Get PJ Media on your Apple


See Wolfs?

August 25th, 2014 - 12:14 pm



Submariners can collect intelligence, protect surface ships and launch Navy SEAL teams in a region brimming with international tensions — all with minimal chance of detection.

However, the one thing that the U.S. fleet hasn’t been able to do is escape the realities of both age and cost.

The U.S. Navy’s attack submarine fleet is slated to drop steadily from 55 currently active to 41 by 2028, according to the service’s most recent shipbuilding plan.

Even at a projected rate where the Navy acquires 22 of its $2 billion Virginia-class subs by 2028, the numerous Los Angeles-class submarines built during the 1970s and 1980 are running out of time too quickly to keep pace.

We got into World War I in large part because of Germany’s use of unrestricted submarine warfare. The supreme historical irony is, just as soon as it became desirable and feasible for us to wage unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan, we did so with a ruthless efficiency the German must have marveled at. We shut Imperial Japan’s shipping down.

Today’s subs are of course even more efficient killers, and with a variety of missions unimaginable to WWII skippers. But each boat can stay on patrol for only so long, and each boat can delivery its deadly force within only a given “bubble” on the sea’s surface above it.

At some point during a RIF, too few hulls is simply too few hulls — and the Pacific is a very large ocean.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (4)
All Comments   (4)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
We have shipping.
Our allies depend on shipping.
Our economy depends on shipping.
The real target for Attack Subs are OTHER Submarines. To protect OUR sea lanes.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
The real enemy is the ideology that controls the executive branch of the US Govt. Submarines are of little use against that enemy.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
On the other hand, as far as interdiction and attacking ships (and shipping) goes, there's a few changes:

1) The big likely threats, China and (to a much, much lesser extent in the Pacific) Russia, don't depend on shipping like island Japan did.

2) Real-time and nearly-real-time satellite coverage, stealthy (or just cheap and distant) drones, and standoff smart and guidable cruise missiles mean you don't really need subs against shipping.

You might not even need them against all of China's blue-water navy (all basically-none-of it).

Our subs are far more useful for the things in the first paragraph quoted than for unrestricted submarine warfare, these days - other things are more efficient at sinking cargo vessels.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment

Actually, China is and will remain terribly dependent on oil tankers for the foreseeable future.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All