The big story here is that we’re down to 270 ships.
When Reagan left office we had over 600.
Now talk of 350 ships is considered sufficient. Not buying it.
When Reagan left office we were still facing the Soviet Union and their huge navy. We don't face that threat anymore.
We need 450 ship navy. Other nations are expanding their fleets. We need to build railgun cruisers, Light, fast Drone carriers, and a Tall Ship—The USS United States—for the cadets at Anapolis. A presidental yacht as well to do deals!
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?