For decades, the US has dominated global weapon system exports, deriving hundreds of billions of dollars from its defense industry. However, there is one all-powerful weapon that Washington systematically refuses to offer to the international market, even when dealing with its closest allies.
This choice leaves valuable contracts to fall into the hands of competitors like Germany and France, who now dominate the largest international submarine agreements, while the US prefers to protect its technological and strategic superiority rather than claim billions of dollars in exports.
The US paradox
The United States has been the world's largest exporter of defense equipment for over three decades. According to SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), the US accounted for 42% of global weapon system exports during the period 2021–2025. Characteristically, France, the second-largest weapon exporter globally, held just 9.8% of the market during the same period.
However, despite their dominance in global weapon exports, the US is absent from a particularly lucrative category of weapon systems, which could bring billions of dollars in additional revenue to American defense industries.
The paradox is that Washington remains outside this market, despite possessing leading technology in this specific sector for more than 50 years.
On July 6, Canada reportedly chose the German TKMS over South Korea's Hanwha for the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP), valued at nearly 30 billion dollars.
At the same time, India is in the final stage of signing a major agreement with ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) for Project 75(I). Both countries are strategic partners of the US. Therefore, the question reasonably arises as to why American defense companies did not even participate in bidding for these multi-billion-dollar deals.
And this, despite the fact that the US possesses not only the largest fleet of submarines in the world, but also some of the most advanced submarines.
US and Russia possess 66 submarines each
According to the Global Firepower Index 2026, both the US and Russia possess 66 submarines each.
The difference is that Russia operates a mix of conventional diesel-electric and nuclear-powered submarines, whereas all American submarines are nuclear-powered.
China follows with 61 submarines, also with a combination of conventional and nuclear-powered units.
At the same time, Russia (and previously the Soviet Union) has exported submarines to countries such as Algeria, Bulgaria, China, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, North Korea, Poland, Romania, Syria, Venezuela, and Vietnam. China has supplied submarines to Pakistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh, and Thailand.
In contrast, the US, despite their technological lead, have not exported a single submarine in the last 50 years. The last export of an American submarine took place in 1973 to Taiwan. Thus, the question arises: why has the largest exporting power in the weapons sector not sold a single submarine for half a century?
The era when the US exported submarines
The US was not always negative toward submarine exports.
After World War II, they emerged as one of the largest exporters of submarines globally.
During the war, they constructed more than 200 submarines and, when operations concluded, possessed 232 submarines in active service.
A few years later, with the onset of the Cold War, the US initiated an extensive modernization program for their fleet.
Within the framework of this program, they retired hundreds of diesel-electric submarines of the Balao and Tench classes, which had been built during the final years of the war. Thus, a large stockpile of decommissioned submarines was created.
During the same period, Washington was funding the reconstruction of Europe through the Marshall Plan and reinforcing the military capabilities of its European allies, so as to establish effective deterrence against the Soviet Union.
In this context, it was decided to transfer the older conventional submarines to allies.
Between 1950 and 1970, the US exported nearly 50 submarines to countries such as Turkey, Spain, Italy, Greece, the Netherlands, Canada, Taiwan, and others. Indeed, during the period 1945–1975, the US accounted for approximately 25% of global conventional submarine exports. Most of these were Balao-class submarines that had been built during World War II.
In 1954, however, the US launched USS Nautilus (SSN-571), the first nuclear-powered submarine in the world, inaugurating the new era.
Nuclear-powered submarines possess significant advantages: practically unlimited endurance, the ability to remain submerged for months, high sustained underwater speeds, and operational range across the entire planet.
Following the appearance of the Nautilus, the US gradually began to abandon conventional submarines. After 1954, they constructed only three submarines of the Barbel class with diesel-electric propulsion.
In the early 1960s, all new attack submarines of the US Navy were nuclear-powered.
The last conventional attack submarine, USS Blueback, was retired in 1990, leaving the American navy to operate exclusively with nuclear-powered submarines.
Why the US does not export nuclear-powered submarines
American nuclear-powered submarines are considered top in their class. However, Washington has not exported this technology to almost any country for a series of reasons.
The US Navy historically opposes even the export of conventional submarines, as it considers that the proliferation of related technology would complicate the safe operational activity of American forces in coastal waters worldwide.
Submarines are included in the US Munitions List, and their exports are governed by strict laws, such as ITAR and the Arms Export Control Act.
Regarding nuclear propulsion, restrictions are even stricter, as the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act also apply.
Nuclear propulsion technology, acoustic quieting technology, advanced sonar, and combat systems of American submarines are considered among the most classified military "jewels" of the US.
Washington has consciously chosen not to disseminate this technology, so as to maintain its superiority in undersea warfare.
In fact, for decades it refused to share it even with close allies, such as France, Japan, Taiwan, or Canada. The only exceptions are the United Kingdom and Australia.
With the United Kingdom, a special agreement for cooperation in nuclear propulsion has existed since 1958, through the US-UK Mutual Defense Agreement.
The US supplied the reactor for the first British nuclear-powered submarine, HMS Dreadnought, while cooperation continues to this day. However, this is a strategic partnership between allies and not a commercial export.
Correspondingly, in 2021, the US, the United Kingdom, and Australia signed the AUKUS agreement, through which the transfer of up to three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines to Australia is envisioned starting in the early 2030s.
Another important reason is that the American shipbuilding industry is already struggling to meet the needs of the US Navy itself for Virginia-class submarines. Within the framework of the fleet modernization program, the US Navy seeks to induct two to three new Virginia submarines each year until 2043.
International practice
It is not only the US that treats the export of nuclear-powered submarines with particular caution.
Today, only six countries possess nuclear-powered submarines: the US, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, and India.
Despite the fact that the US, Russia (and previously the Soviet Union), and the United Kingdom have operated such submarines for more than six decades, there is only one substantive example of transferring a nuclear-powered submarine to another country.
The Soviet Union leased the Charlie I-class nuclear-powered submarine (K-43) to India during the period 1988–1991, which was inducted into the Indian navy as INS Chakra.
Later, Russia leased an Akula-class submarine (Nerpa/K-152) to India as well, which served as INS Chakra II from 2012 to 2021.
The US, the United Kingdom, France, China, and India have never exported or leased a nuclear-powered submarine to another country. Characteristically, even China refused to grant this technology to its close ally, Pakistan.
According to leaked documents, Islamabad had officially requested nuclear-powered submarine technology and sea-based nuclear deterrence capabilities against India from Beijing.
China rejected the request, citing international commitments regarding the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and avoiding a new regional nuclear arms race. Instead, it supplies Pakistan with eight conventional Hangor-class submarines under an agreement worth approximately 5 billion dollars.
Since the US no longer manufactures conventional diesel-electric submarines and continues to refuse the export of nuclear-powered units even to close allies, it remains essentially outside the global submarine market, which is currently dominated by countries like Germany, France, Russia, China, and Spain. Under current conditions, this situation is hardly expected to change in the near future.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών