The U.S. Navy's Virginia-Class Submarine Nightmare Is Just Getting Started | The National Interest

The U.S. Navy's Virginia-Class Submarine Nightmare Is Just Getting Started | The National Interest

The article discusses the challenges faced by American shipyards in meeting the demand for new warships, particularly the Virginia-class submarines. Despite substantial government funding, shipyards are hindered by a lack of competition, skilled labor shortages, and overwhelmed infrastructure. This situation threatens U.S. naval readiness and capability, especially in the context of growing Chinese military advancements in the Indo-Pacific region.

The author emphasizes the importance of submarines in projecting U.S. naval power, as they can operate beneath the reach of China's anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) systems. However, delays in the construction of the Block V variant of the Virginia-class submarine highlight the shipyards' struggles.

The article suggests that the U.S. government should intervene with a strategy and resources to revitalize America's shipbuilding capacity, similar to the creation of the United States Shipping Board during World War I. The author argues that without such intervention, the U.S. military will struggle to wage war effectively when the need arises. 

Block V Capabilities

The Block V variant of the Virginia-class submarine introduces several unique capabilities and improvements over the previous Block IV submarines:

1. Virginia Payload Module (VPM): The Block V submarines feature an additional mid-body section called the Virginia Payload Module, which increases the submarine's length by 84 feet. The VPM contains four large-diameter payload tubes, each capable of launching up to seven Tomahawk cruise missiles, significantly increasing the submarine's strike capacity.

2. Improved Stealth: Block V submarines incorporate advanced stealth technologies, making them even harder to detect by enemy sonar and other sensors.

3. Enhanced Surveillance Capabilities: The Block V submarines are equipped with upgraded sensors, acoustics, and communication systems, enhancing their ability to gather intelligence and conduct surveillance missions.

4. Increased Diving Depth: The Block V submarines are designed to operate at greater depths than their predecessors, providing them with an advantage in deep-water operations and making them harder to detect.

5. Improved Habitability: The design of the Block V submarines includes features that improve the living conditions for the crew, such as better air conditioning, more storage space, and noise reduction measures.

6. Extended Deployment Capabilities: With the increased payload capacity and improved habitability, Block V submarines can undertake longer deployments without the need for frequent resupply.

These enhancements make the Block V Virginia-class submarines a significant asset for the U.S. Navy, particularly in the context of potential conflicts with near-peer adversaries like China.

Shipyard Problems

The article highlights several specific problems that American shipyards face in building the Virginia-class submarines, particularly the Block V variant:

1. Limited Production Capacity: There is only one manufacturer in the United States that can produce nuclear submarines. This limitation puts a significant strain on the production capacity when demand increases, leading to delays and backlogs.

2. Overstretched Infrastructure: The shipyards' infrastructure has been negatively impacted by decades of outsourcing, downsizing, and short-term thinking. This has resulted in the shipyards being overwhelmed and unable to meet the current demand for submarine construction.

3. Skilled Labor Shortage: There is a critical shortage of skilled workers who can build the submarines. This lack of skilled labor further slows down the production process, contributing to the delays in submarine construction.

4. Lack of Competition: Due to 10 U.S. Code Section 8679, all U.S. military warships must be built in American shipyards. As a result, U.S. Navy shipbuilders have no real competition, which may contribute to a lack of urgency or efficiency in their operations.

5. Concurrent Production of Multiple Submarine Classes: The Block V Virginia-class submarines are being built by the same manufacturers responsible for building the latest Columbia-class vessels. This dual workload may be too ambitious, leading to extended schedules for both submarine classes.

6. Decline in Civilian Shipbuilding: The United States has largely given up on building large cargo vessels, which has led to a lack of proper demand for ships. This, in turn, has resulted in a lack of adequate human capital and infrastructure in the domestic shipbuilding industry, affecting military shipbuilding as well.

These factors combine to create significant challenges for American shipyards in meeting the U.S. Navy's demand for Virginia-class submarines, particularly the advanced Block V variant, in a timely and efficient manner. 

How did we get Here - Why are South Korea and Japan So Much Better

Several factors have contributed to the limited production capacity of U.S. shipyards compared to other shipbuilding nations like South Korea and Japan:

1. Shift in Economic Focus: Over the past few decades, the United States has shifted its economic focus towards service-based industries and high-tech manufacturing, leading to a decline in traditional heavy industries like shipbuilding.

2. Globalization and Outsourcing: As global trade expanded, many U.S. companies opted to outsource shipbuilding to countries with lower labor costs and more efficient production processes, such as South Korea and Japan. This trend led to a decline in domestic shipbuilding capacity and expertise.

3. Government Subsidies: Countries like South Korea and Japan have provided significant government subsidies and support to their shipbuilding industries, helping them to maintain a competitive edge in the global market. In comparison, U.S. government support for the shipbuilding industry has been relatively limited.

4. Differences in Labor Costs: Labor costs in the United States are generally higher than in South Korea and Japan, making it more challenging for U.S. shipyards to compete on price.

