199 Comments

Since a prompt jump in shipbuilding, especially SSNs, isn’t in the cards, are we aggressively pursuing overseas manufacturing of hulls and working on Congress and DoD to use the Defense Production Act to significantly step up production of critical and long lead time systems and parts?

Expand full comment

Do "we" have a checkbook that can pay for any of that? Will people take IOUs from someone $36 trillion in debt?

Expand full comment

I do not normally comment but this commentary is spot on- the growing fiscal mismanagement in government and the failure by Congress and the White House over the decades has led to a delusional situation where we are avoiding the train wreck that is coming. I fear we will pay in Sailors lives if the threat in the South China Seas materializes

Expand full comment

No one can be sure when the fiscal reckoning will finally arrive in full force, but the contest between interest payments on the national debt, mandatory payments (primarily Social Security and Medicare) and discretionary expenditures (defense and other government spending) is well underway.

It appears a smaller version (approx 240-250 "battle force" ships) of today's Navy is the inevitable result.

I suspect anticipated unit costs of next generation ships, subs and a/c will only accelerate overall ship count decline (CONSTELLATION FFG is a good example).

Look at rate of funded new construction vs decomm schedule.

Expand full comment

Bingo. That math and chart speaks for itself, and the story it tells should sober everyone up.

Expand full comment

Sober up or drive to drink?

Expand full comment

And yet the oceans have not gotten any smaller, so we resign ourselves to a regional naval power (unless you buy into the 1000 ship virtual navy of western civilization.) In 1946 the U.S. had the largest and most modern merchant fleet in the world protected by the largest navy. The integrated global supply chain that we have today developed because of that. In 78 years we have managed to flip it so that the CCP has the largest, most modern merchant fleet in the world and a navy rising to protect it around the globe. We are well down the course of Great Britain and I see no easy way to alter it.

Expand full comment

None of the recent CNO's have really pounded the table and made a strong case for a larger navy. Instead they hide behind slogans and buzzwords.

Expand full comment

…and were they rewarded or punished for such action?

Expand full comment

Everyone gets a medal.

Expand full comment

Burke, Zumwalt, Holloway, Hayward, Watkins and Trost all demanded more/better ships. submarines, and aircraft and all had good careers, Holloway event directly contradicted Harold Brown in SASC testimony, saying that OSD was wrong on its estimate of carriers needed for the Navy. I would like to see a CNO say that they disagree with OSD on ship numbers and funding. Not sure any would today.

Expand full comment

Not familiar with them all, but Zumwalt clearly provided an affordable way to get there with the ask.

Expand full comment

Better to not have an OSD.

Expand full comment

Burke and Trost in the same sentence.:.. nah.

Expand full comment

Different guys for sure, but both to their credit spoke their minds. Burke even said later (after the Bay of Pigs,) that he and other flag and general officers should have pounded the table and demanded more forceful action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5rqu4rzTE4 ADM Burke and Admiral Connelly talk here about the challenges of OSD rule and McNamara.

Expand full comment

Aka Revolt of the Admirals

Expand full comment

Sadly most not willing. Its been too long since Goldwater Nichols made many of them just members of the joint purple team.

Expand full comment

CNOs...nor SECNAV.

Expand full comment

The economics PhDs and MBAs got us in this mess. We need more engineers and scientists not economists.

Expand full comment

Economist can easily solve the problem. Assume you have 600 ships…..

Expand full comment

I was going to make a similar comment. I have an economics PhD, and unfortunately many of the people who do are disinclined to say “government spending needs to shrink because we can’t pay for everything” and instead pretend we can grow out from under the debt. The government buys the economists it wants to say what it wants; Truth has a relatively small marketing budget.

Expand full comment

The way I see it, the size of the pie remains the same, the number of diners increases, the slices become smaller, and smaller. We all get pretty thin in the end.

