US Navy returning to expensive Coldwar Seawolf-like sub hunters

The US Navy’s next SSN(X) fast attack submarine will focus on hunting Chinese and Russian submarines.

The next-generation attack submarine will be faster, stealthier and have more torpedoes than the Virginia class. They will be similar to the Seawolf class submarine.

During the cold war with the USSR, the US Navy focused on submarine hunting. During the war on terrorism, the US had Virginia submarines launching cruise missiles against land targets in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The sub-hunting SSN(X) will be larger than Virginia subs. They will be about 9100 tons and will be more like the Seawolf-class. New Seawolf sized submarines will cost about $5.5 billion per sub. The Navy’s shipbuilding plan had estimated Virginia sized SSN(X) production will run about $3.1 billion per sub. This will be 77% more expensive. Budget overruns are common.

Drone Mothership submarine

A new large-diameter mothership submarine to carry large drone submarines could be ordered in 2036 after the Columbia-class winds down.

The 2019 shipbuilding plan includes a proposal to purchase five of these post-Columbia-class submarines.

355 ship Navy and 80% larger budget

The SSN(X) will be expensive. The US Navy claims it needs an annual shipbuilding budget of $21 billion through 2048 to create a 355-ship fleet. The CBO believes a $28.9 billion-per-year is a more realistic estimate. The sub-hunting SSN(X) program is 40% of the difference between the Navy and CBO projected shipbuilding budget needs.

$28.9 billion is 80 percent more than the average annual funding the Navy has received for the past 30 years.

The Navy plans to buy 301 new ships between 2019 and 2048. Getting to 355 ships would require extending Arleigh Burke destroyers to 45 years instead of 30 years.

Seawolf program

A twelve submarine Seawolf program was estimated to cost $33 billion during the 1990s. The USSR collapsed in 1991 and only three Seawolf submarines were built for a total cost of $7.3 billion.

At 353 feet, Seawolf subs were shorter than their predecessors but were twenty percent wider (forty feet wide). They were heavier at 12,158 tons submerged.

Seawolf has eight torpedo tubes.

The Virginia class has only four 533-millimeter torpedo tubes.

The new Russian Yasen class are 390 feet long and 13,800 tons. They have a lot of automation. They each have eight torpedo tubes. Two have been completed and 5 more are being built.

105 thoughts on “US Navy returning to expensive Coldwar Seawolf-like sub hunters”

  1. HAHAHAHA!! What a suckher! In the year 2005 Putin was prez of Russia, GWB was in the Qhite house. Putin stayed in power GWB left In the 2013 Putin was de facto the ruler , Obama was in the Qhite house Obama went Putin stayed Now it is Drumpf and Putin Drumpf will leave Putin will stay This is how amerikka is fighting Putinism? Good grief. dude. You really swallowed hook line and sinker!!

    Reply
  2. In the year 2003 GWB was in the White House. Putin was Prez of Russia GWB went, Putin Stayed In the year 2011 Barak Obama was in the Qhite Hous, Putin was Prez of Russia Obama went, Putin stayed Now it is Trumpf and Putin Trumpf will go, Putin will stay I see that America is VERY successful in fighting Putinis Wake up dude, it is already mealy afternoon !

    Reply
  3. HAHAHAHA!! What a suckher! In the year 2005 Putin was prez of Russia GWB was in the Qhite house. Putin stayed in power GWB left In the 2013 Putin was de facto the ruler Obama was in the Qhite house Obama went Putin stayed Now it is Drumpf and Putin Drumpf will leave Putin will stay This is how amerikka is fighting Putinism? Good grief. dude. You really swallowed hook line and sinker!!

    Reply
  4. In the year 2003 GWB was in the White House. Putin was Prez of Russia GWB went Putin Stayed In the year 2011 Barak Obama was in the Qhite Hous Putin was Prez of Russia Obama went Putin stayed Now it is Trumpf and Putin Trumpf will go Putin will stay I see that America is VERY successful in fighting Putinis Wake up dude it is already mealy afternoon !

