Your idea is not bad actually. For sure, as others have noted, submarine tech is not neglected at all, it has just as much funding as it needs. But, the idea o

Your idea is not bad actually. For sure, as others have noted, submarine tech is not neglected at all, it has just as much funding as it needs. But, the idea of making submarines the "modern equivalent of aircraft carriers" makes a lot of sense. The key is to understand what "equivalent" means. Aircraft carriers are the main tool of power projection. More precisely, aircraft are the main tool of power projection, for the reason they can deliver cheaply more ordnance over a distance of 500-1000 km than the alternatives. The alternatives nowadays are 2: missiles or going with your troops over there and using ground artillery. The second option does not exist in most of the cases, while the first is orders of magnitude more expensive. To give you a sense of how expensive it is, the 2020 US procurement of Tomahawk missiles is only 90 missiles [1]. So, if the Ohio submarine were to unload all its arsenal, that's a year's worth of missiles. An aircraft carrier can deliver tens of thousands of munitions, and can wage an air bombardment campaign for weeks. The future will be different though. The US Army is pursuing a 1000 mile gun. Once such guns enter production, all of a sudden aircraft will cease being the most economical ordnance delivery platform. I bet a version of such a supergun can be mounted on an Ohio-class submarine and at that point, they'll be able to take over a significant part of the power projection role for the US. [1] https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2020/fy2020_Weapons.pdf https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudg... [2]https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a29476778/army-long-range-cannon/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a29476778...