"...2. Came to believe that the historical example of others greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity."... Oh hot damn. BZ sir... just damn fine.
CDR Sal, love your "12 Steps for Dod" program. Have to point out, implementing it would require intervention by the...er, uh...a higher power to break the "Iron Triangle" of Defense Industrial Complex (DIC), DoD and Congress. Sadly, IMO, only a higher power could do it. But, you are right to point it out, and admitting you have a problem is the necessary first step.
Also, the USAF "new proposal" looks suspiciously like the "Composite Wing" transformation / concept / revolutionary organizational change that was enacted by the USAF in the early 2000s. Sort of like the Cheerios commercial of years past: "Taste them again for the first time". It was inefficient and expensive, and mostly abandoned as the tanker and airlift assets were redeployed to central hubs. It was logistically unsupportable because it scattered assets to multiple locations, requiring A LOT more parts in the system and an ability to get them to where they needed to be (kind of like combat operations, which are really expensive, by the way). Turns out "training the way you fight" is really complicated and expensive. Perhaps recognizing those hard facts is a reality check?
Well said and I agree w/ both of your points. A couple things that came to mind reading your post:
-the "higher power" you mention will almost certainly be a POTUS w/ a strong and durable mandate, arising out of either a sweeping election or some sort of galvanizing event that happens while in office. In either case, the root cause is likely to be the same IMO: catastrophe that forces the people to demand a response. The most interesting question on my mind these days is: are we still able to do the "good" version of this? And re: DOD, given the complexity of modern weapon systems and the state of our domestic industry, if we are still able on the human side, can we actually execute on a relevant timeline?
-Great point re: the allure of "training the way you fight". Outside of a handful of specific units under a certain joint command, I have never *ever* seen nor heard of a unit even at the O5 level that routinely pulls this off. It's just too expensive, requires too much support, and takes too heavy a toll to be feasible. I'm skeptical of the nature of their effort, but.....
-Couldn't agree more with what I think is Sal's main point. Steering a parked car is flat out impossible. You've got to get it rolling somehow and then it gets much easier. If USAF backs up its words above, this is a good development.
"...training the way you fight is really complicated and expensive..." Perhaps not as expensive as finding out under conditions that don't involve "do overs"???
In an ideal world, you’re absolutely right. But in this world, with its finite resources and forced trade offs, it’s just not possible to do at scale for any length of time
I re-read what I wrote and too many gaps that I didn't explain clearly or succinctly. I absolutely take your point. And I'll drop kick the original post to the trash can with the label I should have waited until I had a cup of coffee before replying.
The thing about the Air Force (and Naval Aviation) is that their ultimate safety is getting planes off the ground. In anticipation of hostilities (opponent marsheling troops in ports, etc.) you have to up your tempo and start moving things around, get ISR assets in place to observe and report, etc. You DO NOT want to get caught on the ground when the missiles come in and you want to have someplace in range to land and operate. As soon as your base gets hit, of course, all those organic assets you brought with you and trained with are probably gone or severely restricted....so you have to be able to seamlessly (if there is such a thing) integrate with other elements to get back in the fight.
I see this as staying out of range, having ISR and some deterrence (unmanned drones) forward deployed and then (their intent) quickly reacting and flooding the zone after an initial attack. The key on our side is to get the opponent to expend (and exhaust) their missiles (while minimizing damage to us) and preserve our own missile stores for counter attacks at a time and place of our choosing.
At any rate, the key is a LOT more missiles in inventory of all types for the B-21s, F-35s, NGADS, FA-XX, and other platforms, including in MK-41 launch tubes on ships.
The problem is the enemy costing you time, money, and aggravation by running their own fake ops to get you to put it all in motion in reaction to their fake movements...and we've been jerked on that chain often.
"The thing about the Air Force (and Naval Aviation) is that their ultimate safety is getting planes off the ground. In anticipation of hostilities (opponent marsheling troops in ports, etc.) "
Exactly. Let's not repeat the mistakes made at Clark Field in the Philippines in December 1941. All the planes were caught on the ground and destroyed, yielding air superiority to the Japanese with hardly a shot fired.
Not stating anything that others aren't aware of here in that not airfields weigh equally in their consequence. Not every aircraft type bears the same influence as another. The scenarios we are facing in INDO-PAC are going to have to draw from subject matter experts and the application of statistics and probablility. It's the latter that you can use to throw a monkey wrench into rosy scenarios and assumptions that could carry far more consequence that is not otherwise readily apparent. We may not be able to pay the freight to train as we fight but there sure are ways to employ things like Monte Carlo, etc., to throw a wrench into rosy assumptions, political contrivances and/or wishful thinking some folks are comfortably squatted upon. Those can be insights that say "put your money here" and test... validate... rinse... repeat.
Love the reference to Monte Carlo and it's a great point. Use Monte Carlo simulation and other decision modeling techniques to identify the variables that have the greatest impact on outcomes and how they make such impacts. Solve for X and do it again.
For me, there just appears to be a few too many instances of huge assumptions that didn't pan out and which should have been met with a LOT of intense scrutiny and skepticism. Original presumption that China was a non-threat when it's navy was entirely confined to her coast as though we should have operate under the expectation that they would be content to stay at that level.. That post-soviet fall, presumption that U.S. dominance would largely go unchallenged... Short war planning vs. likelihood that long war is perhaps more likely vis.a.vis Taiwan. I like Monte Carlo because it can really through a wrench into assumptions and perhaps cause some people to be far more cautious or circumspect about the strength of their assumptions that have huge implications if they don't turn out as planned.
My only question for the Air Force is what happens to the wings leaving a deployment or not scheduled for a deployment? Will they be fully funded and get the OPTAR to fly more than 2.7 hours a month? A good idea but what are the latent effects?