    Reply
  5. There is absolutely no need for this. The NAVY budget should be cut in half, not multiplied by 1.7 Total disconnect from reality. Our NAVY is at least 2x more powerful than any potential adversary. Even China and Russia together couldn’t match us…so why on Earth do we need to spend more money? We need to build roads and lanes on our highways and lots of tunnels and more bridges. Morning and evening commutes should not take much longer than driving at any other time of day. Americans with more time means Americans that can work longer or have more time with their families, more time to sleep, exercise, and be more productive. It might even increase birth rates. It also means saved fuel and less reliance on imported oil…and eventually more exported oil as we move to being a net exporter of oil. And those people that build submarines and work in the military are among our more potentially productive people. We need them in the real workforce adding to GDP not costing us.

    Reply
  6. I do hope the Navy is also looking into more modern modes of Naval defense than big a$$ manned subs. Those are fine for delivering missiles, torpedo and divers but I would think that swarms of submersibles would be better for signals and intelligence gathering.

    Reply
  7. When I worked for the navy we called Seawolf class “Lonewolf” because at one point they had reduced the build plan to just one and we called the Virginia class “Cheapwolf”. Later they decided to build two more Seawolfs just because they had already geared up to build a whole class and wanted to justify the cost.

    Reply
  8. There is absolutely no need for this. The NAVY budget should be cut in half not multiplied by 1.7 Total disconnect from reality. Our NAVY is at least 2x more powerful than any potential adversary. Even China and Russia together couldn’t match us…so why on Earth do we need to spend more money? We need to build roads and lanes on our highways and lots of tunnels and more bridges. Morning and evening commutes should not take much longer than driving at any other time of day. Americans with more time means Americans that can work longer or have more time with their families more time to sleep exercise and be more productive. It might even increase birth rates. It also means saved fuel and less reliance on imported oil…and eventually more exported oil as we move to being a net exporter of oil. And those people that build submarines and work in the military are among our more potentially productive people. We need them in the real workforce adding to GDP not costing us.

    Reply
  9. I do hope the Navy is also looking into more modern modes of Naval defense than big a$$ manned subs. Those are fine for delivering missiles torpedo and divers but I would think that swarms of submersibles would be better for signals and intelligence gathering.

    Reply
  10. When I worked for the navy we called Seawolf class Lonewolf”” because at one point they had reduced the build plan to just one and we called the Virginia class “”””Cheapwolf””””. Later they decided to build two more Seawolfs just because they had already geared up to build a whole class and wanted to justify the cost.”””

    Reply
  11. Expensive, aren’t they? I recall an American preacher protesting against these subs in the mid 1980’s. It’s all very well to protest, but the right to protest was provided by such armaments – in 100 years America had to fight against Fascism, Communism and Islamism.

    Reply
  12. The problem with a 5.5 billion dollar sub is we can’t ever possibly build enough of them to actually do any good. But with a hundred 55 million dollar drone subs now that might accomplish something. We could afford to sacrifice some of them in a significant conflict so this would let us be more aggressive in our deployment. I doubt if we can afford more than a handful of these big sub hunters so losing even one would be a big setback.

    Reply
  13. Expensive aren’t they? I recall an American preacher protesting againstthese subs in the mid 1980’s. It’s all very well to protest but the right toprotest was provided by such armaments – in 100 years America had tofight against Fascism Communism and Islamism.

    Reply
  14. America has this thing where the president is usually replaced every 8 years via a process called elections. Which is different from Russia.

    Reply
  15. Assuming that sub qualified sailors, technicians and dock facilities are free and unlimited of course. Otherwise you might find that fewer, better, subs are actually cheaper overall.

