Editing Virginia-class submarine (section)

== History ==
[[File:Virginia class submarine.jpg|thumb|Rendering of a ''Virginia''-class attack submarine]]

The class was developed under the codename Centurion, later renamed New SSN (NSSN).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gdeb.com/about/history/|title=General Dynamics Electric Boat - History|website=gdeb.com|access-date=21 October 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171019070946/http://www.gdeb.com/about/history/|archive-date=19 October 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name="SSN-774 Virginia class">{{cite web|url=http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/Entry1383.aspx |title=SSN-774 Virginia class |access-date=23 November 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130910002816/http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/entry1383.aspx |archive-date=10 September 2013}}</ref> The "Centurion Study" was initiated in February 1991.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://fas.org/man//dod-101/sys/ship/docs/920721-cr.htm |title=Navy Report on New Attack Submarine (Senate - July 21, 1992) |publisher=[[Federation of American Scientists]] |access-date=26 April 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150509232338/http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/920721-cr.htm |archive-date=9 May 2015 |url-status=live}}</ref> The ''Virginia''-class submarine was the first US Navy warship with its development coordinated using such [[3D modeling|3D visualization]] technology as [[CATIA]], which comprises [[computer-aided engineering]] (CAE), [[computer-aided design]] (CAD), [[computer-aided manufacturing]] (CAM), and [[product lifecycle|product lifecycle management]] (PLM). Design problems for Electric Boat—and maintenance problems for the Navy—ensued nonetheless.<ref name="RandCorp">{{cite journal|title=RAND Corporation-Virginia Case Study |journal=Learning from Experience |pages=61–92 |date=2011|jstor=10.7249/j.ctt3fh0zm.13 |last1=Schank |first1=John F. |last2=Ip |first2=Cesse |last3=Lacroix |first3=Frank W. |last4=Murphy |first4=Robert E. |last5=Arena |first5=Mark V. |last6=Kamarck |first6=Kristy N. |last7=Lee |first7=Gordon T. |isbn=9780833058966}}</ref><ref name="USW W99" /><ref name="submarinesuppliers1">{{cite web|url=http://www.submarinesuppliers.org/programs/index.php |title=Submarine Industrial Base Council |publisher=Submarinesuppliers.org |date=22 December 2008 |access-date=6 February 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120119163338/http://www.submarinesuppliers.org/programs/index.php |archive-date=19 January 2012}}</ref>

By 2007 approximately 35 million labor hours had been spent to design the ''Virginia'' class.<ref>{{cite book |url=http://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a478587.pdf |title=Sustaining U.S. Nuclear Submarine Design Capabilities |first1=John F. |last1=Schank |first2=Mark V. |last2=Arena |first3=Paul |last3=DeLuca |first4=Jessie |last4=Riposo |first5=Kimberly |last5=Curry |first6=Todd |last6=Weeks |first7=James |last7=Chiesa |publisher=National Defense Research Institute |date=2007 |isbn=978-0-8330-4160-9 |access-date=26 April 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141208221924/http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a478587.pdf |archive-date=8 December 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref> Constructing a single ''Virginia''-class submarine has required around nine million labor hours,<ref name="submarinesuppliers1" /><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.navalsubleague.com/NSL/default.aspx|title=Naval Submarine League |publisher=Navalsubleague.com| date=27 September 2012 |access-date=26 April 2015|url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140625012742/http://www.navalsubleague.com/NSL/default.aspx |archive-date=25 June 2014}}</ref><ref name="navalsubleague1">{{cite web
|url=http://www.navalsubleague.com/NSL/documents/Submarine%20Road%20Show%20NSL%2017%20Aug%202011%20NSL.ppsx
|title=Submarine Road Show
|publisher=navalsubleague.com
|date=17 August 2011
|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20131113065646/http://www.navalsubleague.com/NSL/documents/Submarine%20Road%20Show%20NSL%2017%20Aug%202011%20NSL.ppsx
|archive-date=13 November 2013
|access-date=27 April 2022}}</ref> and over 4,000 suppliers.<ref>{{cite web |last=Roberts |first=Jim |date=Winter 2011 |url=http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/Issues/Archives/issue_43/double_vision.html |title=Double Vision: Planning to Increase Virginia-Class Production |issue=43 |publisher=US Navy |access-date=26 April 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150923060516/http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/Issues/Archives/issue_43/double_vision.html |archive-date=23 September 2015 |url-status=dead}}</ref> Each submarine is projected to make 14–15 deployments during its 33-year service life.<ref name=Butler>{{cite web |last=Butler |first=John D.|url=http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2011-06/sweet-smell-acquisition-success |title=The Sweet Smell of Acquisition Success |publisher=U.S. Naval Institute |volume=137 |issue=6/1,300 |date=June 2011 |access-date=26 April 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150718071331/http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2011-06/sweet-smell-acquisition-success |archive-date=18 July 2015 |url-status=live}}</ref>

