Construction of Virginia Block V multi-purpose nuclear submarines

12 530 19
Construction of Virginia Block V multi-purpose nuclear submarines
Design appearance of the Virginia-class submarine


Since the late nineties, US companies have been building multi-purpose nuclear submarines of the Virginia project. As construction continued, the original project was revised several times, and new versions of the submarines entered production. Not long ago, construction of the first ships of the next modification Block V began. They should enter service in the second half of the current decade and have a positive effect on the strike capabilities of the Navy.



New modification


Let us recall that the lead nuclear submarine of the Virginia project was laid down in September 1999 and commissioned in October 2004. By now, American shipbuilders have managed to manufacture and deliver to the customer another 22 submarines of this type.

The Virginia submarines were built according to different versions of the project, designated as "blocks" with numbers from 1 to 4. The current one is Block IV. From 2020 to the present, the Navy has received five submarines of this series. The sixth is expected to be delivered in the coming months, and within a few years the number of such submarines will be increased to 10.

Back in the early 2010s, the Navy began developing a new version of the Virginia project, designated Block V. This project planned to improve the design and enhance the basic characteristics of the submarine. It was also supposed to improve the weapons system and increase the number of missiles on board.

The emergence of the new Virginia variant was directly related to the Navy's plans for other boats. Thus, in the 154s, four Ohio-class strategic nuclear submarines underwent modernization, during which they lost their Trident missiles. New launchers for XNUMX Tomahawk cruise missiles were placed in the vacated silos. Despite the limited number, the upgraded Ohio significantly affected the non-nuclear strike potential of the Navy's submarine forces.


Laying of USS Oklahoma (SSN-803), August 2023

According to the Pentagon's plans, four Ohio-class submarines with Tomahawk missiles will be decommissioned by the end of the 20s. It was proposed to create an improved version of the Virginia-class submarine with an increased ammunition load to replace them. It is assumed that the abandonment of older submarines and the start of operation of new ones will allow to avoid a significant gap in strike capabilities.

Construction plans


Design work on the Virginia Block V project was completed in mid-2017. Soon, on December 2, the Pentagon signed two contracts at once for the construction of the first submarines of the new modification. Huntington Ingalls Industries Newport News Shipbuilding and General Dynamics Electric Boat were to build the USS Oklahoma (SSN-802) and USS Arizona (SSN-803) submarines, respectively.

Exactly two years later, two more contracts were signed for the next four hulls. Three of them will be built by HII Newport News - these will be the submarines USS Barb (SSN-804), USS Wahoo (SSN-806) and USS Silversides (SSN-807). GDEB has so far been entrusted with building only one boat, USS Tang (SSN-805).

Due to the workload of other orders, as well as the 2020 pandemic and quarantine, preparations for the construction of new submarines were delayed. The first ship of the new series, Arizona, was laid down at the GDEB shipyard only on December 7, 2022. A few months later, on August 2, 2023, the Oklahoma was laid down at the HII Newport News shipyard, and on August 17, construction of the Teng submarine was launched.

At the beginning of the last decade, it became known that the Pentagon was planning to build 12 new-model nuclear submarines. Contracts for six of them have already been signed. Three ships are being built since 2022-23 and will be ready in the second half of the current decade. Preparations are also underway for the construction of the next three, which will be delivered only in the thirties.


Diagram of the hull section with additional launchers

The remaining six submarines are still in the contract preparation stage. They are expected to be ordered in the coming years, but construction will not begin until the turn of the decade. Even without problems and difficulties, the entire series will not be completed until the mid-thirties or later.

Project Objectives


The Pentagon and contractors have already revealed the main features of the Virginia Block V project. Unlike previous versions of the Virginia modernization, it involves not only replacing the equipment, but also significantly rebuilding the entire structure. In general, both the hull and its contents are being reworked.

The new project envisages the installation of various means and systems, which required increasing the hull. An additional section, located in the center of the hull, increases its length from 115 to 140 m. At the same time, the ship's displacement also increases - from 7900 to 10400 tons.

