link to page 1 
Updated March 25, 2024
Navy Next-Generation Attack Submarine (SSN[X]) Program:
Background and Issues for Congress
Introduction
Submarine Construction Industrial Base
The Navy has been procuring Virginia-class nuclear
U.S. Navy submarines are built by General Dynamics’
powered attack submarines (SSNs) since FY1998. The
Electric Boat Division (GD/EB) of Groton, CT, and
Navy’s envisaged successor to the Virginia-class design is
Quonset Point, RI, and Huntington Ingalls Industries’
the Next-Generation Attack Submarine, or SSN(X). The
Newport News Shipbuilding (HII/NNS), of Newport News,
Navy’s FY2024 budget submission envisaged procuring the
VA. These are the only two shipyards in the country
first SSN(X) in FY2035. The Navy’s FY2025 budget
capable of building nuclear-powered ships. GD/EB builds
submission defers the envisaged procurement of the first
submarines only, while HII/NNS also builds nuclear-
SSN(X) from FY2035 to 2040 due, the Navy states, to
powered aircraft carriers. The submarine construction
limitations on the Navy’s total budget.
industrial base also includes hundreds of supplier firms, as
well as laboratories and research facilities, in numerous
Submarines in the U.S. Navy
states. Much of the material procured from supplier firms
The U.S. Navy operates nuclear-powered ballistic missile
for building submarines comes from sole-source suppliers.
submarines (SSBNs), nuclear-powered cruise missile and
special operations forces (SOF) submarines (SSGNs), and
SSN(X) Program
nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs). The SSNs are
general-purpose submarines that can perform a variety of
Program Designation
peacetime and wartime missions.
In the designation SSN(X), the “X” means that the exact
design of the boat has not yet been determined.
Virginia-Class Program
When procured at a rate of two boats per year, Virginia-
Procurement Schedule
class SSNs (Figure 1) equipped with the Virginia Payload
The Navy’s FY2024 budget submission envisaged
Module (VPM) have a current estimated procurement cost
procuring the first SSN(X) in FY2035. The Navy’s FY2025
of more than $4.5 billion per boat. For additional
budget submission defers the envisaged procurement of the
information on Navy submarine programs, see CRS Report
first SSN(X) from FY2035 to FY2040. The Navy’s FY2025
RL32418, Navy Virginia-Class Submarine Program and
30-year (FY2035-FY2054) shipbuilding plan states: “The
AUKUS Submarine Proposal: Background and Issues for
delay of SSN(X) construction start from the mid-2030s to
Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke, and CRS Report R41129,
the early 2040s presents a significant challenge to the
Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile
submarine design industrial base associated with the
Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress,
extended gap between the Columbia class and SSN(X)
by Ronald O'Rourke.
design programs, which the Navy will manage.”
Figure 1. Virginia-Class Attack Submarine (SSN)
Design of the SSN(X)
The Navy states that the SSN(X) “will be designed to
counter the growing threat posed by near peer adversary
competition for undersea supremacy. It will provide greater
speed, increased horizontal [i.e., torpedo-room] payload
capacity, improved acoustic superiority and non-acoustic
signatures, and higher operational availability. SSN(X) will
conduct full spectrum undersea warfare and be able to
coordinate with a larger contingent of off-hull vehicles,
sensors, and friendly forces.” (Budget-justification book for
FY2025 Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation,
Navy account, Vol. 3 [Budget Activity 5], p. 1299.)
Navy officials have stated that the Navy wants the SSN(X)
Source: Cropped version of photograph accompanying Dan Ward,
to incorporate the speed and payload of the Navy’s fast and
“Opinion: How Budget Pressure Prompted the Success of Virginia-
heavily armed Seawolf (SSN-21) class SSN design, the
Class Submarine Program,” USNI News, November 3, 2014. The
acoustic quietness and sensors of the Virginia-class design,
caption states that it shows USS Minnesota (SSN-783) under
and the operational availability and service life of the
construction in 2012 and credits the photograph to the U.S. Navy.
Columbia-class design. These requirements will likely
result in an SSN(X) design that is larger than the original
Virginia-class design, which has a submerged displacement
of about 7,800 tons, and possibly larger than the original
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Navy Next-Generation Attack Submarine (SSN[X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
SSN-21 design, which has a submerged displacement of
It is not practical to substitute LEU into existing
9,138 tons. Due to technological changes over the years for
naval fuel systems or to design a VIRGINIA Class
improved quieting and other purposes, the designs of U.S.
Submarine (VCS) replacement [i.e., the SSN(X)]
Navy submarines with similar payloads have generally been
around an unproven advanced LEU fuel concept.
growing in displacement from one generation to the next.
