The U.S.
Navy is working on developing a new ballistic missile submarine to replace the
service’s current Ohio-class boomers, but should the Navy build some of
those vessels as cruise missile carriers?
The Navy should consider building additional Ohio Replacement Program (OPR)
submarines to serve as cruise missile carriers. Or alternatively, the Navy
should design the twelve planned boomers so that those vessels can accept the
current seven-shot Multiple-All-Up-Round Canisters (MACs)
found on the first four Ohio-class boats that were converted into guided
missile submarines (SSGNs). That should not be a huge technical challenge
because the OPR is being designed to use the same Trident II D5 submarine
launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) as the Ohios.
Indeed, former Navy Capt. Jerry Hendrix, director of the defense
strategies and assessments program at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS),
has gone so far as to say that such a submarine could potentially replace the aircraft carrier as
the centerpiece of the U.S. Navy fleet. “If the Navy chooses to not pursue
unmanned combat aerial vehicles in order to keep the carrier relevant in the
future, then it is the time to move on to another generation of weapons,
perhaps submarines carrying long range conventionally armed missiles and
operating with impunity in the waters denied to the carrier,” he wrote in a piece for The National Interest today.
Many on Capitol Hill and in the Navy—including the Naval Sea Systems
Command (NAVSEA)—share similar ideas. But cost is always a potential sticking
point—the twelve ORP boats are already breaking the bank with their roughly estimated $5.5 billion price tag.
However, the Navy has no choice but to pay for those submarines since the
research and development cost and production costs are mandatory—those boomers
are part of the strategic nuclear deterrent. Since the upfront development
costs are mandatory, the Navy might as well take advantage of it and extend the
production run and gain additional economies of scale.
The 20,000-ton cruise missile-carrying ORP variant would pack a
significant punch. With sixteen missile tubes each stuffed with a seven cruise
missiles would allow the vessels to carry 112 long-range missiles. But not all
of the tubes need to carry missiles, some could be configured to carry unmanned
underwater vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles or even spare low-earth orbiting
micro-satellites on a modified Trident SLBM. In short, a conventionally armed
ORP could be an extremely potent weapon in an anti-access/area denial environment. It
wouldn’t replace a carrier necessarily—but it could bring an enormous amount of
firepower to the initial stages of a major war.
The Navy, of course, is currently planning on replacing the firepower of
the four Ohio SSGNs by building twenty Block V Virginia-class attack submarines
with a payload module housing four MAC tubes. Those boats would be able to twenty-eight additional cruise missiles
giving those submarines a very potent punch. But Congress has indicated that it would prefer
that that Navy build all of its Block V submarines with the extra missile
tubes. The Block V Virginia with its additional striking power would
distribute the Navy’s firepower throughout the fleet.
But given that China is continuing to develop its
anti-access/area denial capability, the Navy could always use more
offensive firepower in those highly contested areas. As Hendrix noted,
submarines—and especially the ultra-stealthy OPR with its electric permanent
magnet motor—would be able to operate with near impunity inside the teeth of
China’s defenses. As such, a conventionally armed OPR could be a very useful
asset—much more so than the troublesome Littoral Combat Ship, which might be
worth terminating to help pay for more ORPs.
Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment