Errr, yeah, but at the same time resoundingly - no.
Article fails to mention that submarines can be killed - which would also be costly. As I understand it 'a few' countries can kill a submarine - the whole article is based on a possible kill chain that 'a single' country might possibly develop in one of the potential futures to the actual present. A plan that revolves around one Tomahawk per DPI is costly...and the one target, one missile plan is fanciful. A submarine converted to perform disaster relief would be funny and costly - as would a submarine converted to do anything other than being quiet. A submarine trying to do some form of presence, poise or escalatory ops would be funny - or costly.
UCAVs. Brilliant idea. By the time the Ford is ready to pay off we should have loads. We should find something of adequate size and shape to carry loads of them and that way unlock their full potential. To be as flexible as possible this thing should move - preferably on the ocean. Let's call it an aircraft carrier shall we?