At the cusp of a new era of maritime conflict, the U.S. Navy stands at a crossroads, confronted with a dilemma of how to maintain undersea dominance while juggling fiscal constraints and rapid strategic changes.
The introduction of diesel submarines to the U.S. fleet has been a subject of heated debate, with advocates for this shift arguing that a cost-effective and strategically flexible mix of nuclear and diesel-powered subs could be a game-changer.
The U.S. Navy, long accustomed to a lavish budget and the reverence of the American public, now faces an existential challenge. The Pentagon leadership is aware that the naval branch must be prudent with its procurement strategies, ensuring every dollar spent delivers maximum operational value.
This necessity becomes apparent when considering the growing prowess of other nations, whose cost-effective approach to military expansion presents a significant challenge to U.S. maritime strategy.
Diesel submarines, less expensive and quicker to produce, are cited by experts as a viable supplement to the existing fleet of nuclear subs. They’re not just a nod to fiscal prudence but a strategic imperative.
As evidence, the historical performance of diesel subs, such as the USS Blueback, illustrates their potential. The Blueback’s significant accomplishments during her service, including record-setting submerged voyages and earning battle stars, underscore the efficacy of diesel-electric propulsion.
The modern strategic context points to the vulnerability of high-profile and high-tech assets like aircraft carriers to A2/AD weapons. This vulnerability positions submarines, especially stealthy diesels, as increasingly vital tools in power projection and sea control.
Today’s diesel-electric submarines, particularly those with AIP technology, offer an impressive mix of stealth, cost-effectiveness, and lethality. The Swedish Gotland-class, for instance, demonstrated its prowess by “sinking” a U.S. carrier in war games.
Furthermore, the prohibitive costs and industrial challenges associated with nuclear-powered subs, as highlighted by Ensigns Walker and Krusz, suggest the U.S. cannot match the submarine production pace of rivals like Russia.
Looking back at the U.S. Navy’s historical use of diesel submarines and acknowledging the current capabilities of allied and adversarial diesel fleets, there’s an argument for the U.S. to embrace a mixed submarine fleet once again.
The versatility of diesel submarines, particularly in littoral zones and for regional conflict, has been noted as a strategic advantage not optimally utilized by a purely nuclear-powered fleet.
The U.S. Navy’s shift to diesel could also have geopolitical implications. A domestic diesel program could bolster the forces of U.S. allies, with the added benefit of an expanded export market for American shipyards.
However, some experts caution against a hasty pivot from nuclear subs, stressing that their endurance, speed, and stealth make them potent offensive platforms.
Yet, the current state of U.S. shipyards, strained by maintaining an all-nuclear fleet, and the rising costs of decommissioning retired nuclear vessels speak to the need for a balanced approach.
The future of undersea warfare for the U.S. Navy may well lie in a balanced fleet. A combination of nuclear and conventional submarines could present a more robust, agile, and financially sustainable force capable of maintaining maritime dominance in an era of evolving threats and strategic imperatives.
Relevant articles:
– Aircraft Carriers Aren’t Enough: The U.S. Navy Needs Diesel Attack Submarines, The National Interest
– Why Doesn’t the U.S. Navy Build Diesel Submarines?, nationalinterest.org
– There’s a Case for Diesels, U.S. Naval Institute
– You Can’t Win Without (More) Submarines, U.S. Naval Institute