Key Points – The US Navy’s SSN(X) next-generation attack submarine program faces severe scrutiny due to its extremely high projected cost (between $6.7 to $8 billion per unit) and a delayed service entry, now expected between 2035 and 2040.
-Significant unanswered questions persist regarding its final design, technical specifications, and the choice of nuclear reactor fuel (Low-Enriched vs. Highly Enriched Uranium), with the R&D for LEU alone potentially taking decades and costing $25 billion with no guarantee of success.
-While envisioned as an “apex predator” combining Seawolf, Virginia, and Columbia-class attributes, its value is questioned if its armament doesn’t offer a substantial leap.
Is the Navy Going Through a Nightmare With the SSN(X) Next-Generation Sub?
The U.S. Navy’s proposed new fast attack submarine to replace the Virginia-class boats is called the SSN(X).
This Next-Generation Attack Submarine is highly expensive. The Congressional Budget Office says the SSN(X) could cost between $7.7 billion and $8 billion a unit. The Navy’s estimate is $6.7 billion to $7 billion per hull. The first SSN(X) would come online between 2035 and 2040.
This is just too much for procuring a submarine with many question marks about its design and technical specifications.
The Navy said 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 [i.e., torpedo-room] payload capacity, improved acoustic superiority and non-acoustic signatures, 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.”
That’s all fine, but will these capabilities be much better than the Virginia-class that would necessitate paying between $6.7 billion and $8 billion a submarine for the SSN(X)?
Improvements to Existing Subs
The Navy believes the SSN(X) will use the speed and payload of the Seawolf-class, the stealth of the Virginia-class, and the service life of the Columbia-class. This all makes sense, and if the SSN(X) could be the best design emerging from these objectives, that would be a coup for the Navy.
Over Half a Billion Dollars for R&D
However, the SSN(X) has a long way to go in meeting these goals.
So far, the maritime branch wants to pour substantial money into the program each year. The FY2025 budget asks Congress for $586.9 million in research and development funding for the SSN(X) program.
That’s approaching $1 billion just for one year of initial work that is unspecified.
What About the Money Needed for Other Submarine Programs?
One of the problems with this budget request is that it does not mention how the costs would affect other submarine programs. The Navy may have to delay the SSN(X) program’s first constructed boat until 2040. By this time, technology may not have progressed far enough to be worth the price. Or the opposite could occur, new technology would progress too far and leave the SSN(X) with fewer new capabilities that would waste money.
The Navy has also not come up with a clear enough timeline. This has Members of Congress worried that the program could breach the Nunn-McCurdy Act because of cost over-runs and schedule slips.
Which Fuel for the Nuclear Reactor?
There is also a significant concern about the nuclear reactor and the fuel used. Will the power plant be fueled by low enriched uranium or highly enriched uranium?
The Navy is worried the uranium fuel choice will affect delivery dates and cost. “Naval fuel system testing and evaluation would need to be funded and performed. Prior estimates have been 10-15 years and $1B to complete enough work to determine whether a fuel system may be viable and what performance may be achieved. Success is not assured. An optimistic estimate of total time to develop and deploy a naval LEU fuel system is 20-30 years (which includes the 10-15 years initial development program) and $25B. This does not include the cost of additional force structure to cover mission of submarines being refueled,” the Congressional Research Service noted.
Success Is Not Assured
Notice the key sentence in this statement: “Success is not assured.” That is not music to my ears. The nuclear reactor will just take too much time and money to build. Plus, there is a significant question about the use of low enriched uranium. This will take much research and development along with substantial testing and evaluation.
Therefore, there are just too many question marks for the SSN(X). Many years of expensive research and development will be needed in the next five years. We are talking about at least $2.5 billion in R&D costs. There is no timeline and no information or assurances about how this will affect other submarine programs. The fueling of the nuclear reactor for the SSN(X) is undetermined.
I like the SSN(X) technological improvements and this is an evolution to a much better submarine. U.S. adversaries will have nothing like it. However, if it just fires Tomahawk cruise missiles in attack mode, it doesn’t bring anything new to the fight. It will be stealthier and perhaps conduct hunter-killer missions better and the payload is improved.
If I were advising Members of Congress on the two armed services committees, I would go ahead and grant this fiscal year’s budget request, even though it is over a half billion dollars, and see if the Navy could figure out which type of fueling system the boat will have.
SSN(X) in 4 Words: Too Many Unanswered Questions?
But that still leaves the large costs in the out years, and I don’t like how the first submarine won’t be ready until 2040.
The SSN(X) program is just too expensive, with many questions unanswered.
The design has not been determined yet, and there is no ready solution for the type of enriched uranium that will fuel the reactors. I give it one more year to answer the questions from Congress or the SSN(X) program will have to be canceled.
That’s not what the Navy wants to hear, but difficult decisions must be made on submarines that don’t really feature much better armaments than existing submarines.
About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood
Brent M. Eastwood, PhD is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.
Submarines Like No Other
Japan Might Have a Stealth Submarine the U.S. Navy Would Love
