SSN (X) - Seawolf Redux or something far larger?

It would make a lot of sense to use a common engineering plant and hull diameter for all three boats. The payload sub I assume will be a cut dried Columbia fitted as an SSGN. Presumably the SSNX could dispense with some or all of the missile tubes sections to decrease cost, weight, and drag. Perhaps retaining a four tube section for AShMs is warranted, given the prolific nature of the PLAN surface fleet (I believe the tubes are manufactured if four round sections so the RN can have 12 and USN can have 16).
 
The payload sub I assume will be a cut dried Columbia fitted as an SSGN.
Though the Columbia SSBN program has been getting bogged down badly of late.
Haven't kept up on it, but I'm sure it will be completely whatever the costs in time or money end up being. It is too high of a priority. At that point, using it as a common platform would probably be a time and money saver for the submarine force in general.

It also appears that the USN is planning on abandoning the littorals in the far future, presumably in favor of this being handled by UUVs, offboard sensors, and mines. Draft keeps going up with ever iteration of USN boats.
 
On the subject of electric drive... there was USS Glennard P Lipscomb. But she suffers from overheating in her electric drive plant and overall being more difficult to support logistically as it's a sole boat in her class. Thus she served only for 15 years, about half of what other nuclear boat does.

Well technology have moved forward however with permanent magnet motors etc. See if USN if they do interested in making an electric boat, can apply lessons in what not to do from Glennard P Lipscomb.

I would imagine that permanent magnet motors might be something that could be tracked. I wonder if a switched reluctance motor (i.e. non-permanent magnet) would be possible.
Nasty vibration characteristics. PM machine stray flux no different to anything else with an excited rotor.
 
Tangential: That passing report on pop-up / inflatable sails for subs blind-sided me as I've been following various approaches to augmenting VLCCs etc with wind-power...

For a moment, I sorta-glimpsed early-1940s U-Boots deploying yawl or schooner rigs as they surface-deployed to their hunting grounds off US East coast...

Yergh !! I Need Brunch !! More Caffeine !! Lots More Caffeine !!!
 
0872618.jpeg
We've done it before. We can do it again. Three SSBN's under construction and SSN production happening not just at Electric Boat, but also at Newport News. It's possible...if we apply the resources. 600 Ship Navy called for 100 SSN (102 in 1987) and 24 SSBNs (18 completed). It's possible we'll see more than 12 new SSBN's. Projected SSN's VA Class + SSN(X) are now 77. That is likely to grow too.
 
Last edited:

SSN(X) Next Generation Attack Submarine​

Little information on SSN(X) program [0604850N] is available. The next generation attack submarine (SSN(X)) design concepts are focusing on adaptability. The legacy platforms they will replace continue to serve well, but have nearly exhaust ed their margins for modernization and require a broader spectrum of solutions. The SSN(X) will follow the FFG(X) model of partnering with industry early to define the art-of-possible, balance cost, and reduce risk ahead of requirements definition, and will include alternative platform concepts.

The U.S. Navy must produce and maintain a submarine fleet that is of sufficient capability to protect America from current and future threats. SSN(X) is required to maintain a submarine force structure, and will be designed to counter the emerging threat posed by near peer adversary competition for undersea supremacy. Unlike the VIRGINIA Class Submarine, which was designed for multi-mission dominance in the littoral, SSN(X) will be designed for greater transit speed under increased stealth conditions in all ocean environments, and carry a larger inventory of weapons and diverse payloads.

While SSN(X) will be designed to retain multi-mission capability and sustained combat presence in denied waters, renewed priority of the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) mission against sophisticated threats in greater numbers will influence the design trade space. SSN(X) will be required to defend against threat UUVs, and coordinate with a larger contingent of off-hull vehicles, sensors, and friendly forces. The primary goal of the SSN(X) program element will be to evaluate a broad range of submarine technologies, sensors, and combat system components required to produce an affordable platform which supports these mission requirements.

The SSN(X) design concepts are focusing on adaptability. The legacy platforms they will replace continue to serve well, but have nearly exhausted their margins for modernization and require a broader spectrum of solutions. The SSN(X) will follow the FFG(X) model of partnering with industry early to define the art-of-possible, balance cost, and reduce risk ahead of requirements definition, and will include alternative platform concepts.