    Reply
  16. The problem with a 5.5 billion dollar sub is we can’t ever possibly build enough of them to actually do any good. But with a hundred 55 million dollar drone subs, now that might accomplish something. We could afford to sacrifice some of them in a significant conflict so this would let us be more aggressive in our deployment. I doubt if we can afford more than a handful of these big sub hunters so losing even one would be a big setback.

    Reply
  17. America has this thing where the president is usually replaced every 8 years via a process called elections. Which is different from Russia.

    Reply
  18. Assuming that sub qualified sailors technicians and dock facilities are free and unlimited of course.Otherwise you might find that fewer better subs are actually cheaper overall.

    Reply
  19. Our NAVY is at least 2x more powerful than any potential adversary. ” Yeah. NOW. This is about the future. You can’t just turn things on a dime when it comes to planning out future naval fleet compositions. ” We need to build roads and lanes on our highways and lots of tunnels and more bridges. ” ALL of which the States are supposed to handle. The Feds handle defense. Complain to your state assemblydweeb or governor. “Morning and evening commutes should not take much longer than driving at any other time of day. ” Not a federal problem. And don’t bring up the interstate highway system. It was not built for interstate commerce reasons, but national defense ones. “Americans with more time means Americans that can work longer or have more time with their families, more time to sleep, exercise, and be more productive.” So? “We need them in the real workforce adding to GDP not costing us.” Military procurement activities ADD to the GDP. Basic Econ 101.

    Reply
  20. an annual shipbuilding budget of $21 billion”…out of a $20 TRILLION economy. That’s what they call ‘peanuts’, kiddies. Oh and by 2048 we’ll be looking at a $40 trillion economy at least, too. For all of those who scream, “They US spends too much on defense!” you really should learn how to perform comparative relational analysis in the proper context. The $20 – $40 trillion context.

    Reply
  21. Our NAVY is at least 2x more powerful than any potential adversary. “”Yeah. NOW. This is about the future. You can’t just turn things on a dime when it comes to planning out future naval fleet compositions.”””” We need to build roads and lanes on our highways and lots of tunnels and more bridges. “”””ALL of which the States are supposed to handle. The Feds handle defense. Complain to your state assemblydweeb or governor. “”””Morning and evening commutes should not take much longer than driving at any other time of day. “”””Not a federal problem.And don’t bring up the interstate highway system. It was not built for interstate commerce reasons”””” but national defense ones.””””Americans with more time means Americans that can work longer or have more time with their families”” more time to sleep exercise”” and be more productive.””””So?””””We need them in the real workforce adding to GDP not costing us.””””Military procurement activities ADD to the GDP. Basic Econ 101.”””

    Reply
  22. an annual shipbuilding budget of $21 billion””…out of a $20 TRILLION economy. That’s what they call ‘peanuts'”” kiddies. Oh and by 2048 we’ll be looking at a $40 trillion economy at least too. For all of those who scream”” “”””They US spends too much on defense!”””” you really should learn how to perform comparative relational analysis in the proper context. The $20 – $40 trillion context.”””

    Reply
  23. Our NAVY is at least 2x more powerful than any potential adversary. ” Yeah. NOW. This is about the future. You can’t just turn things on a dime when it comes to planning out future naval fleet compositions. ” We need to build roads and lanes on our highways and lots of tunnels and more bridges. ” ALL of which the States are supposed to handle. The Feds handle defense. Complain to your state assemblydweeb or governor. “Morning and evening commutes should not take much longer than driving at any other time of day. ” Not a federal problem. And don’t bring up the interstate highway system. It was not built for interstate commerce reasons, but national defense ones. “Americans with more time means Americans that can work longer or have more time with their families, more time to sleep, exercise, and be more productive.” So? “We need them in the real workforce adding to GDP not costing us.” Military procurement activities ADD to the GDP. Basic Econ 101.

