Virginia-class submarine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Virginia-class
USS Virginia (SSN-774)
The USS Virginia underway in Portsmouth, Virginia (August 2004)
Class overview
Name:Virginia
Builders:General Dynamics Electric Boat
Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company
Operators: United States Navy
Preceded by:Seawolf-class attack submarine
Cost:$2,707.1m per unit (FY2014)[1]
$50 million per unit (annual operating cost)[2]
Built:2000-present
In commission:2004-present
Building:5[3]
Planned:30[4][5] (see text)
Completed:10
Active:10
General characteristics
Type:Attack submarine
Displacement:7,900 metric tons (7,800 long tons)
Length:377 ft (115 m)
Beam:34 ft (10 m)
Propulsion:S9G reactor 40,000 shp (30,000 kW)
Speed:in excess of 25 knots (29 mph; 46 km/h)
Range:unlimited
Endurance:unlimited except by food supplies
Test depth:+800 ft (240 m)
Complement:135 (15:120)
Armament:
12 × VLS (BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile) tubes
4 × 533mm torpedo tubes (Mk-48 torpedo)
27 × torpedoes & missiles (torpedo room)[6]
The Virginia-class, also known as the SSN-774-class, is a class of nuclear-powered fast attack submarines (hull classification symbol SSN) in service with the United States Navy. The submarines are designed for a broad spectrum of open-ocean and littoral missions. They were conceived as a less expensive alternative to the Seawolf-class attack submarines, designed during the Cold War era, and they are planned to replace the older of the Los Angeles-class submarines, twenty of which have already been decommissioned (from a total of 62 built). The class was developed under the codename Centurion, renamed to NSSN (New SSN) later on.[7] The "Centurion Study" was initiated in February 1991.[8] Virginia-class submarines will be acquired through 2043, and are expected to remain in service past 2060.[9]

Innovations[edit]

The Virginia class incorporates several innovations not previously incorporated into other submarine classes.[10]

Photonics masts[edit]

Instead of a traditional periscope, the class utilizes a pair of AN/BVS-1telescoping photonics masts[10] located outside the pressure hull. Each mast contains high-resolution cameras, along with light-intensification and infrared sensors, an infrared laser rangefinder, and an integrated Electronic Support Measures (ESM) array. Signals from the masts' sensors are transmitted through fiber optic data lines through signal processors to the control center. Visual feeds from the masts are displayed on LCD interfaces in the command center.[11]

Propulsor[edit]

In contrast to a traditional bladed-propellor, the Virginia class uses pump-jet propulsors (built by BAE Systems),[12] originally developed for the Royal Navy's Swiftsure class submarines.[13] The propulsor significantly reduces the risks of cavitation, and allows quieter operation.

Improved sonar systems[edit]

Virginia class submarines are equipped with a bow-mounted spherical active/passive sonar array, a wide aperture lightweight fiber optic sonar array (three flat panels mounted low along either side of the hull), as well as two high frequency active sonars mounted in the sail and keel (under the bow). The submarines are also equipped with a low frequency towed sonar array and a high frequency towed sonar array.[14] The chin-mounted (below the bow) high frequency sonar supplements the (spherical/LAB) main sonar array enabling safer operations in coastal waters as well as improving ASW performance.[15][16]
The USS California will be the first Virginia-class submarine with the advanced electromagnetic signature reduction system built into it, but this system will be retrofitted into the other submarines of the class.[17]

Other improved equipment[edit]

Virginia Class Diesel Generator Control Panel
  • Fiber optic fly-by-wire Ship Control System replaces electro-hydraulic systems for control surface actuation.
  • Command and control system module (CCSM) built by Lockheed Martin.[18][19]
  • Modernized version of the AN/BSY-1 integrated combat system[7] designated AN/BYG-1 (previously designated CCS Mk2) and built by General Dynamics AIS (previously Raytheon).[20][21] AN/BYG-1 integrates the submarine Tactical Control System (TCS) and Weapon Control System (WCS).[22][23]
  • Integral 9-man lock-out chamber.[24]

History[edit]

Virginia class submarines were the first US Navy warships designed with the help of computer-aided design (CAD) and visualization technology.[11][25] Around 9 million work hours are required for the completion of a single Virginia class submarine.[25][26][27] Over 4,000 suppliers are involved in the construction of the Virginia class.[28] Each submarine is projected to make 14-15 deployments during its 33-year service life.[29]
The Virginia-class was intended, in part, as a cheaper ($1.8 billion vs $2.8 billion) alternative to the Seawolf-class submarines, whose production run was stopped after just three boats had been completed. To reduce costs, the Virginia-class submarines use many "commercial off-the-shelf" (or COTS) components, especially in their computers and data networks. In practice, they actually cost less than $1.8 billion (in fiscal year 2009 dollars) each, due to improvements in shipbuilding technology.[10]
In hearings before both House of Representatives and Senate committees, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and expert witnesses testified that the current procurement plans of the Virginia-class – one per year at present, accelerating to two per year beginning in 2012 – would result in high unit costs and (according to some of the witnesses and to some of the committee chairmen) an insufficient number of attack submarines.[30] In a 10 March 2005 statement to the House Armed Services Committee, Ronald O'Rourke of the CRS testified that, assuming the production rate remains as planned, "production economies of scale for submarines would continue to remain limited or poor."[31]
In 2001, Newport News Shipbuilding and General Dynamics Electric Boat Company built a quarter-scale version of a Virginia class submarine dubbed Large Scale Vehicle II (LSV II) Cutthroat. The vehicle was designed as an affordable test platform for new technologies.[32][33]
The Virginia-class is built through an industrial arrangement designed to keep both GD Electric Boat and Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company (the only two U.S. shipyards capable of building nuclear-powered vessels) in the submarine-building business.[34] Under the present arrangement, the Newport News facility builds the stern, habitability and machinery spaces, torpedo room, sail and bow, while Electric Boat builds the engine room and control room. The facilities alternate work on the reactor plant as well as the final assembly, test, outfit and delivery.
O’Rourke wrote in 2004 that, "Compared to a one-yard strategy, approaches involving two yards may be more expensive but offer potential offsetting benefits."[35] Among the claims of "offsetting benefits" that O'Rourke attributes to supporters of a two-facility construction arrangement is that it "would permit the United States to continue building submarines at one yard even if the other yard is rendered incapable of building submarines permanently or for a sustained period of time by a catastrophic event of some kind", including an enemy attack.
In order to get the submarine's price down to $2 billion per submarine in FY-05 dollars, the Navy instituted a cost-reduction program to shave off approximately $400 million in costs off each submarine's price tag. The project was dubbed "2 for 4 in 12," referring to the Navy's desire to buy two boats for $4 billion in FY-12. Under pressure from Congress, the Navy opted to start buying two boats a year earlier, in FY-11, meaning that officials would not be able to get the $2 billion price tag before the service started buying two submarines per year. However, program manager Dave Johnson said at a conference on 19 March 2008, that the program was only $30 million away from achieving the $2 billion price goal, and would reach that target on schedule.[36]
The Virginia Class Program Office received the David Packard Excellence in Acquisition Award in 1996, 1998, 2008, "for excelling in four specific award criteria: reducing life-cycle costs; making the acquisition system more efficient, responsive, and timely; integrating defense with the commercial base and practices; and promoting continuous improvement of the acquisition process".[37]
In December 2008, the Navy signed a $14 billion contract with General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman to supply eight submarines. The contractors will deliver one submarine in each of fiscal 2009 and 2010, and two submarines on each of fiscal 2011, 2012 and 2013.[38] This contract will bring the Navy's Virginia-class fleet to 18 submarines. And in December 2010, the United States Congresspassed a defense authorization bill that expanded production to two subs per year.[39] Two submarine-per-year production resumed on 2 September 2011 with commencement of SSN-787 construction.[3]
On 21 June 2008, the Navy christened New Hampshire (SSN-778), the first Block II submarine. This boat was delivered eight months ahead of schedule and $54 million under budget. Block II boats are built in four sections, compared to the ten sections of the Block I boats. This enables a cost saving of about $300 million per boat, reducing the overall cost to $2 billion per boat and the construction of two new boats per year. Beginning in 2010, new submarines of this class will include a software system that can monitor and reduce their electromagnetic signatures when needed.[40]
The first full duration six month deployment was successfully carried out from October 15, 2009 to April 13, 2010.[41] Authorization of full-rate production and the declaration of full operational capability was achieved five months later.[42] In September 2010, it was found that urethane tiles, applied to the hull to damp internal sound and absorb rather than reflect sonar pulses, were falling off while the subs were at sea.[43] Admiral Kevin McCoy announced that the problems with the Mold-in-Place Special Hull Treatment for the early subs had been fixed in 2011, then the Minnesota was built and found to have the same problem.[44]
Professor Ross Babbage of the Australian National University has called on Australia to buy or lease a dozen Virginia class submarines from the United States, rather than locally build 12 replacements for its Collins class submarines.[45]
In 2013, just as two per year sub construction was supposed to get started, Congress failed to resolve the United States fiscal cliff, forcing the Navy to attempt to "de-obligate" construction funds.[46]

Technology barriers[edit]

Because of the low rate of Virginia production, the Navy entered into a program with DARPA to overcome technology barriers to lower the cost of attack submarines so that more could be built, to maintain the size of the fleet.[47]
These include:[48]
  • Propulsion concepts not constrained by a centerline shaft.
  • Externally stowed and launched weapons (especially torpedoes).
  • Conformal alternatives to the existing spherical sonar array.
  • Technologies that eliminate or substantially simplify existing submarine hull, mechanical and electrical systems.
  • Automation to reduce crew workload for standard tasks

Virginia Payload Module[edit]

Submarines built from 2019 onward will have an additional Virginia Payload Module (VPM) mid-body section, increasing their overall length. The VPM will add four large vertical launch tubes, located on the centerline, carrying up to seven Tomahawk missiles apiece, that would replace some of the capabilities lost when the SSGN conversion Ohio-class submarines are retired from the fleet.[49] Initially eight payload tubes/silos were planned[50] but this was later rejected in favour of 4 tubes installed in a 70 foot long module between the operations compartment and the propulsion spaces.[51][52][53]
The VPM could potentially carry (non-nuclear) medium-range ballistic missiles. Adding the VPM would increase the cost of each submarine by $500 million (2012 prices).[54] This additional cost would be offset by reducing the total submarine force by four ships.[55]More recent reports state that as a cost reduction measure the VPM would carry only Tomahawk SLCM and possibly unmanned undersea vehicles (UUV) with the new price tag now estimated at $360–380 million per boat (in 2010 prices). The VPM launch tubes/silos will reportedly be similar in design to the ones planned for the Ohio class replacement.[56][57] As of September 2013 theCNO was still hoping to field the VPM from 2027,[58] but deployment now seems unlikely since JROC moved the program in February 2013 from the Prompt Strike budget to the main Navy shipbuilding account, which is already under financial pressure.[59]

Specifications[edit]

The christening of USS Texas (SSN-775)
USS Virginia (SSN-774) under construction
USS New Hampshire (SSN-778) the first of the Block II vessels
  • Builders: GD Electric Boat and HII Newport News
  • Length: 377 ft (114.91 m)
  • Beam: 34 ft (10.36 m)
  • Displacement: 7,800 long tons (7,900 t)
  • Payload: 40 weapons, special operations forces, unmanned undersea vehicles, AdvancedSEAL Delivery System (ASDS)
  • Propulsion: The S9G nuclear reactor, 29.8 MW delivering 40,000 shaft horse power.[60]Nuclear core life estimated at 33 years.[61]
  • Maximum diving depth: greater than 800 ft (240 m), allegedly around 1,600 feet (490 m)[24]
  • Speed: Greater than 25 knots (46 km/h; 29 mph),[62] allegedly up to 34 knots[24][63]
  • Planned cost: about US$1.65 billion each (based on FY95 dollars, 30-ship class and two ship/year build-rate)
  • Actual cost: US$1.5 billion (in 1994 prices), US$2.6 billion (in 2012 prices)[64][65]
  • Crew: 120 enlisted and 14 officers
  • Armament: 12 VLS & four torpedo tubes, capable of launching Mark 48 torpedoes, UGM-109 Tactical Tomahawks, Harpoon missiles[66] and the new advanced mobile mine when it becomes available.
  • Decoys: Acoustic Device Countermeasure Mk 3/4[67]

Boats[edit]

Block I[edit]

Modular construction techniques were incorporated during construction.[68] Earlier submarines (e.g. Los Angeles class SSNs) were built by assembling the pressure hull and then installing the equipment via cavities in the pressure hull. This required extensive construction activities within the narrow confines of the pressure hull which was time consuming and dangerous. Modular construction was implemented in an effort to overcome these problems and make the construction process more efficient. Modular construction techniques incorporated during construction include constructing large segments of equipment outside of the hull. These segments (dubbed rafts) are then inserted into a hull section (a large segment of the pressure hull). The integrated raft and hull section form a module which when joined with other modules forms a Virginia class submarine.[69]Block I boats were built in 10 modules with each submarine requiring roughly 7 years (84 months) to build.[70]

Block II[edit]

Block II boats were built in four sections rather than ten sections, saving about $300 million per boat. Block II boats (excluding SSN-778) were also built under a multi-year procurement agreement as opposed to a block-buy contract in Block I, enabling savings in the range of $400 million ($80 million per boat).[72][73] As a result of improvements in the construction process, New Hampshire (SSN-778) was 500 million USD cheaper, required 3.7 million fewer labor hours to build (25% less) thus shortening the construction period by 15 months (20% less) compared to USS Virginia (SSN-774).[69]

Block III[edit]

SSN-784 through approximately SSN-791 are planned to make up the Third Block or "Flight" and began construction in 2009. Block III subs will feature a revised bow with a Large Aperture Bow (LAB) sonar array, as well as technology from Ohio-class SSGNs (2 VLS tubes each containing 6 missiles).[81] The horseshoe-shaped LAB sonar array will replace the spherical main sonar array which has been used on all U.S. Navy SSNs since 1960.[82][83][84]

Block IV[edit]

No block IV submarines are yet under contract. The first block IV submarine is not scheduled to be procured until FY14. The long-lead-time materials contract for SSN 792 was awarded on April 17, 2012, with SSN 793 and SSN 794 following on December 28, 2012.[91][92] the U.S. Navy has awarded General Dynamics Electric Boat a $208.6 million contract modification for the second fiscal year (FY) 14 Virginia-class submarine, SSN-793, and two FY 15 submarines, SSN-794 and SSN-795.With this modification, the overall contract is worth $595 million.[93] Block IV will consist of 9-10 submarines.[94] Based on the planned split between block IV and block V boats, the block IV procurement should comprise the following hull numbers.[95]

Block V[edit]

Block V subs may incorporate the Virginia Payload Module (VPM), which would give guided-missile capability when the SSGNs are retired from service.[96]

Future acquisitions[edit]

The Navy plans to acquire at least 30 Virginia class submarines,[4][5] however, more recent data provided by the Naval Submarine League (in 2011) and the Congressional Budget Office (in 2012) seems to imply that more than 30 may eventually be built. The Naval Submarine League believes that up to 10 Block V boats will be built.[27][97] The same source also states that 10 additional submarines could be built after Block V submarines, with 5 in the so-called Block VI and 5 in Block VII, largely due to the delays experienced with the "Improved Virginia". These 20 submarines (10 Block V, 5 Block VI, 5 Block VII) would carry VPM bringing the total number ofVirginia class submarines to 48 (including the 28 submarines in Blocks I, II, III and IV). The CBO in its 2012 report states that 33Virginia class submarines will be procured in the 2013-2032 timeframe,[98] resulting in 49 submarines in total since 16 were already procured by the end of 2012.[94] Such a long production run seems unlikely but it should be noted that another naval program, theArleigh Burke-class destroyer, is still ongoing even though the first vessel was procured in 1985.[99][100] However, other sources believe that production will end with Block V.[101] In addition, data provided in CBO reports tends to vary considerably compared to earlier editions.[6][102]
In 2013 execution of a 10 submarine contract was put in doubt by Budget sequestration in 2013.[103]

Improved Virginia[edit]

Initially dubbed Future Attack Submarine.[104] Improved Virginia-class submarines will be an evolved version of the Virginia-class. It was planned that the first "Improved" Virginia-class submarine would be procured in 2025.[105] However, according to some reports their introduction has been pushed back by eight years, to 2033.[106]

See also[edit]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Virginia class submarines.
Portal iconUnited States Navy portal

References[edit]

  1. Jump up^ O'Rourke, Ronald (28 June 2013). "Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. p. 7.The USN's budget request for two Virginias in financial year 2014 (FY2014) is US$5,414.2 million, including $1,530.8m of advance funding from previous years.
  2. Jump up^ Cowan, Simon (5 November 2012). "Facts favour nuclear-powered submarines". Retrieved 2012-11-09.
  3. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Construction Begins on SSN 787; Navy Transitions to Building Two Virginia Class Submarines Per Year". Retrieved 2011-11-11.
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b "US Navy 21st Century - SSN Virginia Class". Jeffhead.com. Retrieved 2013-02-25.
  5. ^ Jump up to:a b "Submarine Industrial Base Council". Submarinesuppliers.org. 2008-12-22. Retrieved 2013-02-25.
  6. ^ Jump up to:a b "An Analysis of the Navy's Fiscal Year 2013 Shipbuilding Plan" (PDF). Congressional Budget Office. July 2012. Retrieved 2012-10-17.
  7. ^ Jump up to:a b "SSN-774 Virginia class". Retrieved 2012-11-23.
  8. Jump up^ "Navy Report on New Attack Submarine (Senate - July 21, 1992)". Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved 2012-12-15.
  9. Jump up^ Navy Considers Future After Virginia-Class Subs - Defensetech.org, 12 February 2014
  10. ^ Jump up to:a b c Baker, A. D. III (1998). Combat Fleets of the World, 1998–1999. USA. p. 1005. ISBN 1-55750-111-4.
  11. ^ Jump up to:a b "Virginia Class". Navy.mil. Retrieved 2013-02-06.
  12. Jump up^ "Newsroom". BAE Systems. Retrieved 2013-07-26.
  13. Jump up^ Hool, Jack; Nutter, Keith (2003). Damned Un-English Machines, a history of Barrow-built submarines. Tempus. p. 180.ISBN 0-7524-2781-4.
  14. Jump up^ "SSN774 Virginia-class Fast Attack Submarine". Tech.military.com. Retrieved 2012-09-30.
  15. Jump up^ "Special Purpose Sonar". Ultra Electronics Ocean Systems. Retrieved 2021-12-15.
  16. Jump up^ Moreavek, Leonard, LTJG; Brudner, T.J (1999). "USS AshevilleLeads the Way in High Frequency Sonar". Undersea Warfare Magazine 1 (3). Retrieved 2012-12-15.
  17. Jump up^ "GAO-09-326SP" (PDF). Government Accounting Office. Retrieved 2012-11-23.
  18. Jump up^ "PCU Virginia (SSN-774)". Navy.mil. 2000-05-15. Retrieved 2013-02-06.
  19. Jump up^ "NSSN Virginia Class Attack Submarine". Naval Technology. 2011-06-15. Retrieved 2013-02-06.
  20. Jump up^ "Raytheon News Release Archive". Raytheon.mediaroom.com. 2006-01-30. Retrieved 2013-02-06.
  21. Jump up^ "General Dynamics To Upgrade Submarine Weapons Control Systems". Defense Industry Daily. July 21, 2009. Retrieved November 12, 2013.
  22. Jump up^ "AN/BYG-1 Submarine Tactical Control System (TCS)". Gd-ais.com. Retrieved 2013-02-06.
  23. Jump up^ "General Dynamics continues project to upgrade submarine electronics with COTS computers - Military & Aerospace Electronics". Militaryaerospace.com. 2013-06-27. Retrieved 2013-07-26.
  24. ^ Jump up to:a b c "USS Virginia SSN-774-A New Steel Shark at Sea". Applied Technology Institute. Retrieved 2021-12-15.
  25. ^ Jump up to:a b "Submarine Industrial Base Council". Submarinesuppliers.org. 2008-12-22. Retrieved 2013-02-06.
  26. Jump up^ "Naval Submarine League". Navalsubleague.com. 2012-09-27. Retrieved 2013-02-06.
  27. ^ Jump up to:a bhttp://www.navalsubleague.com/NSL/documents/Submarine%20Road%20Show%20NSL%2017%20Aug%202011%20NSL.ppsx
  28. Jump up^ Roberts, Jim (2011). "Double Vision: Planning to Increase Virginia-Class Production". Undersea Warfare. Retrieved November 12, 2013.
  29. Jump up^ Admiral, Rear. "The Sweet Smell of Acquisition Success | U.S. Naval Institute". Usni.org. Retrieved 2013-03-15.
  30. Jump up^ "Statement of The Honorable Duncan Hunter, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Procurement, Submarine Force Structure and Modernization". FAS Military Analysis Network.Federation of American Scientists. 27 June 2000. Retrieved 2008-03-01.
  31. Jump up^ "Statement of Ronald O'Rourke Specialist in National Defense Congressional Research Service before the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Projection Forces Hearing on Navy Force Architecture and Ship Construction"(PDF). 10 March 2005. Archived from the original on 24 September 2006. Retrieved 2008-03-01.
  32. Jump up^ "AUV System Spec Sheet Cuttthroat LSV-2 configuration". Antonymous Undersea Vehicle Applications Center. Retrieved 2012-12-04.
  33. Jump up^ Fox, David M., CDR, USN. "Small Subs Provide Big Payoffs for Submarine Stealth" (PDF). Antonymous Undersea Vehicle Applications Center. Retrieved 2012-12-04.
  34. Jump up^ "SSN-774 Virginia-class NSSN New Attack Submarine".Federation of American Scientists. 19 January 2009. Retrieved 6 August 2011.
  35. Jump up^ O'Rourke, Ronald (2 June 2004). "Navy Attack Submarine Force-Level Goal and Procurement Rate: Background and Issues for Congress" (PDF). Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved 2008-03-01.
  36. Jump up^ http://insidedefense.com/secure/defense_docnum.asp?f=defense_2002.ask&docnum=NAVY-21-12-4[dead link]
  37. Jump up^ "Navy's Virginia Class Program Recognized for Acquisition Excellence". Navy.mil. 8 November 2008. Retrieved 2013-04-21.
  38. Jump up^ "General Dynamics And Northrop Awarded Submarine Deal". The New York Times. 22 December 2008.[dead link]
  39. Jump up^ McDermott, Jennifer (23 December 2010). "House, Senate ok defense bill for 2011; sub plan stays on track". The Day. Retrieved 2012-10-17.
  40. Jump up^ Pike, John. "SSN-774 Virginia-class NSSN New Attack Submarine". GlobalSecurity.org. Retrieved 2012-09-30.
  41. Jump up^ Communication, Mass. "VARFD.aspx". Public.navy.mil. Retrieved 2013-07-26.
  42. Jump up^ This story was written by Naval Sea Systems Command Team Submarine Public Affairs. "Virginia Class Program Reaches Major Milestone". Navy.mil. Retrieved 2013-07-26.
  43. Jump up^ Hooper, Craig. "Virginia Class: When does hull coating separation endanger the boat?". Nextnavy.com. Retrieved 2012-09-30.
  44. Jump up^ Hooper, Craig (7 November 2013). "The Virginia Peel: Why are $2 Billion Dollar Subs Losing Their Skin?". nextnavy.com. nextnavy.com. Retrieved 7 November 2013.
  45. Jump up^ Mahnken, Tom (9 February 2011). "Growing concern down under". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2012-11-23.
  46. Jump up^ Mar 04, 2013 @ 21:38 (2013-03-02). "U.S. Navy Sets Budget-cutting Plans in Motion.". Blogs.defensenews.com. Retrieved 2013-07-26.
  47. Jump up^ "CRS RL32914" (PDF). Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved 2012-11-23.
  48. Jump up^ "Tango Bravo". Strategic Technology Office. DARPA. Retrieved 2012-10-17.
  49. Jump up^ O'Rourke, Ronald (1 March 2012). "CRS-RL32418 Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress". Congressional Research Service. OpenCRS. Retrieved 2012-11-23.
  50. Jump up^ Hasslinger, Karl; Pavlos, John (2012). "The Virginia Payload Module: A Revolutionary Concept for Attack Submarines".Undersea Warfare. Retrieved November 12, 2013.
