Columbia-class submarine

The Columbia-class (formerly known as the Ohio Replacement Submarine and SSBN-X Future Follow-on Submarine) is an upcoming class of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines designed to replace the Ohio-class of the United States Navy.[6] Construction of the first submarine began on 1 October 2020.[7] It is scheduled to enter service in 2031.[8][9][10]

Columbia class
Artist's rendering of the planned Columbia-class submarine (Naval Sea Systems Command)
Class overview
Preceded byOhio class
Cost
  • US$109.8 billion for 12 boats (FY2021, projected)[1]
  • US$9.15 billion per unit (FY2021, projected)
Built2020–present
Planned12[2]
On order2
Building1[3]
General characteristics
TypeBallistic missile submarine (SSBN)
Displacement20,810 long tons (21,140 t) (submerged)[4]
Length560 ft (171 m)[4]
Beam43 ft (13 m)[4]
Installed powerNuclear reactor
PropulsionTurbo-electric drive, pump-jet[4]
RangeUnlimited
Complement155 (accommodation)[4]
Sensors and
processing systems		Enlarged version of the Virginia-class LAB sonar[4]
Armament16 × Trident D5[5] and torpedo tubes

On 3 June 2022, the Navy announced that this first boat will be named USS District of Columbia (SSBN-826), because there currently exists an attack submarine named USS Columbia (SSN-771).[11] In the announcement, the Navy continued to refer to the class as the Columbia-class.[12]

Overview

The Columbia class is to replace the Ohio class of ballistic missile submarines, whose remaining boats are to be decommissioned, one per year, beginning in 2027. The Columbia class will take over the role of submarine presence in the United States’ strategic nuclear force.[5]

Electric Boat designed the new class with help from Newport News Shipbuilding. A total of 12 submarines are planned,[2] and construction of the lead boat began in 2021. Each submarine will have 16 missile tubes, each carrying one UGM-133 Trident II D5LE missile. (The ninth and later Columbias are to receive the upgraded D5LE2s.)[13][14] The submarines will be 560 feet (170.7 m) long and 43 feet (13.1 m) in diameter, as long as the Ohio-class design, and 1 foot (30 cm) larger in diameter.[5]

In studies to determine how many submarines would be needed for the United States' strategic nuclear force, the U.S. Navy looked at the number of missiles required to be at sea and on station at any given time, the number of missiles each submarine should be armed with and the likelihood that a submarine will remain undiscovered by the enemy and be capable of launching its missiles. Also taken into consideration was how the maintenance schedule of each submarine will affect that boat’s availability to be deployed on mission.[15] Cost-reduction studies explored design and construction possibilities, including adding missile tubes to the design of the Virginia-class attack submarine, building Ohio-class replacement submarines using updated Ohio-class designs, and developing an entirely new Ohio Replacement Submarine design.[5][16]

Ohio Replacement Submarine

Using the information from these studies, the Navy concluded that a new design would be the least expensive option that could meet all of the technical requirements.[15] For example, while both the modified Virginia-class and updated Ohio-class design options would have required an expensive mid-life refueling,[5] each Columbia-class nuclear core will last as long as the submarine is in service.[17][18]

The design and technology development of the Columbia-class is projected to cost $4.2 billion (fiscal 2010 dollars), although technology and components from the Ohio and Virginia classes are to be included where possible, to save money. The cost to build District of Columbia, the lead boat of the class, will be an estimated $6.2 billion (fiscal 2010 dollars).[5] The Navy has a goal of reducing the average cost of the remaining 11 planned hulls in the class to $4.9 billion each (fiscal 2010 dollars).[17] The total lifecycle cost of the entire class is estimated at $347 billion.[17] The high cost of the submarines is expected to cut deeply into Navy shipbuilding.[19]

In April 2014, the Navy completed a 300-page specification report for the Ohio Replacement Program submarines. There are 159 specifications including weapons, escape routes, fluid systems, hatches, doors, seawater systems, and a set length of 560 ft (170 m), partly to allow for sufficient volume inside the pressure hull.[20]

In March 2016, the U.S. Navy chose General Dynamics Electric Boat as the prime contractor and lead design yard.[21] Electric Boat, which built all 18 Ohio-class submarines,[22] will do most of the work on all 12 Columbias, including final assembly.[23] Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Newport News Shipbuilding will serve as the main subcontractor, participating in the design and construction and doing 22 to 23 percent of the work.[24]

