US tricky move: How the eight most expensive American submarines haunt China

On October 8, a message spread around the world that the scandalously famous American nuclear submarine Connecticut (famous for having fought polar bears at the North Pole in 2003) while preparing for an exercise in the South China Sea, while underwater, collided with an unknown object, as a result of which she received injuries, forcing her to go to the nearest port at the military base of Guam, and 11 of her sailors received minor and moderate injuries. Moreover, the incident itself took place on October 2 in neutral waters (according to the American side).

HelpUSS Connecticut (SSN-22) is a multipurpose submarine armed with torpedoes, anti-ship missiles and cruise missiles. Its main task is to combat enemy submarines and surface ships, for which it is armed with up to 50 torpedoes or up to 50 Harpoon anti-ship missiles. In addition, it can carry up to 50 Tomahawk cruise missiles for striking targets on land, and is also tasked with providing special forces support, reconnaissance, surveillance and patrolling. She is the second ship of the Seawulf II project.



"Seawolf" (from English. "Sea Wolf") - a series of multipurpose nuclear submarines (MPLATRK) of the 4th generation of the US Navy, built at the shipyards of General Dynamics Electric Boat Corporation in 1989-98. The abbreviation MPLATRK means that the launch of the cruise missiles they have in service is carried out through torpedo tubes (TA) and missile silos with vertical launch launchers are not used for this; in the NATO classification, the series is designated by the abbreviation SSN. The series was developed in response to the appearance in the Soviet fleet of the new generation of Project 971 Shchuka-B submarines and was to replace the Los Angeles-class submarines. The main advantage of the MPLATRK over the existing nuclear submarines was a radical reduction in noise. This was achieved through the use of a new generation of soundproofing, the abandonment of the propeller in favor of the jet propulsion system developed in Great Britain for the Trafalgar class submarines, and the widespread introduction of noise sensors (600 sensors versus 7 for the Los Angeles class submarine).

Initially, to replace the outdated Los Angeles submarines, it was planned to build a series of 30 submarines, but due to the too high cost and change in strategic priorities, the Virginia class nuclear submarine was preferred and the number of planned submarines was reduced to 12, and after the collapse of the USSR, when in only the lead ship of the project was under construction, even the termination of the series was discussed. As a result, the composition of the series was limited to three ships, which turned out to be the most advanced in terms of a set of characteristics and the most expensive submarines of all previously built. The boats received tactical numbers that did not fit into the US Navy's submarine designation system. The tactical number SSN-21 of the "Seawolf" boat means that the "Seawolf" is a boat of the XXI century: 1) SSN-21 "Seawolf" (laid down - in 1989, launched - in 1995, in service since - 1997), 2) SSN-22 "Connecticut" (laid down - in 1992, launched - in 1997, in service - since 1998), 3) SSN-23 "Jimmy Carter" (laid down - in 1998, launched - in 2004, in service - since 2005). The cost of a serial boat is $ 4,3 billion.

Why do I remember this now. You all remember the international scandal that erupted due to the breakdown of the Australian contract, when the French shipbuilding corporation DCNS, which won an international tender for the construction of 12 diesel-electric submarines for the Australian Navy, was refused the contract in favor of the American side. For a long time, both Macron and French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian were seething, declaring both a "stab in the back" and "anger of bitterness" that Paris experienced at the time over the termination of the Australian contract. And I must say, there was a reason to shed tears. Even then, I was confused by the amount of the contract, which ranged from 66 to 90 billion dollars. Wow, the range of prices, I thought then, and climbed to figure it out.

From information scattered across the Internet, it was possible to find out that the Royal Australian Navy currently has six Collins-class diesel-electric submarines, whose service life will expire in 2026. To replace them, a tender was announced, which was won by the French vertically integrated defense company DCNS (Direction des Constructions Navales), having won a landslide victory over Germany and Japan. According to an agreement signed in April 2016 between Paris and Canberra, the French were to supply the Australians with 12 new submarines of an unnamed project.