Expand full comment

pie is getting smaller due to lack of ingredients

Expand full comment

The debt would not be so bad if it were used to acquire productive assets like new bridges and roads. Instead we squander our money on endless wars.

Expand full comment

Endless wars and badly designed social programs. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are eating up the revenue by themselves. The wars are not so much by comparison, though far more than one wants. The rest of the budget doesn’t help, either. At the end of the day we’ve been spending too much on everything.

Expand full comment

💯

Expand full comment

💯

Expand full comment

💯

Expand full comment

endless wars and endless gimmedats

Expand full comment

Engineers...but soak them in military history. The more they understand about the operator's perspective, the better.

Expand full comment

Soak them in operating out in the field with the operators. Helps if the operators know a trade aside from the pure shooting side of things too.

Expand full comment

Admiral Franchetti is a credit to her degree in journalism. Not a single split infinitive in her entire report.

Expand full comment

I'm not upvoting because I disagree. Admiral Franchetti is clearly trying to both walk the walk and talk the talk. What she is not getting, and what she is unlikely to get regardless of the election outcome in two weeks, is either the political support or the dollars necessary to do more than pontificate and needle gun a little rust off the worst spots. Here is her speech to the Atlantic Council that posted a few days ago. I would be interested in knowing what parts you disagree with. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4uKB5nrLjs

Expand full comment

Fine words butter no parsnips

Expand full comment

There is a strong percentage of Negative Nancys on the blog. What more can a CNO do than advocate strongly for a position? As one famous navalist once said, "its not the critic that counts."

Expand full comment

This is a fair comment. I share endeavor to persevere to engage in less dooming

Expand full comment

I had a very frustrating conversation with the candidate who will win the election for the U.S. House of representatives. When I asked him his thoughts on the shipbuilding crisis in the USN I got buzzwords, "privatization," and "fraud, waste and abuse." The lights were on, but nobody was home. His aides quickly moved him away. Our CNO can jawbone all she wants, but, is anybody listening?

Expand full comment

I would like to go against the current wisdom and call for a smaller navy by scrapping every unseaworthy vessel, husbanding our strength and protecting only those things absolutely vital to our security. Scrap DEI and the Green Agenda, too.

Jacky Fisher rebuilt the Royal Navy in ten years so we should start yesterday.

Expand full comment

The UK in Fisher's day had a great shipbuilding industry. We have almost none, and what we do have is struggling to keep up with our current trickle of orders. Our steel making, heavy industry, machine tool industry, ship yards, and the workers with the skills to do those jobs are almost all gone, with nowhere near sustaining our current limited capacities.

Buy American, but we don't have anyone who can build anything to sell us.

Expand full comment

That's not entirely true. We could have LSMs, MUSV, LUSV, and corvettes in short order if someone fed the little guys just a bit of the pie.

Expand full comment

We don't have many little guys, and few would be willing to jump through all the procurement bureaucratic hoops and certifications for what would likely be a one time small order. Worth a try, if we have funding in hand, but over-regulation may deter any potential takers.

Expand full comment

I'd say we have sufficient domestic boatyard and bargeyard capacity however you are correct about the willingness to jump through the procurement hoops. The juice wouldn't be worth the squeeze as it currently stands.

Expand full comment

C’mon. Everyone knows the best customer in the world slow pays his bills, issues constant change orders and shuts the project down early. Sound like any government we know?

Expand full comment

By the hulls NAVSEA free and outfitting can happen at the main yards, plug and play gear only. Plus we would need to not buy small batch. Multi year or nothing. Plus I don't want to buy anything we can't deliver at a rate of one per year aside from flat tops.

Expand full comment

"....scrapping every unseaworthy vessel..."? Not so fast, Pete. Shouldn't they be dismasted and beached in the mud as prison hulks?

Expand full comment

I'd knit pick that. My personal logistics has gotten way easier since I switched to a hybrid. Tank up every 2 weeks instead of one. No plug. Building ships with brand new, ancient tech propulsion plants cost us money and resources we don't have.

