Strikes on Iran showed the need for stealthy submarines that can launch a whole lot of missiles. The US Navy is about to lose that.
Ohio-class cruise-missile subs host massive firepower and are difficult to detect.
But they're going to be decommissioned in coming years.
A US Navy guided-missile submarine launched dozens of missiles into Iran as part of the larger US attack on the country's nuclear program, the vessel's Tomahawk cruise missiles doing significant damage.
President Donald Trump singled out US submarines and the fleet's guided-missile submarines after the strikes, praising them as "far and away the strongest and best equipment we have" and "the most powerful and lethal weapons ever built."
But despite the latest demonstration of their power, the days of the US fleet's biggest missile shooters are numbered.
No other US warship carries even close to as many cruise missiles as its four aging Ohio-class cruise missile subs, raising questions about coming capabilities and filling that gap.
Strikes on Iran
The US military launched a massive strike on Iran's nuclear program, targeting facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan on Saturday.
While much of the focus for the Operation Midnight Hammer strikes has been on the B-2 Spirit bombers and the huge bombs they dropped, another key part of the operation involved a Navy guided-missile submarine firing from an undisclosed location in the Middle East.
In comments about the operation, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine didn't specify which submarine was involved, and the Navy and the Office of the Secretary of Defense declined to discuss it due to operational security concerns.
The term "guided-missile submarine," which Caine used, refers to the Navy's Ohio-class SSGNs, and the large number of missiles launched during the operation also points to an Ohio-class boat.
Ohio-class submarines, built by General Dynamics' Electric Boat division, were originally a force of 18 nuclear-powered ballistic missile vessels first commissioned in 1981 with a sole mission of the highest stakes: carrying missiles with nuclear warheads. In the 2000s, the Navy converted four of them into cruise-missile submarines, ending their role in the nuclear forces and turning them into the US fleet's most stealthy and numerous missile shooters.
Although they're now 40 years old, these capable submarines are some of the quietest in the world, Bryan Clark, a retired Navy submarine officer and defense expert at the Hudson Institute, told Business Insider.
"This is in large part because of their size, which allows for substantial dampening and sound silencing equipment," he said, "as well as their aggressive maintenance program. Each SSGN carries 154 Tomahawk missiles and can carry about two dozen special operators."
SSGN is an abbreviation for "subsurface guided nuclear," with SS standing for submarine, G for guided missile, and N for nuclear propulsion.
Those four subs can launch more than half of the missiles the Navy's submarine fleet is able to fire from vertical launch systems, according to the service.
Even the newest attack subs carry only a small fraction of an SSGN's missile arsenal, and surface warships must carry a mix of missiles in their vertical launchers to defend against aerial threats.
This past weekend's attack on Iran included 75 precision-guided weapons in total, including GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetration bunker-buster bombs dropped by US Air Force B-2 Spirit stealth bombers. Trump, in the Monday Truth Social post that praised subs, said one SSGN had launched 30 Tomahawk missiles in total during the attack.
Reduced firepower
The Navy plans to decommission two of its Ohio-class SSGNs in 2026 and the other two in 2028, replacing them with Virginia-class Block V submarines. These won't be dedicated cruise missile submarines, but they will boast greater firepower than earlier Virginias.
Military leaders and experts have expressed concerns about the replacement plan and the loss of missile capacity.
"The US will experience a big drop in its capacity for stealthy missile attacks," Clark said. The Block V Virginia-class attack submarines will each be able to carry up to 40 Tomahawk missiles, far less than the Ohio SSGNs, a concern as the US attempts to turn its focus to higher-end threats and potential conflicts.
This means Navy officials will have to deploy four or more Virginia-class attack subs to fire as many long-range missiles, reducing the number of attack subs for other missions they are specially built for: surveillance and ship-killing.
Additionally, the Ohio-class SSGNs have two crews of about 150 sailors that rotate the sub back and forth, allowing it to maximize its deployed time. Over two decades of operations, these subs have earned reputations as workhorses.
Another problem is that the Block V submarines are facing years-long delays and rising costs due to persistent US Navy shipbuilding problems that could leave a capability gap.