The Navy requested $1 million to begin studies on the SSN(X) next generation attack submarine program 0604850N in the 2021 Fiscal Year budget request. The service planned to spend at least $1 million annually through the 2025 Fiscal Year. This is a "new start" program that should not be confused with the separate "New Design SSN," which covers research and development for future blocks of the Virginia class attack submarine.

This Program Element (PE) and Project is a new start, and is a realignment/reduction from PE 0604558N/Project 1947, which is used exclusively for Virginia Class Submarines. Amounts in years beyond FY21 will be adjusted and programmed commensurate with updated requirements as they become defined in future budget submissions.

Advanced Submarine Systems Development (SEA073) mission is to Bridge S&T and R&D through testing, demonstration and validation of innovative and promising technologies to provide undersea capabilities that are safer, stealthier, and lower cost. The major focus is on transitioning technologies to help the Virginia Block VI/VII/SSN(X) Fleet maintain Undersea Superiority.

Advanced Sea Platform Technology includes new and ongoing applied research related to critical S&T that supports platform design and advanced capability efforts related to propulsor, surface, and subsurface hydrodynamics; platform performance, and platform structural reliability. Specifically, efforts to utilize advanced analytics (machine learning and artificial intelligence), incorporate environmental effects on platform performance, research related to advancing unmanned sea surface vessel technologies and capabilities. Specific naval engineering and platform design efforts to support set-based design for the Next Generation Attack Submarine SSN(X), and efforts to mitigate technology and susceptibility risk for the COLUMBIA class submarine program and the Future Surface Combatant Force.

Sea Platform Survivability Technology includes new and ongoing applied research related to critical S&T to investigate efforts related to signature reduction; structural and machinery acoustics; machinery autonomy; and platform survivability (detectability and susceptibility); and acoustic and non-acoustic signatures. Specifically, efforts utilizing advanced analytics (machine learning and artificial intelligence) and the integration of environmental effects on platform performance and detectability, Specific naval engineering and platform design efforts to support the Next Generation Attack Submarine SSN(X), and efforts to mitigate technology and susceptibility risk for the COLUMBIA class submarine program and the Future Surface Combatant Force.

Delivery of the ASSET-Submarine Design tool software architecture in 2018 was vital to the Navy’s efforts to design two new classes of submarines. This high visibility effort was completed on a compressed timeline to meet Navy acquisition priorities. During the submarine tool development effort, the team managed to transition the tool’s dated software architecture to a current one that is also used by the surface ship RSDE development project. This allowed for a reduction to the total cost and manpower - by several full-time equivalents (FTEs) - needed to update the software. They delivered a highly capable automated design space exploration (DSE) capability for submarines to support SSN(X) analysis of alternatives in FY2020. This effort required significant dedication and personal commitment to success of a demanding team effort.


The following is the Aug. 30, 2022, Congressional Research In Focus report, Navy Next-Generation Attack Submarine (SSN[X]) Program:
Background and Issues for Congress.

From the report​

The Navy wants to begin procuring a new class of nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN), called the Next-Generation Attack Submarine or SSN(X), in the mid-2030s. The SSN(X) would be the successor to the Virginia-class SSN design, which the Navy has been procuring since FY1998. The Navy’s proposed FY2023 budget requests $237.0 million in research and development funding for the SSN(X) program.

Submarines in the U.S. Navy

The U.S. Navy operates nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), nuclear-powered cruise missile and special operations forces (SOF) submarines (SSGNs), and nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs). The SSNs are general-purpose submarines that can perform a variety of peacetime and wartime missions.

Virginia-Class Program

As mentioned above, the Navy has been procuring Virginia-class SSNs since FY1998. Since FY2011, the Navy has been procuring them at a rate of two boats per year. When procured at a rate of two boats per year, Virginia-class SSNs equipped with the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) have a current estimated procurement cost of about $3.6 billion per boat. (Most Virginia-class boats procured in FY2019 and subsequent years are to be built with the VPM, an additional mid-body section equipped with four large-diameter, vertical launch tubes.)

Submarine Construction Industrial Base

U.S. Navy submarines are built by General Dynamics’ Electric Boat Division (GD/EB) of Groton, CT, and Quonset Point, RI, and Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Newport News Shipbuilding (HII/NNS), of Newport News, VA. These are the only two shipyards in the country capable of building nuclear-powered ships. GD/EB builds submarines only, while HII/NNS also builds nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. The submarine construction industrial base also includes hundreds of supplier firms, as well as laboratories and research facilities, in numerous states. Much of the material procured from supplier firms for building submarines comes from sole-source suppliers.

SSN(X) Program

Program Designation


In the designation SSN(X), the “X” means that the exact design of the boat has not yet been determined.

Procurement Schedule

The Navy wants to shift from procuring Virginia-class boats to procuring SSN(X)s in the mid-2030s.
 

Attachments

  • ssn-x-comp1.gif
    ssn-x-comp1.gif
    52.1 KB · Views: 268
Last edited:

Report to Congress on SSN(X) Next-Generation Attack Submarine​


December 14, 2022 7:46 AM

Introduction
The Navy wants to begin procuring a new class of nuclear- powered attack submarine (SSN), called the Next- Generation Attack Submarine or SSN(X), in the mid-2030s. The SSN(X) would be the successor to the Virginia-class SSN design, which the Navy has been procuring since FY1998. The Navy’s proposed FY2023 budget requests $237.0 million in research and development funding for the SSN(X) program.

Submarines in the U.S. Navy
The U.S. Navy operates nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), nuclear-powered cruise missile and special operations forces (SOF) submarines (SSGNs), and nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs). The SSNs are general-purpose submarines that can perform a variety of peacetime and wartime missions.

Virginia-Class Program
As mentioned above, the Navy has been procuring Virginia-class SSNs (Figure 1) since FY1998. Since FY2011, the Navy has been procuring them at a rate of two boats per year. When procured at a rate of two boats per year, Virginia-class SSNs equipped with the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) have a current estimated procurement cost of about $3.6 billion per boat. (Most Virginia-class boats procured in FY2019 and subsequent years are to be built with the VPM, an additional mid-body section equipped with four large-diameter, vertical launch tubes.) For additional information on Navy submarine programs, see CRS Report RL32418, Navy Virginia (SSN- 774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke, and CRS Report R41129, Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.

Submarine Construction Industrial Base
U.S. Navy submarines are built by General Dynamics’ Electric Boat Division (GD/EB) of Groton, CT, and Quonset Point, RI, and Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Newport News Shipbuilding (HII/NNS), of Newport News, VA. These are the only two shipyards in the country capable of building nuclear-powered ships. GD/EB builds submarines only, while HII/NNS also builds nuclear- powered aircraft carriers. The submarine construction industrial base also includes hundreds of supplier firms, as well as laboratories and research facilities, in numerous states. Much of the material procured from supplier firms for building submarines comes from sole-source suppliers.

SSN(X) Program Program Designation
In the designation SSN(X), the “X” means that the exact design of the boat has not yet been determined.
Procurement Schedule
The Navy wants to shift from procuring Virginia-class boats to procuring SSN(X)s in the mid-2030s.

Design of the SSN(X)
The Navy states that the SSN(X) will be designed to counter the growing threat posed by near peer adversary competition for undersea supremacy. It will provide greater speed, increased horizontal payload capacity, improved acoustic superiority, and higher operational availability. SSN(X) will conduct full spectrum undersea warfare and be able to coordinate with a larger contingent of off-hull vehicles, sensors, and friendly forces. It will retain and improve multi- mission... capability and sustained combat presence in denied waters.
(Budget-justification book for FY2023 Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy account, Vol. 3 [Budget Activity 5], p. 1305.)
Navy officials have stated that the Navy wants the SSN(X) to be an “apex predator.” More specifically, they have stated that the Navy wants the SSN(X) to incorporate the speed and payload the Navy’s fast and heavily armed Seawolf (SSN-21) class SSN design, the acoustic quietness and sensors of the Virginia-class design, and the operational availability and service life of the Columbia-class design.

