To add to your point, they've recently discussed expanding the SSBN fleet to 16 instead of the planned 12 to get closer to a 1 to 1 replacement in terms of Trident missiles carried.Per the tireless (but, in fact, recently retired) Ronald O'Roarke :
“The existing capability we have includes 14 Ohio-class boats with 20 tubes. So that's 280 launch tubes. The program of record is a minimum of 12 Columbia with 16 tubes each, and that's 192. So that's 280 versus 192,” Correll the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Submarines are the tip of the spear for our nuclear capabilities. The problem is we can’t seem to build them fast enough,” Tuberville said. “What flexibility and capability does STRATCOM gain if we were able to field 16 Columbia class submarines versus 12?”
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker chimed in. "The answer is that we very much need to do that. Is that correct?”
Congress is going to receive the President's FY27 budget request this Friday (April 3rd), so I suspect once their plans become public we will have a much better understanding of what the "ideal" future fleet (surface, subsurface, support, logistics, fighter, bomber, etc) looks like.
A $1.5 trillion budget would completely change future fleet structure (for every branch) and as you pointed out the document from December doesn't seem to reflect that.
Given how disorganized and incompetent this administration is though, I honestly am not sure what to expect... Then you have to actually consider the reality of Congress funding a near ~50% increase in defense spending.

