Less Subs, but More Capable.

[seaman hornsby]

Just because we are adding the ability to launch ANTI-SHIP TOMAHAWKS missiles to our submarines, does not mean we should have less attack submarines.

I think congress should fund the Navy to have "PLENTY" of submarines. Having to much is better than having not enough.

http://warisboring.com/articles/u-s-navy-packs-firepower-into-shrinking-sub-fleet/?mc_cid=daf6be9a75&mc_eid=1868557cec

[tom dougherty]

I agree that we should not allow the SSN level to go much lower. And the article you posted is seriously wrong in the following: "There’s little chance of the Navy boosting production of new submarines, which cost more than $2.5 billion apiece." An agreement earlier this year http://thediplomat.com/2014/05/us-na...-17-6-billion/ was for 10 Virginia class submarines at 17.6 billion. That's 1.76 billion per submarine. In fact, the program is held up as an example of a very successful cost containment program, with constant improvements in construction and acquisition costs.

I also think that at least 12 next generation SSBNs should be built ( 14 would be better). Meanwhile, we have some Congress Critters pushing for only 8, including the senator from my own Commonwealth of Massachusetts. If only 8, you would have 5 on patrol at any given time, and if they make up your major nuclear deterrent, 5 isn't enough.