As far as is known, the power plant and general ship systems of the modernized submarine can be improved, but will not undergo any radical changes. Due to this, the main running and technical characteristics will remain at the same level.

The additional hull section accommodates four Virginia Payload Module launchers. The VPM was developed based on the experience gained from upgrading the Ohio-class submarines. It is similar to the Ohio launchers and has similar characteristics. The device, with a diameter of approximately 2,2 m, accommodates seven vertical cells for the Tomahawk missile transport and launch containers. The new launchers thus increase the Virginia submarine's total ammunition load by 28 cruise missiles.


Virginia Block V submarine layout

While receiving a new section with launchers, the submarines retain the standard armament of previous modifications. The forward part of the hull retains a vertical launcher for 12 missiles. There are also four 533 mm torpedo tubes. They are used to fire various types of torpedoes, as well as to launch UGM-84 Harpoon missiles.

Impact potential


The Navy plans to gradually replace other class submarines as they retire, including the Ohio, a multi-mission version of the submarine. The information available provides insight into how the new ships will impact the overall strike capabilities of the submarine force.

First of all, the new Virginia submarines will replace the old Los Angeles-class ships. Submarines of these projects carry 12 Tomahawk cruise missiles. Accordingly, there is an opportunity to equally replace the submarines and maintain the total number of deployed missile weapons. However, this opportunity can only be realized if each decommissioned ship receives a replacement.

The four Ohio-class submarines nearing retirement carry a combined 616 Tomahawk missiles. The 12 new Virginia Block V submarines will each receive 28 additional missiles, for a total of 336. This raises certain risks. The Navy will retire submarines with many missiles long before replacements with fewer weapons are available.


Use of missile weapons

It is already known that the construction of the Virginias will not stop with the Block 5 series. Preliminary work is underway on the next version of this project. Its details are still unknown, but it can be assumed that Block VI will retain the VPM launchers and an increased ammunition load.

The construction of 10-12 such submarines will allow the total combat complement of the submarine forces to return to the previous level. However, the Ohio will be decommissioned in the coming years, and the Virginias of the future 6th series will enter service no earlier than the end of the thirties. This means that the total combat complement of the submarine forces will be reduced for many years, and with it the strike capabilities.

Plans and reality


Thus, the US continues to build multi-purpose submarines of the current Virginia project, and also regularly modernizes them, aimed at improving technical characteristics and combat capabilities. Recently, construction of the first ships of the newest Block V series began, and in a few years they will begin service.

However, building new submarines will not solve all the pressing issues. In the foreseeable future, the US Navy will face the problem of reducing the number of cruise missile carriers and reducing their total ammunition. How this problem will be solved is still unclear, but it is obvious that the Virginia Block V submarines will play a major role in this matter.
19 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    13 March 2025 07: 17
    The ocean is generally poorly studied, there are many prospects there, especially for countries with a coastline. So the submarine fleet will always be needed, maybe even bases will appear on the bottom.
    1. 0
      13 March 2025 07: 50
      bases on the bottom
      There seemed to be a theme at one time, but something didn’t work out.
      1. +2
        13 March 2025 16: 54
        Quote: novel xnumx
        There seemed to be a theme at one time, but something didn’t work out.

        Because it is expensive and the benefits are not obvious.
    2. -1
      14 March 2025 19: 48
      Quote: Vadim S
      The ocean is generally poorly studied, there are many prospects there, especially for countries with a coastline. So the submarine fleet will always be needed, maybe even bases will appear on the bottom.

      The numbers in the databases at the bottom are zero point zero, fig tenths.
  2. +2
    13 March 2025 08: 20
    And how will things be with its hydrodynamics and maneuverability?
    Block 4 already has a length to width ratio of 11:1.
    For Block 5, almost 14:1 is expected.
    Isn't the "sausage" too thin?
    1. +3
      13 March 2025 11: 52
      It's even more interesting here
      ...increases its length from 115 to 140 m. At the same time, the ship’s displacement also increases – from 7900 to 10400 tons.
      ...the power plant and general ship systems of the modernized submarine can be improved, but will not undergo any radical changesThanks to this, the main running and technical characteristics will remain at the same level.
      they will add 2500 tons of displacement with the same propulsion plant, and nothing will change, I don’t believe it what recourse
    2. 0
      13 March 2025 15: 16
      For Block 5, almost 14:1 is expected.
      Isn't the "sausage" too thin?

