{"id":2193,"date":"2026-03-27T07:05:21","date_gmt":"2026-03-27T05:05:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/?p=2193"},"modified":"2025-12-31T18:47:41","modified_gmt":"2025-12-31T16:47:41","slug":"submarines-as-a-service-will-get-more-players-on-the-field-today","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/?p=2193","title":{"rendered":"Submarines \u201cAs-a-Service\u201d Will Get More Players on the Field Today"},"content":{"rendered":"

By VADM (Ret.) Jeff Trussler<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Incoming Navy Secretary John Phelan, a seasoned investor with decades in private equity, takes office with a clear mission: to rebuild America\u2019s Navy and revitalize the maritime industrial base. This will require bold, unconventional solutions to expand the fleet, integrate advanced combat capabilities, and, most importantly, restore fleet readiness. To do this, the Navy must look beyond traditional shipbuilding solutions. A \u201csubmarines-as-a-service\u201d model\u2014leveraging private industry and allied diesel-electric submarine producers\u2014presents a way to quickly field Navy-trained, civilian-crewed undersea vessels that can fill critical training and development gaps.<\/p>\n

The U.S. submarine industrial base that builds and sustains our existing fleet is not keeping pace with operational demands. Combatant Commanders\u2019 requests for submarine capability in theater \u00a0go unfulfilled. Demand for submarines to conduct tactical development, support undersea warfare training, provide support to RDT&E, and advance SSW concepts is not keeping up with the rapid advancements in technology. Without no change in course, the Navy risks ceding our undersea advantage in an era of renewed great power competition.<\/p>\n

The \u201cas-a-service\u201d model\u2014already proven in\u00a0air<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0space<\/a>\u2014could offer a solution by using\u00a0conventionally powered submarines<\/a>\u00a0to improve the readiness, lethality, and availability of our fast-attack SSN fleet. The goal is not to replace nuclear-powered SSNs but to ensure they remain focused on their most critical missions while using diesel-electric submarines for two key roles:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Providing platforms for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) of new undersea technologies. This would reduce the risk and cost of fielding new capabilities by thoroughly testing their performance and tactical applicability before pulling an SSN offline for months of installation, testing at sea, and removal.<\/li>\n
  2. Expanding training opportunities. U.S.-trained civilian crews operating conventionally powered submarines could act as adversary forces in exercises, helping undersea, surface, and air forces refine their anti-submarine warfare (ASW) skills. These platforms could also support personnel training and qualification pipelines, ensuring crews receive adequate at-sea experience before deploying on SSNs.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Several key allies\u2014including\u00a0Sweden<\/a>,\u00a0Japan<\/a>, Germany, and\u00a0South Korea<\/a>\u2014have robust industrial bases capable of producing diesel-electric submarines far faster than U.S. shipyards, which have not built a conventional submarine in decades. The Air Force already\u00a0leases fighter aircraft<\/a>\u00a0from Draken for training, the Space Force contracts SpaceX for satellite launches, and the\u00a0Navy\u2019s<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0Military Sealift Command leases from commercial providers. The same approach can work undersea.<\/p>\n

    The process is straightforward: The Navy partners with an innovative commercial entity that has relationships with allied submarine builders. This partner purchases and refits the submarines, which the Navy then leases for training and RDT&E. If the model proves successful, it could eventually support ISR and clandestine logistics in key theaters. While this would require a shift in thinking about operational authorities and employment, it would ensure the capability exists when needed.<\/p>\n

    The financial case for this approach is clear. According to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates, operating a Virginia-class SSN costs approximately $1.6 million per operational day. In contrast, a conventionally powered diesel-electric submarine can operate at a significantly lower daily cost\u2014approximately 40% less than an SSN. The math is simple: more submarines at a lower cost translate directly into increased readiness and strategic flexibility. Integrating conventionally powered submarines into the fleet would allow high-end SSNs to focus on their most pressing missions while providing the Navy with more platforms for training, experimentation, and operational support.<\/p>\n

    Some may argue that outsourcing submarine operations could erode institutional expertise or increase reliance on contractors. However, the \u201csubmarines-as-a-service\u201d model is designed to\u00a0complement, not replace<\/strong>\u00a0the Navy\u2019s core capabilities. By offloading lower-risk missions to commercially operated submarines with Navy-trained civilian crews, uniformed personnel can stay focused on high-end warfighting while maintaining operational proficiency. Similar models in air and space domains have strengthened\u2014not weakened\u2014warfighting readiness. Applying this approach to undersea operations would have the same effect.<\/p>\n

    The Navy must balance future innovation with present operational needs. A submarines-as-a-service model directly supports the Secretary of Defense\u2019s priorities by rapidly fielding proven technology to expand undersea capacity, enhancing lethality and readiness through more training opportunities, and matching threats to capabilities by freeing SSNs for high-end missions. Additionally, leveraging allied shipbuilders to provide diesel-electric submarines strengthens the defense industrial base, ensuring the U.S. can surge undersea capacity without further burdening domestic shipyards. Conventionally powered, manned submarines provide the critical bridge between today\u2019s force constraints and the long-term transition to SSN(X) and unmanned undersea vehicles.<\/p>\n

    The demand for undersea presence is growing, and the industrial base cannot keep up. The Navy cannot afford to wait for shipbuilding backlogs to clear or for unmanned technology to mature. A\u00a0submarines-as-a-service model provides an immediately viable, cost-effective, and operationally sound solution<\/strong>\u00a0to strengthen and maintain America\u2019s undersea dominance. The opportunity is there\u2014the Navy just needs to seize it.<\/p>\n

    <\/div>\n

    VADM (Ret.) Jeff Trussler was a career submarine officer and served as Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare and Director of Naval Intelligence from June 2020 to August 2023.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    By VADM (Ret.) Jeff Trussler Incoming Navy Secretary John Phelan, a seasoned investor with decades in private equity, takes office with a clear mission: to rebuild America\u2019s Navy and revitalize […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2194,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[30,37],"tags":[243],"class_list":["post-2193","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-naval","category-opinions","tag-submarines"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/SUBMARINES.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2193","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2193"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2193\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2375,"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2193\/revisions\/2375"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/2194"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2193"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2193"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2193"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}