In late 2016, some 3,000 Electric Boat employees were involved in the detailed-design phase of the program[25] and the procurement of the first submarine was scheduled for 2021.[5] Completion of the first submarine was scheduled for 2030, followed by its entry into service in 2031. All 12 submarines are expected to be completed by 2042 and remain in service until 2085.[5][20]

On 28 July 2016, it was reported that the first submarine of the class will be named Columbia, to commemorate the District of Columbia, the capital of the United States.[26] The Columbia-class was officially designated on 14 December 2016, by Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, and the lead submarine will be USS Columbia (SSBN-826).[27] The Navy wanted to procure the first Columbia-class boat in FY2021.[28]

On 28 October 2020, U.S. Navy Secretary Kenneth J. Braithwaite announced that the second submarine would be named USS Wisconsin (SSBN-827), after the U.S. state of the same name.[29]

On 7 June 2021, the U.S. Navy budget office announced that the total cost for District of Columbia would reach $15.03 billion, which includes planning costs for the entire program.[30] As of April 2023, the estimated construction cost of the twelve-boat program is $132 billion. Securing the supply chain and maintaining a skilled labor force are two major challenges for the program.[31]

General characteristics
Graphic artist concept, 2012
Cutaway image

Although still evolving, the following are some of the characteristics for the SSBN(X) design:[9][32]

  • Expected 42-year service life, including 124 deterrent patrols.[33]
  • Nuclear fuel core that will power the submarine for its entire expected service life, unlike the Ohio-class submarines, which require a mid-life nuclear refueling.[18]
  • Missile launch tubes that are the same size as those of the Ohio class, with a diameter of 87 inches (2,200 mm) and a height sufficient to accommodate a D-5 Trident II missile.
  • Beam at least as great as the 42-foot (13 m) beam of the Ohio-class submarines
  • 16 missile launch tubes instead of 24 missile launch tubes on Ohio-class submarines.[5][34][35][36]
  • Although the SSBN(X) is to have fewer launch tubes than the Ohio-class submarine, SSBN(X) is expected to have a submerged displacement about the same as that of Ohio-class submarines

The U.S. Navy has also said that "owing to the unique demands of strategic relevance, SSBN(X)s must be fitted with the most up-to-date capabilities and stealth to ensure they are survivable throughout their full 40-year life span."[5]

In November 2012, the U.S. Naval Institute, citing Naval Sea Systems Command, revealed additional design information:[36]

  • X-shaped stern control surfaces (hydroplanes)
  • Sail-mounted dive planes
  • Electric drive
  • Off-the-shelf equipment developed for previous submarine designs (Virginia-class SSNs), including a pump-jet propulsor, anechoic coating and a Large Aperture Bow (LAB) sonar system.

The Columbia-class submarine may also be equipped with a Submarine Warfare Federated Tactical System (SWFTS), a cluster of systems that integrate sonar, optical imaging, weapons control etc.[37][38][39]

Propulsion
Main article: Integrated electric propulsion

In a bid to reduce life-cycle cost and acoustic signature,[40][41] Columbia is to run on electric drive—that is, it will use an electric motor to turn its propellers instead of the reduction gearing and mechanical drive systems used on earlier nuclear-powered submarines.[42][43] It will retain the nuclear reactor and steam turbines typical of U.S. Navy submarines. In such systems, the nuclear reactor heats water to steam, the turbines convert the heat in the steam into mechanical energy, and the generators convert that mechanical energy into electrical energy[44] for use by the propulsion motors and other onboard systems.[45][46]

Turbo-electric drives were successfully used on U.S. battleships and aircraft carriers in the first half of the 20th century,[47] and on the small nuclear-powered submarine USS Tullibee in the late 1950s.[48] Another larger nuclear-powered submarine, USS Glenard P. Lipscomb, was equipped with a turboelectric drive but proved to be underpowered, unreliable, and maintenance-hungry.[49][50] As of 2013, the only operational turboelectric-powered subs were the French Navy's Triomphant-class submarines.[51]

In 2014, Northrop Grumman was chosen as the prime designer and manufacturer of the Columbia's turbine generator units.[45]

In 2014, Leonardo DRS was selected as the main propulsion motor and propulsion motor drive provider. The lead ship motor was delivered to Electric Boat in August 2022.[52]

Various types of electric motors have and are being developed for military and non-military vessels.[53] Types being considered for future U.S. submarines include permanent magnet motors (PMM) being developed by General Dynamics and Newport News Shipbuilding, and high-temperature superconducting synchronous motors, being developed by American Superconductors and General Atomics.[53][54][55] More recent data shows that the U.S. Navy appears to be focusing on permanent-magnet, radial-gap electric propulsion motors. The Zumwalt-class destroyer design switched from PMM to an advanced induction motor.[56] In 2013, permanent magnet motors were tested on the Large Scale Vehicle II for possible application on late-production Virginia-class submarines, as well as future submarines.[57][58] Siemens AG PMMs are used on Type 212 submarines in service with the German and Italian navies.[59]

The Royal Navy's Dreadnought-class submarine, which is to replace the Vanguard class of ballistic missile submarines, may have submarine shaftless drive (SSD) with an electric motor mounted outside the pressure hull.[60] SSD was evaluated by the U.S. Navy, but it remains unknown whether the Columbia class will have it.[61][62] On contemporary nuclear submarines, steam turbines are linked to reduction gears and a shaft rotating the propeller/pump-jet propulsor. With SSD, steam would drive electric turbogenerators, powered by steam turbines, that would be connected to a non-penetrating electric junction at the aft end of the pressure hull, with a watertight electric motor mounted externally, possibly an Integrated Motor Propulsor arrangement,[63] powering the pump-jet propulsor,[60] although SSD concepts without pump-jet propulsors also exist.[64] In 2015, an Ohio-Replacement scale model at the Navy League’s 2015 Sea-Air-Space Exposition suggested that the sub would have a pump-jet propulsor visually similar to the one used on Virginia-class[65][36] perhaps as part of the Navy's stated desire to reuse Virginia components to reduce risk and cost of construction.[65][5]

Common missile compartment

In December 2008, General Dynamics Electric Boat Corporation was selected to design the Common Missile Compartment that will be used on the Ohio-class successor.[34] In 2012, the U.S. Navy announced plans for its SSBN(X) to share a common missile compartment (CMC) design with the Royal Navy's Dreadnought-class ballistic missile submarine.[5] The CMC will house SLBMs in "quad packs".[66][67]

List of boats
Name Hull Number Builder Ordered Laid down Launched Commissioned Homeport Status
District of Columbia SSBN-826 General Dynamics Electric Boat, Groton, CT 5 November 2020[68] 4 June 2022[68][69] Under construction[68]
Wisconsin SSBN-827 5 November 2020[70] Ordered[71]
SSBN-828

