Archives

Looking back over one century and forward to a second, the men and woman of Electric Boat and I share a palpable sense of pride and excitement from the contributions our company has made and the challenges we will meet.

One hundred years ago--on 7 February 1899--Electric Boat was incorporated to complete a vessel that would revolutionize naval warfare. Named Holland for its inventor--the visionary Irish immigrant John Phillip Holland--this vessel would earn its place in history as the world's first practical submarine. Since then, its successors have been employed to radically reshape maritime strategy in World War I and beyond, help determine the outcome of World War II, and play a pivotal role in the West's Cold War victory.

Throughout these years, Electric Boat has maintained a reputation for leadership in a demanding industry that is defined by innovation, high technology, and the rigorous application of unrelenting quality standards.

During World War I, the company proved itself by delivering more than 80 submarines, overhauling another 30, and building 550 submarine chasers for Great Britain.

Over the course of World War II, Electric Boat launched 74 submarines from its Groton, Conn., plant and oversaw the construction of another 28 at a Wisconsin shipyard. These submarines accounted for 39 percent of all Japanese ships sunk (1,178 merchant vessels and 214 warships).

In the early 1950s, the company responded to an extraordinary challenge from the Navy--to design and build the first nuclear-powered submarine, the USS Nautilus. Christened by First Lady Mamie Eisenhower in 1954, the Nautilus went to sea a year later, signaling the now-historic message: "Under way on nuclear power."

Since that time, Electric Boat has secured its reputation as the world leader in submarine nuclear propulsion, design, and construction.

In fact, the company has designed 15 of the 18 U.S. classes of nuclear submarines, including all ballistic-missile-firing submarines. Beginning with the USS George Washington in 1960--launched by Electric Boat the previous year--these ballistic-missile submarines have been on continuous patrol, providing a virtually invulnerable strategic deterrent capability and directly influencing the outcome of the Cold War. These deterrent patrols are now conducted by the 18 Electric Boat-built Trident submarines, which represent the centerpiece of a program described as a model of modern military procurement

The conclusion of the Cold War has brought dramatic change to the world, with profound implications for the Navy and its role in our nation's defense. What has remained constant, however, is the submarine force's requirement for the most capable ships industry can produce.

This requirement has been met with the three-ship Seawolf class, the most powerful submarines in the world. On 13 November 1998 Electric Boat delivered the USS Connecticut, the second ship of the class; the third ship, the Jimmy Carter, is scheduled for delivery in 2001.

These submarines are essential to the Navy's ability to move into the 21st century prepared to counter the full spectrum of existing and emerging threats. The Seawolf-class submarines are essential for another reason as well--they are providing the foundation for a new, more effective submarine-acquisition process that will balance capability with affordability.

This new process enables Navy and industry to design and build the Seawolf's successor--the Virginia class--for a price that will be affordable at low rates of production. The linchpin of this effort is the teaming agreement between Electric Boat and Newport News Shipbuilding. This agreement is among the most dramatic responses to naval shipbuilding's most serious challenge--a construction rate that barely supports the industrial base and projected force-level requirements.

With their qualities of stealth, endurance, mobility, and flexibility, submarines will prove uniquely appropriate to the nation's defense in the 21st century. The Defense Science Board's Task Force on the Submarine of the Future recognized this in its report last year, calling SSNs (nuclear-powered attack submarines) "a crown jewel in America's arsenal," and concluding that they will remain "an enduring element of the naval force structure."

As it enters its second century as a submarine maker, Electric Boat is committed to maintaining its highly developed technical strengths, while providing the business leadership our industry requires to effectively manage the challenges of low-rate production. By applying an intensity of purpose to a level of shipbuilding competence that has been 100 years in the making, I am convinced that Electric Boat will succeed in its mission.

A Century of Innovation
by Robert A. Hamilton

Few will dispute that John P. Holland was a man of vision, a man whose inventions were the first step towards the first true submarine. But he seemed to predict doom for the company he helped to found in 1899 in a letter of resignation five years later: "The success of your company can never be as great as what I ardently desire for it."

Did Holland fail to envision a company whose products would help win two world wars? That ushered in the era of nuclear propulsion? That helped revolutionize shipbuilding techniques and has long set technological standards for the rest of the shipbuilding world? That even today, having weathered three major build-up and slowdown cycles, including the end of the Cold War, prepares to celebrate its centennial?

The company is Electric Boat (EB). In its first 100 years it has moved from blueprints drafted without aid of slide rule or calculator, to virtual reality computer simulations of sophisticated undersea craft that take many gigabytes of data to operate. As it reviews its first century, though, EB has not lost sight of its challenge for the next--preparing an undersea craft to meet the Navy's requirements in capability and cost.

"Celebrating 100 years for EB is something we should enjoy. We ought to savor it and look at the success of the products we have built and the hard work that has gone into it," said EB President John K. Welch. "But now, we are clearly focused on the future, not worrying about the past."

As part of General Dynamics (GD), EB has sister subsidiaries that build surface combatants and auxiliary ships. EB's engineering and design team also is working on next-generation aircraft carriers and amphibious ships.

"There are so many exciting possibilities under the GD Marine umbrella," Welch said. "I would like to think that 100 years from now we'll be the premier marine engineering company in the world, and I think we're pretty darned close to that right now."

The history of submarines goes back to Alexander the Great, who was said to have submerged in a glass diving bell. David Bushnell developed the Turtle in the Revolutionary War, just down the Connecticut coast from EB. By the late 19th century, a Swedish designer had built a steam-powered submarine, though it could only travel 500 feet underwater.

"A machine as complicated as a submarine is not the creation of a single genius," said Holland's biographer, Richard K. Morris. But Holland, neither naval architect nor mechanical engineer, was responsible for major innovations: (a) using two means of propulsion, a gas engine surfaced and electric batteries submerged; (b) a fixed center of gravity below the boat, for stability; (c) the hull lines of a porpoise, not fully exploited until the USS Albacore (SS 569) decades later; (d) quick submergence; and (e) missile-firing capability.

"Though singly, his accomplishments might be open to argument, taken collectively there can be no doubt," Morris said, "John P. Holland was not only a mechanical genius, but he does indeed deserve the distinction of being named the father of the modern submarine."

Ironically, EB sprang out of a seeming disaster on the first submarine Holland, at Crescent Shipyard in Elizabethport, N.J. After the Holland sank dockside on 13 October 1897, Holland beseeched the Electro-Dynamic Co. of Philadelphia to send someone to restore the equipment. Electro-Dynamic sent Frank T. Cable, who improved the design, and recruited investor Isaac L. Rice, president of the Electric Storage Battery Co. in Philadelphia, a master in patent law and marketing.

On 7 February 1899, Electric Boat Co. was formed, absorbing Holland's submarine company and the Electric Launch Co. of Bayonne, N.J. Rice served as the first president. Of 22 shipyards that would build submarines for the U.S. Navy, EB would be the longest-lived.

"The key to their success was their ability to bring so many different systems together," said Steve Finnegan, curator of the Submarine Force Library and Museum in Groton, Conn., just up the Thames River from EB. "They were the people who knew how to bring corporate components together to make the best end product."

Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt wrote to Navy Secretary John D. Long on 10 April 1898: "I think the Holland submarine boat should be purchased. Evidently she has in her great possibilities for harbor defense."

But Rice's public relations skills produced the first sale. When the Navy rejected the Holland, Rice took it to Washington, D.C., demonstrating the submarine to crowds lining the Potomac in early 1900, gaining support for the program. The Navy paid $150,000 for the Holland on 4 April 1900.

The Holland had a 1,500-mile range (40 miles submerged), could dive to 100 feet, and had a top speed of seven knots. Though rudimentary, the Holland proved its worth in war games four months after the Navy took delivery. Surfacing near the flagship of the "hostile" fleet, it signaled: "You're blown to atoms."

In its early days, EB built boats for a number of countries. Both Japan and Russia used its submarines in their war from 1904­05. England, France, Turkey, Venezuela, Sweden, Mexico, Norway, Denmark, and other countries were interested. EB established the New London Ship & Engine Co. in Groton in 1911 to manufacture diesel engines, but submarine production did not begin there until 1925, when it began construction on four submarines for Peru. Today, Groton is the center of its operations.

Displacement and steaming power increased steadily for the first dozen years, with pre-WWI boats reaching 900 tons and 2,000 shaft horsepower, while submerged speed nearly doubled, to almost 11 knots.

In 14 years, though, the Navy ordered just 25 submarines from EB, and the company was near bankruptcy by 1913. New York banker Henry R. Carse resigned from the board--convinced EB would go under.

The sinking of the passenger ship RMS Lusitania by a German U-boat in May 1915 brought intense interest in submarines, though, and EB was soon awash in orders. When Rice resigned in August 1915, Carse returned as his replacement. Great Britain ordered 20 submarines, Russia 12, Italy eight. The U.S. Navy bought 88 EB-built submarines during the war, and overhauled another 30 in EB yards. EB also produced surface craft: submarine chasers for Britain, Italy, and France, and transport ships for the U.S. Navy.

After the war, EB nearly foundered again, going 13 years without a Navy order. It built tugboats, ferries, fishing trawlers, and yachts. It built printing presses, machines to skin fish and stamp out bobby pins, and even repaired hair curlers for beauty parlors.

It was an innovation, not a war, which brought EB its next round of contracts. In 1931, it laid the keel of the Cuttlefish, the first welded submarine to provide a secure pressure hull. The Cuttlefish would make three war patrols in the Pacific more than a decade later. By 1936, the Navy was ordering three welded boats a year. By 1940 it was building six a year.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt visited EB's Groton plant in August 1940 and predicted production would increase to 12 a year. His estimate was low. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, EB launched 16 submarines in 1942, 25 in 1943, and 23 in 1944, before slowing to 11 in 1945. Its wartime production of 74 submarine hulls exceeded that of any other yard in the country.

The company met other maritime needs as well, constructing hundreds of torpedo patrol boats at its ELCO plant in Bayonne, N.J. On a shelf in EB President Welch's office today sits a model of PT 109. Lt. John F. Kennedy, the future president, saved a crewman when the boat was cut in half by a Japanese destroyer during WWII; coincidentally, that destroyer would later be sunk by a mine laid by an EB-built submarine.

The exploits of EB's WWII boats and the men who fought in them are legend in the undersea force. The Flasher sank more than 100,000 tons of shipping--a wartime record. EB submarines and the men who fought in them earned 777 major awards, including 10 Presidential Unit Citations, two Medals of Honor, and 97 Navy Crosses.

