CDR, great article. Some thoughts: Regarding JADC2 (or whatever it is called several years after it's inception / roadmap and implementation plan development). It was a (likely) failed attempt at getting service specific C4 systems to work together to overcome interoperability issues that hamstrung our already grossly inadequate ability to respond to aggression worldwide. IMO, we were where we were in large part because the system was largely focused on "process" that enriched the Military Industrial Complex (MIC...TM). Your writings and the Palantier CEO's paper illustrate that quite clearly. Regarding the solution: The MIC will fight this every step of the way. Congress, DoD, and MIC have allied for decades to get the system the way it is. They DON'T WANT CHANGE. Here's hoping the new administration can bring about meaningful change.
So there is one mention of Goldwater Nichols here:
"The problem with Goldwater Nichols is that it didn’t go far enough. You can’t have a joint Department if Services have monopolies on their Title 10 equipping responsibilities. We need more competition amongst the services or you can say “joint” until you are purple in the face — it won’t make you joint." So is he suggesting that service roles and missions should be open to competition amongst the services? Not sure. I think he needs to say more. What is to be done? Kill JROC and JCIDS process? Demote the Chairman back to his pre-1986 role of "First among equals" and force the president to deal with the collective Joint Chiefs as the advisory panel? That's how Eisenhower saw it.
The death of Goldwater Nichols is just the beginning and there is a lot more work to do to again make defense acquisition work as it once did, and preserve the Goldwater Nichols chain of command (direct from POTUS to COCOM,) which was a good thing. Might dump the joint warfighting concept while we are at it, as the services all fight very differently. If it were being applied during WW2, it would be as if King and Marshall were trying to tell Nimitz, MacArthur and Eisenhower how to fight (comms, doctrine. etc,) without issuing them the strategic goals for their commands.
The problem was that the Goldwater-Nichols chain of command was effectively each theater commander fighting the others for resources. There was NO Commander-in-Chief setting overarching priorities. During World War II, FDR, Churchill, and the Combined Chiefs of Staff made the strategic decisions. Such as putting the European Theater ahead of the Pacific, and supporting the Soviets in 1942 instead of mounting their own offensives.
As for JROC, either ditch it or push it down to the O-5/O-6 level. Most of the "reforms" I saw over a 40-year career consisted of pushing decisions ever higher...onto plates that were already overflowing. "Joint" works best at the working level.
"So is he suggesting that service roles and missions should be open to competition amongst the services?"
I don't think that is what he meant.
The way I read it, the services can compete by developing similar capabilities (Example: Comm Systems), but at the end of the day, DoD and/or the Combatant Commanders pick the winner, and the other services follow their decision.
One can take it to simple forms for the moment. DOGE finds the rat lines and begins to roll them up at DOD. Goldwater Nichols gets binned. Flabby in thinking and physically so, senior military and civilian employees are reminded whom they work for and are shown the door. Alignment of DOD budgets with reality, who the Hell are we fighting, gonna fight and why? DOGE and OMB and POTUS use every trick in the trades to realign the missions with what is needed. Senator FogHorn Leghorn isn’t going to like the 10 billion dollar study on the transgenderism of Ninja Mutant Turtles in his state being cancelled, but if anyone in the incomingTrump Administration is thinking they will be popular they ought be done worth that thought rather quickly. Maybe just maybe we can tell the enviros that we are going to use terribly toxic paints on our warships that spend inordinate amounts of time at sea, defending Pax Americana from….well you name the bad guys, but until there is alignment on that front with a lucid foreign policy we are going to paint our warships with paint that doesn’t contribute to rust. Thanks for link.
Stop with the lead paint nonsense. We do not need to foul the waters and retard the development of children to keep ships from rusting; any more than we need to fuel our ships with coal.
There are far superior corrosion controls in 2024 than there were in 1918, just like there are more efficient means of propulsion than coal fired paddlewheels. Come on down to the Port of Miami, look at the gleaming white cruise ships. Our navy could look good too, if the leadership made it a priority. The crappy look of our naval ships is caused by too few vessels with too small crews, not our abandonment of environmentally destructive lead paint.
Of significance to us in the LPTB (Little Plastic Toy Boat) World here on the Great Lakes, the Canadians have banned the use of VC-17 (and other similar brands), which is the most effective bottom paint in use here.
I am all for the environment, but its capricious rule making by bureaucrats... who often harbor beliefs that are more philosophical and political than scientific... that is a serious issue.
Grand Bahama Shipyard Launches $600 Million Transformation
Grand Bahama Shipyard announced a $600 million transformation project to expand its operations and regain its position as the largest cruise ship repair facility in the world.
