picture and improved situational awareness that blends information sonar, electronic support measures, radar, navigation, periscopes, and communications systems. The TCS system architecture allows for rapid COTS insertion to accommodate and integrate additional functionality and sensors.

Previous system enhancements have included improved commanding officer situational awareness by sharing display information across subsystems, and changing some designs to manage and distribute important navigation data.

Some of the latest enhancements under the AN/BYG-1 program have included integration of unmanned air vehicle (UAV) command and control (C2), and upgrading high-definition displays.

One of the benefits of rapid COTS technology upgrades to submarine combat systems is the ability for the Navy to learn from real-world experience to make quick improvements. Recent Navy recommendations, for example, were to acquire automation technology to help the operator in areas of high contact density.

Navy officials also have recommended improving operator training, because many of the new features in the APB-07 upgrades that were designed to improve mission performance were not used consistently during testing.

On the current contract modification, General Dynamics will do the work in Fairfax, Va., and should be finished by July 2014. For more information contact General Dynamics Information Systems online at www.gd-ais.com, or Naval Sea Systems Command at www.navsea.navy.mil.

First Sailors Report to Fast-Attack Sub Illinois

The following news release was submitted by Lt. j.g. Jeff Prunera, Submarine Group 2 Public Affairs.

The first group of Sailors reported to the Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) Illinois (SSN 786), a fast-attack submarine currently under construction in Groton, Conn.

The commanding officer's arrival June 17 marked a major milestone in the construction phase of the submarine and sets the crew training phase in motion. The ship's sponsor is First Lady Michelle Obama.

 Approximately 35 Sailors or one-fourth of the total crew have reported to Illinois over the past few weeks, including Commanding Officer Cmdr. Jess Porter; Engineering Officer Lt. Anthony Wilson; and Master Chief Machinist's Mate (SS) Steve Houk, the engineering department master chief.

"This is my first opportunity to be in command of a boat," said Porter. "It's a fantastic opportunity to be able to set the boat up well for its operational life in building the initial culture on board the submarine. Setting the initial culture is really what sets the boat up for a fantastic operational career."

Illinois is the 13th Virginia-class attack submarine and is under construction at General Dynamics Electric Boat (GDEB) and Huntington Ingalls Industries - Newport News Shipbuilding (HII-NNS).

Porter further reflected on the challenges he and the crew face with a unit under construction compared to an operational boat.

"On a PCU you have a whole bunch of new guys all at once coming to learn a new boat, where on an operational boat you have about one-third new crew members each year." Porter said. "That's the biggest challenge for me is to get those guys up on the step and ready to go to sea to fully operate the warship."

Illinois will be the second U.S. Navy vessel named after the 21st state and is the third Block III Virginia-class submarine.

Illinois is being built under a teaming arrangement between General Dynamics Electric Boat and Newport News Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries, in Newport News, Va.

Upon completion, the submarine will displace 7,800 tons of water at a length of 377 feet and a beam of 34 feet. It will be able to dive to depths greater than 800 feet and operate at speeds in excess of 25 knots while submerged.

Initial construction on the submarine began in March 2011 and it is contracted to be delivered in August 2016.

Virginia-class submarines are designed to dominate the world's littoral and deep waters while conducting anti-submarine, anti-surface ship, strike, irregular and mine warfare missions. They also support special operation forces in addition to covert intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.

Retirement in Sight for United States' Heavy Hitters

In a twist of bad timing, the nation’s venerable triad of nuclear-capable bombers, ballistic missile submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles all have retirement in sight, just as the Pentagon’s budget takes a sharp downward turn.

While many details are not known about the platforms that will replace the aging delivery systems, one thing is certain: They will be expensive.

The first leg of the triad that demands attention — and significant resources — is the replacement of the 14 Ohio-class submarines now in the Navy’s fleet. The Navy requested $1.1 billion for fiscal 2014 to continue developing the new submarine, with the goal of buying the first of 12 ships in fiscal 2021.

The Navy expects that first vessel to cost a staggering $12 billion — almost as much as the service’s next aircraft carrier. But costs for the rest of the fleet are expected to be significantly lower, between $4.9 billion and $5.4 billion apiece, measured in fiscal 2010 dollars.

Despite budget pressures, officials can’t afford to delay if they want to avoid a significant gap in capability. The Ohio-class has an expiration date, with the first scheduled to leave the force in 2027, 42 years after it entered the water and 12 years later than originally planned.

Meanwhile, the Air Force has requested $379 million in fiscal 2014 to continue developing a next-generation bomber. Service officials hope to buy 80 to 100 new bombers, the first of which would enter the force around 2025. The cost for each of the planes could hit $550 million, with the total cost of the program climbing to $36 billion to $56 billion over the aircraft’s anticipated 50-year life.