      Not too thin, let me remind you of the following plans
  3. 0
    13 March 2025 08: 22
    By the way, if the VPM matches the diameter of the Ohio's silos, is it possible to stick a Trident in there, making a sort of ersatz SSBN? Or wouldn't the VPM's silo be tall enough?
    1. +2
      13 March 2025 22: 16
      Quote: Pushkowed
      By the way, if the VPM matches the diameter of the Ohio's silos, is it possible to stick a Trident in there, making a sort of ersatz SSBN? Or wouldn't the VPM's silo be tall enough?

      Trident 2 does not exist. But it is not difficult to develop an IRBM for it.
  4. 0
    13 March 2025 08: 47
    I wonder where 28 missiles came from if they add 4 launchers with 6 missiles each - that's 24 missiles? I wonder what the submarine displacement became.
    How will increasing the length of a submarine affect the seaworthiness and survivability of the hull during diving, being at depth and external energy impacts?
    1. +1
      13 March 2025 10: 15
      Quote: Sergey39
      I wonder where the 28 missiles came from if they add 4 launchers with 6 missiles each - that's 24 missiles?

      So, there are seven SLCMs in VPM. The Yankees with multi-missile UVP on submarines turned out to be funny.
      On the Ohio, 7 cruise missiles were stuffed into the former mines: six in a circle and one in the center.
      When the separate UVPs on Block 3 of Virginia began to be replaced with multi-missile VPT blocks - "like the Ohio" (!) - then the two VPTs ended up with only 6 cruise missiles each. One cruise missile in the block was lost somewhere along the way between Ohio and Virginia. smile
      And on the Virginia Block 5, in addition to the two forward six-missile blocks, a compartment with four seven-missile VPMs was cut into the center of the hull - exactly like on the Ohio.
      1. +1
        13 March 2025 19: 28
        Quote: Alexey RA
        The two VPTs had only 6 CRs each. One CR in the block was lost somewhere along the way between Ohio and Virginia.

        It's simple: V-block III didn't lose anything. They simply combined 12 winged "axe" silos, placed on each side, into 2 revolver-type silos with 6 CRBDs in each. The fire control system remained practically the same, having undergone minor changes. And when they were sculpting V-block IV, they turned to the experience of Ohio, where silos with 7 items inside were installed.
  5. 0
    13 March 2025 20: 11
    I remembered the song of the group MANGO-MANGO:

