rickusn

Save the Submarine Shipyards

Captain James H. Patton, Jr., U.S. Navy (Retired)

Proceedings, June 2005


Keeping a defense industry going in a democracy has never been easy—but it has always been important. Without two submarine builders, the United States could find itself in a lot of trouble.


The United States needs the capabilities offered by the two commercial yards building submarines and cannot afford to lose the skills resident in the teams they have put together over the years.


The political-military environment in Washington these days is all aflutter with the congressionally-directed study of military strategy and force structure termed the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and the more geographically threatening (for certain locales and constituencies) Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. Some of the defense cognoscenti have warned of a gathering storm that could reach tsunami proportions in which budgetary pressures, a stretched military, and a poisonous political atmosphere combine to wreak havoc on the nation's armed forces as they fight an ongoing war on terrorism and try to hedge against longer-term, emerging threats.

Of course, our military has survived such policy onslaughts in the past, and it is probable that these two deliberative processes will wind up doing more good than harm in preparing the armed forces for an uncertain future. But caveats apply—particularly because some of the very tough choices facing defense decision-makers have been deferred over the last few years. Defense budget analysts argue that there simply is not room for all the fighters, all the ships, all the future combat vehicles and, yes, all the submarines embraced in existing service programs. This top-down review might result in cuts that scrape the bottom.

For a number of reasons, the nation's nuclear submarine force and, particularly the Virginia (SSN-774)-class submarines and the industrial base that supports them, have been seen as a potential bill-payer for other priorities—or, at least, an area where near-term savings can be achieved by moving the planned program to the right, or by diminishing the industrial base. Neither of those proposed policy paths would take us in the right direction. And each involves added cost and risk.

Building Nuclear Submarines

Historically, submarine construction has been a difficult, inefficient, and very expensive proposition. It has often been identified as analogous to building a ship in a bottle, since much of the equipment and piping systems were installed after the pressure hull was essentially completed, bringing bits and pieces through 25-inch hatches to then assemble in place. For instance—and more art than science—a given segment of piping fabricated off-hull to match a heavy wire template would then be bent to shape on the ship to go above, behind, or around other already installed pipes, pumps, and paraphernalia. To allow for unavoidable inaccuracies, the ends of the pipes would have an extra few inches which would then be "dressed" (ground off) by an onboard pipefitter for a custom fit before being welded up by a different tradesman and artisan—who, incidentally, might have had to literally stand on his head to make the joint.

As a result, even within a given class of ship sequentially built at the same shipyard, no two submarines were alike regarding plumbing, wire runs, and other system layouts—much like automobiles before Henry Ford came along. A notable exception to this generalization was within the primary (reactor-associated) propulsion plant, where Admiral Rickover demanded a "non-deviation from plans" approach. Otherwise, with just a bit of exaggeration, building plans only helped assure that submarines of the same class were about the same width, height, and length.

During the period between 1963 and 1978, the author had the experience of both building and conducting refueling overhauls at each of the two shipyards presently involved in producing Virginia-class attack submarines. Each had its own personality at the time, and different internal techniques and procedures. The products from each yard, however, were uniformly good in spite of these different non-nuclear approaches to the task.

The author also saw, but was not directly involved with, the difficulties that originally plagued the Los Angeles (SSN-688)-class nuclear-powered submarines in the late 1970s and early 1980s when Electric Boat, traditionally the lead design agent for submarines, was building ships to Newport News plans and specifications. This forced marriage resulted in each yard essentially accusing the other of either producing blueprints that didn't match with realities or with an inability to read them correctly. One of the results of this dichotomy was that, for a period, the failure to deliver submarines resulted in the Groton, Connecticut, and Newport News, Virginia, shipyards each having one of the largest four or five nuclear submarine forces in the world. Similar, though less traumatic, problems occurred during the Seawolf design, where "the front end" was designed in Newport News and the propulsion plant in Groton, and there were real or imagined cases where "interfaces" between each shipyard's efforts didn't properly mate up.