A Navy review last year estimated the delay to contract delivery for Virginia Block Vs at approximately 24 months. Other top-priority programs, like the Constellation-class frigate, Virginia Block IV submarines, and Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines, are also behind schedule.
The Trump administration has made fixing the shipbuilding problems contributing to these delays a top priority, standing up an office in the White House dedicated to shipbuilding.
Recent congressional hearings have examined a number of problems, some dating back decades to the end of the Cold War. Issues like competitive pay for shipbuilders, workforce and labor problems, and training and shipbuilding capacity woes have repeatedly caused programs to run behind,
With the Virginia-class Block Vs delayed, retiring the Ohio-class submarines could limit the stealthy cruise-missile strike capabilities of the Navy's submarine force.
"Unless the Navy delays the Ohio retirements, the Navy's submarine-launched missile capacity will not return to today's levels until the mid-2030s," Clark said, when the Virginia Block Vs are expected to be completed.
And even when the Block Vs are delivered, they won't bring the same firepower.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
15 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
US Senate Confirms Susan Monarez as Director of the CDC
The US Senate confirmed President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Tuesday, as the federal agency adjusts to widespread layoffs and cancellations of public health programs. Susan Monarez will take the helm as director of the Atlanta-based CDC following a 51 to 47 vote, after Republicans rallied behind the president's pick. She was the acting director when Dave Weldon, Trump's original choice, was abruptly pulled after members expressed concerns over his vaccine views.


Fox News
15 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump admin vows to revoke scientific finding that's been the ‘central basis' of climate regulations
Fox News correspondent Mark Meredith reports on President Donald Trump's plans to annul prior climate policy on 'Special Report.'


Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
U.S.-China AI Competition In The Spotlight
WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 23: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during the "Winning the AI Race" summit ... More hosted by All‑In Podcast and Hill & Valley Forum at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium on July 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump signed executive orders related to his Artificial Intelligence Action Plan during the event. (Photo by) Recently both the United States and China have announced national policies for promoting the development of artificial intelligence. The Trump Administration's U.S. AI Action Plan features a deregulatory approach to driving innovation and building an American AI infrastructure that can be exported overseas. The Chinese Government AI plan instead proposes a global consensus-building organization that would seek a balance between AI development and security. The competition between these 2 contrasting approaches may be expected to have major implications for the adoption of AI around the world, and, thus, for the future of the global economy. A consistent deregulatory emphasis might be a winning American strategy. America's AI Action Plan 'America's AI Action Plan,' released by the White House on July 23, 2025, states that 'America must have the most powerful AI systems in the world,' and 'must also lead the world in creative and transformative application of these systems. Achieving these goals requires the Federal government to create the conditions where private-sector-led innovation can flourish.' The Action Plan features 3 pillars: (1) accelerate AI innovation; (2) build American AI infrastructure; and (3) lead in international AI diplomacy and security. The first pillar merits particular attention. The AI Innovation pillar includes a variety of specific initiatives designed to support the rapid adoption of and application of AI by government, businesses, and workers. Reducing regulatory burdens is the key policy that underpins the overall Trump AI innovation strategy. Most significantly, 'all Federal agencies . . . identify, revise, or repeal regulations, rules, memoranda, administrative orders, guidance documents, policy statements, and interagency agreements that unnecessarily hinder AI development or deployment.' The clear aim is to eliminate excessive federal AI regulation, to the extent legally possible. Biden-era Federal Trade Commission enforcement actions that 'advance theories of liability that unduly burden AI innovation' are to be set aside. State AI regulation is actively discouraged, to the extent allowed by law. The AI plan also takes aim at state AI regulations that interfere with the Federal Communications Commission's ability to carry out its statutory responsibilities. Furthermore, the Plan seeks to discourage excessive state-level AI regulation by steering AI-related discretionary federal funding away from states whose 'regulatory regimes may hinder the effectiveness of that funding or award.' The AI Action Plan's deregulatory tilt reflects continued support for the U.S. policy of 'permissionless innovation,' which drove the development of the internet from its beginnings in the 1990s. Permissionless innovation means 'that anyone should be able to innovate without having to seek permission from a government or other authority.' That policy allowed the internet to grow freely without U.S. Government regulatory