But the end of hostilities meant another slowdown. The Navy canceled 36 submarine contracts. Income plummeted almost 70 percent in the first post-war year, to $14.4 million. EB's foundries did commercial work, its assembly lines made machines to set bowling pins, and it returned to making printing presses. It built steel highway bridges and industrial tool and die machines, and did repairs and upgrades to World War II fleet boats.

It was during this era that EB became one of the country's first conglomerates. In 1947 it purchased Canadair, followed by Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Co. in 1951, giving it a foothold in aviation. In 1952 it organized General Dynamics, and acquired the electronics company Stromberg Carlson in 1955. Eventually, GD would encompass missiles, aircraft, tanks, and submarines.

In the meantime, a telephone call from Kittery, Maine, in January 1950, began a period of more rapid technological change than EB had ever witnessed. Capt. Hyman G. Rickover said that Portsmouth Naval Shipyard had rejected his request to build a submarine to house a Westinghouse nuclear reactor! Could EB do it?

EB General Manager O. Pomeroy Robinson Jr. assured Rickover he could, although he had no idea where to start. The contract for the nuclear-powered submarine was signed 21 August 1951, and a year later President Harry S. Truman presided over the keel-laying. On 21 January 1954, First Lady Mamie Eisenhower christened the Nautilus. At 4,100 tons and 320 feet, it dwarfed existing fleet boats, and it could submerge indefinitely.

The new submarine was so technologically sophisticated that the design force at EB had grown to more than 430, more than twice its wartime peak. (Today, as the company prepares to build the Virginia class of submarine, there are almost 4,500 designers and engineers at EB.)

Of the first 19 nuclear-powered submarines EB would build, nine would be prototypes, such as the Seawolf with its sodium-cooled reactor, the Narwhal with its passive reactor cooling, and the electric-drive Glenard P. Lipscomb.

"It was a totally new era in submarining," said retired Capt. Edward L. "Ned" Beach, the commissioning skipper of the Triton (SSN 586), which made a shakedown cruise of 43,000 nautical miles around the world, surfacing just once, for seconds, to offload a Sailor who had kidney stones.

"Compare that with what a diesel submarine could do--and I grew up with diesels, I fought on them in the war," Beach said. "The diesel submarine could cruise at two knots for two days. You could possibly travel 100 miles without surfacing ... we were in a whole new ballgame."

The philosophy of that era was to push technology to its limits, recalls Wayne Magro, who joined EB in August 1959, advancing to manager of the Seawolf (SSN 21) program.

"Yeah, we were doing things we had never done before, but if you look at a submarine, it is all the same systems," Magro said. "Maybe on this boat it goes left, and this boat it goes right, but it is a hydraulic system on both boats. It has radar, a periscope, torpedo tubes, and trim and drain systems. It may be a different design, but the same basic ideas were there, and what we had were guys who were very knowledgeable about those systems."

Even as the Nautilus was taking to sea, EB designers turned their attention to a new project, nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), built to fire Polaris ballistic missiles from beneath the waves and strike targets thousands of miles away, giving the nation survivable strategic assets. On 8 May 1962, First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy christened the Lafayette, at 425 feet and 7,000 tons the largest undersea craft to that point. From 1960 to 1970, EB built 17 missile boats, 13 attack submarines, and eight research submarines, including the NR-1, still the Navy's premier undersea research platform.

EB brought its accumulated knowledge to the Trident program, widely acknowledged as one of the most efficient and effective military procurement programs ever, in part because of a building technique pioneered by EB.

"When I first came here, we used to build hulls in the north yard," Magro recalled. "We would weld the frames, and stack them up, and wrap a shell plate around it, and weld the four joints ... and eventually the thing would become a pipe. Then, everything had to be built inside the hull. It was like building a watch through the stem hole."

By 1974, looking forward to a string of contracts on the Trident stretching out for years into the future, EB had a level of stability unprecedented in the industry.

"Trident was ... a big enough program so we could invest in the facilities we needed to revolutionize the way we built submarines," said Henry J. Nardone, who managed the Trident program at EB during the 1970s. "We actually built our facilities from the ground up."

EB built a $150 million land-level facility in Groton, including a manufacturing bay, a pontoon graving dock for launchings, and a network of rail lines that allowed the submarine hull sections to be moved into place for final assembly. It also invested $120 million at a closed naval air station in Quonset Point, R.I., to build an automated frame and cylinder operation, where huge cylindrical sections of submarine hulls are constructed, packed with equipment, then placed on barges for towing to Groton for assembly.

Nardone said the efficiency quickly became clear. It took 24 million staff hours to build the Ohio, the first of the Tridents. That production time dropped to 12 million hours by the ninth ship.

"The program was well-managed, came in on time, under budget, and did all the things it was supposed to do," Nardone said. "It was probably the most significant weapons development program of the Cold War years. And, in all truth, it probably deserves the credit for the outcome of the Cold War."

There were other changes as well, chief among them a philosophy that builders should be involved with the design.

"There were some experienced designers who might have spent some time in the shipyard, but they were few and far between," Magro said. "For the most part, they designed it from their point of view, and the builders had to go do the best they could to build it. The Ohio [program] kind of broke that paradigm. Builders started to get more involved in the design. We started to look at what would make it easier to build. ... There were certain processes we learned we did not have to do; there were processes we learned we had to look at much earlier in the program."

The 1970s would end poorly. While working on 18 contracts for Los Angeles-class submarines EB filed a claim with the Navy for $544 million, which EB attributed to Navy errors and changes in the plans. By 1978 EB threatened to shut down production, and only at the last minute did the Navy agree to a $359 million payment and a $300 million interest-free loan to settle the matter.

Then, in 1979, production ground to a standstill when problems were found with welds on the Los Angeles-class SSN USS Bremerton, sparking a congressional investigation. Relations with the Navy were near a historic low.

Two general managers, Fritz Tovar from 1982 to 1988, and James Turner Jr. from 1988 to 1991, worked hard to restore EB's reputation, concentrating on quality to the point that EB won the contract to build the Seawolf, the first totally new design in decades.

But the end of the Cold War meant the planned 29-ship fleet of Seawolfs was trimmed to three. EB was chosen to design the Virginia-class SSN--the so-called new attack submarine--but there was a pitched battle to make sure EB would stay in the business of building them.

Throughout General Dynamics, there was an effort to return to the company's core strengths. It shed its missile and aircraft businesses, closed shipyards in Charleston, S.C., and Quincy, Mass., and began to prepare for drastically reduced military spending.

"At the end of the Cold War, [we] did research about large business cycles, and how companies have reacted ... and what was clear was, 'he who acted last was the one who did the worst,' so they sold some businesses, but what they were looking to do was create the critical mass," said EB President Welch. "What was clear to General Dynamics was that sitting still was not an option. ...

"The advantage we had at EB was we had a large backlog of work, and those five-year contracts allowed us to predict what was going to happen to manpower requirements. That gave us time to plan through that. So we aggressively went after driving out as much of the cost as we could, as early as we could. Then it was a question of making sure we did not jeopardize the technical integrity of the product."

This year, the Virginia will begin to take shape in Quonset Point, and EB will participate in a Pentagon study of the submarine of the future.

"We are at our absolute best solving technical issues," Welch said. "If it is a tough problem, you put our people on it, and it is something to watch." Coupled with some repair work at the nearby Naval Submarine Base New London, Welch is hopeful that he can maintain the core shipbuilding skills that will be needed to meet the Navy's production needs well into the future.

As EB celebrated its 50th anniversary, the corporation's annual report made an observation that seems appropriate even today: "Twice within a single generation, America has been forced into a world war, because our enemies considered us unprepared. From bitter experience we in the United States now know that we must maintain the development of key security weapons in proportion to our devotion to a world peace. The responsibility of the Electric Boat Company, as pioneer builders of United States submarines, is to help maintain America's leadership in submarine invention and development through a moderate building program keyed to the proved concept that, to keep peace, America must keep pace."

The Virginia-Class New Attack Submarine
Undersea Superiority for the 21st Century
by Scott C. Truver

A question that had stymied numerous observers inside and outside of the Navy--How long would the Navy's next-generation nuclear-powered attack submarine continue to be called the "new" SSN?--has finally been answered. On 10 September 1998, outgoing Navy Secretary John Dalton announced that the first NSSN would be named Virginia, to be followed by Texas. "The Virginia (SSN 774) is the first U.S. warship designed to meet the compelling peacetime-presence, crisis-response, and warfighting needs of the 21st century," Adm. Frank L. Bowman, director of naval nuclear propulsion, remarked in an interview last December. "The Virginia class will ensure that the U.S. submarine force will be fully capable of meeting the daunting mission needs of the future--including national mission taskings, the requirements of the regional commanders in chief, and direct support to the Navy's battle groups."

The sixth U.S. Navy warship to carry the name Virginia is also the first U.S. warship designed and engineered entirely by computer. The ship will usher in a new era of undersea warfare capabilities, according to Rear Adm. Malcolm Fages, director, Submarine Warfare Division (N87) in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. "Virginia will incorporate a land-attack capability that is second to none," Fages said. "Virginia will be even stealthier than Seawolf, including better non-acoustic stealth, and will possess a more robust mine-reconnaissance capability." He pointed out that this is a critical capability in an era of growing threats to naval operations. In the post-World War II era, 14 of 18 U.S. warships that suffered operational casualties were victims of naval mines. Fages added that "the Virginia class will be able to evolve over the years because of an aggressive technology-insertion program that will ensure U.S. undersea supremacy well into the 21st century."

Another important aspect of the Virginia-class program is the significant degree of teaming among industry. "The lead ship of the Virginia class represents the Navy's commitment to maintain its undersea superiority in the 21st century," said John K. Welch, president of General Dynamics Electric Boat Corp., one of the builders of the boat. "The program represents industry's commitment to produce ships that provide the Navy with the capability and flexibility it requires to perform its missions around the world. Just as importantly," Welch said, "Virginia represents industry's commitment to find new ways of doing business--ways that will make our ships affordable for the Navy and the American taxpayer. The Electric Boat/Newport News Shipbuilding team was established to do just that, and I can promise you that Bill Fricks [chairman and chief executive officer of Newport News Shipbuilding] and I will continue to work together to deliver ships that will make us all proud."

This view was echoed by Tom Schievelbein, Newport News' executive vice president. "This teaming to co-produce the Virginia-class submarines provides the Navy with a unique opportunity," Schievelbein stated. "For the first time, the nation's two nuclear submarine builders are working together to combine our best talents and our best ideas to ensure that the fleet is provided with an extremely flexible and capable asset at a more affordable price."