These requirements will likely result in an SSN(X) design that is larger than the original Virginia-class design, which has a submerged displacement of about 7,800 tons, and possibly larger than the original SSN-21 design, which has a submerged displacement of 9,138 tons. Due to technological changes over the years for improved quieting and other purposes, the designs of U.S. Navy submarines with similar payloads have generally been growing in displacement from one generation to the next.
Potential Procurement Cost

A November 2022 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the Navy’s FY2023 30-year shipbuilding plan states that in constant FY2022 dollars, the SSN(X)’s average unit procurement cost is estimated at $5.6 billion by the Navy and $6.2 billion to $7.2 billion by CBO. CBO’s estimate is about 11% to 29% higher than the Navy’s estimate. The Navy and CBO estimates are about 55% (Navy) and 72% to 100% (CBO) higher than the current $3.6 billion unit procurement cost of a VPM- equipped Virginia-class SSN. The CBO report states that CBO’s estimate assumes that the SSN(X) design would have a submerged displacement about 11% greater than that of the SSN-21 design.

Issues for Congress include the following:
  •  whether the Navy has accurately identified the SSN(X)’s required capabilities and accurately analyzed the impact that various required capabilities can have on the SSN(X)’s cost;
  •  the potential impact of the SSN(X) program on funding that will be available for other Navy program priorities, particularly if CBO’s estimate of the SSN(X)’s procurement cost is more accurate than the Navy’s estimate;
  •  whether it would be technically feasible for the SSN(X) to be powered by a reactor plant using low-enriched uranium (LEU), rather than the highly enriched uranium (HEU) used on other Navy nuclear-powered ships, and if so, what impact that would have on nuclear arms control and nonproliferation efforts and SSN(X) costs and capabilities; and
  •  whether each SSN(X) should be built jointly by GD/EB and HII/NNS (the approach used for building Virginia- class SSNs and, in modified form, for building Columbia-class SSBNs), or whether individual SSN(X)s should instead be completely built within a given shipyard (the separate-yard approach used for building earlier Navy SSNs and SSBNs).
 
We ever going to get a new torpedo?

I think we probably aren't going to hear about it if there is one. The USN, like the USAF, has been playing its cards a lot closer to its chest in the last few years. The Clandestinely Deployed Mine should have entered service this year and I can't find any references to it other than budget docs. I've read one article that indicated the MEDUSA system for laying them was "based on a Mk48 with electric propulsion" and I've no idea what that could mean or if someone's reporting is just wildly off base. There have been a smattering of rumors about electrical propulsion for mod 7 guidance sections but nothing solid, and AFAIK no declared program for a new torpedo. I suspect if there are any torpedo projects, they are billed as upgrades to the Mk48 rather than a new designation.
 
We ever going to get a new torpedo?
Frankly haven't seen much improvement in anybody torpedoes (unless you take china at there word and nobody dose that these days, or russias nuke torpido drone I guess) the tiger shark, f21, or black shark don't really add anything that modern variants of the mark 48 dont have.frankly the only interesting torpido to come out sense the mark 48 is that toub launched anti air missile the Germans developed for there desal subs.
 
USN's NGAD or F/A-XX will go ahead before the DDG(X) and then the SSN(X)
 
USN's NGAD or F/A-XX will go ahead before the DDG(X) and then the SSN(X)
Seems like we ought to be moving a bit faster than this timescale.
 
USN's NGAD or F/A-XX will go ahead before the DDG(X) and then the SSN(X)
Seems like we ought to be moving a bit faster than this timescale.
Perhaps so. However, it seems like making the future fighter units for the Gerald R. Ford-Class Aircraft Carriers are probably the main priority right now.
 
The fighter program is probably the more achievable goal in a smaller timeframe. Barring the US Congress opening up the financial taps, the USN has to operate within its finances.
 
The fighter program is probably the more achievable goal in a smaller timeframe. Barring the US Congress opening up the financial taps, the USN has to operate within its finances.
Pretty much. Unlike the other 2 latter programs, they already have aircraft carriers that can handle such aircraft (The Gerald R. Ford-Class, and possibly some of the younger Nimitz-Class).
 
