Do enlarged Virginias retain the flexibility of attack submarines?

Is it better to build dedicated SSGNs than enlarge SSNs with major missile payloads?

Clarke favors a clear separation of strike and hunter-killer roles. Fleet argues that a Virginia with one payload module retains useful attack-submarine flexibility, while later accepting that further modules would justify an SSGN role.

An attack submarine's missile capability supplements its hunter-killer work, while an SSGN is organized primarily around missile strikes. Clarke argues that expanding Virginia's missile load changes the boat's operating characteristics and makes its strike payload too valuable to treat as an ordinary attack-submarine asset. Fleet defends the adaptation of a proven design: several boats can replace older strike platforms, cover more locations, and retain effective torpedoes, sensors, and quieting. They disagree over whether those retained capabilities make the enlarged boat interchangeable with a smaller Virginia in hunter-killer work. Growth from roughly 7,800 to 10,200 tons and a length second only to Ohio in American service illustrates the scale of the change. Missile totals remain disputed at this stage and are corrected later when the participants distinguish a single payload module from proposals with several.