The 1960’s Submarine Industrial Base vs. Current Submarine Industrial Base: A Deeply Concerning Comparison
USS George Washington (SSBN 598), the world’s first ballistic missile submarine, was launched 62 years ago today. On this anniversary it is appropriate to compare the 1960’s submarine industrial base, which produced George Washington, and the current submarine industrial base. This comparison, unfortunately, is deeply concerning. The 1960’s submarine industrial base production rate, while simultaneously providing all required submarine force maintenance, was an industrial achievement without peer. In a period of just 2,856 days – less than 8 years – the United States took the entire “41 For Freedom” ballistic missile submarine program from the launch of the lead ship through commissioning of the final ship while simultaneously commissioning 22 new attack and 2 new diesel-electric submarines. At the same time the submarine industrial base also properly maintained the entire submarine force. That is an average delivery rate over 8 years of more than 8 new submarines per year. Today’s submarine industrial base, on the other hand, struggles to build two new attack submarines and one ballistic missile submarine per year and is NOT able to properly maintain the existing submarines in our fleet. Clearly, something has to change with today’s submarine industrial base – because what we are currently doing is not working.
On June 9, 1959 USS George Washington (SSBN 598) was launched into the Thames River by Electric Boat. 2,856 days later, on April 1, 1967, USS Will Rogers (SSBN 659), America’s 41st ballistic missile submarine, was commissioned at New London, CT. During this period 22 attack submarines, from USS Seadragon (SSN 584) through USS Queenfish (SSN 651), and America’s final two diesel-electric submarines, were also commissioned while the entire submarine force was properly maintained. The 1960’s ballistic missile submarines were built by 4 shipyards (Electric Boat built 17, Newport News built 14, Mare Island Naval Shipyard built 7 and Portsmouth Naval Shipyard built 3). These 4 shipyards, plus New York Shipbuilding, Ingalls Shipbuilding and GD Quincy Shipbuilding Division, built the attack and diesel-electric submarines. These 7 shipyards, plus Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Charleston Naval Shipyard, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, provided submarine force maintenance.
The situation is far less favorable today. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), from FY14 – FY19 an average of more than 3.4 nuclear powered submarines were continuously sidelined due to delayed maintenance.[1] Since FY19 the submarine maintenance situation has only further degraded. Regarding current submarine construction performance, during a Senate Seapower Subcommittee hearing today Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition Jay Stefany stated that “(prior to the COVID 19 pandemic) we weren’t really producing (submarines) at a two (Virginia Class attack submarine) per-year-plus-one (Columbia Class ballistic missile submarine) rate.” The current submarine industrial base includes 6 shipyards. Newport News Shipbuilding and Electric Boat build submarines, and occasionally maintain them. The four Naval Shipyards – Portsmouth, Norfolk, Puget Sound and Pearl Harbor – all maintain submarines.
It is unacceptable that the World’s Greatest Navy cannot keep up with routine submarine maintenance requirements, especially as it struggles to build submarines at a 3 per year rate.
1960’s Sturgeon Class Submarine Cutaway Drawing, similar to the smaller Permit Class
Certainly, today’s submarines are both larger and much more complex and sophisticated, though in some important ways are actually simpler than those of the 1960’s.
Los Angeles Class Submarine Cutaway Drawing, similar to current Virginia Class
Certainly, today’s submarines are both larger and much more complex and sophisticated, though in some important ways are actually simpler than those of the 1960’s.
The increased complexity and sophistication of modern submarines is offset – at least partially, on the shipbuilding side – by the development and utilization of modular shipbuilding technology. In addition, the “41 For Freedom” ballistic missile submarines were an entirely new conception – something which had never before been built – while modern submarines are several generations removed but still derivatives of the now-well-proven 1960’s submarines. We should be doing better now, but we aren’t.
A better approach to submarine maintenance – providing more maintenance capacity and capability – is required. This better approach must be achievable in the current environment, be affordable and be effective. The good news is that the Bartlett Maritime Plan™, described on our website, is both available and meets these challenging criteria.
The Bartlett Maritime Plan™ is a public-private-partnership which can both provide the required new ship maintenance capacity and capability while accessing an entirely new labor pool to staff this new capacity and capability. This new capacity and capability will include 2 new VPM-Virginia-capable drydocks in a totally enclosed drydock production facility and a new equipment depot to maintain and repair key ship components and equipment. Better, still, no new legislation is required to implement this plan which will also result in an annual savings of more than $100 million per year while also creating more than 41,000 jobs.