For the most part, however, all this changed with the construction of the Seawolf class, and the advanced construction techniques pioneered in that program were further refined in the Virginia class. On 23 October 2004, USS Virginia became the first U.S. nuclear-powered submarine commissioned in seven years. Testifying to this improvement in production is the fact that this "first-of-a-class" ship was delivered within four months of a schedule written six years earlier, and was constructed with more than a 25% savings in labor costs when compared with Seawolf.1 To thoroughly appreciate the impact of these revolutionary changes in the manner by which submarines are built, consider the findings of the U.S. Navy In Service (INSURV) board. This organization inspects all new and, periodically, already commissioned, ships for their compliance with specifications, safety, and other standards. It is common for newly constructed, particularly first-of-a-class ships, to have far more deficiencies than a ship that has been operating for some period of time. The Virginia, however, had fewer deficiencies than any other operating ship that had been inspected during the previous twelve months. If any further proof is needed that the design and construction of Virginia heralded a true revolution in shipbuilding, it is generally accepted that its techniques and procedures were the reason why the 104-foot USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23) "Multi-Mission Platform" insert could be conceived, constructed, and rolled into a Seawolf hull as quickly as it was. This second success story bodes well for generating future versions of Virginia to include those to replace current nuclear-powered guided-missile submarines (SSGNs) and strategic missile submarines (SSBNs).

Targeting Nuclear Submarines

Why, then, is the future of a vibrant and busier-than-ever submarine force, supported by efficiently produced and operationally capable platforms of the Virginia class, threatened by stretched-out production schedules and a weakened industrial base? The reason, as is so often the case, is money—and short-range solutions to near-term fiscal shortfalls are now seriously undermining the nation's long-term capability to build and sustain a dominant undersea force. U.S. submarine roles and missions, alternative force levels, and the various options on how to reach and maintain them were the focus of a recent Congressional Research Service report.2 In that study, the present method—where the General Dynamics Electric Boat shipyard in Groton and the Northrop Grumman Newport News shipyard co-produce Virginia hulls then alternate final assembly, test, and delivery—was compared to alternate schemes. The present arrangement was deemed optimum for what was to be initially a one ship per year buy, but planned to increase to two ships per year (one for each yard) construction rate as early as 2002.

Budgetary pressures, however, have caused planners to keep shifting the transition to the higher rate almost continually to the right. Unless current plans are changed, the earliest fiscal year in which two submarines could be authorized is 2012. A decision to build only one ship per year would result in the present force level of about 54 SSNs (down from 98 in 1990) steadily diminishing to a low of 28 before leveling out at 33—the expected life of a Virginia. This is far below the numbers of submarines that even the most optimistic of Navy and DoD studies show will be required in the future.

One of the tempting short-term options for reducing unit cost of the Virginia-class SSN is to eliminate the present two-shipyard approach to one-ship-per-year construction, assuming that the two-shipyard option would always be available in the future when additional fiscal resources were available or when geopolitical realities made it urgent. This would be a strategic mistake of the first order, with a multitude of unintended consequences. First, to even conceive of a myth that a two-shipyard submarine industrial base could be resurrected in the future, the production line terminated would have to be the Northrop-Grumman Newport News shipyard (presuming the yard could survive on carrier business), since ending the line at General Dynamics Electric Boat would be tantamount to shutting the yard down. If the Newport News submarine production were terminated, however, there would be an inevitable impact on the shipyard's ability to support the two-a-decade nuclear-powered aircraft carrier program, since the steady submarine effort justifies their world-class Apprentice School and maintains nuclear skills between carrier construction.

In this regard, remember that the United kingdom, the world's third largest builder of nuclear submarines, allowed its nuclear shipbuilding skills to atrophy and was obliged to request intervention from U.S. shipyards to get the new Astute-class SSN program back on track. Also, although support of the present two-shipyard concept acknowledges room to fine-tune procedures and practices to gain further savings, those steps pale in comparison to what some say would be as much as $1 billion in "disentanglement costs" associated with breaking the present teaming agreement.