  51. Jump up^ "Navy Selects Virginia Payload Module Design Concept | USNI News". News.usni.org. 2013-11-04. Retrieved 2013-11-17.
  52. Jump up^ "Document: PEO Subs Overview of U.S. Navy Undersea Programs | USNI News". News.usni.org. 2013-10-24. Retrieved 2013-11-17.
  53. Jump up^http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/issues/archives/issue_47/virginia_2.html
  54. Jump up^ Grossman, Elaine M. "U.S. Senate Panel Curbs Navy Effort to Add Missiles to Attack Submarines | Global Security Newswire". NTI. Retrieved 2013-02-06.
  55. Jump up^ "Navy cuts fleet goal to 306 ships.". NavyTimes.com. 2010-07-04. Retrieved 2013-02-06.
  56. Jump up^ Enter your Company or Top-Level Office. "OMA: Lower Ohio-Class Replacement Cost Tied To VA-Class Multiyear Deal: Could Achieve 8 To 15 Percent Savings". Ct.gov. Retrieved 2013-07-26.
  57. Jump up^ Kris Osborn (2014-01-28). "Navy, Electric Boat Test Tube-Launched Underwater Vehicle". Defense Tech. Retrieved 2014-02-09.
  58. Jump up^ Greenert, Admiral Jonathan (18 September 2013). "Statement Before The House Armed Services Committee On Planning For Sequestration In FY 2014 And Perspectives Of The Military Services On The Strategic Choices And Management Review" (PDF). US House of Representatives. Retrieved 21 September 2013.
  59. Jump up^ Grossman, Elaine M. (31 July 2013). "Pentagon, Lawmakers Deal Blows to Navy Fast-Strike Missile Effort". National Journal.
  60. Jump up^http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/~ernesto/F2010/EP2/Materials4Students/Misiaszek/NuclearMarinePropulsion.pdf
  61. Jump up^ "U.S. Naval Reactors". Retrieved 2012-12-04.
  62. Jump up^ "Attack Submarines – SSN". Fact Sheet. U.S. Navy. 10 September 2010. Retrieved 2007-07-05.
  63. Jump up^ Thomas, Doug (2008). "Submarine Developments: Air-Independent Propulsion" (PDF). Canadian Naval Review 3(4). Retrieved 2021-12-15.
  64. Jump up^ Ted Kennedy; John Conyers (October 20, 1994). "Lessons of Prior Programs May Reduce New Attack Submarine Cost Increases and Delays". Government Accountability Office. Retrieved November 12, 2013.
  65. Jump up^ "Virginia Class Sub Program Wins Acquisition Award". Defenseindustrydaily.com. 2008-11-20. Retrieved 2013-03-23.
  66. Jump up^ "NSSN Virginia Class Attack Submarine – Naval Technology". Retrieved 2012-11-23.
  67. Jump up^ "Acoustic Countermeasures". Ultra Electronics Ocean Systems. Retrieved 2021-12-15.
  68. Jump up^ Patani, Arif (2012-09-24). "Next Generation Ohio-Class". Navylive.dodlive.mil. Retrieved 2013-04-21.
  69. ^ Jump up to:a bhttp://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/Issues/Archives/issue_43/build_plan.html
  70. Jump up^ "Microsoft Word - VA Class ASNE Paper FINAL_FIG-4-text change.doc" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-04-21.
  71. Jump up^ "Navy Takes Delivery of New Submarine". Military.com. 22 February 2008. Retrieved 2008-03-01.
  72. Jump up^ Butler, John. "The Sweet Smell of Acquisition Success | U.S. Naval Institute". Usni.org. Retrieved 2013-04-21.
  73. Jump up^ O'Rourke, Ronald (September 27, 2013). "Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress". Congressional Research Service. Retrieved November 12, 2013.
  74. Jump up^ "Local News". Hartford Courant. Retrieved 2007-06-21.[dead link]
  75. Jump up^ "PCU New Mexico Delivered to Navy Four Months Early". Navy.mil. 29 December 2009. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
  76. Jump up^ "Secretary of the Navy Sets New Mexico Commissioning Date". Navy League of the United States. 14 December 2009. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