    Reply
  24. Our NAVY is at least 2x more powerful than any potential adversary. “”Yeah. NOW. This is about the future. You can’t just turn things on a dime when it comes to planning out future naval fleet compositions.”””” We need to build roads and lanes on our highways and lots of tunnels and more bridges. “”””ALL of which the States are supposed to handle. The Feds handle defense. Complain to your state assemblydweeb or governor. “”””Morning and evening commutes should not take much longer than driving at any other time of day. “”””Not a federal problem.And don’t bring up the interstate highway system. It was not built for interstate commerce reasons”””” but national defense ones.””””Americans with more time means Americans that can work longer or have more time with their families”” more time to sleep exercise”” and be more productive.””””So?””””We need them in the real workforce adding to GDP not costing us.””””Military procurement activities ADD to the GDP. Basic Econ 101.”””

    Reply
  25. an annual shipbuilding budget of $21 billion”…out of a $20 TRILLION economy. That’s what they call ‘peanuts’, kiddies. Oh and by 2048 we’ll be looking at a $40 trillion economy at least, too. For all of those who scream, “They US spends too much on defense!” you really should learn how to perform comparative relational analysis in the proper context. The $20 – $40 trillion context.

    Reply
  26. an annual shipbuilding budget of $21 billion””…out of a $20 TRILLION economy. That’s what they call ‘peanuts'”” kiddies. Oh and by 2048 we’ll be looking at a $40 trillion economy at least too. For all of those who scream”” “”””They US spends too much on defense!”””” you really should learn how to perform comparative relational analysis in the proper context. The $20 – $40 trillion context.”””

    Reply
  27. ” Our NAVY is at least 2x more powerful than any potential adversary. ”

    Yeah. NOW. This is about the future. You can’t just turn things on a dime when it comes to planning out future naval fleet compositions.

    ” We need to build roads and lanes on our highways and lots of tunnels and more bridges. ”

    ALL of which the States are supposed to handle. The Feds handle defense.

    Complain to your state assemblydweeb or governor.

    “Morning and evening commutes should not take much longer than driving at any other time of day. ”

    Not a federal problem.

    And don’t bring up the interstate highway system. It was not built for interstate commerce reasons, but national defense ones.

    “Americans with more time means Americans that can work longer or have more time with their families, more time to sleep, exercise, and be more productive.”

    So?

    “We need them in the real workforce adding to GDP not costing us.”

    Military procurement activities ADD to the GDP. Basic Econ 101.

    Reply
  28. “an annual shipbuilding budget of $21 billion”…out of a $20 TRILLION economy.

    That’s what they call ‘peanuts’, kiddies.

    Oh and by 2048 we’ll be looking at a $40 trillion economy at least, too.

    For all of those who scream, “They US spends too much on defense!” you really should learn how to perform comparative relational analysis in the proper context. The $20 – $40 trillion context.

    Reply
  29. America has this thing where the president is usually replaced every 8 years via a process called elections. Which is different from Russia.

    Reply
  30. America has this thing where the president is usually replaced every 8 years via a process called elections. Which is different from Russia.

    Reply
  31. Assuming that sub qualified sailors, technicians and dock facilities are free and unlimited of course. Otherwise you might find that fewer, better, subs are actually cheaper overall.

    Reply
  32. Assuming that sub qualified sailors technicians and dock facilities are free and unlimited of course.Otherwise you might find that fewer better subs are actually cheaper overall.

    Reply
  33. The problem with a 5.5 billion dollar sub is we can’t ever possibly build enough of them to actually do any good. But with a hundred 55 million dollar drone subs, now that might accomplish something. We could afford to sacrifice some of them in a significant conflict so this would let us be more aggressive in our deployment. I doubt if we can afford more than a handful of these big sub hunters so losing even one would be a big setback.

    Reply
  34. The problem with a 5.5 billion dollar sub is we can’t ever possibly build enough of them to actually do any good. But with a hundred 55 million dollar drone subs now that might accomplish something. We could afford to sacrifice some of them in a significant conflict so this would let us be more aggressive in our deployment. I doubt if we can afford more than a handful of these big sub hunters so losing even one would be a big setback.