Developing a newly designed submarine capable of
later acceptance of an LEU reactor core would also
Potential Procurement Cost
involve insertion of substantial margin (e.g.,
An October 2023 Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
increased hull size) that would be difficult to
report on the Navy’s FY2024 30-year shipbuilding plan
estimate accurately at present and costly to
states that in constant FY2023 dollars, the SSN(X)’s
implement. If future United States policy requires a
average unit procurement cost is estimated at $6.7 billion to
shift to LEU, at least 15 years of advanced fuel
$7.0 billion by the Navy and $7.7 billion to $8.0 billion by
development and significant investment would be
CBO. CBO’s estimate is about 14% to 15% higher than the
Navy’s estimate. The CBO report states that CBO’s
required. This development timeline makes it
estimate assumes that the SSN(X) design would have a
impractical to design a lead ship VCS replacement
with an LEU reactor while meeting the Navy’s
submerged displacement of about 10,100 tons, about 11%
more than that of the SSN-21 design.
schedule.
Issues for Congress
Funding Request
Issues for Congress include the following:
FY2024
• whether the Navy has accurately identified the
The Navy’s proposed FY2024 budget requested $544.7
SSN(X)’s required capabilities and accurately analyzed
million in research and development funding for the
the impact that various required capabilities can have on
SSN(X) program, including $361.6 million in Project 2368
the SSN(X)’s cost;
(SSN[X] Class Submarine Development) within Program
• the potential impact of the SSN(X) program on funding
Element (PE) 0604850N (SSN[X]), which is line 154 in the
Navy’s FY202
that will be available for other Navy program priorities,
4 research and development account, and
particularly if CBO’s estimate of the SSN(X)’s
$183.1 million in Project 2370 (Next Generation Fast
procurement cost is more accurate than the Navy’s
Attack Nuclear Propulsion Development) within PE
estimate;
0603570N (Advanced Nuclear Power Systems), which is
line 47. The explanatory statement for the FY2024 DOD
• the potential impact of deferring procurement of the first Appropriations Act (Division A of H.R. 2882/P.L. 118-47
SSN(X) from FY2035 to FY2040 on the U.S. ability in
of March 23, 2024) reduces the request for line 154 by
the 2040s and beyond to maintain superiority in
$39.754 million for “Shipbuilder studies unjustified
undersea warfare and fulfill U.S. Navy missions;
growth” ($18.0 million), “NSWC [Naval Surface Warfare
• the details and adequacy of the Navy’s plan for
Center] studies unjustified growth” ($13.804 million), and
“Management and support costs unjustified growth” ($7.95
managing the impact on the submarine design industrial
million) (PDF page 217 of 314), and reduces the request for
base of deferring procurement of the first SSN(X) from
line 47 by $27.0 million for “Overestimation of SSN(X)
FY2035 to FY2040;
expenditures” (PDF page 212 of 314). The explanatory
• whether it would be technically feasible for the SSN(X)
statement directs the Comptroller Director to conduct a
to be powered by a reactor plant using low-enriched
comprehensive review of the Virginia-class program that is
uranium (LEU), rather than the highly enriched uranium
to include, among other things, the Navy’s plans for
(HEU) used on other Navy nuclear-powered ships,
SSN(X) development (PDF page 146 of 314).
particularly if procurement of the first SSN(X) is
deferred from FY2035 to FY2040, and if so, what
FY2025
impact that would have on nuclear arms control and
The Navy’s proposed FY2025 budget requests $586.9
nonproliferation efforts and SSN(X) costs and
million in research and development funding for the
capabilities; and
SSN(X) program, which is $208.0 million less than the
•
$794.9 million in research and development funding that
whether each SSN(X) should be built jointly by GD/EB
was programmed for FY2025 under the Navy’s FY2024
and HII/NNS (the approach used for building Virginia-
budget submission. The request for $586.9 million includes
class SSNs and, in modified form, for building
$348.8 million in Project 2368 (SSN[X] Class Submarine
Columbia-class SSBNs), or whether individual SSN(X)s
Development) within Program Element (PE) 0604850N
should instead be completely built within a given
(SSN[X]), which is line 155 in the Navy’s FY2025 research
shipyard (the separate-yard approach used for building
and development account, and $238.1 million in Project
earlier Navy SSNs and SSBNs).
2370 (Next Generation Fast Attack Nuclear Propulsion
Regarding the fifth issue above, a January 2020 Department
Development) within PE 0603570N (Advanced Nuclear
of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration
Power Systems), which is line 47.
(NNSA) report to Congress on the potential for using LEU
for the SSN(X) that was provided by the Navy to CRS in
Ronald O'Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs
unclassified form stated
IF11826
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Navy Next-Generation Attack Submarine (SSN[X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11826 · VERSION 28 · UPDATED