Moreover, the administrative and engineering differences that plagued two-shipyard construction are a thing of the past. Because of the efforts in establishing an entirely digital on-line-data/blueprint base from which both shipyards operate and can exchange engineering changes in real time, there is virtually no difference between the yards in processes, procedures, or product. For the first time in U.S. shipbuilding history, two geographically remote shipyards are producing identical products. As previously touched upon, this achievement will pay significant dividends in the mid- and long-term future as the techniques and procedures created in and for the design and production of the basic Virginia hull (particularly the propulsion plant) support the development of follow-on SSNs, SSGNs, and SSBNs (perhaps all functions being performed by a common hull, serially and identically produced in both shipyards).

Finally, the argument for two separate yards supporting this key element of US strategic dominance must be bolstered by the realities of the threat of terrorism. TOPOFF 3, the largest Homeland Security drill ever conducted, was held recently around the New London, Connecticut, area, which includes Groton. Although this particular simulated terrorist attack was of a chemical and conventional explosive nature, it is clear that a very real terrorist threat exists, particularly in and about seaports, involving nuclear devices or radiological dirty bombs. As a side benefit, nuclear-capable shipyards and naval personnel from nearby nuclear-powered ships might serve as an invaluable "first responder" and subsequent clean-up source. But in the worst imaginable case, with two shipyards forming the industrial base, the resources of one area might compensate for the incapacitation of the other.

Saving Nuclear Submarines

Indisputably, there is a delicate balance to be achieved between cost, a continuing design and industrial base, and a militarily necessary force level. The extraordinary present capabilities and room for growth of the Virginia are not to be treated lightly. Just as the late-1950s Skipjack was really the prototype for about 100 subsequent SSNs and SSBNs in the 20th century, essential elements of the Virginia will be with us for the better part of the 21st century in SSN, SSBN, and SSGN variants. The present two-shipyard approach evolving to a two-per-year submarine build rate is the proper means by which to both populate and maintain a minimum force level while maintaining the "cocked" gun industrial surge capability to four or even six a year if a rapid restocking of the nation's military portfolio with these crown jewels (or their evolved relatives) becomes a mandate. The relatively high present unit cost is an unfortunate artificiality caused by a draw-back from the planned build rate, but should be tolerated as the price of admiralty for a nation that hopes to continue to dominate the maritime commons—and to dominate from them.

For a good description of the highly innovative practices and procedures improved, devised, and implemented in support of these newest attack submarines, see RAdm. John D. Butler, USN, "Building Submarines for Tomorrow," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, June 2004, pp. 51-54. back to article
Ronald O'Rourke, "Navy Attack Submarine Force-Level Goal and Procurement Rate: Background and Issues for Congress," updated January 18, 2005, Order Code RL32418. back to article
Captain Patton served on five nuclear-powered attack submarines, two ballistic-missile submarines, and commanded the USS Pargo (SSN-650). A frequent Proceedings contributor, he was the technical consultant to Paramount Pictures for the film version of The Hunt for Red October, which was based on a book first published by the Naval Institute Press in 1984—now in its 39th printing.

Joseph

Hope they forget how to make subs

__________________
FrontierIndia Forums

We changed!!

TopHatter

Why do you say that?

__________________
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.
~John Quincy Adams

Joseph

Well,US submarines are threat to every country

Franco Lolan

What? Are you Indian? Look at Mallacas and tell me who the threat is.

TopHatter

Only if the navy that possesses them wishes to counted among the likes of the Kriegsmarine.

Joseph

I just don't like USN thats all..lol

TopHatter

Would you mind explaining why you don't like the USN?

Jay

Why?? Becoz they can smoke any body's a$$?? Thats jealousy.

