Future of Submarine Force Discussed

New details emerge in this Chris Cavas article at Navy Times. The article is full of new information, but this section provides excellent fodder for discussion.

The idea would be to insert a new hull section with large missile tubes into the existing Virginia-class design. The exact number of missile tubes has yet to be agreed on, although most studies indicate four tubes would be optimal. The new section would be about 94 feet long and add about 25 percent to the length of the submarines, which today stretch 377 feet from bow to stern.

Two of the tubes, known as Virginia Payload Tubes (VPT), are being installed in the bows of Block III Virginia-class submarines, beginning with the North Dakota (SSN 784), now under construction. The bow VPTs are able to each carry six Tomahawk cruise missiles and replace 12 single-tube missile launchers of the original design. But although the VPTs are able to carry a larger variety of payloads, including vehicles and other gear, the bow location prevents dry access when the sub is submerged.

The new hull section, known as the Virginia Payload Module (VPM), would feature four in-line, 87-inch diameter missile tubes able to carry a range of features, from Tomahawk cruise missiles -- seven apiece, for a total of 28 -- to other payloads that could be floated out. The VPM tubes are configured with access hatches and connectors to enable their use by special operating forces.

The concept continues to be studied and refined by the submarine force and its submarine builders, General Dynamics Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries Newport News. One recent idea, for example, would feature a horizontal tube running through a vertical tube, providing access in the side of the ship to allow swimmer delivery and unmanned vehicles, weapons and special operations forces to swim out.

Questions regarding this proposal might include:

When extending the ship by 25%, should be estimate the cost increase to be 25% as well? If so, that would increase the cost of these advanced attack submarines to somewhere around $3.0 billion. When we have spent a decade reducing the costs of attack submarines, isn't requirement creep that leads to 25% expansion of nuclear submarines be a step in the wrong direction?

What about ice configuration? The Virginia class submarines are brilliant everywhere except in the Arctic. Would this include adding better ice capabilities to the future US attack submarine force?

How does this influence the life cycle of a Virginia class submarine? When expanding the length and displacement of a Virginia class leveraging existing propulsion, what are the impacts to existing Virginia class capabilities like speed and total life cycle endurance?

How many extra sailors will be required for the extra equipment? What are the total life cycle cost increases?

We are already building a new class of submarine for the SSBN(X) replacement? What is the cost difference when using the SSBN(X) hull as a SSGN(X) replacement and continue building Virginia class SSNs of current configuration rather than expanding all SSNs? Will there be a legitimate evaluation of tradeoffs of converting the entire SSN force into a limited SSN/SSGN hybrid vs running distinct SSNs and SSGNs?

Is this a red flag for requirement creep? This approach would create very large and very costly submarines - about 5x the size and 5x the cost of the SSKs that are being mass produced globally. It begs the question whether nuclear powered underwater motherships in this hybrid SSN/SSGN configuration have replaced traditional submarines. Has underwater warfare fundamentally changed in a way that drives towards the wide array of requirements we find in a SSN/SSGN hybrid? Are there no alternatives other than these very high quality and extremely expensive submarines? The global growth in SSKs combined and the heavy investment in UUVs suggests a less costly, more capable middle ground could exist before 2034. Food for thought.