- The submarines (boats!) like the USS Minnesota are fast-attack submarines. Their primary mission is anti-shipping and sea control, not nuclear deterrence. While there's some talk I understand of bringing back the nuclear-armed version of the Tomahawk which the Virginia-class could then carry; this is not their primary mission. The Ohios and follow on Columbias will do this. The fast-attack subs will to counter the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN)
- I've seen a variety of articles over the past several years talking about how AI and advanced signal processing will make submarines obsolete. This article does the same, but is very vague on the details, then proceeds to state how there's things that complicate this (drones, other traffic.) When they say "AI", what I think they really mean is machine learning, and certainly, this helps. But noise is still subject to the inverse square law, and so there's no magical detection of everything everywhere even if advanced processing makes it a lot easier than before. It's also important to point out that this works in both directions. So if the PLAN is using better sensors and processing, you bet the U.S. and other navies are as well.
- Which brings me to this point that the article doesn't address. "If not the submarine, then what?" The Chieftain (youtube) did a great video on this when there was a lot of talk on the tank being obsolete after watching battles in Ukraine. (He disarms this pretty well). While there are new threats to submarines, the type gives capabilities that aircraft and surface ships cannot match, and until such a combination of features comes about that fulfills the same roles and provides the same effects as a submarine, then it won't be replaced.
- I wanna touch on the AUKUS bit, as this article starts taking swipes at it for its expense, states that the submarines will be easily detectable, but then says "just get AIP boats (Air independent propulsion)." There's a valid debate that can occur over what the best bang-for-the-buck is for Australia, and some questionable aspects about the deal (like whether we can actually build the boats on time). But in my opinion, Australia had a very valid reason for going that route that the author glosses over when touting AIP boats. They do not even remotely reach the capabilities of a nuclear boat. AIP boats are something of a misnomer; they do need oxygen, they just carry it with them. It allows them to stay submerged longer, but they're still carrying a much less energy dense fuel, and now they have to carry even more of it underwater. This is fine for Europe's needs, where most operations are going to be close to shore and not far from their bases such as in the Baltic Sea, North Sea, and Mediterranean. AIP is an excellent choice there! But the Pacific is vast, Australia is vast, and those boats are too short ranged and too slow to get anywhere they need to be within a reasonable amount of time in a conflict. Is Australia fights, they're going to want to do with their allies north, and that means in the South China Sea or Philippine Sea, not outside Darwin. The French boats they were originally ordering wouldn't give them that ability, and given they were hopelessly late as it was, they decided to go with a better option. Does Australia need to project that far north? Valid question. If they want a stay-at-home navy, go AIP. But they want to be part of the allied force, so they need something that can really endure and project, and that means 30+ knots sustained for thousands of kilometers. AIP boats can't do that.