Russia’s Kilo-class and Yasen-class submarines are likely considered as a massive, high-tech threat by the Pentagon while China’s growing fleet of Jin-class ballistic missile submarines are acquiring much longer-range JL-3 nuclear missiles.
That does not mean either Russian or Chinese boats are the best in the world. Does the U.S. Navy still have global undersea superiority?
The Navy’s Virginia-Class: The Best Submarine of All Time
While many details about foreign submarines remain murky, the U.S. Navy’s cutting-edge Virginia-class attack submarines are arguably the best to ever exist.
The submarines incorporate a series of paradigm-changing undersea technologies, computing, and firepower, which could very well place them in a class by themselves. This is particularly true when one considers innovations woven into Block III and forward Virginia-class submarines and massive firepower increases built into the Block V Virginia Payload Modules.
In a variety of operational environments, surface ships and the drones or aircraft they operate could be more “detectable” to enemy radar and sensors when compared to attack submarines. Given these and other variables, Virginia-class submarines are becoming increasingly critical to clandestine “intel” missions in high-risk areas.
Enhancements to Virginia-class submarines, first built into a prototype Block III boat called the USS South Dakota, became operational almost eight years ago. However, in a broad or general sense, Senior Navy weapons developers did say the enhancements related to antennas, coating material, and engine-quieting technologies.
Virginia-class vs Kilo-class Submarines
Block III Virginias also have a Large Aperture Bow advanced sonar and an automated, joystick-controlled computerized fly-by-wire navigation system. Russia’s Kilo-class is described as having some computer automation, yet it seems it would be quite significant to determine the extent to which it can truly rival cutting-edge Virginia-class submarines.
This is of particular tactical significance because advanced Virginia-class submarines are increasingly being used for Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR) missions to survey high-risk areas such as enemy coastlines while remaining much less detectable than easy-to-see surface ships.
Virginia-Class submarines are engineered with “Fly-by-Wire” capability, which allows the ship to quietly linger in shallow waters without having to surface or have each small move controlled by a human operator. With this technology, a human operator will order depth and speed, allowing software to direct the movement of the planes and rudder to maintain course and depth. The ships can be driven primarily through software code and electronics, thus freeing up time and energy for an operator, who does not need to manually control each small maneuver.
Attack Submarines As “Intel” “Spy” Submarines
This technology, using upgradeable software and fast-growing AI applications, widen the mission envelope for attack submarines by vastly expanding their ISR potential. Using real-time analytics and an instant ability to draw upon and organize vast databases of information and sensor input, computer algorithms can now perform a range of procedural functions historically performed by humans. This can increase the speed of maneuverability and an attack submarine’s ability to quickly shift course, change speed, or alter depth positioning when faced with an attack.
“The most important feature for maneuvering in littoral waters is the fly-by-wire control system, whereby computers in the control center electronically adjust the submarine’s control surfaces, a significant improvement from the hydraulic systems used in the Los Angeles-class,” a 2016 Stanford University, “The Future of Nuclear Submarines” paper by Alexander Yachanin states.
The U.S. Navy’s 2018 “Commander’s Intent for the United States Submarine Force,” says “We are uniquely capable of, and often best employed in, stealthy, clandestine and independent operations … we exploit the advantages of undersea concealment which allow us to: Conduct undetected operations such as strategic deterrent patrols, intelligence collection, Special Operations Forces support, non-provocative transits, and repositioning.”
Virginia-class subs are armed with Tomahawk missiles, torpedoes, and other weapons able to perform a range of missions; these include anti-submarine warfare, strike warfare, covert mine warfare, ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance), anti-surface/ship warfare, and naval special warfare, something described as having the ability to carry and insert Special Operations Forces. Future Virginia-Class submarines provide improved littoral (coastal waters) capabilities, sensors, special operations force employment, and strike warfare capabilities.
About the Author: Kris Osborn
Kris Osborn is the Military Affairs Editor of 19FortyFive and President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Master’s Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.
Jacksonian Libertarian
July 31, 2023 at 9:31 am
Sure they are the best, but they are so expensive $4B the US is putting all its eggs in one basket with the handful America can afford to put into service. Small (<1kton) cheap, AIP utility/cargo/amphibious subs can be purchased in large numbers (200). And while carrying fewer of "the same weapons", provide dispersed coverage of a much larger footprint of contested seas. Sure you need to refuel them, but they are also quieter, and put more listening stations in the water, making tracking the enemy easier.