    Reply
  35. Expensive, aren’t they? I recall an American preacher protesting against these subs in the mid 1980’s. It’s all very well to protest, but the right to protest was provided by such armaments – in 100 years America had to fight against Fascism, Communism and Islamism.

    Reply
  36. Expensive aren’t they? I recall an American preacher protesting againstthese subs in the mid 1980’s. It’s all very well to protest but the right toprotest was provided by such armaments – in 100 years America had tofight against Fascism Communism and Islamism.

    Reply
  37. There is absolutely no need for this. The NAVY budget should be cut in half, not multiplied by 1.7 Total disconnect from reality. Our NAVY is at least 2x more powerful than any potential adversary. Even China and Russia together couldn’t match us…so why on Earth do we need to spend more money? We need to build roads and lanes on our highways and lots of tunnels and more bridges. Morning and evening commutes should not take much longer than driving at any other time of day. Americans with more time means Americans that can work longer or have more time with their families, more time to sleep, exercise, and be more productive. It might even increase birth rates. It also means saved fuel and less reliance on imported oil…and eventually more exported oil as we move to being a net exporter of oil. And those people that build submarines and work in the military are among our more potentially productive people. We need them in the real workforce adding to GDP not costing us.

    Reply
  38. There is absolutely no need for this. The NAVY budget should be cut in half not multiplied by 1.7 Total disconnect from reality. Our NAVY is at least 2x more powerful than any potential adversary. Even China and Russia together couldn’t match us…so why on Earth do we need to spend more money? We need to build roads and lanes on our highways and lots of tunnels and more bridges. Morning and evening commutes should not take much longer than driving at any other time of day. Americans with more time means Americans that can work longer or have more time with their families more time to sleep exercise and be more productive. It might even increase birth rates. It also means saved fuel and less reliance on imported oil…and eventually more exported oil as we move to being a net exporter of oil. And those people that build submarines and work in the military are among our more potentially productive people. We need them in the real workforce adding to GDP not costing us.

    Reply
  39. I do hope the Navy is also looking into more modern modes of Naval defense than big a$$ manned subs. Those are fine for delivering missiles, torpedo and divers but I would think that swarms of submersibles would be better for signals and intelligence gathering.

    Reply
  40. I do hope the Navy is also looking into more modern modes of Naval defense than big a$$ manned subs. Those are fine for delivering missiles torpedo and divers but I would think that swarms of submersibles would be better for signals and intelligence gathering.

    Reply
  41. Assuming that sub qualified sailors, technicians and dock facilities are free and unlimited of course.

    Otherwise you might find that fewer, better, subs are actually cheaper overall.

    Reply
  42. When I worked for the navy we called Seawolf class “Lonewolf” because at one point they had reduced the build plan to just one and we called the Virginia class “Cheapwolf”. Later they decided to build two more Seawolfs just because they had already geared up to build a whole class and wanted to justify the cost.

    Reply
  43. When I worked for the navy we called Seawolf class Lonewolf”” because at one point they had reduced the build plan to just one and we called the Virginia class “”””Cheapwolf””””. Later they decided to build two more Seawolfs just because they had already geared up to build a whole class and wanted to justify the cost.”””

    Reply
  44. The problem with a 5.5 billion dollar sub is we can’t ever possibly build enough of them to actually do any good. But with a hundred 55 million dollar drone subs, now that might accomplish something. We could afford to sacrifice some of them in a significant conflict so this would let us be more aggressive in our deployment. I doubt if we can afford more than a handful of these big sub hunters so losing even one would be a big setback.

    Reply
  45. Expensive, aren’t they? I recall an American preacher protesting against
    these subs in the mid 1980’s. It’s all very well to protest, but the right to
    protest was provided by such armaments – in 100 years America had to
    fight against Fascism, Communism and Islamism.