Expand full comment

Until the politicians get serious about fiscal restraint, or we magically have a super-boom in the economy without inflation (quit laughing at my dreams), we aren't likely to advance the military's cause much, any branch. Nearly all (all?) of the pols are in the business of getting re-elected and continue the gravy train, rather than doing the serious work they were supposedly elected to do. Our government has veered so far outside of its constitutional mandate that we aren't likely to see the needed change in priorities unless we elect someone like Milei. And I just don't see that happening with any candidate in the near future. Given what we've got, I think we need to prioritize acquisition of more SM3s and training to fight the enemy rather than coddle the marxists within our ranks. Just my opinion.

Expand full comment

There's a small chance in a second admin Trump, with Elon and other advisors, can try something like Milei. The alternative is terrifying.

Expand full comment

Don't forget that we are massively wasting the money we have. Recently you posted a graphic showing the purchase of SM-3 missiles. They were buying 12 missiles a year at 36 million dollars a piece. that is a third the price of an F-35 for a single expendable munition and the DOD is replete with this kind of thing. I work as an engineer for the USAF and the price increases have been ridiculous mainly due to horrible procurement decisions made 15-20 years ago and no one at a reasonable level has the authority to say this is ridiculous cancel the contracts and start over. I have been seeing price increases annually of 10%-20%. compound that over 10-15 years and we are paying 2-3 times as much for the same equipment relative to GDP. If we are going to fix the DOD the first thing that need to happen is the DFARs need to get thrown in the trash and we need to start again. There are literally thousands of pages of regulation that are constantly changing on how we procure things. It requires significant manning just to keep track of all the changes in regs much less implement them. The second thing that needs to get fixed is delegation of authority. The number of things I see not getting fixed because no one at the working level has authority to make a change and the person who does have the authority is so far up the chain of command that you will never get an appointment due to schedule is nuts. On top of that I see a lot of blame the messenger going on and my first and second line supervision is not willing to even try to take things up the chain because they are worried about getting blamed for not being able to handle it despite not having the authority.

Expand full comment

Yes, and there is a lot of redundancy and overlap. Don't the Patriot and SM-3 do about the same thing? Wouldn't it be cheaper to buy one missile type? Why do the Army and Marines use different tactical trucks (they used the same ones from the 1940s-2000)? There are tons of examples like this and it was pointed out in a good book "To Arm a Nation" written in the 1980s but nobody listened.

Expand full comment

Patriot is to SM3 what a 410 shotgun is to a 3.5" 10 gauge

Expand full comment

Maybe SM-2 and Patriot is a better comparison.

Expand full comment

PBAR missed graphic #2 on your earlier post. Someone needs to clean the chalk board and beat the erasers after class! https://cdrsalamander.substack.com/p/running-out-of-sm-3-at-sea

Expand full comment

Brian, I am 100% behind your point that we are wasting money. We need to stop procuring and start building. Why doesn't' the USAF build it's own missiles? Why doesn't the USN build it's own ships? When you spend money building weapons you own the infrastructure required to build weapons. When you spend money with LockMart, you own nothing.

Expand full comment

The U.S. arsenal system ended bc someone thought private guys (aerospace overlap with civil, for one) would be innovative….

See how that turned out.

Expand full comment

Private guys have one job - maximizing profit to shareholders. That is not the job of the USA or USN.

Expand full comment

Retired USAF Acqn mgr.

You are correct, we threw out mil specs and contracting/accounting/budget burden exploded.

We could not afford design tests, depended on under done “audits” and pencilwhipped ops tests.

We cut experienced GS, and revolving door Ed retired colonels.

Start by terminating dogs, no more F-35 until new engine passes muster..

Outside procurement a decade of refusing to O and M senseless theater ops.

Time for top down reform

Expand full comment

This. 100% this. It's the biggest reason why I support a two-vendor policy...real competition eliminates the need for a whole lot of oversight.