Later it became clear what project was in question, and other details of the agreement. It was about 12 diesel-electric submarines of the Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A type (this is a non-nuclear version of the multipurpose French nuclear submarines of the Barracuda project), originally estimated at € 31 billion (or $ 35,8 billion), which in terms of Australian money equaled 50 billion Australian dollars. The boats were due to start building in 2023 at Australian manufacturing facilities at the Adelaide Naval Dockyard. However, back in May 2020, against the backdrop of a pandemic that covered the world, the Australians had a number of questions for the French side. It turned out that according to the new calculations of the Australian Ministry of Defense, taking into account inflation and exchange rates, the creation of 12 submarines will cost the Australian treasury an amount that is almost 2 times higher than previously stipulated in the contract. It was already about € 56 billion (or $ 66 billion), which translated into Australian money equaled 90 billion Australian dollars, which clarified the price gap for me, but did not make Canberra happy at all. Moreover, when it became clear in May 2021 that the French were in no hurry to part with key technology production of submarines and transfer them to the Australian side, then the result of this "deal of the century" is not at all surprising, when in September 2021 Paris was presented with a fact - the contract was terminated, Canberra no longer needs his services. The American side offered Canberra much more favorable terms.

According to the American proposal, Washington pledges to transfer the first of eight nuclear-powered multipurpose submarines built at Australian production facilities to Canberra by 2036. As stated by Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison,


Earlier in the administration of the 46th US President Joe Biden, it was reported that the United States decided to transfer the technology of building nuclear-powered submarines to Australia, “so that its submarines, in fact, could be deployed for a longer period of time, so that their progress would become quieter. to become much more sophisticated, enabling the newly created AUKUS to provide and strengthen deterrence throughout the region. ”

Actually, no one doubted why the United States needed it, and why they "threw" Paris for this. At the same time, the amount of the transaction is not disclosed, but it is comparable to the broken one.

Is it too expensive?

Now let's count the money. Has anyone wondered if French diesels are too expensive? If we divide $ 66 billion by 12 boats, then a conventional multipurpose diesel-electric submarine of French production should have cost Canberra $ 5,5 billion. What is it? And, in fact, no one knows. The Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A project was developed specifically for the Royal Australian Navy, being a non-nuclear version of the nuclear-powered multipurpose submarines of the Barracuda project. The only known submarine displacement of diesel-electric submarines is 4750 tons, length 100 m, immersion depth 350 m, underwater speed 20 knots, crew of 60 people. It was supposed to become the largest of all available diesel-electric submarines in the world (but it did not!). The Collins-class diesel-electric submarines in service with the Australian Navy, designed in 1987-89 by the Swedish company Kockums by order of the KVMF of Australia, have a submerged displacement of 3353 tons, with a KVL length of 77,8 m. The Self-Defense Forces of the Land of the Rising Sun have an underwater displacement of 4200 tons, with a waterline length of 84 m. Russian diesel-electric submarines of project 636.3 "Varshavyanka" underwater displacement of 3950 tons, with a maximum length of 73,8 m at design waterline. At the same time, the price of Russian diesel-electric submarines fluctuates around $ 300 million (in export version). Compare with the French Barracudas.

Even the original French nuclear submarines of this class Suffren Barracuda, which served as prototypes for Block 1A, are several times cheaper. These are the newest French MPLATRKs, which should replace the Rube-type MPLATRKs currently in service with the French Navy. On November 6, 2020, the lead boat of this series, Q284 Suffren, was transferred to the fleet. The series is designed for six multipurpose nuclear submarines. All of them are being built under the Barracuda program, according to which, in the period 2007-29, the French fleet must replenish new Suffren-class nuclear submarines and new Ataka-class diesel-electric submarines (the latter, most likely, are not an export version of Block 1A). The cost of six Suffren-class nuclear submarines under the contract is 7,9 billion euros. From which we can conclude that one nuclear submarine will cost the French government € 1,31 billion (or $ 1,53 billion). Why the unfortunate diesel-electric submarines of the French production should have cost the Australian government almost 4 times more, I do not know.

For example, multipurpose nuclear submarines of the Los Angeles type, 28 of which are still in service with the US Navy, which, in addition to torpedoes and anti-ship Harpoons, also have winged Tomahawks, cost the American treasury only 220 million. dollars (in prices of that time). Well, let them be outdated nuclear submarines that joined the ranks of the US Navy between 1976 and 1996. But the newest 4th generation MPLATRKs of the Virginia type, which replaced them, depending on the configuration, have a price difference from $ 1,8 billion to $ 2,7 billion. These are the newest American MPLATRKs. 19 of them are already in service, and in total it is planned to build from 30 to 48 nuclear submarines of this type. All of them are equipped with nuclear power plants and carry 26 torpedoes and 12 winged Tomahawks (on Block V this figure will be doubled to 24 CR). Why the French diesel-electric submarines turned out to be twice as expensive as the American nuclear submarines, I also do not know. Is it any wonder the Australians have given up on them?

The US defense budget is also not rubber

The answer, most likely, lies in the following fact. I'll start a little from afar, then you will understand everything. The largest-batch surface ship in the US Navy is the 4th generation URO destroyer of the Arleigh Burke class. Since 1988, they have already riveted 68 pieces. The first of them entered the fleet in 1991, the last in September last year. At the moment, 6 more units are under construction and 15 more are planned. The total will be 89, but I think the Americans will not stop there. They are being built by only two factories, but they work like clockwork, launching 2-3 destroyers a year from the stocks. This is a very formidable ship with guided missile weapons (URO), capable of carrying from 56 to 96 of the very same Tomahawk cruise missiles with a range of 2,5 km, which, if necessary, can be equipped with a nuclear warhead. During this time, he has already gone through three upgrades (I, II and IIA series), each heavier than the previous one in displacement (8448 tons, 9073 tons and 9648 tons, respectively) and more advanced in armament. Since 2016, the production of a new improved fourth modification, series III, has begun, according to which 24 more ships will be laid. At the same time, the Americans do not stop there, they are designing new ships for the future, even more advanced, but also just as expensive.

So, the logical continuation of the 4th generation URO destroyers of the "Arleigh Burke" type were the URO destroyers of the "Zumvolt" type, these are destroyers of the 5th generation, sharpened for the destruction of coastal and ground targets, and equipped with the same "Tomahawks" (80 pieces ). With a displacement of 14797 tons, its crew is half that of the Arleigh Burke (148 versus 380 on the IIA destroyers). At the same time, the price of the lead destroyer exceeded $ 4,4 billion (Burkes are 2 times cheaper - $ 1,7 billion for the serial and $ 2,2 billion for the lead in the series), so Congress cut appetites of the military department, and instead of the planned 32 pieces, only 3 were built (more precisely, two, the third is under construction), and 29 were canceled. And although the Pentagon insisted, drawing attention to the fact that it was practicing new technologies and weapons on new destroyers, and the Zumvolt was a testing ground for them, Congress was adamant - there is no money, the budget is not rubber (and this is for the Americans!). And the argument was rolled out in reinforced concrete - old submarines of the Ohio class, with higher stealth, can carry 2 times more cruise missiles (154 versus 80) and their re-equipment for these purposes costs 2 times cheaper. Therefore, the vaunted Zumvolt was covered with a copper basin, and the Pentagon had no choice but to extend the service life of the old 4th generation destroyers, which will form the backbone of the US Navy until 2035 (before the start of the massive withdrawal of series II destroyers from the fleet).

From all of the above, one can make the assumption that the cunning Uncle Sam decided to build up his naval muscles at the expense of the Australian budget (all the same, there is only one enemy - the PLA, more precisely, the PRC Navy, what difference does it make which AUKUS allies will fight with him?). You probably have not yet forgotten the famous 4th generation MPLATRK type "Seawulf", with which I began my story? Then the program for their construction was curtailed on the third copy due to the collapse of the USSR and the high cost of the product (no joke - $ 4,3 billion per unit!). But 20 years later, the cunning old man-Biden decided, since the US Congress does not give money for the construction of new Seawulfs, why not borrow it from their Australian comrades? Moreover, they obviously have nowhere to do with $ 66 billion, and new submarines are needed like air to replace the aging Collins, whose resource is not unlimited. At the same time, wipe the nose of the brat-Macron, so that he knows his place and does not carry a blizzard about the death of NATO's brain. Beat them all with one blow! What's a bad idea ?! I think, although no one knows yet, that the Royal Australian Navy will replenish eight multipurpose Seawulfs starting in 2036, after which China will begin a fun life. From which we can draw the last conclusion that rumors about the imminent death of America, like its monetary unit, are still greatly exaggerated. They will spoil the blood of us and our Chinese comrades.