Since 04-07-05
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT NUDGES NAVY TOWARD DEVELOPING DIESEL SUBS
Since 04-07-05
Date: March 7, 2005
Admirals have previously dismissed the idea, but recent instructions from the Pentagon have prompted the Navy to explore developing diesel submarines to complement the fleet’s force of nuclear submarines, according to senior Navy officials and Pentagon budget documents.
Navy officials publicly discussed their interest in diesel submarines at a House Armed Services projection forces subcommittee hearing March 2.
The culture of the Navy, for so many decades, has been nuclear when it comes to submarines, not non-nuclear, said Rep. Robert Simmons (R-CT), whose state is home to General Dynamics’ Electric Boat shipyard. He asked whether the Navy should seriously consider — as part of the Navy’s transformation — developing smaller submarines that are less capable than today’s nuclear submarines. These smaller subs could operate in littoral regions, he suggested. This would also provide work for submarine designers, he said.
We are working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which really led the initiative to put the funds in there, said Navy acquisition executive John Young. “My understanding of their view of that is it’s everything you said and probably bigger than that. It’s a clean sheet of paper look at how we perform that undersea mission with consideration given to ways to make submarines lower cost. Certainly alternate propulsion options, including conventional propulsion, are on the table for discussion, as are unmanned undersea vehicles, airborne sensors that feed UUVs and a networked force to perform the mission in the most effective way,” he said.
Internal budget guidance approved by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz in December — program budget decision No. 753 — directed the Navy to allocate $600 million for an Undersea Superiority System. The budget document also cut a total of $30 billion from various defense programs, including the Virginia-class nuclear-pow-ered attack submarine program.
The document instructs the Navy to design “a future undersea superiority system alternative to the reduced [Virginia-class] submarine program that includes considerations of new propulsion systems.” The PBD specifically directs the Navy to “not just add funds to existing systems.”
Subsequently, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Vern Clark released his 2005 guidance for the Navy, which directs Naval Sea Systems Command and the Office of Naval Research to “study and develop proposals for alternate propulsion methods for submarines and surface combatants by July.”
Submariners have previously bashed the idea of adding diesel subs to the U.S. fleet, although some U.S. allies operate diesel subs.
Vice Adm. John Grossenbacher, then the naval submarine forces commander, said in November 2002 that he did not want diesel subs in the U.S. fleet, because nuclear subs provide more en-durance and stealth. He retired from the Navy in 2003.
“I don’t want diesel submarines, because I think — as capable as they are, and they are very capable — they don’t suit the needs of the United States,” he told a group of defense reporters. “I don’t want to fight undersea adversaries off the East Coast and West Coast of the United States. That’s what’s going to happen if you have diesel submarines.”
At the West 2002 conference in San Diego in January 2002, Rear Adm. John Padgett, then commander of submarine forces for the Pacific Fleet, said he saw no need to move away from nuclear propulsion or to implement a high-low mix that would incorporate diesel subs into the U.S. fleet. Padgett also retired from the Navy in 2003.
“If you accept a high-low notion, then you’re saying you’re sending somebody into combat with less than the best,” Padgett said. And, because most littoral combat will likely take place far away from U.S. shores, the nuclear sub’s high-speed agility is a necessary asset, he said. —
Christopher J. Castelli