Expand full comment

Even so, weren't there two vendors for the LCS?

Expand full comment

Yes and no. There were two vendors, and they gave "half each" for two different ship classes.

Expand full comment

2 isn't competition. Don't kid yourself. Its illegal for them to collude, yet they can basically do so because they both have enough transparency the other can see what the other guy is doing.

Expand full comment

From my perspective keep in mind two ideas: One, those who keep voting for Congressional Representatives and Senators whose chief legislative goal is tax cuts are voting for those who will deliver a smaller less capable USN; Second, our debt is in dollars and we could direct the Federal Reserve (through an act of Congress) to pay off all debt if necessary. Done. Usually Big Time Concern over debt is usually a dog whistle by those who want lower taxes, not a larger, more capable Navy. YMMV.

Expand full comment

What you’re telling me Hilary is that you do not understand macroeconomics, money supply, and inflation.

Expand full comment

And the whole "full faith and credit" thing.

Expand full comment

Money Monetary Theory says “ you can print new fiat until you can’t.

Everyone forgets the second half.

Mainstream economist are MMT, and they have burned Milton Friedman’s books.

Expand full comment

MMT assumes the pecking order of fiat currencies will never change.

The problem, is that it has in the past, and may again.

Expand full comment

pretty sure we are close to "until you can't"

Expand full comment

I agree. The dollar (US Treasury dept) is competing with the pound, euro and yen in a race to the bottom, new monetary theory.

Federal reserve's .5% rate cut was likely a mistake, but they have an election to interfere in. They cannot disagree with treasury dept who keeps saying we are out of inflation and growing. If US is growing why lower rates?

Mortgage rates and 10 year treasury rates are up over the last month

Expand full comment

Perhaps so. I'll have to read the fine print on my Ph.D. in economics. What does yours say?

Expand full comment

Oh I’ll bet my pay check on Phib over your sheepskin. Any day.

Expand full comment

"PhD in economics"

[Tax cuts are bad]

I'm not seeing a lot to make me want to listen

Expand full comment

Tell me how exploding debt worked out for Weimar Germany.

Expand full comment

I personally consider any federal taxes beyond the tariffs and excise taxes of the early Republic to be an exanthema. Therefore I abhor politicians offering me 5% back of the 100% they've taken and it doesn't matter their leanings. All politicians are crooks and all political parties are criminal syndicates. I also recognize that I can't do a dadgum thing to change it. That said, after looking up your background I can definitely appreciate your early insight into farm labor while at the Dallas Fed. As someone whose father was the youngest of a bakers dozen in an Illinois farm family, I think that you may have artificially constrained your results on spousal farm labor contributions by simply thresholding the number of children under five in a farm household. By the time the first one or two children enter preadolescence, my family experience is that they start contributing to the child-rearing duties and greatly free up the spouse. Or, it could be my paternal grandmother was just filled with more piss and vinegar than most. Finally as to waving a wand and making the debt go away, I've learned never to underestimate the moneychangers populating the temple on their ability to work the books. Its not like there are laws of physics that they must respect.

Expand full comment

exanthema: my new "ex" word (all the best editorial words are "ex" words, e.g. excoriate, exsanguinate, execrable)

I've said for years that any "income tax" is an immoral construct designed to prevent the acquisition of generational wealth by the poors.

Expand full comment

Laffer curve

Expand full comment

No wonder our ships are covered with rust. Hasn't anyone in DC heard of Bristol fashion? Also, why does the Navy brass assume "our allies" will help take up the slack? Does that include China providing the fuel needed to replace the facilities Mr. Konrad wrote about. The same China that is the largest importer of crude oil in the world including from the USA (up 81% from 2022 to 2023)? As we cede more and more sectors of the maritime industry to China, we are ceding not only our defense, but our independence. We are squandering our maritime power and our maritime heritage. No "master and commander" fans in DC?

