I've written that we need to push our Navy close to shore and that smaller surface vessels and diesel-electrics subs are useful for this role:
Our Navy is supreme in the blue waters. The brown waters could use a little attention, I think. I think these vessels could also be of use in the Taiwan Strait, for that matter, along with the new LCS and LSC classes. Based out of Guam or Okinawa, they could make the trip to the Taiwan Strait and bring American power directly into the contested body of water.
Modern diesel-electrics would be useful in this role, too.
Yet our Navy resists non-nuclear boats, even obstructing Taiwan's acquisition of submarines to avoid setting the stage for American non-nuclear boats replacing nuclear boats.
The most recent Naval Institute Proceedings has an article by Norman Polmar arguing for building American diesel-electrics both for special littoral work and for training our forces to fight increasingly capable non-nuclear boats out there.
Polmar argues that the traditional reason for opposing these non-nuclear boats and keeping nuclear boats is the transit issue (reflecting the "tyranny of distance": the nearly constant factor of fighting far from home that we must always overcome. An advantage in that we do not face major threats close by, to be sure, but a real limiting factor for projecting our power), which I've acknowledged. That is, patrol areas are so far from our ports that conventionally powered subs take too long to get to their patrol stations.
However, there is no reason these boats have to transit from the continental United States for each mission. Why not base them near their patrol areas and fly in the crews as we do for smaller patrol vessels that have similar transit issues?
Honestly, debate the value of the diesel-electrics and if they are worth acquiring, use a little innovation--that we are already doing for small surface combatants--to make them part of our arsenal.