The plan for a replacement for the 1970s-era Minuteman III ICBMs is far less clear. The Air Force invested more than $7 billion in the missiles between 2001 and 2010 to keep them operational until 2030. But military programs can take more than a decade to develop and build, forcing service officials to begin to think now what they will need by 2030.

Retired Gen. James E. Cartwright, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the military should view these platforms as 50-year investments and should think critically about what the service’s strategic needs will be well into the century.

“What are the attributes you want? Really haven’t been debated other than to be better than what we had before,” Cartwright said. “I think that’s kind of the mantra out there. To me, that’s not enough from a strategy standpoint.”

Dolphins Swim with the newly christened USS Minnesota nuclear submarine

Huntington Ingalls Industries announced the newest Virginia-class submarine, Minnesota (SSN 783), successfully completed alpha sea trials. The trials are part one of a three round evaluation before the submarine is delivered to the Navy. As seen in the video above, some dolphins joined in on the fun while the sub was conducting it’s high speed above water tests. 

The nuclear sub was named “Minnesota” in honor of the state’s residents and their support for the U.S. military.

USN Submarines - May 18th

1945 - Axis forces surrender in Europe -- V-E Day

1945 - USS S-14 (SS 119) is decommissioned for the second time

1945 - USS S-12 (SS 117) is decommissioned for the second time

1946 - USS Gunnel (SS 253) is decommissioned

1956 - Keel is laid for the USS Barbel (SS 580)

1991 - USS Annapolis (SSN 760) is launched

Source - Myron Howard

USN Submarines - May 19th

1917 - Keel is laid for the USS R-24 (SS 101)

1917 - USS N-7 (SS 59) is launched

1924 - USS S-3 (SS-107) Collided with USS S-49 at New London 19-May-

1944 - USS Spot (SS 413) is launched

1950 - Keel is laid for the USS K-3 (Bonita)

1961 - Keel is laid for the USS John Adams (SSBN 620)

1984 - USS Alabama (SSBN 731) is launched

1989 - Keel is laid for the USS Montpelier (SSN 765)

Source - Myron Howard

US Navy Submarines - May 17th

·  1900 - USS Holland (SS 1) is launched

·  1920 - USS S-6 (SS 111) is commissioned

·  1942 - USS Gunnel (SS 253) is launched

·  1944 - USS Hawkbill (SS 366) is commissioned

·  1969 - USS Flying Fish (SSN 673) is launched 

Thanks to Myron Howard

USN Submarines - May 16th

1916 - USS L-11 (SS 51) is launched

1917 - Keel is laid for the USS R-27 (SS 104)

1941 - Keel is laid for the USS Halibut (SS 232)

1944 - USS Sea Cat (SS 399) is commissioned

1959 - USS Blueback (SS 581) is launched

1957 - USS Skate (SSN-578), the first submarine to be powered by the Submarine Fleet Reactor, is launched. This class introduces Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and Mare Island Naval Shipyard to nuclear powered submarine construction.

1981 - USS Jacksonville (SSN 699) is commissioned

1996 - USS Flying Fish (SSN 673) is decommissioned 

Thanks to Myron Howard 

USN Submarines - May 15th

1918 - Keel is laid for the USS H-7 (SS 150)

1919 - USS R-25 (SS 102) is launched

1930 - USS Narwhal V-5 ( SS 167) is commissioned

1931 - USS R-17 (SS 94) is decommissioned

1931 - USS R-19 (SS 96) is decommissioned

1931 - USS R-20 (SS 97) is decommissioned

1941 - Keel is laid for the USS Amberjack (SS 219)

1942 - USS Wahoo (SS 238) is commissioned

1943 - Keel is laid for the USS Pilotfish (SS 386)

1945 - Keel is laid for the USS Wahoo (SS 516). This boat was never completed but broken up (scrapped) on the ways at Mare Island.

1952 - USS Bang (SS 385) is decommissioned for the second time

1965 - USS Guardfish (SSN 612) is launched

1967 - USS Redfin (SS 272) is decommissioned for the second time

1968 - USS Spadefish (SSN 668) is launched

1969 - USS Tautog (SSN-639) In collision with Soviet submarine

1971 - USS Pogy (SSN 647) is commissioned

1973 - USS Grenadier (SS 525) is decommissioned

1991 - Keel is laid for the USS Louisiana (SSBN 743) 

Thanks to Myron Howard 

USN Submarines - May 14th

1914 - Keel is laid for the USS L-5 (SS 44)

1918 - Keel is laid for the USS H-6 (SS 149)

1937 - USS Barracuda V-1 ( SS 163) is decommissioned

1944 - USS Moray (SS 300) is launched

1944 - USS Roncador (SS 301) is launched

1945 - USS Irex (SS 482) is commissioned

1945 - Keel is laid for the USS Spinax (SS 489)

1946 - USS Baya (SS 318) is decommissioned

1952 - USS Trutta (SS 421) is decommissioned for the second time

1960 - USS Abraham Lincoln (SSBN 602) is launched

1964 - USS Gato (SSN 615) is launched

1978 - USS Tullibee (SSN-597) Main shaft breaks just outside shaft seals

Thanks to Myron Howard

USS Dallas - SSN 700

The Los Angeles-class attack submarine USS Dallas (SSN 700) departs Naval Submarine Base New London for a scheduled underway. (U.S. Navy photo by Lt. j.g. Jeffrey Prunera)

USN Submarines - May 11th

1923 - USS S-38 (SS 143) is commissioned

1944 - Keel is laid for the USS Cubera (SS 347)

1945 - USS Sirago (SS 485) is launched

1946 - USS Blackfish (SS 221) is decommissioned

1946 - USS Pompon (SS 267) is decommissioned

1961 - USS Burrfish (SS 312) is decommissioned for the third and final time.

1964 - Keel is laid for the USS Queenfish (SSN 651)

Thanks to Myron Howard 

USN Submarines - May 10th

1912 - Keel is laid for the USS K-7 (SS 38)

1912 - Keel is laid for the USS K-8 (SS 39)

1923 - USS K-4 (SS 35) is decommissioned

1927 - Keel is laid for the USS Narwhal V-5 ( SS 167)

1943 - USS Cisco (SS 290) is commissioned

1945 - USS R-2 (SS 79) is decommissioned

1946 - USS Hammerhead (SS 364) is decommissioned

1952 - USS Bashaw (SS 241) is decommissioned for the second time

1960 - USS Triton (SSN-586) completes the first submerged circumnavigation of the Earth, following Ferdinand Magellan's route and covering more than 41,000 miles in just 84 days.

1962 - USS Permit (SSN-594) Run over by MV HAWAIIAN CITIZEN off the Farallon Islands off San Francisco, damaging the sail

Thanks to Myron Howard 

USN Submarines - May 8th

• 1942 - USS Guardfish (SS 217) is commissioned
• 1944 - Keel is laid for the USS Tigrone (SS 419)
• 1953 - USS Tunny (SS-282), prototype SSG conversion is recommissioned. She is the first U. S. submarine equipped to fire surface-to-surface Regulus missiles.
• 1962 - USS Lafayette (SSBN 616) is launched
• 1970 - USS Tench (SS 417) is decommissioned for the second time
• 1976 - Keel is laid for the USS Bremerton (SSN 698)
• 1980 - Keel is laid for the USS Portsmouth (SSN 707)
• 1982 - USS Buffalo (SSN 715) is launched 
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  Thanks to Myron Howard

Submarine 'Minnesota' successfully completes sea trials

Huntington Ingalls Industries announced the newest Virginia-class submarine, Minnesota (SSN 783), successfully completed alpha sea trials Monday. 

Alpha trials are the boat’s first round of at-sea tests and evaluations. Minnesota is being built at HII’s Newport News Shipbuilding division, the Globe Newswire reported.

All systems, components and compartments were tested during the trials. The submarine submerged for the first time and operated at high speeds on the surface and under water. The Minnesota will undergo two more rounds of sea trials, including one with the Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey, before delivery later this month. Minnesota is anticipated to deliver approximately 11 months ahead of its contracted delivery date.

“This submarine is the result of a lot of hard work by the shipbuilders here at Newport News, our teammates at Electric Boat, and the overall Navy organizational structure, including NAVSEA, SUPSHIP and ship’s force personnel,” said Jim Hughes, NNS’ vice president of submarines and fleet support, in a news release. “It is incredibly gratifying for all of us to see this magnificent vessel operate so well during her first at-sea period.

Minnesota clearly carries on the Virginia-class tradition of continuous cost and schedule improvement while also raising the bar on operational readiness and capability.”

Minnesota, named to honor the state’s residents and their continued support of the U.S. military, is the last of the block II Virginia-class submarines and is in the final stages of construction and testing at Newport News Shipbuilding division. Construction began in February 2008, and the keel was authenticated in May 2011. The boat was christened Oct. 27, 2012. 

Minnesota is the 10th ship of the Virginia class of nuclear-powered fast-attack submarines. It’s the third ship to bear the state name, the Associated Press reported. The first USS Minnesota was a sailing steam frigate commissioned in 1857 that served during the Civil War. The second Minnesota was commissioned in 1907. The 7,800-ton Minnesota will have a crew of about 134 officers and enlisted personnel.