Duane
July 31, 2023 at 12:04 pm
Following up on Jacksonian’s comment here, yes, the problem with Virginia SSNs is they are very large (over 10,000 tons submerged with the VPM) and very expensive. Yes, extremely capable, but 95% of that capability can also be delivered in a much smaller SSN as long as the Navy doesn’t insist on turning them into missile barges.
During the Cold War, our dominant ASW and anti-surface ship SSN class was the 637 or Sturgeon class, weighing in at 4,300 tons submerged – less than half that of a Virginia. Obviously submarine technology has improved a lot since the 1960s when that class was designed, yet all of that technology can also be placed in a much smaller hull form, still yielding an advanced sub at half the cost of a Virginia.
It is well known that the US is woefully short in SSNs, and they are so costly not only to build but to man and operate, we just can’t afford to field as large a fleet as we are going to need with an up-arming PLAN.
Get rid of all the vertical launch tubes, or maybe only incorporate a small number. SSNs do not need to be missile barges – they are way too expensive to build and operate for that purpose, now that the INF treaty’s range limit on land based cruise missiles is now defunct. Put those large missiles on dirt cheap ground launchers, a few million each vs $4+ billion each, plus needing a crew of only a handful vs a crew of 155 highly trained sailors.
We could build a smaller SSN of roughly 5,000 tons that would be every bit as deadly against sea targets (surface ships and subs) as the Virginia, without the large land attack capability, for half the cost of a Virginia. With subs, as with all ships, you pay for them, with equivalent equipment, by the ton.
The US could easily afford to build up a SSN fleet of 70 or 80 boats instead of the 40 some that we are headed down to as of today, by reducing their size and their cost, yet retain 100% of the tech advances developed for the Virginias.
Duane
July 31, 2023 at 12:12 pm
And for those who keep insisting that the answer is to build diesel electrics, I will school them all again that DEs are no cheaper to build, ton for ton, than nuke attack subs. Sure there are some relatively cheap DEs being built, but they are only small coastal subs displacing 2,000-3,000 tons. Build one to be equivalent to a Virginia sized boat (8,000-10,000 tons), like the French DEs that were cancelled by Australia, and the cost balloons equivalent. When the Aussies finally canceled the French subs, displacing about 7,000 tons, the cost had inflated to over $5 billion each! 20% more than the larger and most expensive Virginias with VPMs!
Repeat after me – you pay for ships and subs by the ton, with equivalent capabilities and equipment. Stay small, cost small. We don’t want to go down to the level of those coastal DEs that Japan and other nations are building, as ours have to be able to operate for long patrols across the wide Pacific, and therefore need to be bigger than that. But 4,000-5,000 tons is the sweet spot for having enough size to do what American SSNs need to do – which is to fight in the Western Pacific far from home base. Which is why Australia designed to purchase Virginias, as well as a new design developed by the Royal Navy.
Andrew Winter
July 31, 2023 at 1:14 pm
Huh.
Why the big comparison to the KILO boats? The KILO isn’t even a nuclear sub! Yes conventional Diesel electrics HAD and advantage in stealth over Nukes some time ago, but I don’t know if that is still true. But here is a real news break folks.
They only have a range of 400 miles submerged, and snorkeling is used to recharge batteries, and it is NOISEY when the Diesels are running. So, … uh whats the fuss?
Duane
July 31, 2023 at 4:13 pm
Andrew Winter – DEs NEVER had the advantage in stealth over modern US nuke subs, never. That was a media claim, but it was never true.
It’s not just the range submerged that limits a DE boat – it is the ridiculously slow speeds they are limited to when submerged. If they want to stay under for more than an hour, they cannot travel at any more than a handful (single digits) of knots .. while any and all nukes can travel forever at flank speed. That makes all the difference in the world in lining up to kill the enemy with a warshot, or defending from a shot. Not to mention being able to keep up with and put your boat in a position to attack against a fast nuke or a fast surface warship.
The DEs of WW Two era suffered their biggest liability, limited to slow speeds when submerged, that got a whole lot of them killed, or at least they failed to put the enemy on the bottom. To go after a fast warship, they had to essentially get lucky, be in the right place at the right time and hope a fast carrier task force or battleship would practically run them over in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, like finding a needle in a haystack. And then if their torpedo salvo missed, they could not get off a second salvo, and at that point they were slowwalking underwater to try and save their own lives.
People who advocate diesel electrics are people who’ve never had to fight a war in one, or who never had to be prepared to fight a war in an SSN. As in everything in life, everything looks easy when you don’t know what you’re talking about. Words to live by.