My point is not that the ships are painted in Miami, my point is that there is proper corrosion control that can be applied. Our host has exhaustively catalogued the issue of too few ships, crewed by too few sailors, and a chain of command focused on nonsense. Our ships look like crap because the head of our Navy allows it; not because we stopped poisoning the environment with lead.
You are not going to get support for the Navy our nation needs by acting like a bunch of right-wing assholes. Nonsense like this turns off the folks you need. You need liberals and conservatives to pressure their congressmen to pass a budget which provides for ship construction. You need Democrats to support ship construction, so that when the legislature turns over, ships continue to slide down the ways.
Normal folks care about clean air and clean water they are not going to accept pollution just because the Navy is too lazy to apply the proper preservative.
DoD systems acquisition is filled with case studies in "sunk cost fallacy".
I did not work any part of F-35! But I knew it was a mess many years ago when I read that tests of measurable specification requirements, on contract!!!, were put off, never passed! IOW the parts did not get tested so the whole is in trouble.
F-35 is SOP!
The system does not have the capacity to walk away from a failed system.
Various comments about who is talking to who makes me believe there is and will be substantial discussions among top-tier talent in our National Security realm. Zero chance that Palintir execs will not share information/insights with Trump, SecDef, Elon, Vivek and similar. "Palantir Technologies has named Mike Gallagher, the former congressman who led the House Select Committee on China, to lead its defense business, the company announced Thursday. (Aug 2024)" Mike and Pete Hegseth are of like minds.
CDR Sal - I'm not smart enough to fully understand all that is written here but I am able to comprehend the overarching message. I'm hoping that, as you indicate, the article can find its way into the hands who are able to take decisive action. Thanks for keeping us posted and best wishes to you.
Jetcal1: PLTR is down, today. I double posted by mistake (see below). I noticed your comment about Palantir being a software company. It started as a pure spook operation--data analysis in the Global War on Terror. That's what the company does. No hardware, at least, not yet. PLTR could be a great stock for the future or a big pump-and-dump. Executive compensation at Palantir is enormous.
The compensation is part of why Mike Gallagher left Congress and joined the Palantir executive team. Smart move on his part, and America will still benefit from his talents.
Good pull CDR, 'course we're all already acolytes of his views to some extent. It was easy to think of the similarities to the FAA in initial reading and then? Poof! The subject of drones is brought up. In regards to commercial spaceflight, the FAA structure and rigidity probably killed alot of innovation as well.
Perhaps as the giants like Boeing and Lockheed start shedding their smaller companies (Like Ball Aerospace, Cessna, etc.) to generate revenue to cover their losses they will run like Mr. Sankar suggests.
However, one caveat. Mr. Sankar deals in S/W. And the transition of some of his ideas where S/W is king and not people may not translate 100% to the factory floor.
So, Palantir stock (PLTR) is a buy? Most interesting to me is the chart where Sankar, the CEO, lists Palantir as a defense contractor and places his company at the top of the list. Note that document was published in October, 2024, before the election. During that time, Sankar, Thiel and Musk were pulling together their strategy to "re-invent" (or overhaul, or streamline, or take over; I'm not sure!) FedGov.
In February, 2024, PLTR was trading around $25/share. Recently, it reached about $76 share. Much of that run-up took place in the last three months.
There's an interesting defense story here and there's also an interesting stock market story. The stories are most definitely related.
"Productivity is more lethal than weapon stockpiles." - only if your productivity is at actual warfighting rate. No Congress will ever pay for that much productivity in peacetime, so I suggest you get busy building a MUCH bigger stockpile.
I sure hope at least some of this sticks, but I'm sure there are efforts underway to declare Mr. Sankar is "unqualified" to have any say on the matter.
Meanwhile, I ran across this sad picture. There is so much in there that is... Just. Wrong....
The other day, Sal had written a post about having a Board of Inquiry for those who wear camo in inappropriate situations. I thought Sal's suggestion was spot on and would quickly end our officers wearing camo instead of the appropriate uniform. This is especially applicable for the most senior ranks as it shows a disrespect for themselves, the uniform, their position, the Service, and the person(s) they are meeting.
Bourbon for the soul. Now find a small nibble team that understands this deep in their bones. Place them in the top spots & several layers down & tell the to proceed as if we were attacked yesterday.
I read this and it reinforces my belief we have the wrong guy nominated for SECDEF. He’s fighting the last war not the one in front of us today.
DEI must die & Pete is a fine Social Justice Warrior but he has yet to address the deeper issues nor show he understands them.
Is it a good idea for the COCOMS to define requirements?
Its all too chaotic already.
Each CNO comes along with their own pet projects.