5. Efficiency and Automation: Shipyards in South Korea and Japan have heavily invested in advanced production techniques, automation, and lean manufacturing processes, enabling them to build ships more efficiently and cost-effectively than their U.S. counterparts.

6. Domestic Demand: South Korea and Japan have maintained a strong domestic demand for commercial ships, which has helped to sustain their shipbuilding industries. In contrast, the U.S. has focused more on military shipbuilding, which has a smaller overall market size.

7. Economies of Scale: The high volume of shipbuilding in South Korea and Japan has allowed their shipyards to benefit from economies of scale, reducing costs and increasing efficiency. The lower volume of shipbuilding in the U.S. has made it more challenging to achieve similar benefits.

These factors have collectively contributed to the limited production capacity of U.S. shipyards compared to their counterparts in South Korea and Japan. Addressing these issues will likely require a concerted effort from both the U.S. government and the private sector to revitalize the domestic shipbuilding industry.

They Subsidize and We Don't

The subsidization of shipbuilding by the Chinese, South Korean, and Japanese governments, coupled with the lack of similar support from the U.S. government, has contributed to the decline of the U.S. shipbuilding industry. Here are some examples of the subsidies provided by these countries:

China:

• - Direct subsidies: The Chinese government provides direct subsidies to its shipbuilders, covering up to 20% of the cost of new ships.
• - Preferential loans: Chinese state-owned banks offer low-interest loans to domestic shipbuilders, making it easier for them to finance new projects and maintain cash flow.
• - Tax incentives: Chinese shipbuilders benefit from various tax breaks and incentives, which help to reduce their overall costs.

South Korea:

• - Government-backed financing: The South Korean government provides guarantees for loans to domestic shipbuilders, making it easier for them to secure financing at favorable rates.
• - Restructuring support: During times of economic downturn, the South Korean government has provided financial support to help its shipbuilders restructure and remain competitive.
• - Research and development funding: The government invests in R&D programs to help South Korean shipbuilders develop advanced technologies and improve efficiency.

Japan:

• - Government-backed financing: Like South Korea, the Japanese government provides guarantees for loans to domestic shipbuilders, ensuring access to affordable financing.
• - Subsidized loans: Japanese state-owned banks offer low-interest loans to shipbuilders, helping them to maintain competitiveness in the global market.
• - Restructuring support: The Japanese government has provided financial assistance to help its shipbuilders weather economic challenges and maintain their market position.

In contrast, the U.S. government has provided relatively limited support to its shipbuilding industry:

• - Jones Act: While the Jones Act requires that ships transporting goods between U.S. ports be built in the U.S., it does not provide direct subsidies to shipbuilders.
• - Limited financing support: The U.S. government does not provide the same level of financing guarantees or subsidized loans as its Asian counterparts.
• - Inconsistent funding: U.S. government funding for shipbuilding has been inconsistent, subject to changing political priorities and budget constraints.

The exact amounts of subsidies provided by China, South Korea, and Japan are difficult to quantify, as they often take the form of indirect support, such as financing guarantees, preferential loans, and tax incentives. However, it is clear that the level of government support for shipbuilding in these countries has been significantly higher than in the United States, contributing to the decline of the U.S. shipbuilding industry and its reduced competitiveness in the global market.

Nobody Does That Anymore - Skilled Shipyard Labor

The reduction in skilled workers in the U.S. shipbuilding industry can be attributed to both an aging workforce and a shortage of training and consistent employment opportunities.

1. Aging Workforce: Many skilled workers in the shipbuilding industry are part of an older generation that is gradually retiring. As these experienced workers leave the workforce, there is a growing need to replace them with younger, skilled workers.

2. Lack of Consistent Employment: The cyclical nature of shipbuilding contracts and the fluctuating demand for ships have led to inconsistent employment opportunities in the industry. This lack of job security discourages potential workers from pursuing careers in shipbuilding, as they may prefer more stable employment options.

3. Limited Training Programs: There has been a decline in vocational training programs and apprenticeships that traditionally helped to develop skilled workers for the shipbuilding industry. This decline is partly due to reduced investment in these programs and a societal shift towards emphasizing four-year college degrees over vocational education.

4. Perception of the Industry: Shipbuilding is often perceived as an outdated or declining industry, which may discourage younger generations from pursuing careers in this field. This perception is reinforced by the lack of consistent employment opportunities and the industry's cyclical nature.

5. Competition from Other Industries: Skilled workers who might have considered careers in shipbuilding may be attracted to other industries, such as aerospace or advanced manufacturing, which offer more consistent employment, better pay, and more advanced technology.

To address the shortage of skilled workers, the U.S. shipbuilding industry and government agencies must invest in training programs, apprenticeships, and initiatives to attract and retain younger workers. This may involve partnering with educational institutions, offering competitive wages and benefits, and promoting the importance and potential of careers in shipbuilding. Additionally, ensuring a more consistent stream of shipbuilding contracts can help to provide the stability needed to attract and retain skilled workers in the long term.