How can US justify $2.6 billion on new sub?

It's on the front page of Subsim, the new USS Hawaii (Virginia Class). My question is aimed at you lot as I have a small understanding of naval matters (I like to delve in all areas of the military) and I know some of you here live, breathe navy and have been on ships and boats.

So my question is in two parts:

1) What is the thinking behind spending all this money on high-tec, stealthy subs. The US Airforce can't justify spending $2 billion on a B2 stealth bomber, but the Navy can on a sub? Why? Just who exactly is the enemy this sub is meant to counter?

2) How does the Virginia class compare to the Seawolf?

[Henson]

We don't design weapons to aim them at people. We design our weapons to guarantee our own security and freedom of navigation.

It's a very different philosophy.

Virginia was designed to be quickly deployable across the world on relatively short notice, with the capability to remain on station for a very long time. You can't do that with a cheap diesel.

I am a huge advocate of the US building (or even buying) diesels, but they will never replace SSNs, only supplement them.

MY question is, are we getting enough value for the money we're spending. When I take a look at our FUBAR procurement process, I am forced to feel that we may not be.

[LoBlo]

Originally Posted by Henson

MY question is, are we getting enough value for the money we're spending. When I take a look at our FUBAR procurement process, I am forced to feel that we may not be.

Its scary where we are headed. The boats aren't getting any cheaper, but the budgets are. The need for naval capabilities is increasing (as US strategic bases and allied support will probably continue to decline), but maintaining the sub building expertise is getting tougher.

Maybe Tango Bravo will bring *some* new answers, and the Naval is asking for some steep improvements in cost effectiveness and efficiency. 40% reductions in powerplant size/cost without sacraficing peak power/quietness. Most automation is a requirement also or course.

There are probably tons of areas for improvement that are far from optimal. Here's an really interesting article about some small improvements in naval protocals and processes that have enabled **very** dramatic improvements. There's probably as much room for improvement in a lot of the sub building areas.

http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/may06-38.php

Also, hopefully eventually electricfying subs (electrice drive and integrated electrical systems) will allow more opprotunity for private sector technology, expertise, & development to be utilized (which will drive cost down), rather than the now highly specialized and unique expertised so often required for sub systems today.

If subs can stay arond the 2billion dollar mark for the next 2 decades its a step in the right direction.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Henson

We don't design weapons to aim them at people. We design our weapons to guarantee our own security and freedom of navigation.

For that queer statement I award you Skybird's "Silver Citron Award" of the month! (the golden citron went to that statement by some general that the Guantanamo suicides were "asymmetrical warfare").

Ok, thanks so far for all the input. I wanted to see if my thinking was in the right direction... Though LoBlo, your GDP stats are not official, dated for the year 2000 and besides the point, considering the US has a military budget to stick to and GDP doesn't take this into account (for example Luxembourg has a higher GDP per Capita then the US). Also, let's just say that the US has a lot less money to spend generally after 2001 considering the cost of the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq.

My way of thinking, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the US is turning to subs as opposed to planes because of the bad experience with Turkey during the Iraq War. So now maybe the States does not trust it's allies, and generally has less, around the world. What point is it to have a plane if you don't have a base to use it, right? Whereas a sub can pretty much go anywhere...?

Though Britain, strangely, earlier this year announced it was spending £20 billion (circa 40 billion US dollars) on replacing it's ageing Trident nuclear missile system. So they also chose subs, but boomers instead of attack boats. But then we've got Russia who's allowed it's sub fleet to rot...hmmmm.

[LoBlo]

Originally Posted by Kurushio

Ok, thanks so far for all the input. I wanted to see if my thinking was in the right direction... Though LoBlo, your GDP stats are not official, dated for the year 2000 and besides the point, considering the US has a military budget to stick to and GDP doesn't take this into account (for example Luxembourg has a higher GDP per Capita then the US). Also, let's just say that the US has a lot less money to spend generally after 2001 considering the cost of the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq.

My way of thinking, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the US is turning to subs as opposed to planes because of the bad experience with Turkey during the Iraq War. So now maybe the States does not trust it's allies, and generally has less, around the world. What point is it to have a plane if you don't have a base to use it, right? Whereas a sub can pretty much go anywhere...?

Though Britain, strangely, earlier this year announced it was spending £20 billion (circa 40 billion US dollars) on replacing it's ageing Trident nuclear missile system. So they also chose subs, but boomers instead of attack boats. But then we've got Russia who's allowed it's sub fleet to rot...hmmmm.

The point is that because of the overwhelming economic resources of the US, federal budgets run is the trillions of dollars, with US defense budgets run in the 300-400 billion dollar amount. Construction schedules of 1-2 subs a year will run around 2-5 billion per year representing about 0.5% to 1.5% of the annual defense budget, or roughly 5-8% of its military procurement cost. (gross estimates intended just for gross realizations). It should not be a surprise or mystery if US warship acquistions budgets are greater than most others. Someone check my rough estimates if I'm incorrect. The actual budgets of the US every year is public knowledge and easily found on a simple google search.