So it sounds like the USAF is adopting the USN Carrier Air Wing strategy. Good on em. It's worked well for the Navy for many decades.
But how do we, as a nation, solve the shipyard problem? We used to have shipyards in most every port city. Now we have just a handful and they are operating at max capacity. Building new shipyards will take a substantial capital investment by government because there's not enough demand for new ships to make the investment math work for the private sector to build new shipyards. And you'd need to change the compensation matrix to get new entrants into the market to generate enough innovation to improve the economies of scale to build more ships sooner. General Dynamics has little incentive to build ships faster so they aren't going to change without an outside competitor pushing them. And let's not forget the likely environmental and NIMBY lawsuits that would seek to block any new shipyards. That will need to be addressed as well.
As a nation, we've made some epic mistakes in not recognizing the strategic importance of shipyards and shipbuilders. I fear that we are not yet ready to correct those mistakes and by the time we are ready, it will be too late.
We don't solve it here. I suggest we outsource shipbuilding. Go tour a yard in South Korea or Japan. Build the hull and machinery there, install combat systems here.
I hear ya, Gman however, if provided with a similar throughput, US shipyards could easily reach the same efficiencies of South Korean and Japanese shipyards. The problem isn't the shipyards. The problem is the rules US shipyards must play under. Sadly, these rules won't change anytime soon so I think your statement is unfortunately true.
It's not either / or, IMO. We simply don't have the time, even if you could wave a magic wand and cure all the problems w/ adding shipbuilding capacity domestically tomorrow, for the effort to bear fruit before we need it. So we have to look to JPN/KOR in the immediate term, but that doesn't preclude us from also getting the boulder headed down the mountain here at home as well.
I think I disagree (if I'm following your meaning correctly). If at some point the boulder doesn't start gathering momentum, we aren't doing it right and will fail.
I can't really parse your comment, other than to say that I totally agree with the last part - forcing USN/USG to be a better counter-party to industry is critical to fixing this in any sort of way that moves the needle
And it have been thusly since 1984. Have a friend that worked at Deytens Shipyard in Charleston SC for many years. Much of their waterfront was once Charleston Navy Shipyard. Ship and drydock always full, and they do a lot of cruise liner work. So I ask him "go back to Navy work"? Never. too many changes/alts, too much oversight, too much pressure to meet a "schedule" ( that rarely takes into account the full scope of changes), and guess what? It ain't a problem getting paid when the work is done.
Exactly, the customer needs to change how they do business first and foremost. We can't build a small ship just due the cost of the overhead having such a high bottom.
So this strikes home because I do this exact sort of thing in private sector logistics and manufacturing. These problems are fixable - not necessarily easily but certainly CAN be fixed. And the US did the exact sort of thing in WWII when the War Department incentivized manufacturers to develop new manufacturing techniques that generated immense efficiencies. But there seems to be little will in DC to resolve this problem (or any problem, really).
We have to recognise that government is not a business and cannot be run like a business. It makes no economic sense to build ships that can murder people. There is little return on a shareholder's investment in building murder weapons. Remington, shut down the rifle factory because arms is not a profitable business. But, what does not make sense in sales terms, can be indispensable for a nation.
A nation needs weapons. It is only sensible for a nation to build weapons with which to defend itself. A sovereign nation needs warships. Reopen the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard and build a warship. Find a bankrupted shipyard, pay fair market value for the land and equipment and build a warship.
Once we return to being able to build warships in government yards, copy the plans and send them out to bid. Hire private yards at prices set by the open market, while still building governments warships in government yards.
"Remington, shut down the rifle factory because arms is not a profitable business."
Clarification: Remington is shutting down its Ilion NY plant because 1) it's factory is >100 years old and maintenance costs are high, 2) the faciltites central utility plant is natural gas fired and the State of NY is on the path to make NG use prohibitive, and 3) NY is a pro-unionized labor state and Georgia is not. Moving operations to GA makes more business sense. https://www.uticaod.com/story/news/2023/12/01/remington-arms-successor-remarms-closing-ilion-plant/71767398007/
To put a fine point on it, US Navy shipyards usually used private shipbuilders to build ships for the Navy and the ship's initial company of officers and NCO's would help the shipbuilder build the ship alongside the private builders.
But you are correct that we need to reopen shipyards in Boston, NYC / NJ, Philly, Baltimore, Charleston, Brunswick, Jacksonville, Tampa, Mobile, New Orleans, Houston, LA, San Fran/Oakland, Portland, Seattle and in the Great Lakes. We should have at least 10 and hopefully 20 shipyards geographically dispersed and relying on different logistics trains, energy sources and diverse subcontractors and specialist providers like machinists, electricians and plumbers.
"US Navy shipyards usually used private shipbuilders to build ships for the Navy and the ship's initial company of officers and NCO's would help the shipbuilder build the ship alongside the private builders." What in the world?! US Navy shipyards only do repair. I can't remember the last time they have actually built a ship, certainly not in the past several decades. At a commercial shipyard building a Navy ship, Navy commissioning crews do NOT help the shipbuilder build the ship! They are no more than inspectors, which is redundant to SUPSHIP inspectors, which often does more harm than good. SUPSHIP approves and then the commissioning crew rejects. What a cluster...
The US Naval Shipyard in Long Beach / Los Angeles is now a shipping terminal (Originally for COSCO)... San Fran (Angel Island) is a park. Not sure about the others.
What we also need (in addition to fixed shipyards) are mobile docks that can repair ships in theatre. And accept that we will be buying parts we don't need right now, just in case we need them in the future: We cannot wait 60 months for a prop to be machined should we need a prop.
And consider the USS Connecticut (SSN-22). Damaged hitting a seamount in 2021, repair work started in 2023, and hopefully the ship will be returned to service in 2026 - it only took 5 years to build her from scratch...
We need more spares, more repair locations, more repair people, more combat ships, more tenders, more supply ships, more tankers, more ammo, more sailors...the only thing the US Military has too much of it seems, are F/GOs and pronouns.
"It makes no economic sense to build ships that can murder people." We don't build them to murder people. The inference is just plain wrong. Ditto for gun makers. Your slip is showing, Tom. Also, S&W closed up shop in Connecticut and moved to Maryville, TN for the same reason...to be in a more business friendly location. I have proof: https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/569x425q70/r/922/nyfAzx.jpg
There is a concept in philosophy called the "monopoly on murder." It has its roots in Hobbs and the social compact. Dale Flowers can't commit pre-meditated murder without some serious consequences, the State of Texas can. It often does. Social compact theory says that in return for peace and safety we give up our ability to use force and violence against each other to the sovereign.
Let's not kid ourselves. Aside from hunting and target shooting, guns are tools; tools for murder. Gun making is a niche industry; if it were profitable Remington would never have left New York. There are loads of consumer goods that folks can make which are far more profitable than firearms.
Of course we make warships to murder people; our warships can murder them by the bushel. That's the whole point of a warship. Sure, we can render humanitarian aid to some desolate nation, or rescue folks lost at sea; but the purpose of a warship is to sink other ships, to destroy shore facilities, to rain death and destruction on our enemies. The purpose of an Army is not to march around and look pretty. It is to destroy other armies. "No poor, dumb, bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb, bastard die for his country."
When we talk about building warships, we are building weapons that bring death and destruction. Frankly, the more death the ship is capable of bringing, the better.
Tom. Your use of the word "murder" here carries a negative and even pejorative connotation. You might have been better served by saying "killing". Yes, guns can be used for murder. They are inert objects, tools. We have about 120 firearms for every 100 people in the U.S. and about 5-6 per 100,000 deaths by guns per annum (which includes all homicides {killings], of which not all are murders). Those numbers only account for deaths, not perps. Guns are not tools for murder except in small numbers and those murders are isolated by geography and demographics. When guns are used in killing it is mostly to take game, kill garden and livestock varmints, self-defense. Your slip is still showing, Tom. You pick your words very carefully, I see. "Murder" here is spin. Admit it. I am not immune to spinning things myself, but I try to be circumspect and stealthy when I do so. It might be that we both fail equally, brother. Dale Flowers knows he has killed people in war. He never committed pre-meditated murder and never will. It's not in his DNA. Whatever Hobbs wrote, I am pretty sure he never conflated a pre-meditated murder with a righteous Biblical killing.
Guns are tools the founders ensured was enumerated in the Constitution. Not for “murder” as pearl clutching socialist retards claim, but for preservation against tyranny. Period.
Let's not be politically correct here. George Patton calls it "murder," and that's good enough for me.
"We'll win this war, but we'll win it only by fighting and showing the Germans that we've got more guts than they have or ever will have. We're not just going to shoot the bastards, we're going to rip out their living goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket."
You gun nuts just don’t get it. Set aside your love for the weapons and analyze the business. It’s a niche. A gun manufacture can make a nice living and employ workers with a decent wage and nice lifestyle. But, it’s not a mass market, Remington will never be General Motors, Apple, or IBM. The margins are thin. The return on capital is low. There are far better places for investors to park their money than in firearms manufacturing.
Now, extrapolate to warships. Unlike hunting weapons consumers don’t buy warships. No right thinking capitalist is gonna put his money in the building warships on spec. The risk is far too high. The reward is far too low.
Nation/states have to have the ability to build their own tools for self-defense. Has the United States built a successful warship since we privatized and turned over 100% of our shipbuilding to multinational corporations?
87 million gun owners and true Americans call you on your bullshit. Most traditional ammunition and firearm manufacturers are moving south because that is where freedom still resides. The 2A isn’t a hunting or sporting right. It’s a right to defend ourselves against tyranny. Yes including socialist federal and state governments as well. I know this makes people like Tom Yardley pee his pants. But it’s a fact.
Gun manufacturing isn’t “niche” it’s a massive industry on both secondary and third markets. Optics, machined accessories, upgraded parts and components etc…. People like Tommy can’t tell a BCG from a hairdryer and believe that “30 round clip is a 30 caliber per second” and “will blow your lungs out”’.
You responded with emotional name calling because like many on your side of the issue, your logic is flawed and entirely based on emotions.
Your use of the term ‘murder’ says you are NOT someone who’s had to take seriously the logic and rationale associated with taking human life in a legal context.
I KNOW what it feels like to take a life and I KNOW how it feels to lose a life for which I was responsible.
I treasure human life, all of it, even the worst of it, because every single one of those lives was created by God, and He didn’t tell us to only value ‘some’ of them.
You are free to have your own incorrect interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
But if you want to have meaningful conversation about fixing things, you’ll stop using emotional pejoratives and focus on facts.
The term ‘murder’ does not belong in rational discussion about lawful use of force, whether that be military, law enforcement or self defense.
I believe you want to help make things better. I also think SOME of what you’re saying about industry has value.
You are "gun nuts" because you can't look at an issue where firearms are mentioned without passion. "Murder," is the action or an act of killing.
Of course some murders are justified. But, they are still murder. A murder could be an accident. One can have a clean kill, a "me or him" homicide, and still have to deal with the emotional and psychological fall out of the intentional taking of a human life.
Since at least the 13th century moral philosophers have reasoned that murder can be morally justified. Any catholic who served in the military knows Thomas Aquinus's explanations of when force is morally justified. Sometimes a nation-state's murder is morally justified. Take for example, Ukraine. Sometimes, it is not. See, e.g. Hamas. Whether it is justified, or not, it is still murder.
The definition of murder in your locality is pretty much irrelevant. For example here in Florida we have multiple kinds of murder; we have manslaughter in different flavors, 1st and 2nd degree murder, and felony murder. There are 50 states, so if Florida has five definitions, the states have 500. Toss in the English Common Law jurisdictions and you are easily over 1000 variations and permutations of what murders are punishable and which are not. So, don't lecture me on what "murder" is because you picked one of a thousand options.
Firearms are tools to kill. Some are tools to kill animals, some are tools to kill humans. Pretending otherwise is just stupid.
Tom, I already pointed out for you that you are miss using the term murder. If you’re going to continue to be willfully ignorant of the legal meaning of the term then there’s nothing I can do to help you.
Yes, there are many classes of murder. The operative requirement in all of them is that the killing did not involve a legal justification.
Therefore, under the law, if self-defense can be proven, it was not murder. End of question.
By the same exact token, any killing, conducted by a member of the armed forces acting within their lawful capacity is not murder. End of question.
This holds true going as far back as St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Catholic doctrine of just war. Those philosophies strongly influenced our founders, and how they framed the question of what was a just killing or not. Murder is never a just killing. Ego any just killing is not murder.
I apply the same exact logic and use of the law in precise language to firearms as I do to anything else. Details matter. But I think you’ve also demonstrated that you’re not actually interested in a conversation based on fact.
If you want, I can pull you chapter & verse from Florida statutes to prove this to you. But you’re interested more in the emotional and sensational aspect of the word murder.
Sure, "gun nuts" can get passionate when some person does his "shall not be infringed" thing to his fellow citizens. "Gun Nuttery" is born of common sense and a will to survive. Without passion about preserving our Constitution, America is over. We all know it.
If they actually do that way, it will be a return to AAF policy of deploying groups, which became wings under USAF. LeMay always looked at things in those terms, and set up deployment packages that could be grabbed, quickly loaded, and sent to the deployment site and give the wing everything they needed to function once they got there. Independent squadrons deployed because of their function, such as recon, was more specialized.
The Navy has functioned similarly because they were limited by the airbase they used. The CV needs the entire AW to function as intended.
In my humble opinion, the gridlock vis a vis China and their belligerence will magically disappear when the missiles start flying. It's almost like the military industrial complex doesn't understand that thousands upon thousands of US Navy sailors will perish if we don't address the problem and address it now!
I think you over estimate the caliber and motivations of the people in charge of the Navy and the people who appointed them to their position. "World To End Tomorrow: Women, Minorities Hardest Hit"
It would be wonderful if we could build 174 destroyers, in 4 years, like we did with the FLETCHER class, but thte education system has seen to it that we don't have a population base of people capable of performing highly skilled technical jobs like building ships, airplanes, and advanced weapons.
That would take time away from video gaming, and Tic Tok.
I'm not in any way shape or form disagreeing with CDR Sal about the operational imperative of doing this to improve how we can fight and win. The problem is (quoting the article) "It doesn't look good on a budget spreadsheet." Also, claiming credit for what you are already doing (many wings in the USAF still carry a composite name / attributes) is a time honored method of "doing something" while not really changing...Implement the CDR Sal 12 Steps Program NOW!
Hey! Maybe we can actually deploy DESRONs as a unit? Or, even more hopefully, have DESFLOTs? I guess that would imply going back to something as logical as Naval Districts--as opposed to Joint Transformational Diverse and Equitable area whatevers. yeah, I'm a Neanderthal.
"...train and deploy together " ??? What a concept!
USAAF did a pretty good job of that in WWII, at least at the micro level. Bomber crews formed up and took their aircraft through the modification centers then flew them overseas, typically at least by Squadrons, usually by Bomb Groups.
"1. We admitted we were powerless over the dead hand of the post-Goldwater-Nichols unaccountable defense nomenklatura in DC — that our ability to address the challenge from the PRC had become unmanageable."
It brought a tear to my eye when I realized the first step in any recovery program is the hardest. Admitting you have a problem and finding a way to give up the stimulus that charges your dopamine hit. Is there any place to start that we could get a consensus?
Oh that is funny as all daylights.
BZ to you, Sal.
"...2. Came to believe that the historical example of others greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity."... Oh hot damn. BZ sir... just damn fine.
CDR Sal, love your "12 Steps for Dod" program. Have to point out, implementing it would require intervention by the...er, uh...a higher power to break the "Iron Triangle" of Defense Industrial Complex (DIC), DoD and Congress. Sadly, IMO, only a higher power could do it. But, you are right to point it out, and admitting you have a problem is the necessary first step.
Also, the USAF "new proposal" looks suspiciously like the "Composite Wing" transformation / concept / revolutionary organizational change that was enacted by the USAF in the early 2000s. Sort of like the Cheerios commercial of years past: "Taste them again for the first time". It was inefficient and expensive, and mostly abandoned as the tanker and airlift assets were redeployed to central hubs. It was logistically unsupportable because it scattered assets to multiple locations, requiring A LOT more parts in the system and an ability to get them to where they needed to be (kind of like combat operations, which are really expensive, by the way). Turns out "training the way you fight" is really complicated and expensive. Perhaps recognizing those hard facts is a reality check?
We'll see!
Well said and I agree w/ both of your points. A couple things that came to mind reading your post:
-the "higher power" you mention will almost certainly be a POTUS w/ a strong and durable mandate, arising out of either a sweeping election or some sort of galvanizing event that happens while in office. In either case, the root cause is likely to be the same IMO: catastrophe that forces the people to demand a response. The most interesting question on my mind these days is: are we still able to do the "good" version of this? And re: DOD, given the complexity of modern weapon systems and the state of our domestic industry, if we are still able on the human side, can we actually execute on a relevant timeline?
