[Mariner]

"but no longer can match tactically the newest of non-nuc designs, and are better value when the mission is tailored to their strengths."

Indeed.

Let's see who prevails in deep, blue waters.

When protecting surface ships in transit, nothing beats a nuke. Nothing.

They have at least twice the speed, 4x the endurance and are quiet enough to not be detected except in the close littorals.

And they are big enough to carry a full boat-load of weapons.

That said, the US needs a fleet of 50 of these little DE boats to patrol the med, Persian Gulf and the China Seas. They are unsurpassed in that particular role.

[whistleduck]

Of course. The debate is an enduring one. Whether fighters or subs or land warfare. Each has competitive advantages and disadvantages. I agree the mix of the two (nuc and non-nuc) would maximize defense dollar value.

[MSF BU]

Gotland class were not in the running. Interesting.