__________________
A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

Joseph

Its up to me to decide who I should like,whether its jealousy or not jelousy.Just bcoz they are the best,it is not a MUST that eveyone should like them

Hawg166

Thats pretty freakin' poor their shipmate. Sounds like you need to spend a few days on a bow watch in the North Atlantic in January. That will I assure you adjust your attitude. But it is to be expected. I know guys that are crew chiefs in other services on different jets that hate Navy guys. But the reality is, is that alot of it is jealousy. They just dont do it as good as NAVAIR guys do and so they find a reason to mock. But the French and the Spanish all did the same thing. Everyone hated the the Royal navy because it just plain rocked the world. Everyone *****ed and moaned about the navigation acts and tried to pick a fight with the RN. They never commented on all the good things the RN did for the world,they just nit picked a couple things and hated it out of jealousy. So you are in good company, but I will stop just short of insulting you by saying you are like a frenchman.

__________________
"Now we shall have ourselves a pell mell battle!" ......The Immortal Memory, Admiral Nelson

Rani Lakshmibai

True, because they can defeat just about any nation on earth provokes some feelings of jealousy.

But what provokes anger and fear - greater than the feelings of jealousy - is the fact that America has shown that it has no compunctions whatsoever in freely using the weapons on anyone it chooses. It is of course a well known fact that America, despite all its blustering about democracy and freedom, not only prefers a pliable dictator to an unfriendly democracy, it is also willing (and has in the past) to take action to ensure the unfriendly, non-compliant democracy becomes a pliable dictatorship (America doesn't like Hugo Chavez, and guess what, a coup happens there. Since there is no proof that America was involved even though Venezuelans claim CIA involvement, I can't say it was America's doing. But I'm not likely to forget that the coup was very convenient for American interests).


So as Americans suggest everytime that others complain of American military intervention, it is true that others are jealous of American military and economic might, but don't forget that there are greater emotions of anger at American freewheeling military use and fear of who they might try to 'free' next.

TopHatter

Hmm....I am wondering if the USN (not to mention the other services) ought to turn right around head in the other direction every time a natural disaster kills and wounds hundreds of thousands of people, and leaves even more homeless and hungry.

Rani Lakshmibai

The USN does good things. But the primary reason for its existence is not to help other countries or so it is my belief. After all, all along I thought that 16-inch guns mounted on a battleship was used to pound the enemy into submission or that the multi-billion dollar aircraft carrier exists to project power. America has its priorities in place to help itself (and I have no problem with that) and that's why it doesn't spend billions of dollars to build a sea-borne platform to help victims of disaster instead of aircraft carriers, for instance. But making claims that don't take into account the real reason for the existence of the USN and painting them in a good light without pointing out how many they've killed don't make me feel guilty or bad, so you are going to come up with a better reason than that.

After all, I'll bet any amount of money that the USN has killed more people than it has helped. It did its job, and any help it provided to other countries, though appreciated, is nothing more than a sidejob. You would do well to remember that and try not to throw the handful of white paint of good deeds to cover up enormous black stains of intervention and atrocities on the skyscraper of the American government.

And the USN isn't the only one that helps out people either. The Indian Navy was the first navy to commence relief operations in other countries like Sri Lanka after the tsunami.

TopHatter

Rani,
In all seriousness, I appreciate you standing up for us warmongering Yankees

You are absolutely correct.
The USN's primary mission is to protect the political and economic interests of the United States around the globe by projecting massive military power.
Everything else is, as you say a side job.
I don't try to compare the USN's response to the tsunami disaster to it's military actions at all. And I would certainly hope that the Indian Navy responded first, since probably every active-duty and at-sea Indian warhship was RIGHT THERE at the time.
My point was, most people hate the military, especially the U.S. military, until it isnt there. Our Puerto Rican "friends" screamed bloody murder for the USN to get out of Vieques...until they found out that Rosie Roads would close as well, neatly depriving their economy of millions of dollars per year.

Again, I don't deny that people around the world may have a beef with the United States or it's military. I'm just wondering how many of them are screaming "YANKEE GO HOME" when a USN battle group pulls into a disaster ravaged port.