They also advanced the case for a new breed of submarine, one that would pack six times as much firepower as today's attack subs. By converting four soon-to-retire ballistic-missile submarines–the "boomers" that carry long-range nuclear missiles–into Tomahawk cannons, the Navy could produce a Stealth weapon system that on its own could "take down a country for a week," says one advocate. The bristling sub–known as an SSGN–would put hundreds more Tomahawks at sea and free up the thinly spread Navy fleet for other missions.

Too pricey? But not everyone supports the megabuck upgrade. "There are some parochialisms," admits a senior Navy official. One admiral says the cost–at least $500 million to convert each of four submarines–would be far better spent on the Navy's futuristic DD21 destroyer, due in 2010. Others in the Navy believe submarine funds should be used instead to extend the life of current subs. Another possible hitch: Arms-control treaties could double the cost of converting the old boomers, unless the Russians approve changes.

On SSGNs, the huge Trident nuclear missiles in 40-foot-deep tubes would be replaced by cylinders containing seven Tomahawks apiece. Each sub's 154 cruise missiles would amount to three quarters as many as were fired into Yugoslavia–by 10 ships–during the entire war last year. The next war will probably rely even more heavily upon Tomahawks, which have become the weapon of choice among commanders who don't want to risk pilots or ground troops. The guided missiles aren't wonder weapons–they can accomplish little against troops in the field, for instance–but their uses are ever expanding. NATO, for instance, used Tomahawks to crater Serbian runways and wreck air-defense sites, jobs for which they were never intended.

A submerged Tomahawk arsenal could also make the Navy's fleet more flexible. The Pentagon keeps about 300 Tomahawk missiles in the Persian Gulf at any one time should Saddam Hussein act up. That requires "moving ships around in the theater like pucks," says one admiral. With one SSGN in the Persian Gulf accounting for nearly half of the needed inventory, other Tomahawk carriers such as cruisers or destroyers could patrol elsewhere. Attack subs could do more eavesdropping and other intelligence missions. During the Kosovo war, one submarine conducting surveillance in the North Atlantic suddenly had to steam to the Adriatic so that its Tomahawks would be at the ready.

In addition to its firepower, military futurists tout the SSGN's ability to hide. As satellites and other surveillance systems become more widespread, says Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, "all activities on the surface of the Earth will become more observable." Foreign nations such as China, Iran, and Iraq can easily track U.S. ships off their coastlines, and in a war or other crisis they would be able to conceal military activity if they knew U.S. ships were lurking offshore. An SSGN, however, could sneak close to the coast, "ripple fire" all of its missiles within six minutes, and rapidly steal away.

It could also be rigged for extended special operations missions, such as scouting coastlines prior to an invasion or conducting surveillance of enemy missile sites. Its huge belly could fit up to 66 SEALs or other commandos, far more than can fit in an attack submarine; a minisub, now being developed to ferry them to and from the beach, would be affixed to the bow. "There are not many missions in which 66 SEALs would play," notes one admiral. Still, the project will most likely attract congressional support, especially in districts where boomer fleets are based. An internal Pentagon study recently found that even at its highest cost estimate, the SSGN would provide more bang for the buck than the Navy's coveted DD21 destroyer. With less than six months before the Navy must decide whether to regenerate the retiring boomers or cut them up, this may be one submarine battle that soon breaks out into the open.

 SUBSIM Review