Analyst Says Subs May Be Underutilized

Since 07-20-04

From NSL UPDATE 06-21-2004

Analyst Says Subs May Be Underutilized
Assessment comes in wake of Navy study suggesting reduction in undersea fleet
By Robert A. Hamilton, New London Day, 11 Jun 04 Used with permission

Alexandria, Va. -- A prominent naval analyst said Thursday that while an internal Navy study proposes handing off submarine missions to surface ships and satellites to cut the size of the undersea fleet, the Navy should also consider whether submarines should take on more missions.

While the Navy study suggests satellites could do some of the surveillance and reconnaissance work now assigned to submarines, Ronald O'Rourke observed that submarines might be more effective since unfriendly nations can track satellites. He said the Navy should study whether submarines should do jobs now done by satellites.

Surface ships now perform anti-submarine warfare and the mapping of minefields in near-shore waters, but there are sensors that might make a submarine more effective in those jobs as well, O'Rourke said during a speech to the Naval Submarine League at the Alexandria Mark Center Hilton.

If the Navy does not do a rigorous analysis of all options from both perspectives, he said, "some may question if this is not so much an analysis of attack submarine requirements so much as it is an exercise directed at knocking down the submarine force level goal."

O'Rourke also observed that the Navy has not provided any analysis of the need for its two major surface shipbuilding programs, the DD(X) next-generation destroyer and the smaller Littoral Combat Ship, so it has not justified any of the investment planned in those programs.

"I'm not saying the LCS isn't the best ship to perform (some submarine) missions," O'Rourke said. But there would be more taxpayer support for shifting the work to surface ships if the issue is subjected to an independent study and submariners are allowed to make their case, he added.

O'Rourke also said a full financial analysis of submarines versus surface ships should take into account that a modern nuclear submarine has sufficient fuel to last its entire 30-year life, while a conventionally powered surface ship will generate fuel bills for 30 years.

O'Rourke, a national security analyst with the Congressional Research Service, said critics of the internal Navy study have said it seems to be driven by finances more than force requirements, since the shipbuilding budget cannot support two $2.5 billion submarines a year.

But because of a hiatus in submarine construction during the 1990s, when the Navy only ordered four attack submarines, even maintaining a much smaller fleet is going to require significant investment, as the older submarines are decommissioned from 2010 to 2025.

"Even if the force level goal is reduced to 40, an average (construction) rate of two boats a year at some point will need to be maintained for a number of years," O'Rourke said.

Submariners, both active duty and retired, were buoyed by O'Rourke's remarks because as a civilian analyst he has no stake in any particular warfare community. His views are highly regarded by members of Congress.

The internal Navy study has been the subject of considerable discussion at the league's annual symposium this week, both in the official sessions and during the breaks, as submarine supporters seek to work out ways to persuade the Navy and the nation that more boats, not fewer, are needed.

O'Rourke said that, based on published reports, there seem to be some inconsistencies in the study. The actual report is classified and has not been released.

For instance, sources have said the study recommended cutting the submarine force by up to one-third because unmanned underwater vehicles, or UUVs, might be able to take over some of the surveillance missions now done by submarines.

But the study apparently does not address how the UUVs might be deployed in a contested area. In fact, O'Rourke said, the most effective delivery platform for UUVs is a submarine, which can sneak in close to a coast, deploy the UUV, then depart without the enemy knowing the UUV is there.

In fact, if UUVs become the best platform for surveillance, anti-submarine warfare and mine warfare missions, it could actually increase the requirement for submarines, he said.

O'Rourke also cautioned that the Navy's budget problems have created confusion about how many ships it will be able to maintain. There are indications that the DD(X) will be substantially more costly than estimated, so the planned purchase could slip from 24 to as few as nine. The cost and scope of the planned LCS purchase is similarly vague, he said.

Last year the Navy, which operates just under 300 ships now, said it needed 310 ships. In recent months, however, it has said it needs 375. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has explicitly rejected the higher number. The Navy has backed off it as well, saying it reflects traditional crewing and deployment practices that have been changing in recent months.

But no matter how many ships the Navy has said it needs, it has been buying them at a rate that barely will support a 200-ship fleet. The Navy has not said how it might increase production.

"Since early last year we've been in a situation of uncertainty regarding the planned size and structure of the fleet," O'Rourke said. "If the submarine number is reduced, it may be part of a plan that reduces other parts of the Navy as well."