Expand full comment

I found this graph that extends the FRED numbers back to 1900. Clear eyed but very depressing. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/styles/1078/public/2020-09/56516-home-debt.png

Expand full comment

Something strange must have happened around 2016. I wonder what it was?

16, 17, 18 and the Federal Reserve killed our experiment; it's just taken 100 years to see it.

Expand full comment

And the Chinese are forcing the use of electric and LNG vehicles to reduce their oil needs, thus reducing the utility of one of our trump cards.

Expand full comment

If the Chinese decided to stop turning crude oil into plastic trinkets for shipment around the world and focused on munitions instead, their domestic capacity combined with the pipeline imports from Russia would be plenty.

Expand full comment

There is still a lot of waste and redundancy that could be cut in DoD to free up funds. The Air Force has massively drawn down its fleet in the last 20 years but hasn't been allowed to close down a base. Why is the funding still basically split 1/3, 1/3, and 1/3 between the departments? The Air Force/Navy are preparing for a different war than the Army... However, there are too many sacred cows that people are so emotionally invested in that you can't even have a conversation about (service academies, two armies, Navy's army has its own air force, etc.) let alone make an executable plan about.

Expand full comment

Base closings is a false economy.

Expand full comment

Yup. BRAC Round 1 closed everything that was obviously surplus to need. Round 3...had a lot of input from real estate developers, combined with desires from the services to do some consolidation/RIF. There were some very questionable decisions made in Round 3.

Expand full comment

To a lawyer there is “real” property, and everything else. Closing a base? No big deal, we can always open her back up.

It is the loss of the land that is criminal. Never give up real property. The loss of land in BRAC is what damaged the nation. That was the false economy, the loss of land we could need in the future.

Expand full comment

BRAC didn’t realize the savings they intended. In fact it crippled us: Mare Island, Charleston, Hunters Point, Treasure Island, Alameda, Philadelphia SY, Long Beach, Brooklyn etc..

Expand full comment

BRAC also cost the services political support. Remember the Lesson of Six Frigates...President Adams built the Navy's first six ships in six different cities, spreading the spending among six states. This gave the Navy six ships. Had he concentrated the building in one location, it would have been more efficient...and the Navy would have gotten three ships, not six.

Expand full comment

And it created a huge need to build at other bases from what I've seen.

Expand full comment

The Navy cannot exist without a Navy air arm. The Army too. The useless branch is the USAF.

Expand full comment

The National Security Act of 1947 should have been an amendment if we really needed them to stay a separate branch.

Expand full comment

The constitution says we should have an “army” and a “navy.” Interestingly, they then treat funding them entirely differently.

Expand full comment

I think it says we should have a Navy, and raise an army as needed. Pedantic, but important difference

Expand full comment

I would note another aspect of this problem that I think will REQUIRE politicians to cut even more from defense. They believe they MUST service the debt and the believe they MUST continue pumping money into entitlement programs. Failing to do either of those would kill them politically in the short term, while they can continue to hollow out defense because The Day hasn't arrived. We are literally at the point of having to choose, I guess, only two out of the following three things: butter, guns, or the credit card payment.

Expand full comment

They MUST continue pumping money into entitlement programs because folks are entitled to them. If you serve in the Navy for 20 years, you are "entitled" to the retirement you earned. Social Security is not a gift. We pay in for 45 years and are "entitled" to the payment we earned.

Expand full comment

...and things will continue until they can't. "Entitlement" is one of those things. I don't know if you've ever studied physics, but there is no physical law that suggests otherwise. My kids, for instance, were 'entitled' to 3 hots and a cot when growing up in my house...unless I died or went broke or was hit by an asteroid. Same with my retirement AND social security.

Expand full comment

Legally, that's not quite true. SCOTUS has held that retirement benefits are deferred pay, and thus mandatory. Social Security...is a welfare, and can be zeroed at any time. Which is one of the stronger arguments for getting that money OUT of Washington and into something like the Thrift Savings Plan.

