u.s. navy ohio class submarine replacement

McGrath, pessimistic about the future of the Navy’s shipbuilding budget, argues that the Navy should cancel the SSBN replacement program and leave nuclear deterrence to the bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) of the Air Force. Burke said it would cause the Navy “to both reduce procurement as well as retire existing ships, leaving us with a Navy in the vicinity of 200 ships, at which point we may not be considered a global navy.” (O’Rourke, page 22)īryan McGrath, Managing Director of The FerryBridge Group, primary author of the Navy’s 2007 Maritime Strategy, and fellow War on the Rocks contributor, has deemed Burke’s predicted course to be intolerable. Sequestration will only make the situation worse. At these numbers, our global presence will be reduced such that we’ll only be able to visit some areas of the world episodically.” In fact, we’ll find ourselves closer to 250. “If we buy the within existing funds, we will not reach 300 ships. naval power should the Navy not receive the additional $60 billion: Vice Admiral William Burke, the recently retired Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Systems, explained the consequences for the future of U.S. What would be cut? These officials speculated that the losses could amount to eight Virginia-class attack submarines, eight destroyers, and 16 other ships such as Littoral Combat Ships and amphibious ships. They claim that re-directing $60 billion from other shipbuilding to the replacement SSBNs would result in the cancellation of 32 ships in the Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan. Viewing the SSBN fleet as a national strategic asset and not merely another line of Navy ships, the Navy has requested that the Pentagon and Congress top up its shipbuilding account with an extra $60 billion over 15 years to pay for the new SSBNs.Īccording to Navy officials, failure to provide this top-up funding will have dire consequences. This expense threatens the rest of the Navy’s long-term shipbuilding plan. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the research and acquisition costs for the fleet could total over $100 billion through the mid-2030s.

The Navy’s plan is to replace its current fleet of 14 ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) with 12 new submarines, beginning in 2021. On the Hill, a few days earlier, Rear Admiral Richard Breckenridge, director of the Navy’s Undersea Warfare Division, made Greenert’s point even more definitively, stating:į there’s only one thing that we do with our ship building account, we-we are committed to sustaining a two ocean national strategic deterrent that protects our homeland from nuclear attack, from other major war aggression and also access and extended deterrent for our allies. This dilemma has led to some deep soul-searching inside the Navy and on Capitol Hill.

In testimony to the House Armed Services Committee on September 18, 2013, Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Admiral Jonathan Greenert declared that the program to replace the aging Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine fleet “is the top priority program for the Navy.” But Greenert’s commitment to maintaining the very expensive ballistic missile submarine fleet through most of this century is creating a dire threat to the long-term viability of the rest of the U.S.

U.s. navy ohio class submarine replacement