The depths of the ocean are growing more congested and contentious than ever before, and the U.S. Navy stands at a crossroads—can it retain its superiority in submarine warfare, or jeopardize the upper hand in a new era of undersea competition? The solution, the Navy believes, is in the SSN(X) program, its proposal to design and construct the next generation of attack submarines that will be powered by nuclear reactors. But as with every quantum leap in technology, the path forward is strewn with obstacles—technical, industrial, and strategic.
To appreciate why SSN(X) is important, it is helpful to go back. The mainstay of the American submarine force for decades was the Los Angeles-class, which excelled in speed, stealth, and Tomahawk missile firepower. Subsequently, there was the Seawolf-class—built to excel in deep-ocean capabilities, with more weapons capacity and endurance.
The Virginia-class subsequently emerged, designed for coastal operations and support of special forces, with advancements such as photonics masts and module payload tubes. Each generation was a reaction to evolving mission requirements, stretching the boundaries of design and capability.
Today, SSN(X) is being imagined as the most advanced attack submarine ever constructed. The Navy’s vision is to combine the best characteristics of its predecessors: the speed and payload of the Seawolf, the stealth and sensors of the Virginia, and the extended life and availability of the Columbia-class. The outcome will probably be a bigger submarine than any in service today, capable of carrying more armaments, being operated at the highest level of stealth, and fully integrating with unmanned underwater vehicles and advanced sensor networks.
Ambition is expensive, however. The initial plan to deliver the first SSN(X) was for 2035, but production setbacks have moved that closer to 2040. One of the primary reasons is stress on the industrial base—shipyards and contractors are already at capacity constructing Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines while maintaining Virginia-class production. Any reduction in skilled labor or spares availability threatens to create bottlenecks impacting not only SSN(X), but the entire fleet.
Money is another area of contention. The Navy estimates that the SSN(X) will cost around $5.6 billion for each one, but outside estimates put the price tag as high as $7.2 billion—nearly twice the cost of a Virginia-class submarine with the Virginia Payload Module. With several high-priced programs vying for dollars, lawmakers will have to make difficult choices about where to spend limited defense funds.
On the design front, SSN(X) will be based extensively on digital engineering, artificial intelligence, and analytics. It’s being designed to counter manned and unmanned threats, work in highly defended seas, and have secure communications in multiple domains.
One of the most challenging issues is undersea networking—radio waves don’t propagate very well underwater, so the Navy is looking at new gateway systems to transform acoustic data into usable intelligence for surface ships, aircraft, and command centers. If successful, submarines might be able to share real-time data with other platforms, revolutionizing how undersea operations are coordinated.
Allied partnerships are also defining this future. The AUKUS deal among the U.S., U.K., and Australia is not only political in nature—it’s a realistic blueprint for increasing allied submarine capabilities and sharing cutting-edge technology. Shortly, Australia will buy Virginia-class submarines, and subsequently co-design a new nuclear-powered submarine, SSN-AUKUS, along with U.S. and U.K. contributions. This collaboration is driving investment in shipbuilding facilities and training, advantages that could also sustain the SSN(X) program.
Nevertheless, cooperation in nuclear propulsion technology is a delicate issue. Although it enhances ties with some allies, it calls into question non-proliferation and how these arrangements are handled. The U.S. must carefully weigh these concerns to maintain alliances intact and prevent diplomatic tension.
Ultimately, SSN(X) is a high-stakes gamble to ensure the U.S. remains at the head of the silent competition underwater. It will succeed or fail based on whether or not the Navy can maintain funding for the program, remove industry bottlenecks, and integrate the lessons of allied cooperation fully. Time is of the essence, and the undersea dominance race has already begun. The submarine that will finally emerge from the SSN(X) program won’t simply be another warship—it could shape the future of undersea warfare for decades to come.
