James Holmes’ Post

And yet, at least for FY 25, according to information released in the last 48 hours, the U.S. will reduce the number of SSN hulls being constructed. Warship (and submarine) costs per unit continue to rise ultimately reducing the ability of the Navy to adequately build force strength related to the requirements of open conflict among a coalition of states against the PRC. There is little the Navy can do other than lobby for change which usually means a larger amount of defense dollars. In this case, the Congress and Executive must act – legislate smart maritime security policy that allows the market to produce additional civilian maritime industry capacity, and in so doing, drive individual military ship construction costs per unit of volume downward – only then can a Naval Construction Act produce the quantity of forces required for the national security challenges of the rest of the 21st Century. 

Anti-submarine warfare will turn into a logistical and interdiction war against submarine rearming and resupply. In the Western Pacific, the hubs of rearming and resupply operations are more vulnerable to precision attacks and strikes. This will limit the ability of the submarine forces to carry out tasks orders after the initial load of munitions were exhausted.

The US needs to outnumber every country and every aircraft and submarine. An attack ships aircraft carriers a military basis to be the best at the top of NATO to be the leaders, 2 protect and serve humans and create world peace to end. All of this destruction.

The answer is “more”

Forward-based conventional attack submarines... Our allies in the region (JMSDF, ROK, AUS) have them and operate them with confidence: but is too radical an idea for Rickover's Navy?