We need to double submarine production…while cutting the budget. America faces a stark threat to its

[rangerrebew]

We need to double submarine production…while cutting the budget
America faces a stark threat to its naval dominance in China.
By Logan Nye

Posted on Mar 14, 2025

Reviewed By Tessa Robinson
 
America faces a stark threat to its naval dominance in China. America has attempted to upgrade the Pacific Fleet, build alliances in the region, and “pivot to Asia” since 2010. So we’re not sleeping on this. But we are hitting the snooze button over and over again. Importantly, strategic submarine production is way down and way behind.
 

China is an ascendant naval power and, since 2021, has a larger navy than the U.S. The U.S. fleet has fallen from a recent peak of 289 ships in active commission in 2014 to 239 today. Meanwhile, the Chinese fleet is growing and hovers somewhere near 400 vessels.



But America has a plan to stem the tide: Grow the fleet, especially of submarines, in U.S. and allied service.

Submarines in the Pacific
The value of the submarines becomes more apparent the more you look at Pacific operations. For instance, right now, China relies on ballistic missiles to keep American carrier groups away, but those missiles are essentially useless against the smaller and stealthier subs that can evade them entirely by diving. China’s growing fleet has little experience and is showing growing pains, especially in shipboard technology, and so it’s not clear that China can effectively hunt U.S. or allied submarines. American logistics in the Pacific, a strength overall, could be heavily challenged during a war, but submarines are self-reliant for months at a time.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/military-news/we-need-to-double-submarine-production-while-cutting-the-budget/

[rangerrebew]

I've been saying the same thing for over 50 years after serving on a bird farm.  Anyone who has been on the ocean knows that surface ships are so much weapon fodder and were even then.  Even then Russia had a satellite that could pinpoint any surface ship within 10 nautical miles.  However, it's hard to hit something you can't detect.  But no one listened to me, and I suspect no one will listen to this until actually combat forces the US to get honest with itself.  I'll bet the cost of a carrier would equal 2 or more subs.

[jafo2010]

You are way off on cost.

US Aircraft Carrier     -    $13 billion per unit

US Submarine    -    $2.8 billion per unit

And I am tired of hearing this nonsense too.  We have 10 nuclear powered aircraft carrier groups, China is struggling to have ONE, and they can't get it to work properly.

The U.S. Navy currently operates 71 submarines, comprising 53 fast-attack submarines, 14 ballistic-missile submarines, and 4 guided-missile submarines.

The Chinese submarine force
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Total Submarines: Around 60-65
Nuclear-Powered Submarines:
Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBNs): 6
Nuclear-Powered Attack Submarines (SSNs): 6
Diesel-Electric Submarines (SSKs): Around 48
Growth Projections: The PLAN is expected to continue growing its submarine fleet, with some projections estimating it could reach 80 submarines by 2035.
Type 093b Nuclear Submarines: China is developing a new class of nuclear attack submarines (Type 093b).

China has 48 diesel subs.  That means their force is a fraction of ours under the water.

And many of their ships are small, not nearly as lethal as our naval force.

It is like comparing a force of aircraft carriers to PT boats.  They do not project anywhere near the same lethality.

It is the same tired story used during the Cold War.  Russia is the big threat.  Russia was never a threat to the USA.  Yes, they have nuclear weapons, but the rest of their military was toothless, and we are seeing just how toothless with the 3 year+ war in Ukraine. 

You were all led to believe Russia was a threat to the entirety of Europe.  I don't think it was in years past, and certainly not now.

I have been to Russia three times, and I tell you, when they do not pay their military for six months at a time, when the military have to scour the countryside and rob people's dachas of fruits and vegetables for FOOD, etc, Russia is weaker than a paper tiger.

I think we could cut our military budget by 50% and still kick the posterior of any nation in the world.  I know there is waste with the military just like every other branch of the federal government.  We need to stop being deluded into believing we are falling behind anything.  These numbers mean a big fat nothing that they are trying to invoke fear with.

[jafo2010]

Another fact that never gets conveyed.  How  many ships in either the Russian or Chinese force can actually put to sea?  Much of Russia's Navy has been rusting away, literally, at anchor, and cannot sail anywhere.

Ukraine has actually SUNK a fair amount of Russia's sea going Navy.

[Fishrrman]

At some point in the future, the "art and science of detection" may find a way to make the previously-UN-locatable submerged submarines "locateable".

Once the "stealth" is lost, they too -- like the big carriers -- will become sittin' ducks.

(I wouldn't be surprised if we already have super-secret technology that can keep modestly-good track of the Russian and Chinese U-boats...)

[MeganC]

(I wouldn't be surprised if we already have super-secret technology that can keep modestly-good track of the Russian and Chinese U-boats...)

We're probably in their GPS computers.

[Smokin Joe]

At some point in the future, the "art and science of detection" may find a way to make the previously-UN-locatable submerged submarines "locateable".

Once the "stealth" is lost, they too -- like the big carriers -- will become sittin' ducks.

(I wouldn't be surprised if we already have super-secret technology that can keep modestly-good track of the Russian and Chinese U-boats...)

Modern diesel/electrics can be quieter than a nuke boat: there are no coolant pumps for reactors. While range and stamina are limited, they can be very effective within that envelope. In the end, t all boils down to torpedoes and warheads. The $64,000 dollar question is one of whether the Chinese (or anyone else for that matter) would use nuke warheads.