Expand full comment

TSP won't work. Some folks are idiots. They make bad investment, or they take money out for stupid reasons. We can't have 80 year old widows living in cardboard tents just because they were not financially literate.

Expand full comment

We need to spend a little on financial literacy too. Think it needs required for a high school diploma and I think we need to hold people's asses in school until they've earned one. Even if school means they are doing even more things they don't want to do because they didn't get to it. This will take a culture shift back to the days when juvenile's basically had few if any rights in school. Too many teachers are forced to live in fear allowing the good kids to suffer because of the bad ones.

Expand full comment

Don't leave financial literacy to the public school system. They insist on teaching math equity.

Expand full comment

Well, the people who are most the problem would be the same people we need to straighten up, so from that vantage point, you have a point.

Expand full comment

Math is Racist, don't you know

Expand full comment

That's what children are for. How did we survive for 6000 years without it?

Expand full comment

Social Security is not welfare. I have been paying in for 50 years. Going to war on entitlements is just stupid.

"Nature is bloody in tooth and claw." I'd rather see you lose your retirement than I lose my social security. Why not accept the fact we both earned our payoff and that we are "entitled" to it?

Expand full comment

I was always offered a choice to participate in retirement plans. Social Security didn’t ask. They just took. So when it comes time to collect, I ain’t gonna be asking.

Expand full comment

We cannot live in a society where stupid folks, about half the population if I read the polls right, are consigned to live in abject poverty in their old age. If you are thrifty, and amass savings for your retirement, good on you. You will have a far more comfortable retirement than folks with nothing but social security. "Virtue," they say, "is its own reward."

Expand full comment

We lived in that world for thousands of years. Families, local organizations, and communities take care of people. Not some central authority 3000 miles away that steals from some to give to others (maybe).

Expand full comment

It's not "welfare" but it IS, and always was, a Ponzi scheme. The fact politicians have been stealing from the fund doesn't help.

Expand full comment

Trick is you paid into SS which is structured like a pyramid. So long as the pyramid grew it paid out handsomely. It needed to work just like any other retirement or pension account.

Expand full comment

It's literally a Ponzi scheme

Expand full comment

When the music stops, nothing will change that there aren't enough chairs

Expand full comment

And yet your generation torpedoed any attempt to put Social Security on a functional financial footing.

Expand full comment

People try and put us down, just because we ge,ge,get around.

Expand full comment

With this fantastic labor market we may never have a better opportunity to cut entitlements. Unfortunately any real plans don't get heard in the current media and politics. Just dead men's junk and the Golden Arches.

Expand full comment

The battle is Discretionary v non-discretionary outlays

Expand full comment

The priorities are going to be Debt, Butter, Guns, whether we like it (I hate it) or not

Expand full comment

Phib, I have always appreciated your intellectual honesty. I’m glad you have reevaluated and recalibrated and caged the gyros. I was a little flustered at your happy talk when the CNO guidance came out. The fiscal realities of our current republic should scare the shit out of everyone. We aren’t that far removed from the mid 90’s to 2000’s endless committees and boards led by people like Punaro who have done much to damage our military under the guise of reform.

The way ahead is easy in its basic simplicity: increase the industrial capacity of our navy regarding munitions and ship repair. Next: increase capacity for ship building.

Next: shoot anyone idiot publicly that tries to modify “requirements” after the first arch in the welder goes to cutting. Yes. It is that simple.

Expand full comment

That’s why, in my opinion, we need to move to a smaller number of destroyer/cruiser missile boats with capacity for 4 or more helicopters.

These will be flexible strike groups that can scale up or down quickly according to the needs of the mission.

They’re quicker to manufacture and repair and they would give the Navy far more redundancy and resiliency to fulfill their mission of owning the seas.

Expand full comment