Murky Waters for the Supersub

By Bruce van Voorst/Washington

Measuring 353 ft. from stem to stern and a potbellied 40 ft. across at the waist, the U.S. Navy's proposed SSN-21 Seawolf-class nuclear attack submarine looks more like a whale with a weight problem than a swift and silent undersea marauder. Yet when the first of a projected 30 Seawolfs sets to sea in 1995, her proponents hope she will live up to her name by proving to be a deadly hunter-killer beneath the waves. "The Seawolf," says the Navy's top submariner, Vice Admiral Bruce DeMars, "will be the supersub of the 21st century."

But at more than $1.8 billion apiece, the Seawolfs may turn out to be the superduds of undersea warfare. Last week widely respected Congressional Staff Aide Anthony Battista declared that the Seawolf could not compete with faster, quieter Soviet subs and that the Navy should scrap it. Reaction to this broadside was swift. "We continue to have, by far, the finest submarines in the world," retorted Navy Secretary James Webb.

The Navy has good reason to be sensitive to charges that Soviet submarine technology has grabbed the lead. As naval exercises repeatedly demonstrate, a battle for control of the seas would largely be fought underwater. The U.S. Navy wants the Seawolf to track and destroy Soviet missile submarines before they can launch their deadly cargoes, and to neutralize Soviet attack subs before they can sink the U.S.'s vital missile-launching Trident fleet.

Capable of cruising more than 1,000 ft. below the ocean surface at speeds up to 35 knots, the Seawolf will carry an arsenal of sophisticated acoustical homing torpedoes that can track and attack submarines and surface ships. From almost 100 ft. down, a mix of nuclear-tipped or conventional missiles and mines will be launched through eight large-bore torpedo tubes.

The Seawolf's high-tensile steel hull will withstand pressures of 100,000 lbs. per sq. in., permitting the sub to dive to depths between layers of water at different temperatures where it can hide from enemy sonar. When it comes time to surface, not even the polar ice cap will be able to keep the Seawolf down. The low, streamlined sail -- conning tower to landlubbers -- will be hardened to absorb the shock of breaking through the ice. Retractable bow planes will permit the Seawolf to navigate under the Arctic, the huge (5.4 million sq. mi.) new battleground of underwater war. The multiblade, controllable-pitch screw propeller will be encased in a meticulously designed shroud to reduce noise and allow the boat to sneak up on its prey.

Yet, for all this hoped-for capability, many top defense experts wonder if the Seawolf truly is the right sub at the right cost at the right time. In the past, the Navy has relied on vastly superior technology to nullify the Soviets' 3-to-1 numerical advantage in submarines. But rather suddenly, the U.S. lead in submarine technology has seriously eroded. Says Admiral Carlisle Trost, Chief of Naval Operations: "The Soviets are where we thought they'd be in the mid-1990s."

Last year retired British Navy Captain John Moore, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, declared that the Soviets had taken a dramatic lead in submarine design since the foremost U.S. attack-submarine class, the Los Angeles, was commissioned in 1976. "The Soviet navy has introduced four classes of nuclear attack submarines, all with higher speeds than the Los Angeles'," said Moore, adding that Soviet subs could dive deeper and had more efficient nuclear reactors.

The Soviet improvements are particularly unsettling because they have been made in the most critical life-and-death factor in underseas warfare: noise reduction. Until recently, U.S. submariners joked about the clanging and clanking of Soviet subs, at times picked up quite literally all the way across the Atlantic. In October 1986, however, confidence in the Navy's ability to detect Soviet subs was shaken when the attack submarine U.S.S. Augusta, cruising underwater off Gibraltar, collided with a Soviet submarine it had not heard.

The dramatic turn in Soviet noise reduction has fueled the debate over whether the Seawolf can perform its assigned task. Even with redesigned specifications, the sub cannot dive as deep or sprint as fast as the newest Soviet models. Its computer brain, which with ancillary equipment weighs 32 tons and includes millions of lines of software programming, is still unproved and years behind schedule. Moreover, critics say the Seawolf, costing nearly three times as much as the Los Angeles-class subs, are simply too pricey. "Seawolf is so expensive it will cut our procurement in half at a time when we need more, not fewer, advanced submarines," says Naval Analyst Norman Polmar.

Instead of sinking billions into the Seawolf, some submarine experts suggest prolonging the active life of the Los Angeles subs. But the Navy argues it has literally run out of space for technological improvements in the older model. So tight is space that when the Louisville was commissioned in 1986, crew members were hard pressed to find a place to display a souvenir basketball autographed by members of the namesake Louisville national collegiate basketball champions.

With alternatives limited, most military experts are resigned to proceeding with Seawolf. "Seawolf will be built," says Ronald O'Rourke, a naval analyst at the Congressional Research Service. "But America has got to design a new attack-submarine class, and soon." Congress seems to agree: in approving $467.6 million for Seawolf construction this fiscal year, the legislators also set aside $100 million to begin research on a better sub.