References
  1. O'Rourke, Ronald (1 May 2020). "Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress". Congressional Research Service. p. 7. Retrieved 14 May 2020.
  2. "Columbia-class Program Upping Oversight of Vendors, Components to Stave Off Further Delays". usni.org. 8 November 2018. Retrieved 9 November 2018.
  3. "US Navy begins construction of Columbia Class ballistic missile submarines". defenceconnect.com.au. 10 November 2020. Retrieved 16 April 2021.
  4. "Ohio Replacement Program". United States Naval Institute. 18 October 2012. Retrieved 1 November 2012.
  5. O'Rourke, Ronald (17 September 2017). "Navy Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. R41129. Retrieved 23 September 2017 – via Federation of American Scientists.
  6. "SSBN-X Future Follow-on Submarine". GlobalSecurity.org. 24 July 2011. Retrieved 24 July 2011.
  7. "Navy: USS Columbia Will Have Most Complete Design Ever at Official Construction Start". 8 May 2019.
  8. NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW FINAL REPORT media.defense.gov
  9. "SENEDIA Defense Innovation Days" (PDF). Senedia.org. 5 September 2014. Retrieved 20 August 2016.
  10. This story was written by Lt. Rebecca Rebarich, Commander Submarine Group Ten Public Affairs. "1,000 Trident Patrols: SSBNs the Cornerstone of Strategic Deterrence". Navy.mil. Retrieved 20 August 2016.
  11. DC Congresswoman Pushes DC Statehood at Keel-Laying for Navy Submarine
  12. "SECNAV Names SSBN 826 USS District of Columbia". United States Navy. Retrieved 4 June 2022.
  13. Burgess, Richard R. (8 November 2018). "Next Sub-Launched Ballistic Missile 'Won't Be Completely New'". Seapower. Retrieved 22 May 2020.
  14. Burgess, Richard R. (10 June 2021). "Navy's SSP Admiral: New Missile Planned for Introduction on 9th Columbia SSBN". Seapower. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
  15. Kristensen, Hans M. (24 July 2013). "SSBNX Under Pressure: Submarine Chief Says Navy Can't Reduce". FAS Strategic Security Blog. Federation of American Scientists. Archived from the original on 6 September 2013. Retrieved 17 August 2013.
  16. Kelly, Jason. "Facts We Can Agree Upon About Design of Ohio Replacement SSBN". Navylive.dodlive.mil. Retrieved 17 August 2013.
  17. "U.S. Nuclear Modernization Programs". Arms Control Association. Archived from the original on 5 April 2010. Retrieved 1 November 2012.
  18. "Ohio-class Replacement Will Carry "Re-packaged and Re-hosted" Weapons System". Defense Media Network. 4 February 2011. Retrieved 6 February 2013.
  19. Ratnam, Gopal; Capaccio, Tony (9 March 2011). "U.S. Navy Sees 20-Year, $333 Billion Plan Missing Ship Goals". Bloomberg. Retrieved 9 March 2011.
  20. Kris Osborn (8 April 2014). "Navy Finishes Specs for Future Nuclear Sub". Dodbuzz.com. Archived from the original on 15 May 2016. Retrieved 20 August 2016.
  21. Grace Jean (30 March 2016). "USN taps General Dynamics Electric Boat as prime contractor for Ohio Replacement Programme". IHS Jane's 360, Janes.com. Retrieved 20 August 2016.
  22. "SSBN / SSGN Ohio Class Submarine". Naval Technology. 15 June 2011. Retrieved 20 August 2016.
  23. "Ohio Replacement Plan Is Good News For Electric Boat". Breaking Defense. 29 March 2016. Retrieved 20 August 2016.
  24. "Newport News Shipbuilding's share of Virginia-class submarine deliveries to grow | Defense & Shipyards". Pilotonline.com. 29 March 2016. Archived from the original on 4 May 2016. Retrieved 20 August 2016.
  25. Bergman, Julia (10 December 2016). "Navy contracts mean Electric Boat will hire 14,000 over next 13 years". The Day.
  26. Sam LaGrone (28 July 2016). "New U.S. Navy Nuclear Sub Class to Be Named for D.C." News.usni.org. Retrieved 20 August 2016.
  27. "SECNAV Mabus to Officially Designate First ORP Boat USS Columbia (SSBN-826)". USNI News, 13 December 2016.
  28. "Report on the Columbia-class Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine Program". USNI News, 20 May 2020.
  29. Santos, Babs (29 October 2020). "U.S. Navy to name submarine after Wisconsin". WLUK-TV. Archived from the original on 5 November 2020.
  30. "Cost Estimates for Lead Boat in Columbia-class Program Grow by $637M". USNI News. 7 June 2021. Retrieved 18 August 2021.
  31. Capaccio, Anthony (12 April 2023). "Pentagon Muzzles GAO's Doubts About Nuclear-Armed Submarine's Schedule". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on 14 April 2023. Retrieved 26 May 2023.
  32. OHIO Replacement Program Naval Submarine League ssbn.pl
  33. "Ohio Replacement Submarine Starts Early Construction". 24 October 2013.
  34. "CMC Program to Define Future SSBN Launchers for UK, USA". Defense Industry Daily. 25 November 2012. Retrieved 3 December 2012.
  35. "An Analysis of the Navy's Fiscal Year 2013 Shipbuilding Plan" (PDF). Congressional Budget Office. Retrieved 3 December 2012.