And actually, the US is downsizing its submarine fleet. The US buys subs because they provide unique capabilities.

[Captain Norman]

Lets put it this way. With an aircraft carrier, you can send a small airforce to any location on the Earth, but at risk of being detected. With a submarine, you can attack and destroy anything at any location on the Earth, usually with stealth. I can perfectly see the justification there. Also, with the war on terror, and decommissioning of Los Angeles class subs, the Virginia provideds excellent tools for inserting special forces teams and gathering intelligence.

[Deathblow]

Originally Posted by Skybird

For that queer statement I award you Skybird's "Silver Citron Award" of the month! (the golden citron went to that statement by some general that the Guantanamo suicides were "asymmetrical warfare").

For your failure to recognize the truth in that statement I award you Deathblow's Your a Moron Award. Now go away. kthxbyebye.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Henson

MY question is, are we getting enough value for the money we're spending. When I take a look at our FUBAR procurement process, I am forced to feel that we may not be.

When you get out you SO need to work for a think tank doing campaign analysis. That's actually exactly the sorts of things we work on. The thing that bothers me, though, is that sometimes I'm not sure I believe a lot of the numbers they stick into these things. But... that's a whole ball of wax.

[Captain Norman]

Well, considering im not an expert, and im Canadian, ill put in my input.
Although the Americans love their Air Force, and face it, its the most advanced one in the world. But a submarine is different. A submarine carries more firepower than a plane. It can travel an infinite distance as long as it is supplied, and can stay under water for an infinite number of time. With a sub, you also have stealth, much more than a bomber. A submarine can go anywhere in the world as long as there is water, and can deliver a massive amount of firepower to any location in the world with stealth. That my friend is the justification for spending billions on a new submarine. Oh, also the fact that subs help in the war on terror, and are good intelligence gathering vehicles help as well.

[bradclark1]

Because it costs a lot to build to build one?

[LoBlo]

Originally Posted by Kurushio

1) What is the thinking behind spending all this money on high-tec, stealthy subs. The US Airforce can't justify spending $2 billion on a B2 stealth bomber, but the Navy can on a sub? Why? Just who exactly is the enemy this sub is meant to counter?

The United States of America's Gross National Product and Purchasing power as compared to the rest of the world.
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/gnp.html

2) How does the Virginia class compare to the Seawolf?

It was designed to be just as quiet, but cheaper. To obtain a cheaper cost it uses 1) cheaper hull materials = less diving depth 2) smaller power plant = less top speed 3) smaller hull = less weapons capacity

There are some other differences. The VA has 4 torpedo tubes and 12 Verticle launch tubs just like the LA, whereas the SW has only 8 torpedo tubes of slightly larger diameter. The VA is a bit more advanced when it comes to computerized systems and electronics.

hope that answers some questions.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Kurushio

Why? Just who exactly is the enemy this sub is meant to counter?

The military seeks to establish "full spectrum threat dominance". Basically being able to take on the worst imagined threat. Which is a problem, IMO because chances are that threat will never materialize and lead to an overbloated military (not numbers, but cost/capability wise). It is nice to have platforms that are better than everbody elses, but that doesn't mean EVERY platform has to be built with that same philo$ophy. This is a doctrine that also tends to lead to military leaders dreaming up imagined threats to justify new hardware.

PD

[Bubblehead Nuke]

Originally Posted by Kurushio

Why? Just who exactly is the enemy this sub is meant to counter?

A US sub is much more than a ASW platform. It is a sea control platform.

You want to deny an enemy the use of a patch of ocean? Just tell them that we are deploying a sub to that general area. They will watch themselves because they have NO idea where it actually is. It is like having a cop watch a known troublemaker. Funny thing is.. it might not be there at all, or it might be 50 feet below them.

Need intel? A sub is your platform. It can sit somewhere, undetected, and can gather all sorts of intelligence.

Want to put someone somewhere with NOBODY knowing about it?? You got it. A Sub can do it.

Try that with a carrier, a frigate. a cargo ship (no matter HOW well disguised or flagged). Try that with a plane.

They can sit somewhere for a LONG time, just waiting... or doing nothing but running drills.

[swimsalot]

In my biased opinion, a carrier is a better use of the money.
It carries more deployable fire power, can stay on station longer, and as for sea control, nothing announces one's presence quite so much as a CVBG. By deployable, I mean that a SSN is relatuively limited in terms of weapons systems it can deploy against land targets (TLAMS? ICBM's?).
A CVN Alpha Strike gives alot of options.
It is nice to have a sub or 2 with the CVN, and I do recognize the intrinsic value of having a very stealthy platform.
Doesnt a CVN cost about 2-3 billion?
In terms of "usable firepower per dollar", I think the CVN is hardto beat.