MORE Attack Submarines for the US Navy.

[seaman hornsby]

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/navy-plans-to-add-nearly-20-new-attack-submarines-by-2045-in-massive-surge

[X Bubblehead]

At the moment, the submarine community has become a model of efficiency when measured against the surface ship community when it comes to setting reasonable requirements and building the actual platforms. The Navy hasn't fielded a decent surface combatant since the Arleigh Burke destroyer. We simply cannot afford billion dollar+ destroyers. We're bankrupting our fleets by trying to incorporate unproven technology on economies of scale that are senseless.

To wit:

The DDX / Zumwalt class of destroyers (only three ended up being built because they were so expensive) was turned into a tactical test squadron - due to procurement cutbacks that raised the cost of the specified ammunition for its two main guns so high the Navy can't afford to fire them.

The one-size-fits-all philosophy that still-birthed the LCS has become a deepening black hole to flush the taxpayer's money down, with some ships moored to the pier for months awaiting parts and lousy at-sea reliability. Originally designed to have a modular payload capability for AAW, ASW, or Minesweeping, that concept fell apart too. The new Ford class carriers are being built with the expectation that the bugs will be discovered and systems redesigned AFTER they've been built, in order to speed up construction time, which isn't short anyway. The resulting horrendous cost over-runs have earned them the title of the most expensive ships ever built. The Ford is several years behind schedule with a few more to go before it is combat-capable. We need smaller carriers with more capable jets, rather than placing so many of our tactical eggs in a few baskets. One nuke detonated a hundred miles away at the right altitude will fry the electronics of a complete CVN battlegroup, just like flipping a light switch. No personnel killed, but the fleet is dead in the water. - That's a scenario Pentagon officials don't like to talk about, but it is stated Chinese doctrine. Disable our fleets at the First Island Chain. Fortunately, this capability works both ways, but without air superiority, there's no point in pressing a CVBG forward. Luckily, submarines are shielded by water from the effects of EMP.

In the race to a much larger Navy, there's an even more pressing question: Who is going to maintain these ships? The US is hard-pressed to keep the fleet it has operating, and it takes decades to create a skilled workforce at shipyards to do so. Ships are more complex than space shuttles and require a workforce with a lot of training and experience to keep them running. Closing MINSY was foolish twenty years ago and even worse now. We need more Naval shipyards, not less. Many cannot be reasonably expanded, so getting a few more built should be just as much a priority as building more vessels - of any type.

Because of the current ineptitude of Navy Surface Warfare planners, expect the submarine force to continue expanding and carry the lion's share of the burden should we come to blows with a near-peer "competitor".