Requirements and Capabilities

The three Seawolf-class SSNs--superb warfighting machines designed to meet Cold War requirements against an aggressive Soviet submarine force--simply proved to be too expensive to be acquired in sufficient numbers to sustain minimum force levels in a post-Cold War era of military downsizing and demands for "peace dividends." Beginning in 1992, the Navy began to rethink its submarine-warfare capabilities to match the sea-change in operational focus announced by the Navy-Marine Corps strategic concept paper Forward ... From the Sea. Although fully capable of traditional open-ocean antisubmarine and antisurface warfare missions, the Virginia class has been specifically designed and engineered to carry on multimission operations in the littoral warfare environment, including:

• Covert intelligence-gathering, indications and warning surveillance, and reconnaissance;
• Shallow-water and open-ocean antisubmarine warfare;
• Battlegroup support;
• Covert special operations forces insertion;
• Covert strike and direct support of forces ashore;
• Covert mine warfare: mine reconnaissance and avoidance, and offensive and defensive mining; and
• Antisurface warfare.

"A superior submarine right out of the box," said Capt. Paul Sullivan, Virginia-class program manager. "We have run the operational effectiveness analyses and have demonstrated that in all mission areas and operational environments the Virginia SSN is equal to or better than the Seawolf. More importantly," Sullivan continued, "it will be ready for any threat submarine our adversaries might be able to develop, including the new-design Russian submarine, Severodvinsk. While I'd like to take credit for this," he said, "we owe a debt of gratitude to Captains Joe Sabatini and Dave Burgess--the former NSSN program managers--and their great team of Navy and industry people who navigated some shoal waters during the early days of the program. Dave's stewardship of the open-systems architecture," Sullivan noted, "and the courage to let industry and academia help determine the course of our groundbreaking C3I system have been critical to our success."

Fages observed that "the Virginia-class SSNs will have superior covert, non-provocative capabilities for continuous monitoring of regional 'pictures' in peacetime, crisis, and war." During lengthy patrols in forward areas, the submarine's advanced electronic sensors will be "tuned" for collecting critical intelligence; on-board sonars and special off-board systems will be used to prepare the undersea battlespace for operations. Minefields can be detected and locations radioed to commanders before forces are committed to battle, while other threats and targets are monitored. "Although [the Virginia SSN will not be] capable of diving as deep or as fast as the Seawolf, we found that the margin of difference did not really matter in the expected operational environments," Sullivan noted. "More importantly, the Virginia will be as quiet acoustically as the Seawolf and have greater non-acoustic stealth." SSN-774 baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1.

The Virginia class will support the full range of covert special warfare missions: search-and-rescue, intelligence-collection and reconnaissance, diversionary attacks, fire support and strike direction, and other tasks. Navy SEALs (Sea-Air-Land) and joint special operations forces can be hosted for extended periods in forward areas, and teams can be replaced clandestinely on station.

Several features of the SSN 774 class have been optimized for special warfare missions. The large swimmer lock-out/lock-in chamber will provide an unprecedented capability that is further enhanced by the ability to host the advanced swimmer delivery system (ASDS). A mini-submarine that greatly expands the special forces undersea operational envelope, the ASDS has a 125 nautical-mile range at 8 knots and carries eight SEALs and their gear, in addition to the two-man crew. The Virginia class's reconfigurable torpedo/weapons-handling room can support larger special operations missions, as well as the use of unmanned undersea vehicles and other specialized equipment.

Each of the Virginia-class SSNs will carry 38 full-sized weapons, including advanced-capability heavyweight torpedoes and naval mines. Twenty-six weapons can be launched from the submarine's four torpedo tubes, and other weapon systems, and unmanned undersea and aerial vehicles (UUVs and UAVs), also are being evaluated. Unmanned aerial vehicles--such as the Predator UAV that was successfully tested with an SSN in 1996--can link forces ashore directly to the Virginia SSNs for rapid targeting, strike, and battle-damage assessment.

The Virginia also will carry strike weapons in its 12 vertical launching system cells: Tomahawk land-attack missiles armed with a variety of warheads, and perhaps a submerged-launch variant of the 160-mile range, precision-guided Army tactical missile system (ATACMS) for naval support of ground maneuver forces. Bowman noted that the Virginia-class SSNs, with their ability to remain undetected in forward areas for months on end, will be ready for immediate action to strike far inland and to support friendly forces ashore.

Numerous advanced technologies and systems are included in the baseline Virginia-class boat, and the modular baseline design is so flexible that future technology insertion will be easier and more efficient than ever before. The lightweight wide-aperture array will enhance antisubmarine and antisurface warfare capabilities while providing timely undersea situational awareness far beyond what is possible with standard hull-mounted and towed sonar arrays. Other state-of-the-art sensors include advanced electronic support measures equipment and non-hull-penetrating photonics electronic imaging masts instead of standard periscopes. An electromagnetic silencing system, together with advanced mine detection and avoidance systems, will allow safe operation in the vicinity of naval mines.

