We never made it to Reagan’s 600 ship Navy. We got really close, but the decision to decommision the Garcia-class frigates (which were decrepiet death traps only kept in service to count towards the magic “600” number) doomed any chance of making it.
Additionally, the “600” figure included oilers, stores and ammo ships (and various classes of miscelaneous ship) that were then on the USN’s roles bearing the “USS” prefix. Those have now been moved into US Naval Ship. (USNS prefix) with civilian crews and no longer count towards the USNs overall number.
That having been said, we definitely need more hulls than we currently have. The vexing problem is really that we don’t have the right mix of ships for the coverage responsibilities. For instance, do we really need a billion dollar plus Arleigh Burke class destroyer for acting as a platform for a Navy Seal to take a few Somali pirates down with headshots? Or is an upgraded, Frigate-rated LCS (which in their current form are complete underkill to the Burke’s overkill) better? Especially if we can keep mission creep to a minimum and get a couple/few LCS “Frigate” variants for the price of a Burke?
I agree with your emphasis on a more rational deployment of ships necessary for the tasks we’re going to need them for.
The Navy probably needs a top to bottom reassessment.
I also think that it’s vitally important that we give consideration to a situation where our carriers have suffered a devastating attack, and what your solid fall back position would be.