The ''Virginia'' class was intended in part as a less expensive alternative to the {{sclass|Seawolf|submarine|1}} ($1.8&nbsp;billion vs $2.8&nbsp;billion), whose production run was canceled after just three boats had been completed. To reduce costs, the ''Virginia''-class submarines use many "[[commercial off-the-shelf]]" (COTS) components, especially in their computers and data networks. Improvements in shipbuilding technology have trimmed production costs below the $1.8&nbsp;billion projected fiscal year 2009 dollars.<ref name="baker1005" />

In hearings before both [[U.S. House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] and [[U.S. Senate|Senate]] committees, the [[Congressional Research Service]] (CRS) and expert witnesses testified that the annual procurement rate of only one ''Virginia''-class boat—rising to two in 2012—would result in excessive unit production costs, yet an insufficient complement of attack submarines.<ref name="fas1">{{cite web |date=27 June 2000 |title=Statement of The Honorable Duncan Hunter, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Procurement, Submarine Force Structure and Modernization |url=https://fas.org/man/congress/2000/00-06-27hunter.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150612192741/http://fas.org/man/congress/2000/00-06-27hunter.htm |archive-date=12 June 2015 |access-date=26 April 2015 |publisher=[[Federation of American Scientists]] Military Analysis Network}}</ref> In a 10 March 2005 statement to the House Armed Services Committee, Ronald O'Rourke of the CRS testified that, assuming that the production rate remains as planned, "production economies of scale for submarines would continue to remain limited or poor."<ref name="orourke1">{{cite web |url=http://www.house.gov/hasc/testimony/109thcongress/Projection%20Forces/3-10-05O'RourkeCRS.pdf |title=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 |date=10 March 2005 |access-date=1 March 2008 |archive-url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20060604000350/http%3A//www%2Ehouse%2Egov/hasc/testimony/109thcongress/Projection%2520Forces/3%2D10%2D05O%27RourkeCRS%2Epdf |archive-date= 4 June 2006}}</ref>

In 2001, [[Newport News Shipbuilding]] and the [[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.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://auvac.org/configurations/view/197 |title=AUV System Spec Sheet Cutthroat LSV-2 configuration |publisher=Antonymous Undersea Vehicle Applications Center |access-date=26 April 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150505000859/http://auvac.org/configurations/view/197 |archive-date=5 May 2015 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/Issues/Archives/issue_11/submarine_stealth.html |title=Small Subs Provide Big Payoffs for Submarine Stealth|publisher=public.navy.mil |last=Fox |first=David M. |date=Spring 2001 |volume=3 |number=3 |access-date=26 April 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150605233334/http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/Issues/Archives/issue_11/submarine_stealth.html |archive-date=5 June 2015 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

The ''Virginia'' class is built through an industrial arrangement designed to maintain both GD Electric Boat and Newport News Shipbuilding, the only two U.S. shipyards capable of building nuclear-powered submarines.<ref name="fas3">{{cite web|url=https://fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/submarines/ssn774_virginia.html |title=SSN-774 Virginia-class NSSN New Attack Submarine |publisher=[[Federation of American Scientists]] |date=19 January 2009 |access-date=6 August 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110707133458/http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/submarines/ssn774_virginia.html |archive-date=7 July 2011}}</ref> Under the present arrangement, the Newport News facility builds the stern, habitability, 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."<ref name=RL32418>{{cite report |last=O'Rourke |first=Ronald |title=Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress |url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32418.pdf |date=26 March 2015 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |page=6 |access-date=4 June 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150628192435/http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32418.pdf |archive-date=28 June 2015 |url-status=live}}</ref> 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.

To get the submarine's price down to $2&nbsp;billion per submarine in FY-05 dollars, the Navy instituted a cost-reduction program to shave off approximately $400&nbsp;million of 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&nbsp;billion in FY-12. Under pressure from Congress, the Navy opted to start buying two boats per year in FY-11, meaning that officials would not be able to get the $2&nbsp;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&nbsp;million away from achieving the $2&nbsp;billion price goal, and would reach that target on schedule.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://insidedefense.com/secure/defense_docnum.asp?f=defense_2002.ask&docnum=NAVY-21-12-4|title=Cost reduction|access-date=25 March 2008}}{{dead link|date=May 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref>

The ''Virginia''-class Program Office received the David Packard Excellence in Acquisition Award in 1996, 1998, and 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."<ref>{{cite press release |url=http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=40781 |title=Navy's Virginia Class Program Recognized for Acquisition Excellence |location=Washington, DC |publisher=Team Submarines Public Affairs |date=8 November 2008 |access-date=26 April 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150605232956/http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=40781 |archive-date=5 June 2015 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