On-board data-fusion systems will tie together critical information from numerous sources, and real-time links to off-board underwater, surface, airborne, and space-based assets will give the Virginia SSNs outstanding communications capabilities. The Virginia-class vessels will be fully capable of operating within the Navy's emerging concept of network-centric warfare. They will host an advanced electronic support measures (formerly called ASTECS--advanced submarine tactical ESM combat system) capability that will provide detection, identification, and direction-finding for radar and other radio frequency signals from a variety of sources. The ESM (electronic surveillance measures) will be linked to the integrated ESM mast, which will support higher throughput and frequency and pulse agility capability than legacy/in-service systems for operation in dense ESM signals environments. The submarine integrated antenna system (SIAS) will be prototyped for the Virginia class, enabling the ships to communicate in a wide range of Navy and joint networks and the high data rate system, which will provide a significant upgrade in "demand-assigned multiple access capability." The Virginia also will feature a new universal modular mast (UMM), an integrated system for housing, erecting, and supporting mast-mounted antennas and sensors, in a non hull-penetrating design. In addition to the ESM and SIAS, the UMM will house the photonics imaging system, which will provide advanced visual, infrared, TV, and image-enhancement technologies and other capabilities, for significantly increased detection, identification, and classification capabilities.

Other innovations for the SSN 774 focus on its propulsion plant, which is more compact and has a simpler design but a much-increased energy
density than previous U.S. Navy submarine plants (see Table 2). It is the first naval nuclear propulsion plant truly designed for a life-of-ship core, which will eliminate the need for a mid-life refueling, save hundreds of millions of dollars in future life-cycle costs for each submarine acquired, and significantly reduce potential environmental impact.

Another measure of the Navy's commitment to ensuring that the most advanced technologies and systems can be cost-effectively included in the Virginia class is the design of the submarine's sail, masts, and antennas. Previous submarine designs configured the sail to house specific antennas and masts in precisely aligned support structures with associated cabling and hydraulics, which sometimes diminished operational flexibility and increased maintenance. With the SSN 774, the Navy has completely reworked the design concept of the sail, which is capable of easily accommodating self-contained, nonpenetrating antenna or mast modules that are connected to standard electrical and electronic fittings. This facilitates maintenance, keeps life-cycle costs low, and allows the Virginia SSNs to be readily configured with mission-specific antenna, mast arrangements, and a wide array of other devices.

Sullivan said that future technology insertion in the Virginia design "will be highly responsive to changing missions, threats, and resources, and thereby guard against technological surprise." The modular isolated deck structure (MIDS), an innovative method of deck construction and sound and shock isolation and mounting pioneered in the Virginia, will facilitate the use of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) electronics and other components, while simplifying off-hull construction and testing. And, as the most cost-effective way to keep ahead of the "threat-requirements" curve, the ship's modular design facilitates the insertion of new technologies and systems, either for new-construction or for backfit into existing ships.

The Virginia class's open-architecture command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I) system, for example, promises the expanded use of widely available COTS technologies, components, and systems. Similarly, the ship's platform-wide fiber optic cable system is designed for easy "plug-in/plug-out" equipment integration and is sized for future growth.

Finally, if future mission needs so dictate, especially in light of the Defense Science Board's (DSB) July 1998 "Submarine of the Future" report, the Virginia-class's modular design will easily accommodate the construction of mission-specific variants. Mission-specific, self-contained hull modules could be designed, engineered, and "inserted" into future SSNs during construction to expand the submarine force's warfighting capabilities. For example, future SSN 774 variants could be built with submerged-launch ballistic missile (SLBM) modules to replace the Ohio-class (SSBN-714) strategic ballistic missile submarines as they begin to retire after 2025. Other mission-specific variants could be built to accommodate special operations forces or strike weapons, mines, or combinations of systems and troops.

Thus, the Virginia class's modular design features respond to the need for technological and tactical flexibility. "In this sense," said Sullivan, "the Virginia-class SSN, as we are pursuing it today, will enable us to propose and test both design and systems technology improvements to ensure that future nuclear attack submarines will incorporate the latest, best, and most affordable technology in the most cost-efficient manner possible."

Program Dynamics and Teaming

President Clinton's previous "plan of record" for the Virginia was initially controversial in Congress and initiated calls for the DSB and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to address submarine technology and design issues and trends. The 1993 Bottom-Up Review (BUR) directed the Navy to consolidate all future submarine design, engineering, and construction at General Dynamics Electric Boat Corp. (EB), but Congress in 1996 mandated a competition between EB and Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS) and a competitive prototype "swim-off" that would derive a baseline design for Virginia-class production.

Congressional demands for prototyping were met with a four-ship directed-acquisition plan proposed by the Navy that would involve the two shipyards building two SSNs each, after which competition for production of a small number of Virginia SSNs per year would go forward. Both yards then proposed an innovative teaming agreement that would share production and dramatically reduce--perhaps by as much as $700 million--the Navy's revised plan for the first four SSNs. The rationale behind this proposal was that there was insufficient annual production to sustain two yards in a purely competitive environment and that it made good business sense and supported broad national security goals to keep two nuclear-submarine yards in existence.

Advanced procurement funding for the lead ship was approved in fiscal year 1996; full funding, in FY 1998; and the design efforts are now well along. A contract with Electric Boat, the Virginia-class prime contractor, is now in place for all four initial Virginia SSNs. Work on the Texas (SSN 775) is to get under way in FY 1999, and SSNs 776 and 777 will be started in FYs 2001 and 2002, respectively.