  77. Jump up^ "USS Missouri". United States Navy. 29 August 2010. Retrieved 2010-08-29.
  78. Jump up^ "California To Be Commissioned".[dead link]
  79. Jump up^ "USS Mississippi Joins the Navy". Sun Herald.[dead link]
  80. Jump up^ "Submarine USS Minnesota to be commissioned Saturday".Pioneer Press. twincities.com. 26 October 2012. Retrieved 2012-10-27.
  81. Jump up^ "Virginia Block III: The Revised Bow". Retrieved 2008-05-20.
  82. Jump up^ "Submarine Technology thru the Years". Navy.mil. 1997-07-19. Retrieved 2013-03-23.
  83. Jump up^ Paul Lambert. "Official USS Tullibee (SSN 597) Web Site - USS Tullibee History". Usstullibee.com. Retrieved 2013-03-23.
  84. Jump up^ Admiral, Rear. "The Sweet Smell of Acquisition Success | U.S. Naval Institute". Usni.org. Retrieved 2013-03-23.
  85. Jump up^ "Navy Names Two Virginia Class Submarines". DefenseLink.mil. 15 July 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-15.
  86. Jump up^ "Заложен киль одиннадцатой подводной лодки типа Virginia для ВМС США". Flotprom.ru. 14 May 2012. Retrieved 2012-09-30.
  87. Jump up^ "Navy christens new attack submarine North Dakota". Times Union. November 2, 2013. Retrieved November 12, 2013.
  88. Jump up^ "Navy Names Virginia Class Submarine USS John Warner Story Number: NNS090108-13". navy.mil. January 8, 2009. Retrieved 2009-01-09.
  89. Jump up^ "Newport News Shipbuilding Celebrates Series of Firsts During Keel-Laying Ceremony for John Warner". Huntington Ingalls Industries. 16 March 2013.
  90. Jump up^ "Navy's newest submarine to be named USS Washington".KOMO News. 13 April 2012. Retrieved 2012-09-30.
  91. Jump up^ "Contracts for Tuesday, April 17, 2012". Defense.gov. Retrieved 2013-07-26.
  92. Jump up^ "Contracts for Friday, December 28, 2012". Defense.gov. Retrieved 2013-07-26.
  93. Jump up^ "Press Release Detail". Generaldynamics.com. Retrieved 2013-07-26.
  94. ^ Jump up to:a b "Funding For U.S. Navy Subs Runs Deep". Aviationweek.com. 2013-04-10. Retrieved 2013-07-26.
  95. Jump up^ "On Watch 2012 | Shipbuilding | Virginia Class". Navsea.navy.mil. Retrieved 2013-02-06.
  96. Jump up^ "Virginia Payload Module (VPM)". Retrieved 2011-07-04.
  97. Jump up^ "Naval Submarine League". Navalsubleague.com. Retrieved 2013-02-25.
  98. Jump up^ Labs, Eric (July 2012). "An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2013 Shipbuilding Plan". Congressional Budget Office. Retrieved November 12, 2013.
  99. Jump up^ O'Rourke, Ronald (October 22, 2013). "Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress". Congressional Research Service. Retrieved November 12, 2013.
  100. Jump up^ Admiral, Vice. "Now Hear This - The Right Destroyer at the Right Time". Usni.org. Retrieved 2013-11-17.
  101. Jump up^ John Pike. "SSN-774 Virginia-class NSSN New Attack Submarine". Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 2013-02-25.
  102. Jump up^ "An Analysis of the Navy's Shipbuilding Plans". Issuu.com. 2011-03-10. Retrieved 2013-02-25.
  103. Jump up^ Freedburg, Sydney (September 12, 2013). "Navy To HASC: We’re About To Sign Sub Deals We Can’t Pay For". Breaking Defense. Retrieved November 12, 2013.
  104. Jump up^ "Federation of American Scientists :: Future Attack Submarine". Fas.org. 2013-01-16. Retrieved 2013-02-25.
  105. Jump up^ Labs, Eric J (9 March 2011). "An Analysis of the Navy's Shipbuilding Plans". Congressional Budget Office. Retrieved 2012-11-23.
  106. Jump up^ "An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2013 Shipbuilding Plan" (PDF). Congressional Budget Office. July 2012. Retrieved 2012-11-23.

External links[edit]