    Large brick blast furnaces breathe with a lilac flame.
    The enemy is preparing submarines for our destruction.
    But we, too, are people not a miss. We are hiding in black holes.
    We have such devices! But we will not tell you about them.
  6. +2
    13 March 2025 20: 14
    A good review article. And yet Kirill made a couple of mistakes (inaccuracies):
    1.
    The bow of the hull retains vertical launcher for 12 missiles.
    Not one, but two, and not 12, but 6 Axes in each.
    2.
    Virginia Block V submarines will gradually replace decommissioned ships of other types, including multi-purpose version of the Ohio nuclear submarine.
    The Yankees do not have such a classification of submarines. But with all that, the Ohio SSGN does not qualify as a "strike" unit, because it does not have the direct purpose of "fighting enemy surface ships and submarines." Its main task is to deliver missile strikes on important coastal facilities of the enemy with Tomahawk-class cruise missiles, in conventional and nuclear warheads.
    3.
    Block VI will retain the VPM launchers and increased ammunition capacity.
    The statement is debatable, but the author certainly has the right to such a vision. And nevertheless: there is a clear tendency to equip prospective SSBNs/SSNs with autonomous unmanned underwater vehicles (AUVs) of various purposes. This is one.
    Secondly, the number of portable weapons is being optimized based on the active counteraction of the enemy. For this reason, the new SSBN "Columbia" is equipped with only 16 SLBMs, not 24, like Ohio. And our Borey A has also refused the previously planned 20 portable SLBMs.
    The author's message sounds somewhat "flawed and limited"
    The emergence of a new variant of Virginia was directly related to the Navy's plans for other boats.
    And I (apparently due to lack of understanding) always thought that the improvement of naval combat means is connected with achieving superiority over the opposing enemy. Previously, the main enemy of the USA was the USSR Navy. Now - the PLA Navy of the PRC... This is why submarine forces are being improved. The Chinese comrades, having achieved certain successes in building combat NK, are seriously inferior to the Yankees in the submarine fleet. And this, in fact, can reduce to zero all of China's efforts to confront the USA in the Asia-Pacific region. This naturally leads to the problem of a balanced Navy in types and branches of forces.
    Sincerely, Boa. hi
    1. 0
      16 March 2025 00: 38
      The Chinese comrades, having achieved certain successes in the construction of combat NKs, are seriously inferior to the Yankees in the submarine fleet.

      They recently completed a significant expansion of the nuclear submarine shipyard in Bohai and have already reached 3 Type 93s per year, with potential for even more. So they are doing well here too and will only get better.
      1. 0
        16 March 2025 12: 25
        Quote: shocktrooper
        The APL in Bohai has already reached 3 Type 93 per year... So here too everything is good for them and it will only get better.

        1. It is only in philosophy that "quantity turns into quality" when a certain threshold is reached...
        2. The watershed in submarine warfare is based on the level of stealth (low noise, absence of parasitic physical fields), the range of detection of "silent" underwater objects, and the effective range of use of enemy weapons.
        3. Take the time to compare the PLA Navy SSN and the V-Block V...
        No one denies that the Chinese comrades are making rapid progress in N&T, but according to their own estimates, they are 20 years behind the Yankees in submarine warfare. Ours is less... An attempt to jump over a generation of submarines usually does not lead to anything good due to the lack of practical experience. An example? Well, at least our Project 677 with VNU...
        Sincerely. hi
  7. -2
    13 March 2025 20: 58
    Regarding "Virginia Block V" - a serious weapon, and if they can cope with the noise, then it will be a formidable opponent... We must prepare for a "meeting" in the depths of the sea...
    1. +1
      13 March 2025 22: 27
      Quote from nordscout
      Regarding "Virginia Block V" - a serious weapon, and if they can cope with the noise, then it will be a formidable opponent... We must prepare for a "meeting" in the depths of the sea...

      It's perfectly fine when it comes to noise.
      It is not for nothing that the Americans took their "engine" from Swiftsure.
  8. +3
    13 March 2025 22: 14
    The four Ohio-class submarines, which are close to being decommissioned, carry a total of 616 Tomahawk missiles. The 12 new Virginia Block V submarines will receive 28 additional missiles each, for a total of 336.


    Ryabov once again "peed his pants" with his incompetence.
    Block 5 has 40 missiles, not 28.
    Accordingly, 12 submarines will fire a salvo of 480 missiles, not 336.

    It is clear, once again, that the author is not at all in the subject of weapons, although he has been trying to translate foreign articles into Russian for many years.

    The second thing is that the author doesn’t understand anything.
    VPM is not a container for 7 Tomahawks.
    This is a full-fledged mine.
    With a slightly reduced length.
    Accordingly, it is fully prepared to accommodate any potential new sea-based IRBM, if the US needs them.
    A sea-based underwater launch is not required.
    You can also use surfacing. Like in the 50s.
    The idea of ​​an underwater launch has proven to be completely useless.
    The launch of the first missile unmasks the SSBN in all observation ranges.
    Accordingly, keeping it under water makes no sense at all for the launch, and even on the contrary, the buoyancy support system is too complex and dangerous for a mass launch of ICBMs.