The U.S. Navy Needs Diesel-Electric Submarines Now

[rangerrebew]

The U.S. Navy Needs Diesel-Electric Submarines Now
Story by James Holmes • Yesterday 7:02 PM

 
Navy news has been a mixed bag of late; is it ever otherwise?

The U.S. Navy delivered a classified shipbuilding plan to Congress this week espousing a 381-ship fleet, not counting uncrewed vessels, of which it wants 150 or so. That’s up from 299 in service today, and it would exceed the 355-ship fleet mandated by U.S. law by 26 hulls.
 
This is good news. Or it’s good news provided the shipbuilding complex can handle the extra load. And provided Congress levies enough taxpayer money at last to construct, operate, and maintain such a fleet.

Whether lawmakers will follow through remains a nettlesome question. After all, it’s pushing seven years since they imposed the 355-ship mandate. Yet the ship count dawdles around where it was back in 2016, even as Chinese shipyards mass-produce new surface combatants like sausages enroute to a 500-ship People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy fleet.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-u-s-navy-needs-diesel-electric-submarines-now/ar-AA1ebIuW?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=270e951e0014468bbf8bf21ccad5ec35&ei=10

[PeteS in CA]

The SSNs vs. SSKs argument has been a "thing" since at least the 1970s. SSKs need periodic refueling - in addition to the re-provisioning SSNs need, and if they are as capable as an SSN they are as complex to build. And if, as are other SSKs in other navies, they are smaller, then they are basically moderate-range coastal defense.