-Great point re: the allure of "training the way you fight". Outside of a handful of specific units under a certain joint command, I have never *ever* seen nor heard of a unit even at the O5 level that routinely pulls this off. It's just too expensive, requires too much support, and takes too heavy a toll to be feasible. I'm skeptical of the nature of their effort, but.....
-Couldn't agree more with what I think is Sal's main point. Steering a parked car is flat out impossible. You've got to get it rolling somehow and then it gets much easier. If USAF backs up its words above, this is a good development.
"...training the way you fight is really complicated and expensive..." Perhaps not as expensive as finding out under conditions that don't involve "do overs"???
In an ideal world, you’re absolutely right. But in this world, with its finite resources and forced trade offs, it’s just not possible to do at scale for any length of time
I re-read what I wrote and too many gaps that I didn't explain clearly or succinctly. I absolutely take your point. And I'll drop kick the original post to the trash can with the label I should have waited until I had a cup of coffee before replying.
lol, i wont lie Bill you kinda lost me there
The thing about the Air Force (and Naval Aviation) is that their ultimate safety is getting planes off the ground. In anticipation of hostilities (opponent marsheling troops in ports, etc.) you have to up your tempo and start moving things around, get ISR assets in place to observe and report, etc. You DO NOT want to get caught on the ground when the missiles come in and you want to have someplace in range to land and operate. As soon as your base gets hit, of course, all those organic assets you brought with you and trained with are probably gone or severely restricted....so you have to be able to seamlessly (if there is such a thing) integrate with other elements to get back in the fight.
I see this as staying out of range, having ISR and some deterrence (unmanned drones) forward deployed and then (their intent) quickly reacting and flooding the zone after an initial attack. The key on our side is to get the opponent to expend (and exhaust) their missiles (while minimizing damage to us) and preserve our own missile stores for counter attacks at a time and place of our choosing.
At any rate, the key is a LOT more missiles in inventory of all types for the B-21s, F-35s, NGADS, FA-XX, and other platforms, including in MK-41 launch tubes on ships.
The problem is the enemy costing you time, money, and aggravation by running their own fake ops to get you to put it all in motion in reaction to their fake movements...and we've been jerked on that chain often.
"The thing about the Air Force (and Naval Aviation) is that their ultimate safety is getting planes off the ground. In anticipation of hostilities (opponent marsheling troops in ports, etc.) "
Exactly. Let's not repeat the mistakes made at Clark Field in the Philippines in December 1941. All the planes were caught on the ground and destroyed, yielding air superiority to the Japanese with hardly a shot fired.
Not stating anything that others aren't aware of here in that not airfields weigh equally in their consequence. Not every aircraft type bears the same influence as another. The scenarios we are facing in INDO-PAC are going to have to draw from subject matter experts and the application of statistics and probablility. It's the latter that you can use to throw a monkey wrench into rosy scenarios and assumptions that could carry far more consequence that is not otherwise readily apparent. We may not be able to pay the freight to train as we fight but there sure are ways to employ things like Monte Carlo, etc., to throw a wrench into rosy assumptions, political contrivances and/or wishful thinking some folks are comfortably squatted upon. Those can be insights that say "put your money here" and test... validate... rinse... repeat.
Love the reference to Monte Carlo and it's a great point. Use Monte Carlo simulation and other decision modeling techniques to identify the variables that have the greatest impact on outcomes and how they make such impacts. Solve for X and do it again.
For me, there just appears to be a few too many instances of huge assumptions that didn't pan out and which should have been met with a LOT of intense scrutiny and skepticism. Original presumption that China was a non-threat when it's navy was entirely confined to her coast as though we should have operate under the expectation that they would be content to stay at that level.. That post-soviet fall, presumption that U.S. dominance would largely go unchallenged... Short war planning vs. likelihood that long war is perhaps more likely vis.a.vis Taiwan. I like Monte Carlo because it can really through a wrench into assumptions and perhaps cause some people to be far more cautious or circumspect about the strength of their assumptions that have huge implications if they don't turn out as planned.
OBTW, I hope you're right, and we can do better. We have to!
My only question for the Air Force is what happens to the wings leaving a deployment or not scheduled for a deployment? Will they be fully funded and get the OPTAR to fly more than 2.7 hours a month? A good idea but what are the latent effects?
So it sounds like the USAF is adopting the USN Carrier Air Wing strategy. Good on em. It's worked well for the Navy for many decades.
But how do we, as a nation, solve the shipyard problem? We used to have shipyards in most every port city. Now we have just a handful and they are operating at max capacity. Building new shipyards will take a substantial capital investment by government because there's not enough demand for new ships to make the investment math work for the private sector to build new shipyards. And you'd need to change the compensation matrix to get new entrants into the market to generate enough innovation to improve the economies of scale to build more ships sooner. General Dynamics has little incentive to build ships faster so they aren't going to change without an outside competitor pushing them. And let's not forget the likely environmental and NIMBY lawsuits that would seek to block any new shipyards. That will need to be addressed as well.
As a nation, we've made some epic mistakes in not recognizing the strategic importance of shipyards and shipbuilders. I fear that we are not yet ready to correct those mistakes and by the time we are ready, it will be too late.
How do we solve the shipyard problem? Well, for starters, perhaps the federal government can stop bankrupting them!
We don't solve it here. I suggest we outsource shipbuilding. Go tour a yard in South Korea or Japan. Build the hull and machinery there, install combat systems here.
I hear ya, Gman however, if provided with a similar throughput, US shipyards could easily reach the same efficiencies of South Korean and Japanese shipyards. The problem isn't the shipyards. The problem is the rules US shipyards must play under. Sadly, these rules won't change anytime soon so I think your statement is unfortunately true.