    Reply
  46. HAHAHAHA!! What a suckher! In the year 2005 Putin was prez of Russia, GWB was in the Qhite house. Putin stayed in power GWB left In the 2013 Putin was de facto the ruler , Obama was in the Qhite house Obama went Putin stayed Now it is Drumpf and Putin Drumpf will leave Putin will stay This is how amerikka is fighting Putinism? Good grief. dude. You really swallowed hook line and sinker!!

    Reply
  47. HAHAHAHA!! What a suckher! In the year 2005 Putin was prez of Russia GWB was in the Qhite house. Putin stayed in power GWB left In the 2013 Putin was de facto the ruler Obama was in the Qhite house Obama went Putin stayed Now it is Drumpf and Putin Drumpf will leave Putin will stay This is how amerikka is fighting Putinism? Good grief. dude. You really swallowed hook line and sinker!!

    Reply
  48. In the year 2003 GWB was in the White House. Putin was Prez of Russia GWB went, Putin Stayed In the year 2011 Barak Obama was in the Qhite Hous, Putin was Prez of Russia Obama went, Putin stayed Now it is Trumpf and Putin Trumpf will go, Putin will stay I see that America is VERY successful in fighting Putinis Wake up dude, it is already mealy afternoon !

    Reply
  49. In the year 2003 GWB was in the White House. Putin was Prez of Russia GWB went Putin Stayed In the year 2011 Barak Obama was in the Qhite Hous Putin was Prez of Russia Obama went Putin stayed Now it is Trumpf and Putin Trumpf will go Putin will stay I see that America is VERY successful in fighting Putinis Wake up dude it is already mealy afternoon !

    Reply
  50. There is absolutely no need for this. The NAVY budget should be cut in half, not multiplied by 1.7 Total disconnect from reality. Our NAVY is at least 2x more powerful than any potential adversary. Even China and Russia together couldn’t match us…so why on Earth do we need to spend more money? We need to build roads and lanes on our highways and lots of tunnels and more bridges. Morning and evening commutes should not take much longer than driving at any other time of day. Americans with more time means Americans that can work longer or have more time with their families, more time to sleep, exercise, and be more productive. It might even increase birth rates. It also means saved fuel and less reliance on imported oil…and eventually more exported oil as we move to being a net exporter of oil. And those people that build submarines and work in the military are among our more potentially productive people. We need them in the real workforce adding to GDP not costing us.

    Reply
  51. I do hope the Navy is also looking into more modern modes of Naval defense than big a$$ manned subs. Those are fine for delivering missiles, torpedo and divers but I would think that swarms of submersibles would be better for signals and intelligence gathering.

    Reply
  52. When I worked for the navy we called Seawolf class “Lonewolf” because at one point they had reduced the build plan to just one and we called the Virginia class “Cheapwolf”. Later they decided to build two more Seawolfs just because they had already geared up to build a whole class and wanted to justify the cost.

    Reply
  53. HAHAHAHA!!
    What a suckher!
    In the year 2005 Putin was prez of Russia, GWB was in the Qhite house.
    Putin stayed in power GWB left
    In the 2013 Putin was de facto the ruler , Obama was in the Qhite house
    Obama went Putin stayed
    Now it is Drumpf and Putin
    Drumpf will leave Putin will stay
    This is how amerikka is fighting Putinism?
    Good grief. dude. You really swallowed hook line and sinker!!

    Reply
  54. In the year 2003 GWB was in the White House. Putin was Prez of Russia
    GWB went, Putin Stayed
    In the year 2011 Barak Obama was in the Qhite Hous, Putin was Prez of Russia
    Obama went, Putin stayed
    Now it is Trumpf and Putin
    Trumpf will go, Putin will stay
    I see that America is VERY successful in fighting Putinis
    Wake up dude, it is already mealy afternoon !

    Reply

Leave a Comment