The US Navy has conducted multiple detailed studies on AIP submarines. They are effective for short-range coastal defense. However the Navy isn't really tasked with that mission anymore. They're an expeditionary force and they need fast, high endurance submarines which can cross the Pacific Ocean in a matter of days or escort a nuclear-powered carrier. AIP submarines still can't do that. And even for the nuclear deterrent mission they lack the necessary submerged endurance.
> The US Navy has conducted multiple detailed studies on AIP submarines.
Indeed, and the technology has continued to improve. Thus, the linked article and related discussions.
> They're an expeditionary force and they need fast, high endurance submarines which can cross the Pacific Ocean in a matter of days or escort a nuclear-powered carrier.
Nobody was suggesting they could replace their hunter-killer fleet with AIPs. What was specifically discussed in-name was using them in their nuclear ballistic missile role.
> And even for the nuclear deterrent mission they lack the necessary submerged endurance.
I'd suggest you read the linked article before responding using outdated information. They now have four week endurance up from under a week many years ago. This was a valid critique, this isn't currently a valid critique.
I read the article and you're simply wrong. The critiques remain valid. Nuclear deterrent patrols last months, not weeks. And they need to make fairly fast transits to and from the patrol area.
The National Interest is basically a site written by dilettantes for fanboys. It's not a reliable source for deep analysis of defense procurement policy.