It's not either / or, IMO. We simply don't have the time, even if you could wave a magic wand and cure all the problems w/ adding shipbuilding capacity domestically tomorrow, for the effort to bear fruit before we need it. So we have to look to JPN/KOR in the immediate term, but that doesn't preclude us from also getting the boulder headed down the mountain here at home as well.
Same concept, COLONEL, but it is more Sisyphean in direction.
I think I disagree (if I'm following your meaning correctly). If at some point the boulder doesn't start gathering momentum, we aren't doing it right and will fail.
You think that fixes the problem, but I say the problem is likely first and foremost, the customer.
I can't really parse your comment, other than to say that I totally agree with the last part - forcing USN/USG to be a better counter-party to industry is critical to fixing this in any sort of way that moves the needle
And it have been thusly since 1984. Have a friend that worked at Deytens Shipyard in Charleston SC for many years. Much of their waterfront was once Charleston Navy Shipyard. Ship and drydock always full, and they do a lot of cruise liner work. So I ask him "go back to Navy work"? Never. too many changes/alts, too much oversight, too much pressure to meet a "schedule" ( that rarely takes into account the full scope of changes), and guess what? It ain't a problem getting paid when the work is done.
We done this to ourself all by our lonesome self.
Exactly, the customer needs to change how they do business first and foremost. We can't build a small ship just due the cost of the overhead having such a high bottom.
So this strikes home because I do this exact sort of thing in private sector logistics and manufacturing. These problems are fixable - not necessarily easily but certainly CAN be fixed. And the US did the exact sort of thing in WWII when the War Department incentivized manufacturers to develop new manufacturing techniques that generated immense efficiencies. But there seems to be little will in DC to resolve this problem (or any problem, really).
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2024/02/23/us-navy-orders-swiftships-to-stop-work-on-its-landing-craft-program/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=tw_dfn
The prosecution rests...
We have to recognise that government is not a business and cannot be run like a business. It makes no economic sense to build ships that can murder people. There is little return on a shareholder's investment in building murder weapons. Remington, shut down the rifle factory because arms is not a profitable business. But, what does not make sense in sales terms, can be indispensable for a nation.
A nation needs weapons. It is only sensible for a nation to build weapons with which to defend itself. A sovereign nation needs warships. Reopen the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard and build a warship. Find a bankrupted shipyard, pay fair market value for the land and equipment and build a warship.
Once we return to being able to build warships in government yards, copy the plans and send them out to bid. Hire private yards at prices set by the open market, while still building governments warships in government yards.
"Remington, shut down the rifle factory because arms is not a profitable business."
Clarification: Remington is shutting down its Ilion NY plant because 1) it's factory is >100 years old and maintenance costs are high, 2) the faciltites central utility plant is natural gas fired and the State of NY is on the path to make NG use prohibitive, and 3) NY is a pro-unionized labor state and Georgia is not. Moving operations to GA makes more business sense. https://www.uticaod.com/story/news/2023/12/01/remington-arms-successor-remarms-closing-ilion-plant/71767398007/
Remington closed in NY because of the political climate towards gun manufacturers in NY. They're moving to a more friendly state.
You shouldn’t interrupt Tommy when he is lying.
To put a fine point on it, US Navy shipyards usually used private shipbuilders to build ships for the Navy and the ship's initial company of officers and NCO's would help the shipbuilder build the ship alongside the private builders.
But you are correct that we need to reopen shipyards in Boston, NYC / NJ, Philly, Baltimore, Charleston, Brunswick, Jacksonville, Tampa, Mobile, New Orleans, Houston, LA, San Fran/Oakland, Portland, Seattle and in the Great Lakes. We should have at least 10 and hopefully 20 shipyards geographically dispersed and relying on different logistics trains, energy sources and diverse subcontractors and specialist providers like machinists, electricians and plumbers.
"US Navy shipyards usually used private shipbuilders to build ships for the Navy and the ship's initial company of officers and NCO's would help the shipbuilder build the ship alongside the private builders." What in the world?! US Navy shipyards only do repair. I can't remember the last time they have actually built a ship, certainly not in the past several decades. At a commercial shipyard building a Navy ship, Navy commissioning crews do NOT help the shipbuilder build the ship! They are no more than inspectors, which is redundant to SUPSHIP inspectors, which often does more harm than good. SUPSHIP approves and then the commissioning crew rejects. What a cluster...
The US Naval Shipyard in Long Beach / Los Angeles is now a shipping terminal (Originally for COSCO)... San Fran (Angel Island) is a park. Not sure about the others.
What we also need (in addition to fixed shipyards) are mobile docks that can repair ships in theatre. And accept that we will be buying parts we don't need right now, just in case we need them in the future: We cannot wait 60 months for a prop to be machined should we need a prop.
And consider the USS Connecticut (SSN-22). Damaged hitting a seamount in 2021, repair work started in 2023, and hopefully the ship will be returned to service in 2026 - it only took 5 years to build her from scratch...
We need more spares, more repair locations, more repair people, more combat ships, more tenders, more supply ships, more tankers, more ammo, more sailors...the only thing the US Military has too much of it seems, are F/GOs and pronouns.
But those Navy tiaras are Fahbulous!
"It makes no economic sense to build ships that can murder people." We don't build them to murder people. The inference is just plain wrong. Ditto for gun makers. Your slip is showing, Tom. Also, S&W closed up shop in Connecticut and moved to Maryville, TN for the same reason...to be in a more business friendly location. I have proof: https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/569x425q70/r/922/nyfAzx.jpg
There is a concept in philosophy called the "monopoly on murder." It has its roots in Hobbs and the social compact. Dale Flowers can't commit pre-meditated murder without some serious consequences, the State of Texas can. It often does. Social compact theory says that in return for peace and safety we give up our ability to use force and violence against each other to the sovereign.
Let's not kid ourselves. Aside from hunting and target shooting, guns are tools; tools for murder. Gun making is a niche industry; if it were profitable Remington would never have left New York. There are loads of consumer goods that folks can make which are far more profitable than firearms.
Of course we make warships to murder people; our warships can murder them by the bushel. That's the whole point of a warship. Sure, we can render humanitarian aid to some desolate nation, or rescue folks lost at sea; but the purpose of a warship is to sink other ships, to destroy shore facilities, to rain death and destruction on our enemies. The purpose of an Army is not to march around and look pretty. It is to destroy other armies. "No poor, dumb, bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb, bastard die for his country."
When we talk about building warships, we are building weapons that bring death and destruction. Frankly, the more death the ship is capable of bringing, the better.
Tom. Your use of the word "murder" here carries a negative and even pejorative connotation. You might have been better served by saying "killing". Yes, guns can be used for murder. They are inert objects, tools. We have about 120 firearms for every 100 people in the U.S. and about 5-6 per 100,000 deaths by guns per annum (which includes all homicides {killings], of which not all are murders). Those numbers only account for deaths, not perps. Guns are not tools for murder except in small numbers and those murders are isolated by geography and demographics. When guns are used in killing it is mostly to take game, kill garden and livestock varmints, self-defense. Your slip is still showing, Tom. You pick your words very carefully, I see. "Murder" here is spin. Admit it. I am not immune to spinning things myself, but I try to be circumspect and stealthy when I do so. It might be that we both fail equally, brother. Dale Flowers knows he has killed people in war. He never committed pre-meditated murder and never will. It's not in his DNA. Whatever Hobbs wrote, I am pretty sure he never conflated a pre-meditated murder with a righteous Biblical killing.
Guns are tools the founders ensured was enumerated in the Constitution. Not for “murder” as pearl clutching socialist retards claim, but for preservation against tyranny. Period.
“Social compact theory says that in return for peace and safety we give up our ability to use force and violence against each other to the sovereign.”
The stupidest sentence I have read all day. Well besides the rest of this stupid paragraph.
Murder is premeditated killing purely for personal advantage. Self defense is not murder and is a right.
Let's not be politically correct here. George Patton calls it "murder," and that's good enough for me.
"We'll win this war, but we'll win it only by fighting and showing the Germans that we've got more guts than they have or ever will have. We're not just going to shoot the bastards, we're going to rip out their living goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket."
As others have pointed out, your analysis of Remington is woefully inadequate.
They can’t earn profit with aging facilities in a hostile political environment intent on punishing them.
They will do just fine in a pro-2A state.
Also,you really need to learn to distinguish between Homicide and Murder. It seems most people on the political left are confused on that issue
You gun nuts just don’t get it. Set aside your love for the weapons and analyze the business. It’s a niche. A gun manufacture can make a nice living and employ workers with a decent wage and nice lifestyle. But, it’s not a mass market, Remington will never be General Motors, Apple, or IBM. The margins are thin. The return on capital is low. There are far better places for investors to park their money than in firearms manufacturing.
Now, extrapolate to warships. Unlike hunting weapons consumers don’t buy warships. No right thinking capitalist is gonna put his money in the building warships on spec. The risk is far too high. The reward is far too low.
Nation/states have to have the ability to build their own tools for self-defense. Has the United States built a successful warship since we privatized and turned over 100% of our shipbuilding to multinational corporations?
87 million gun owners and true Americans call you on your bullshit. Most traditional ammunition and firearm manufacturers are moving south because that is where freedom still resides. The 2A isn’t a hunting or sporting right. It’s a right to defend ourselves against tyranny. Yes including socialist federal and state governments as well. I know this makes people like Tom Yardley pee his pants. But it’s a fact.
Defend me from tyranny. What a laugh. Most open-carry goobers couldn't defend themselves from a well thrown baseball.
Gun manufacturing isn’t “niche” it’s a massive industry on both secondary and third markets. Optics, machined accessories, upgraded parts and components etc…. People like Tommy can’t tell a BCG from a hairdryer and believe that “30 round clip is a 30 caliber per second” and “will blow your lungs out”’.
Tom,
You lost the thread when you called us gun nuts.
George Patton was a great general.
I would not want him as my lawyer.
I made a fact based case in the LAW.
You responded with emotional name calling because like many on your side of the issue, your logic is flawed and entirely based on emotions.
Your use of the term ‘murder’ says you are NOT someone who’s had to take seriously the logic and rationale associated with taking human life in a legal context.
I KNOW what it feels like to take a life and I KNOW how it feels to lose a life for which I was responsible.
I treasure human life, all of it, even the worst of it, because every single one of those lives was created by God, and He didn’t tell us to only value ‘some’ of them.
You are free to have your own incorrect interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
But if you want to have meaningful conversation about fixing things, you’ll stop using emotional pejoratives and focus on facts.
The term ‘murder’ does not belong in rational discussion about lawful use of force, whether that be military, law enforcement or self defense.
I believe you want to help make things better. I also think SOME of what you’re saying about industry has value.
Let’s keep it between the buoy’s, shall we?
You are "gun nuts" because you can't look at an issue where firearms are mentioned without passion. "Murder," is the action or an act of killing.
Of course some murders are justified. But, they are still murder. A murder could be an accident. One can have a clean kill, a "me or him" homicide, and still have to deal with the emotional and psychological fall out of the intentional taking of a human life.
Since at least the 13th century moral philosophers have reasoned that murder can be morally justified. Any catholic who served in the military knows Thomas Aquinus's explanations of when force is morally justified. Sometimes a nation-state's murder is morally justified. Take for example, Ukraine. Sometimes, it is not. See, e.g. Hamas. Whether it is justified, or not, it is still murder.