The first four boats are being built under innovative teaming arrangements between EB and NNS. Construction of the first four ships will be shared by ship section. EB will build all hull sections for use at EB and NNS, as well as the engine room modules and command-and-control system operating spaces; NNS will build the bow, stern, sail, and selected forward sections for each submarine. EB will assemble the first and third ships, scheduled for delivery in FYs 2004 and 2006, respectively; NNS, the second and fourth, to be delivered in FYs 2005 and 2007. Each "follow-on" Virginia SSN is to include as much technology insertion as affordable.

"The Electric Boat/Newport News teaming arrangement represents the most dramatic response yet to Navy shipbuilding's biggest challenge--a construction rate that barely supports the industrial base and projected force-level requirements," EB's John Welch said. "Teaming enables us to improve learning curves, obtain better material pricing through consolidated buys, and capitalize on individual shipyard strengths. It will provide the nation with an immensely capable submarine at a price we can afford."

A total of 30 Virginia SSNs have been identified in Navy program planning. The acquisition strategy for SSN 779 and follow-on ships has not yet been determined. There are plans--currently without sufficient funding programmed--to increase the build rate to two and eventually three per year, which has raised concerns in Congress. "The situation of having fallen behind the steady-state [shipbuilding] rate, and its potential long-term consequences for force structure, are perhaps most acute for attack submarines," said Rep. Sam Gejdenson (D-Conn.). "Seven submarines in 14 years is an average rate of one-half a boat per year. That's not a very high rate for the United States."

Indeed, although operational warfighting capabilities remain the paramount concern for the Virginia class, reducing acquisition and life-cycle costs is also a major consideration. These submarines must be affordable in sufficient numbers to satisfy future force-level requirements, Navy planners say. Millions of dollars have already been saved through the innovative application of concurrent engineering design/build teams, computer-aided "paperless" design and construction tools, and simplifying components and systems. The design itself is embodied in three-dimensional electronic drawings of individual components, systems, and major deck assemblies, which replace the paper drawings and reduce reliance upon wooden mockups. These electronic representations also can be manipulated by "virtual reality walk-throughs" and "what-if?" iterations that validate design and engineering decisions before any metal is bent. When actual construction begins, the computer-based design elements will be linked directly to numerically controlled machinery on the shop floors and to an integrated inventory control system accessible by both yards.

Other cost-saving measures include adapting the main propulsion unit and quieted torpedo-tube designs from the Seawolf class, as well as adapting equipment from Los Angeles-class submarines that are being decommissioned to meet reduced force levels mandated by the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).

So far, research and development investment in the Virginia SSNs through FY 1999 has totaled $2.5 billion (all dollars in FY 1995 program dollars) and the total cost for research, development, and acquisition of the first four Virginia SSNs will come to $9.5 billion. The shipbuilder contract price for the first four SSNs is $4.2 billion. According to Sullivan, prior to the teaming arrangement for the first four submarines, the Navy's plan showed that the in-production/fifth-ship cost would be approximately $1.54 billion. Current estimates show that fifth-ship cost increasing to $1.65 billion, the increase resulting from program changes since 1996.

"All key players--civilian and uniformed Navy people and people in each shipyard and throughout industry--are truly committed to building the best and most affordable submarine possible," Sullivan stated.

Future Trends and Dynamics

"We must express to you our strong concerns that the Navy's low rate of ship construction is creating a future force-level crisis," a 3 December 1998 letter to Navy Secretary Richard J. Danzig, signed by 12 members of Congress, warned. "We urge you to adopt an acquisition approach for the NSSN to capitalize on the costs and stability benefits of serial production and a multiship block buy," the letter continued. "We are convinced that this approach to submarine acquisition can cut costs substantially, reduce the 'bow wave,' stabilize the industrial base, and result in savings that can be used to fund the FY 2003 submarine."

The 1993 BUR called for maintaining a submarine force of about 45-55 SSNs; four years later the 1997 QDR planning factor of 50 nuclear attack submarines has been challenged as inadequate for current and future requirements. Recognizing the changed dynamics of the post-Cold War era, the Joints Chiefs of Staff earlier had called for as many as 72 SSNs--10 to 12 of which must have Seawolf (SSN 21) stealth features--by 2012. Others have called for an even smaller U.S. submarine force, with the savings going into truly advanced technologies and designs. Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre last June called for the Joint Staff to study submarine force-structure requirements beyond 2010 and, in its July 1998 "Submarine of the Future" report, the DSB called for "more, not fewer" nuclear attack submarines. All other things held equal, with the eventual commissioning of all three Seawolf (SSN 21) submarines--the USS Connecticut (SSN 22) was commissioned on 11 December and the Jimmy Carter (SSN 23) is scheduled for delivery in 2001--the expected low-rate production of the Virginia SSNs, and the continued accelerated decommissioning of the Los Angeles-class ships, by 2025 the Navy's submarine force will clearly be operationally superb, but a mere shadow of the Cold War force--perhaps no more than 33 submarines, according to worst-case scenarios.

A force of 50 SSNs will allow an annual average of 11 SSN-years of deployments for national missions, theater tasks, and carrying out peacetime forward-presence operations, according to Navy documentation, compared to 16 SSN-years in mid-1998, with a force of 73 SSNs. Frequent contingency operations during the 1980s and 1990s have shown that, to continue to meet unplanned operational commitments as well as routine deployments, either the number of available submarines must increase, or the days-at-sea goals will almost certainly be exceeded, creating even more challenges for the Navy operationally and in the retention of critical officer and enlisted submarine-warfare specialists.