  36. "Ohio-class Replacement Details". US Naval Institute. 1 November 2012. Retrieved 3 December 2012.
  37. "On Watch 2011". Navsea.navy.mil. Archived from the original on 3 March 2013. Retrieved 6 February 2013.
  38. Keller, John (15 April 2012). "Lockheed Martin to adapt submarine combat systems for network-centric warfare operations at sea". Military & Aerospace Electronics, Militaryaerospace.com. Retrieved 2 February 2014.
  39. NAVSEA News. navy.mil
  40. "Propulsion Systems for Navy Ships and Submarines" (PDF). Government Accounting Office. 6 July 2006.
  41. Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000–2035 Becoming a 21st-Century Force: Volume 2: Technology. Nap.edu. 1 June 2003. doi:10.17226/5863. ISBN 978-0-309-05897-1. Retrieved 30 May 2013.
  42. "An Integrated Electric Power System: the Next Step". Navy.mil. Archived from the original on 28 November 2012. Retrieved 6 February 2013.
  43. "Going Electric". Defense Media Network. 14 June 2010. Retrieved 6 February 2013.
  44. Bowman (ADM USN, Director Naval Nuclear Propulsion), Frank "Skip" (Fall 2000). "Undersea Warfare Fall 2000, Vol 3, No 1 - An Integrated Power System: The Next Step".
  45. "News". Northrop Grumman.
  46. Kris Osborn. "Ohio Replacement Subs To Shift To Electric Drive". Defensetech.org. Retrieved 20 August 2016.
  47. Tony DiGiulian. "Turboelectric Drive in American Capital Ships". Navweaps.com. Retrieved 6 February 2013.
  48. Paul Lambert. "USS Tullibee – History". USS Tullibee SSN 597. Archived from the original on 17 May 2014. Retrieved 6 February 2013.
  49. "Submarine Technology thru the Years". Navy.mil. 19 July 1997. Archived from the original on 12 February 2012. Retrieved 6 February 2013.
  50. Sam LaGrone (28 March 2013). "Secret Nuclear Redesign Will Keep U.S. Subs Running Silently for 50 Years". Wired. Danger Room, Wired.com. Retrieved 30 May 2013.
  51. "SSBN Triomphant Class". Naval Technology. 15 June 2011. Retrieved 6 February 2013.
  52. "Leonardo DRS Delivers Electric Propulsion Equipment for 1st Columbia Submarine". Naval News. 31 August 2022. Retrieved 4 December 2022.
  53. Bogomolov, M.D. (22 January 2013). "Concept study of 20 MW highspeed permanent magnet synchronous motor for marine propulsion" (PDF). Eindhoven University of Technology.
  54. O'Rourke, Ronald (11 December 2006). "Navy Ship Propulsion Technologies: Options for Reducing Oil Use — Background for Congress" (PDF). Federation of American Scientists. RL33360.
  55. Sonal Patel (1 March 2009). "Superconductor Motor for Navy Passes Full-Power Test :: POWER Magazine". Powermag.com. Retrieved 30 May 2013.
  56. "DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class Destroyer". Defense.about.com. 1 November 2012. Archived from the original on 21 January 2013. Retrieved 6 February 2013.
  57. "Small Subs Provide Big Payoffs for Submarine Stealth". Navy.mil. Archived from the original on 13 March 2013. Retrieved 6 February 2013.
  58. Dan Petty. "The US Navy – Fact File: Large Scale Vehicle – LSV 2". Navy.mil. Retrieved 6 February 2013.
  59. "SINAVY CIS Permasyn" (PDF). Siemens. 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 February 2014. Retrieved 30 May 2013.
  60. "SSBN "Strategic Successor Submarine" project". Harpoon Headquarters. Retrieved 17 August 2013.
  61. "Tango Bravo: breaking down barriers in submarine design". Janes.com. 23 March 2007. Retrieved 30 May 2013.
  62. "Tango Bravo R&D Project to Drive Down Sub Size". Defenseindustrydaily.com. Retrieved 30 May 2013.
  63. "Torpedoes and the Next Generation of Undersea Weapons". Navy.mil. Archived from the original on 20 April 2015. Retrieved 1 June 2013.
  64. Kuhn, Dave; Torrez, Joe; Fallier, William (2006). "The Rim Electric Drive – Internal Submarine" (PDF). Naval Construction and Engineering. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 August 2016. Retrieved 30 May 2013.
  65. "GDEB Unveils New Ohio Replacement (SSBN-X) Detailed Model at Sea-Air-Space 2015 Exposition". Navyrecognition.com. 14 April 2015. Retrieved 20 August 2016.
  66. "Navy Signs Specification Document for the Ohio Replacement Submarine Program, Sets forth Critical Design Elements". Navy News Service. 6 September 2012. NNS120906-13. Retrieved 21 April 2013.
  67. Patani, Arif (24 September 2012). "Next Generation Ohio-Class". Navylive.dodlive.mil. Retrieved 21 April 2013.
  68. "Naval Vessel Register - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (SSBN 826)". nvr.navy.mil. Retrieved 4 October 2023.
  69. "Keel Laying Ceremony Held for First Columbia-Class Ballistic Missile Submarine".
  70. "Naval Vessel Register - WISCONSIN (SSBN 827)". nvr.navy.mil. Retrieved 4 October 2023.
  71. "SECNAV Names Newest Columbia-class submarine USS Wisconsin". U.S. Navy. Retrieved 30 October 2020.

Bibliography
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Columbia class submarines.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.