The definition of murder in your locality is pretty much irrelevant. For example here in Florida we have multiple kinds of murder; we have manslaughter in different flavors, 1st and 2nd degree murder, and felony murder. There are 50 states, so if Florida has five definitions, the states have 500. Toss in the English Common Law jurisdictions and you are easily over 1000 variations and permutations of what murders are punishable and which are not. So, don't lecture me on what "murder" is because you picked one of a thousand options.
Firearms are tools to kill. Some are tools to kill animals, some are tools to kill humans. Pretending otherwise is just stupid.
Tom, I already pointed out for you that you are miss using the term murder. If you’re going to continue to be willfully ignorant of the legal meaning of the term then there’s nothing I can do to help you.
Yes, there are many classes of murder. The operative requirement in all of them is that the killing did not involve a legal justification.
Therefore, under the law, if self-defense can be proven, it was not murder. End of question.
By the same exact token, any killing, conducted by a member of the armed forces acting within their lawful capacity is not murder. End of question.
This holds true going as far back as St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Catholic doctrine of just war. Those philosophies strongly influenced our founders, and how they framed the question of what was a just killing or not. Murder is never a just killing. Ego any just killing is not murder.
I apply the same exact logic and use of the law in precise language to firearms as I do to anything else. Details matter. But I think you’ve also demonstrated that you’re not actually interested in a conversation based on fact.
If you want, I can pull you chapter & verse from Florida statutes to prove this to you. But you’re interested more in the emotional and sensational aspect of the word murder.
Sure, "gun nuts" can get passionate when some person does his "shall not be infringed" thing to his fellow citizens. "Gun Nuttery" is born of common sense and a will to survive. Without passion about preserving our Constitution, America is over. We all know it.
" "Murder," is the action or an act of killing."
That is just plain stupid. Probably also intentionally so.
Start be improving existing yards and getting them work and programs to feed them more workers. CIMSEC today: https://cimsec.org/a-modest-proposal-for-improving-shipyard-production-and-repair-capacity/?unapproved=221349&moderation-hash=e3ff3970a2bbf6f7376657b891b70dac#comment-221349
Airwings... How very Navy of him. What a concept.
I like it. Seeing the brass admit that they know of the problem, things aren't perfect, but they're working on it. It's a step in the right direction.
If they actually do that way, it will be a return to AAF policy of deploying groups, which became wings under USAF. LeMay always looked at things in those terms, and set up deployment packages that could be grabbed, quickly loaded, and sent to the deployment site and give the wing everything they needed to function once they got there. Independent squadrons deployed because of their function, such as recon, was more specialized.
The Navy has functioned similarly because they were limited by the airbase they used. The CV needs the entire AW to function as intended.
In my humble opinion, the gridlock vis a vis China and their belligerence will magically disappear when the missiles start flying. It's almost like the military industrial complex doesn't understand that thousands upon thousands of US Navy sailors will perish if we don't address the problem and address it now!
I think you over estimate the caliber and motivations of the people in charge of the Navy and the people who appointed them to their position. "World To End Tomorrow: Women, Minorities Hardest Hit"
I laughed so much it hurt when I read this comment.
I can say with absolute certainty that many senior executives in the D-I-C (don’t know why that acronym doesn’t catch on) DO understand the problem.
The problem is they all feel tied to budgets and procurement and profits and no one is willing to say “I’ll step up and take the big risk first”
It would be wonderful if we could build 174 destroyers, in 4 years, like we did with the FLETCHER class, but thte education system has seen to it that we don't have a population base of people capable of performing highly skilled technical jobs like building ships, airplanes, and advanced weapons.
That would take time away from video gaming, and Tic Tok.
At this point, Id be happy with the 35 Spruances in...7??
Id check my facts and verify, but no time, Ive got a World of Warships Blitz tournament...🤣
Why weld when you can groom dogs?
Sal, that is a really bad photo to use.....That .... construction worker has FOD all over himself. And I doubt it's a CTK.
To reiterate, and expound upon an earlier comment I made: I agree with the premise of composite wings. Organize, train and equip like you fight makes total operational sense. Bluntly, the cost of the model is what creates resistance to implementation. See this article from 2018: https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/09/18/bombers-fighters-and-tankers-unite-will-the-air-force-rebuild-composite-wings-to-fight-near-peer-foes/
I'm not in any way shape or form disagreeing with CDR Sal about the operational imperative of doing this to improve how we can fight and win. The problem is (quoting the article) "It doesn't look good on a budget spreadsheet." Also, claiming credit for what you are already doing (many wings in the USAF still carry a composite name / attributes) is a time honored method of "doing something" while not really changing...Implement the CDR Sal 12 Steps Program NOW!
Hey! Maybe we can actually deploy DESRONs as a unit? Or, even more hopefully, have DESFLOTs? I guess that would imply going back to something as logical as Naval Districts--as opposed to Joint Transformational Diverse and Equitable area whatevers. yeah, I'm a Neanderthal.
*Makes Neanderthal-esque grunts of agreement....
Have a care, CAPT Mongo. Admitting that you have a problem is the first step to a cure (fundamental change). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiA&ab_channel=EricGeller
Remember, he's only a pawn in the game of life.
OORAH!
"...train and deploy together " ??? What a concept!
USAAF did a pretty good job of that in WWII, at least at the micro level. Bomber crews formed up and took their aircraft through the modification centers then flew them overseas, typically at least by Squadrons, usually by Bomb Groups.
Normally by groups.
"1. We admitted we were powerless over the dead hand of the post-Goldwater-Nichols unaccountable defense nomenklatura in DC — that our ability to address the challenge from the PRC had become unmanageable."
It brought a tear to my eye when I realized the first step in any recovery program is the hardest. Admitting you have a problem and finding a way to give up the stimulus that charges your dopamine hit. Is there any place to start that we could get a consensus?