A little while back, I noted that the US Navy had adopted a new doctrine to help it deal with the proliferation of ultra-quiet modern diesel submarines in coastal & littoral waters. New doctrines are a big deal, and "coastal and littoral waters" is a definition that includes the Persian Gulf, the Straits of Malacca, and other critical global waterways.
Over at DID, I'm watching as that doctrine is matched with new capabilities. New UUVs (unmanned underwater vehicles) that tow sonars, or 'take point' on underwater scouting missions. Soon, they'll do more. There's also mine-hunting lasers, plans for advanced nets of sea sensors thast can operate semi-autonomously (and may end up networked with nearby weapons), "sea sparkers," and of course the USA's new littoral combat ship.
For a submarine-related look, note DID's coverage of India's recent $3 billion purchase of modern Scorpene subs, and how its rival navies will stack up in the years ahead.
If the USN got smart like it did in the 1920's, converting cruiser hulls into CVs, it would start thinking of SSNs and SSBNs as "carriers" for the UUVs and autonomously targetable weapons ('smart torpedoes') that the SSNs would deploy from a distance. That way you might not have to figure out how to hide a SSN in less than 300 feet of water. The new age diesel might be the right answer for Australia or India now, but long term the answer is that undersea warfare will go the way that surface warfare went in the 1940's. The admirals and captains might never see or hear directly who they are fighting against.
Good eye, Joe.
And what do you think we're doing with the first 4 Ohio-class boats, or the Virginia-class boats?
Besides, cruiser hulls (9 Clevelands, 2 Baltimores) became CVLs. Battlecruiser hulls (all 2 of them) became CVs.
For an interesting insider's view on the topic, particularly as it applies to submarine warfare, read this.
Cpt Ned- I'll defer to your exact details, but I'm not sure how I was implying that the USN wasn't doing what both of us seem to agree with. The issue as usual is "at what rate of conversion?" The stories I've read of the Ohio class conversion were generally premised upon finding new roles for surplus SSBNs, not finding hulls to meet critical, unmet needs in the first instance. In all it seemed more like how ICBM boosters now sport the name of Minotaur boosters for space experiments. Probably nobody would ever design and build Minotaurs, but as surplus they come cheap.