The fighter program is probably the more achievable goal in a smaller timeframe. Barring the US Congress opening up the financial taps, the USN has to operate within its finances.
It's "more achievable" mostly in the sense that the fighter program's simply further along and has fewer industry hurdles. Both shipbuilding programs are still concepting, DDG(X) has (maybe) only recently landed on firm requirements and SSN(X) hasn't even gotten that far. Both have to worry about juggling their existing production lines while moving onto the new designs without causing major headaches. USN's NGAD is, like USAF's NGAD, a lot closer to building something. Even if there were enough money to go ahead with all three today, F/A-XX would be flying before the destroyer or sub were in the water.
 
The fighter program is probably the more achievable goal in a smaller timeframe. Barring the US Congress opening up the financial taps, the USN has to operate within its finances.
It's "more achievable" mostly in the sense that the fighter program's simply further along and has fewer industry hurdles. Both shipbuilding programs are still concepting, DDG(X) has (maybe) only recently landed on firm requirements and SSN(X) hasn't even gotten that far. Both have to worry about juggling their existing production lines while moving onto the new designs without causing major headaches. USN's NGAD is, like USAF's NGAD, a lot closer to building something. Even if there were enough money to go ahead with all three today, F/A-XX would be flying before the destroyer or sub were in the water.
Rightly said. There's only enough shipbuilding facilities for both the DDG(X) and SSN(X) to use, whereas there's a lot of aircraft production facilities for the F/A-XX, not to mention the wealth of knowledge and experience that several aerospace companies have when it comes to producing the mostly highly advanced fighter aircraft.
 
That we can’t do all three in a $25.725 trillion economy is telling.
 
On the topic of growing the industrial capacity:

Good luck and I hope EB's quality control is on their game. Going from working in aluminum pre-2020 to steel surface ships and then HY-100 pressure vessels in 2023 is challenging.
 
That we can’t do all three in a $25.725 trillion economy is telling.
Pretty much. The Navy doesn't get that much share of the Defense Spending, even though their mission is among the most important in the US Military
Money's not much of an issue compared to their shitty program management, CONOPs and budget item prioritization. The SSN(X) would've been prioritized over the other two if the USN was a serious service.
 
"Run Silent, run deep" is supposed to be the US Navy's submariner motto. The reality is "Run Silent, Run Shallow because all we care about is stealth". The fact that diving depths have not improved at all from the 1960's is inexcusable. It began with Rickover's forcing the SN-688 and S6G on the Navy over the 2000' ft diving depth, retractable sail, high-speed S5G powered CONASS design. It continued with the decision to pursue Centurion/NSSN/Virginia instead of designs -from within the US submarine community- that featured spherical pressure hulls and 4000+ ft diving depths, and continues today with the SSN(X). Diving depth is more valuable than stealth. Period.
 
Diving depth is more valuable than stealth. Period.

Why?

Aside from seabed ops, all the interesting stuff seem to be happening at the surface. And seabed ops are better handled by ROVs and the like. I can't see any reason to run large, manned subs very deep. It seems like a recipe for finding yet more mis-charted underwater terrain.
 
Shallow depth is probably the only way to restore submarines prior ability to do things like engage in combat operations in communication with surface and air forces in a stealthy manner, as all naval warfare is based on deception. Radio buoys and suchlike aren't very flexible nor very stealthy, and the last time anyone tried it they lost that war, but a blue-green laser for SATCOM and local datalinking with maritime patrol aircraft that lets the submarine communicate while submerged without making a sound is pretty swell.

Keep the deep diving guff to torpedoes, filmmakers, and strategic attack weapons.
 
Last edited:
Diving depth is more valuable than stealth. Period.

Why?

Aside from seabed ops, all the interesting stuff seem to be happening at the surface. And seabed ops are better handled by ROVs and the like. I can't see any reason to run large, manned subs very deep. It seems like a recipe for finding yet more mis-charted underwater terrain.
As part of the studies for SSN0Z, AUWE recommended diving depths of 2000-4000ft to take advantage deep sound channels to take advantage of Reliable Acoustic Path, to protect against Magnetic Anomaly Detection, exploit shadow zones under all existing surface ducts, and to aid the evasion of torpedoes with internal-combustion engines, which would lose power with depth due to the exhaust back-pressure.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom