The only thing Navy experts agree upon is our 100% track
record of not knowing what the next conflict is going to look like or be
fought with. It's now clear that this and subsequent administrations will continue
reducing the Navy's 283 ship fleet while adding three flawed Littoral Combat
ships, two insanely expensive Virginia class submarines and a few capable,
yet untested, Zumwalt class Destroyers.
At a cost of $2.7 billion, I fear future leaders will not be willing to put the Virginia class submarines in harms way. Also the only current threat to U.S. submarines are the inherently quiet (batteries don't make noise) modern diesel electric submarines which have been purchased by China and hostile nations for as little as $200 million.
Converted submarines give battle commanders needed stealth, submerged protection, unmatched fire power and the ability to covertly insert Special Forces. The SSGN's have proven themselves in combat and I would argue having fourteen converted Los Angeles class SSGN's along with an extra four Ohio class SSGN's for the price of two insanely expensive Virginia class SSN's and three flawed Littoral Combat ships is more than a bargain. Lastly, having more "boats" will continue to develop the #1 weapon in the Navy's arsenal... The men and women who serve.
PS I was a surface warfare officer for eight years. I've never served on a submarine but conducted exercises and war games with them and frankly it was never a fair fight which is why, if the Navy continues to shrink, we need more subs.