authorization and oversight placed over the firms that developed it. The direct result was unprecedented innovation and huge economic dividends generated by U.S. firms, benefiting the American and global economies. Permissionless innovation does not mean freedom from legal requirements that protect health, safety, and business on the merits. AI innovators, like the internet pioneers that came before them, remain fully subject to the full range of U.S. civil and criminal laws, including national security, antitrust, consumer rights, environmental protection, and civil rights, to name just a few. By reducing the expected weight of regulatory burdens, the AI Plan may be expected to incentivize additional investments in and the faster implementation of AI systems. In turn, these effects could stimulate American competition in AI-related sectors and speed innovation, providing economic growth dividends and benefits to American businesses and consumers. American international competitiveness in AI and AI-related markets would benefit. Nine separate proposals are aimed at creating a robust American AI Infrastructure. These include deregulatory streamlined permitting for AI-supported infrastructure, promoting an AI-supportive electric grid, developing a skilled workforce for AI infrastructure, and ensuring cybersecurity. This pillar emphasizes exporting American AI to allies and partners; strengthening AI-related export controls, national security protections, and risk assessments; and countering Chinese influence in international governance bodies. The Action Plan notes that international organizations that are proposing AI governance frameworks and development strategies too often have advocated for burdensome regulations, vague 'codes of conduct' that promote cultural agendas that do not align with American values, or have been influenced by Chinese companies attempting to shape standards for facial recognition and surveillance. In response, the Action Plan recommends 'leverage[ing] the U.S. position in international diplomatic and standard-setting bodies to vigorously advocate for international AI governance approaches that promote innovation, reflect American values, and counter authoritarian influence.' Chinese Government Global Plan for AI Chinese Premier Li Qiang proposed a global organization to oversee the development of AI in a July 26 speech, just 3 days after the release of the American AI Action Plan. According to the Chinese Government, Li 'call[ed] for the early formation of a global framework and rules that have broad consensus to guide the development and use of AI.' Li noted the need 'to strike a balance between development and security.' He added that China is willing 'to offer more Chinese solutions.' In particular, 'China stands ready to undertake joint technical research with other countries, and will be more open in sharing open-source technology and products.' China's support for a new global AI authority (though cloaked in 'consensus-building' language) stands in sharp contrast to the Trump Administration's deregulatory, competition-driven American AI model, which the U.S. would seek to promote through economic diplomacy focused on existing international bodies and friendly nations. The Big Competition The 2 recent government announcements provide a preview of the coming global competition between contrasting American and Chinese AI models. China and the U.S. are widely regarded as the 2 major global players in AI. China China is a formidable force in AI development. China's 2017 New Generation AI Development Plan revealed its intention to become the global leader in AI by 2030. China's Government has worked closely with its tech giants to make them AI leaders, and has encouraged the collection of data to build AI models. Chinese agencies and businesses have introduced AI at all levels. China has aggressively sought to have Chinese AI systems adopted in Asia, Africa, and South America. Moreover, with government support, Chinese firms are opening offices and entering partnerships in the Middle East, Europe, and the U.S. China is also investing heavily in AI education and in AI military applications. The U.S. The U.S. still leads 'leads the world in large-scale AI development, driven in part by its leading talent and innovation ecosystem, but also by its access to cutting-edge 'compute' – the specialized chips, data centers, and infrastructure needed to train and deploy the most capable AI systems.' The U.S. Government is not emulating China's heavy government control over AI development. The AI Action Plan's provisions dealing with labor and infrastructure reflect a 'light touch' approach. They primarily feature encouragement through easing burdens on the private sector, rather than detailed industrial policy directives. Most significantly, the AI Action Plan has an overarching deregulatory focus. It leaves it to entrepreneurs to produce new AI innovations, free from government micromanagement. The Bottom Line Competition on the merits among competing AI systems, like competition in general, should tend to benefit society. It can be a 'win' for economic welfare worldwide, yielding an optimal array of products and services. The extent of direct Chinese Government involvement in developing and promoting its vision of AI is, however, a complicating factor. The U.S. Government may be expected to resist Chinese policies that would generate anticompetitive market distortions in AI markets. A consistent U.S. Government approach of deregulation and 'permissionless invitation' just might be the 'secret sauce' needed to achieve global success for American AI, assuming geopolitical obstacles are surmounted.