news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

the low cost-effective excess performance of the seawolf class forced the united states to develop a "simplified version" of the virginia class nuclear submarine.

according to a report on the website of the u.s. bimonthly magazine "national interest" on september 1, the "seawolf" class submarine is fast, has strong stealth capability, and outstanding firepower, and can play a powerful deterrent role in disputed areas such as the western pacific.

the seawolf class submarine was supposed to replace the los angeles class fast attack submarine. initially, the u.s. navy planned to build 29 seawolf class submarines within a decade. however, the cost of building the seawolf class submarines was high and could take up resources from other important naval projects (such as the virginia class submarines). later, the procurement plan was reduced to 12. with the end of the cold war and the decline of the u.s. military budget, the u.s. navy eventually built only three seawolf class submarines.

what would have happened if the u.s. navy had built 29 seawolf-class submarines as originally planned? would today's u.s. navy be better able to deal with threats from countries such as russia? let's analyze and think about this hypothesis.

in 1995, the plan to build the seawolf-class submarines was canceled, and only the seawolf, connecticut and jimmy carter submarines were completed. these three seawolf-class submarines are still in service today and are the most expensive submarines in the us arsenal.

the seawolf-class submarines are capable of carrying up to 50 land-attack or anti-ship missiles, and they are nuclear-powered.

so would the us navy have been better equipped if it had gone ahead with its plan to build two dozen seawolf-class submarines? it’s hard to say. first, we need to weigh the advantages of this submarine against other fast attack submarines (in this case, the los angeles and virginia classes). both los angeles and virginia classes are powerful submarines that are fully capable of completing fast attack missions.

still, the seawolf is an impressive submarine—it's larger, faster, and quieter than the los angeles-class. so we assume the seawolf has a significant advantage over the others, and the navy would be better equipped if it went ahead and bought a few dozen of them.

second, given that the u.s. navy is building more seawolf-class submarines, we need to calculate where those resources are coming from. the u.s. military resources, while vast, are still finite; every dollar the navy spends on seawolf-class submarines takes away from spending on other programs, such as carrier-mounted f-35c fighters, zumwalt-class destroyers, or ford-class aircraft carriers.

the point is that this is not as simple as replacing other fast-attack submarines with seawolf-class submarines on a one-for-one basis, but will require a much larger reconfiguration of the naval fleet. what that reconfiguration will look like is hard to say, but overall it will likely leave the united states ill-equipped to deal with threats beyond its borders—regardless of whether the submarine fleet is enhanced or not.

now, let's consider a simple scenario where the united states phases out the los angeles-class submarines in favor of the seawolf-class on a one-for-one basis, but without a larger reconfiguration of the naval fleet. would this upgrade help the u.s. military against russia and other countries?

let's start with russia. russian forces were outmatched by ukraine's crude defenses. the russian navy also failed to impress, despite the war being primarily land-based. this is not surprising, given the high rate of accidents involving russian submarines in the 21st century. as a result, the united states may not need to upgrade its fast attack submarines too much to match the russian navy. at present, the us navy is significantly better equipped than the russian navy.