In December 2008, the Navy signed a $14&nbsp;billion contract with General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman to supply eight submarines. The contract required the delivery of one submarine in each of fiscal 2009 and 2010, and two submarines on each of fiscal 2011, 2012, and 2013.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2008/12/22/business/business-us-navy-submarines.html|title=General Dynamics And Northrop Awarded Submarine Deal|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=22 December 2008}}{{dead link|date=September 2010}}</ref> This contract was designed to bring the Navy's ''Virginia''-class fleet to 18 submarines. In December 2010, the [[United States Congress]] passed a defense authorization bill that expanded production to two subs per year.<ref>{{cite news |last=McDermott |first=Jennifer |date=23 December 2010 |title=House, Senate ok defense bill for 2011; sub plan stays on track |work=[[The Day (New London)|The Day]] |location=New London, Connecticut |url=http://www.theday.com/article/20101223/NWS09/312239514/-1/nws |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=26 April 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150923090031/http://www.theday.com/article/20101223/NWS09/312239514/-1/nws |archive-date=23 September 2015}}</ref> Two submarine-per-year production resumed on 2 September 2011 with commencement of {{USS|Washington|SSN-787|3}} construction.<ref name="ssn787">{{cite press release |url=http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Newswire2011/08SEP11-01.aspx |location=Washington, DC |publisher=NAVSEA – Naval Sea Systems Command |title=Construction Begins on SSN 787; Navy Transitions to Building Two Virginia Class Submarines Per Year |date=8 September 2011 |access-date=11 November 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120402175120/http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Newswire2011/08SEP11-01.aspx |archive-date=2 April 2012}}</ref>

On 21 June 2008, the Navy christened {{USS|New Hampshire|SSN-778|6}}, the first Block II submarine. This boat was delivered eight months ahead of schedule and $54&nbsp;million under budget. Block&nbsp;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&nbsp;million per boat, reducing the overall cost to $2&nbsp;billion per boat and the construction of two new boats per year. Beginning in 2010, new submarines of this class were to have included a software system that can monitor and reduce their [[Electromagnetism|electromagnetic]] signatures when needed.<ref>{{cite web |first=John |last=Pike |url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ssn-774-spiral-1.htm |title=SSN-774 Virginia-class NSSN New Attack Submarine |website=Global Security |access-date=26 April 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150605021257/http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ssn-774-spiral-1.htm |archive-date=5 June 2015 |url-status=live}}</ref>

The first full-duration six-month deployment was successfully carried out from 15 October 2009 to 13 April 2010.<ref>{{cite web|last=Communication |first=Mass |url=http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/csg2/Pages/VARFD.aspx |title=VARFD.aspx |publisher=Public.navy.mil |access-date=26 July 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140222101140/http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/csg2/Pages/VARFD.aspx |archive-date=22 February 2014}}</ref> Authorization of full-rate production and the declaration of full operational capability was achieved five months later.<ref>{{cite press release |author=<!-- This story was written by Naval Sea Systems Command Team Submarine Public Affairs --> |url=http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=55866 |title=Virginia Class Program Reaches Major Milestone |publisher=United States Navy |location=Washington, DC |date=10 October 2010 |access-date=26 July 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140222101140/http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=55866 |archive-date=22 February 2014 |url-status=dead}}</ref> In September 2010, it was found that [[Polyurethane|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.<ref>{{cite web |first=Craig |last=Hooper |url=http://nextnavy.com/virginia-class-when-does-hull-coating-separation-endanger-the-boat/ |title=Virginia Class: When does hull coating separation endanger the boat? |website=Next Navy |date=6 September 2010 |access-date=30 September 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120705034205/http://nextnavy.com/virginia-class-when-does-hull-coating-separation-endanger-the-boat/ |archive-date=5 July 2012 |url-status=live}}</ref> 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 ''Minnesota'' was built and found to have the same problem.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://nextnavy.com/the-virginia-peel-why-are-2-billion-dollar-subs-losing-their-skin/ |title=The Virginia Peel: Why are $2 Billion Dollar Subs Losing Their Skin? |last1=Hooper |first1=Craig |date=7 November 2013 |website=Next Navy |access-date=7 November 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131112025500/http://nextnavy.com/the-virginia-peel-why-are-2-billion-dollar-subs-losing-their-skin/ |archive-date=12 November 2013 |url-status=live}}</ref>

In 2013, just as two-per-year sub construction was supposed to commence, Congress failed to resolve the [[United States fiscal cliff]], forcing the Navy to attempt to "de-obligate" construction funds.<ref>{{cite web |author=Christopher Cavas |url=http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20130303/DEFREG02/303030004/U-S-Navy-Sets-Budget-Cutting-Plans-Motion |title=U.S. Navy Sets Budget-cutting Plans in Motion |publisher=Blogs.defensenews.com |date=2 March 2013 |access-date=22 July 2015}}{{dead link|date=August 2021|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref>

In April 2019, the CRS reported that the Navy estimated the cost of a boat was $2.8&nbsp;billion.<ref name="CRS2019" /> In July 2023, the CRS reported that the Navy estimates at the present production rate of two boats per year that the cost per boat when equipped with the additional Virginia Payload Module (VPM) mid-body section was $4.3&nbsp;billion.<ref name="CRS2023" />

On 14 September 2023, at a [[United_States_congressional_hearing#Confirmation_hearings|Senate confirmation hearing]], Admiral [[Lisa Franchetti]] said that the [[US Navy]] would have to work with builders to raise the rate of production from 1.2/year to 2.2/year to meet the AUKUS target.<ref name="2023-09-15_DN">[https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2023/09/14/aukus-agreement-requires-submarine-production-boost-franchetti-says/ AUKUS agreement requires submarine production boost, Franchetti says], Bryant Harris, [[Defense News]], 2023-09-15</ref>