This was one of the reasons for the DSB's conclusion that more SSNs are needed. Recognizing that SSNs are so key to modern naval operations that they should be called a crown jewel in America's arsenal, the DSB recommended accelerating the production of the SSN 774 class, pursuing a vigorous technology development and insertion program for existing and future submarines, and coming up with a more capable successor to the Virginia class in the 2020s. In the DSB's assessment, this future SSN should be a large nuclear-powered ship with substantial internal volume for unconventional payloads.

The DSB advised against "weapon-specific interfaces," such as torpedo tubes and vertical launching cells, and said that "bomb-bay" techniques or other large-aperture, free-flooding openings, and external storage of rapid-response weapons and countermeasures, should be investigated. The DSB concluded that a "wide-open" look at the future submarine should be conducted jointly by the Navy and DARPA, with substantial input from industry, to develop a range of alternative designs. The DSB also recommended that the balance of research and development be shifted from propulsion and quieting (including the introduction of electric drive) to "connectivity, sensors, weapons, adjuvant vehicles, and interfaces with the water." DARPA and the Navy have responded to this recommendation by initiating an 18-month, $10 million study for advanced payloads and sensor concepts.

The Way Ahead?

Recent studies have indicated that a Navy shipbuilding program of some 10 ships, perhaps as many as 12 ships, per year is needed to sustain a 300-ship fleet. A critical element in that future is to acquire sufficient numbers of affordable yet highly capable submarines, especially if the 50-SSN force level mandated by the 1997 QDR is to be sustained.

The Virginia-class is the "foundation for continued U.S. undersea superiority," Fages has repeatedly stated. "A sustained, stable program of at least two Virginia SSNs beginning no later than 2005 will ensure that minimum essential forces are sustained and will help ensure the continued robust health of the U.S. nuclear shipyard and related industrial base. And it will provide the springboard for even more capable submarines to meet future threats and operational environments that can be only dimly perceived in early 1999," he said.

The Centennial Connection: USS Holland and Electric Boat
by Gary McCue

John P. Holland was an Irish schoolteacher who dreamed of perfecting the submarine boat. His interest in submarines began in 1869 when he was 28 years old, but, like many inventors, he lacked the money to realize his dream. Holland emigrated to the United States in 1873. Three years later, his brother, Michael, introduced him to members of the Irish Fenian Brotherhood, who convinced the Brotherhood to fund the construction of his first three submarines.

Army Lt. Edmund Zalinski raised the funds to build Holland's fourth submarine in 1884. This submarine, badly damaged when the launch ways collapsed, was scrapped to pay the stockholders.

The U.S. government held a competition for the design of a submarine torpedo boat in 1888. Holland won the competition, but funding was redirected to surface ships. The government held another competition five years later. The Holland Torpedo Boat Company was formed to raise the required $7,500 deposit and Holland won again.

Construction of the Plunger began in March 1895; however, the government's requirement for surface speed could not be met, and many design changes followed. By late 1896, Holland became convinced that his fifth submarine would be a failure, and he obtained permission from the Holland Torpedo Boat Co. to construct the Holland VI with private funding. When the boat was launched on 17 May 1897, it represented a major advancement in submarine design. It was the first submarine to use an internal combustion engine for surface propulsion and electricity for submerged propulsion. This innovation made it possible to recharge the battery and compressed air reservoirs without returning to port and provided much greater range than that of an all-electric submarine. It also had a fixed center of gravity that provided unparalleled control when submerged and hydrodynamically advanced hull shape.

During trials in November 1898, the Navy Board of Inspection and Survey noted that the Holland VI was sluggish and difficult to control. Major modifications would be required, but there was no money.

Financier Isaac Rice also had a dream. By 1898, he had secured a virtual monopoly in the storage-battery business and begun to acquire companies that used batteries. After touring the Holland VI on 4 July 1898, and again on 3 September 1898, he agreed to finance the necessary modifications. On 7 February 1899, Rice formed the Electric Boat Co. and consolidated several of his holdings, including the Holland Torpedo Boat Co. and the Electric Launch Co. Following successful trials in late 1899 and early 1900, the U.S. government purchased the Holland VI on 11 April 1900. The Holland VI was commissioned USS Holland on 12 October 1900.

In a few years, Holland-type submarines would be found in many of the world's navies. Seven improved Holland submarines (the Adder class) were built for the U.S. Navy between 1901 and 1903. Messers Vickers, Sons, and Maxim built five modified Adder-class submarines for Britain between 1900 and 1902, and the Fore River Yard in Massachusetts built four Adder-class submarines for Japan in 1904. Germany built a Holland-type submarine in 1902, and the Electric Boat Co. sold the prototype for the Adder class (Fulton) to Russia in 1904.

The USS Holland was stricken from the Naval Vessel Register in 1910 and scrapped around 1930. In 1992, Gary McCue began researching the Holland VI in order to build a three-dimensional computer model using Electric Boat's computers and Dassault's CATIA (computer-aided three-dimensional interactive applications) system. The computer model was built using information obtained from the National Archives, the Library of Congress, the Submarine Force Library, and John Holland's biographer, Richard Morris, the model has been used to demonstrate Electric Boat's computer-aided design capabilities to college students, employees' families, vendors, and customers. One hundred years after the Holland VI launched Electric Boat's century of innovation, the USS Holland is again underway.

Table 1
Virginia (SSN 774) Class Characteristics

Archives

Focus on Fundamental Principles