Boorda with the Arsenal Ship
Clark with the LCS
Franchetti with Lethality
I will posit a central problem is that there hasn't been a coherent process of Requirements definition in decades. Adding the COCOMS in will just add yet another dimension to the Who's on First games.
Agents of Innovation: The General Board and the Design of the Fleet that Defeated the Japanese Navy
Agents of Innovation examines the influence of the General Board of the Navy as agents of innovation during the period between World Wars I and II. The General Board, a formal body established by the Secretary of the Navy to advise him on both strategic matters with respect to the fleet, served as the organizational nexus for the interaction between fleet design and the naval limitations imposed on the Navy by treaty during the period. Particularly important was the General Board's role in implementing the Washington Naval Treaty that limited naval armaments after 1922. The General Board orchestrated the efforts by the principal Naval Bureaus, the Naval War College, and the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations in ensuring that the designs adopted for the warships built and modified during the period of the Washington and London Naval Treaties both met treaty requirements while attempting to meet strategic needs. The leadership of the Navy at large, and the General Board in particular, felt themselves especially constrained by Article XIX (the fortification clause) of the Washington Naval Treaty that implemented a status quo on naval fortifications in the Western Pacific. The treaty system led the Navy to design a measurably different fleet than it might otherwise have in the absence of naval limitations. Despite these limitations, the fleet that fought the Japanese to a standstill in 1942 was predominately composed of ships and concepts developed and fostered by the General Board prior to the outbreak of war.
CDR, great article. Some thoughts: Regarding JADC2 (or whatever it is called several years after it's inception / roadmap and implementation plan development). It was a (likely) failed attempt at getting service specific C4 systems to work together to overcome interoperability issues that hamstrung our already grossly inadequate ability to respond to aggression worldwide. IMO, we were where we were in large part because the system was largely focused on "process" that enriched the Military Industrial Complex (MIC...TM). Your writings and the Palantier CEO's paper illustrate that quite clearly. Regarding the solution: The MIC will fight this every step of the way. Congress, DoD, and MIC have allied for decades to get the system the way it is. They DON'T WANT CHANGE. Here's hoping the new administration can bring about meaningful change.
So there is one mention of Goldwater Nichols here:
"The problem with Goldwater Nichols is that it didn’t go far enough. You can’t have a joint Department if Services have monopolies on their Title 10 equipping responsibilities. We need more competition amongst the services or you can say “joint” until you are purple in the face — it won’t make you joint." So is he suggesting that service roles and missions should be open to competition amongst the services? Not sure. I think he needs to say more. What is to be done? Kill JROC and JCIDS process? Demote the Chairman back to his pre-1986 role of "First among equals" and force the president to deal with the collective Joint Chiefs as the advisory panel? That's how Eisenhower saw it.
The death of Goldwater Nichols is just the beginning and there is a lot more work to do to again make defense acquisition work as it once did, and preserve the Goldwater Nichols chain of command (direct from POTUS to COCOM,) which was a good thing. Might dump the joint warfighting concept while we are at it, as the services all fight very differently. If it were being applied during WW2, it would be as if King and Marshall were trying to tell Nimitz, MacArthur and Eisenhower how to fight (comms, doctrine. etc,) without issuing them the strategic goals for their commands.
The problem was that the Goldwater-Nichols chain of command was effectively each theater commander fighting the others for resources. There was NO Commander-in-Chief setting overarching priorities. During World War II, FDR, Churchill, and the Combined Chiefs of Staff made the strategic decisions. Such as putting the European Theater ahead of the Pacific, and supporting the Soviets in 1942 instead of mounting their own offensives.
As for JROC, either ditch it or push it down to the O-5/O-6 level. Most of the "reforms" I saw over a 40-year career consisted of pushing decisions ever higher...onto plates that were already overflowing. "Joint" works best at the working level.
"So is he suggesting that service roles and missions should be open to competition amongst the services?"
I don't think that is what he meant.
The way I read it, the services can compete by developing similar capabilities (Example: Comm Systems), but at the end of the day, DoD and/or the Combatant Commanders pick the winner, and the other services follow their decision.
One can take it to simple forms for the moment. DOGE finds the rat lines and begins to roll them up at DOD. Goldwater Nichols gets binned. Flabby in thinking and physically so, senior military and civilian employees are reminded whom they work for and are shown the door. Alignment of DOD budgets with reality, who the Hell are we fighting, gonna fight and why? DOGE and OMB and POTUS use every trick in the trades to realign the missions with what is needed. Senator FogHorn Leghorn isn’t going to like the 10 billion dollar study on the transgenderism of Ninja Mutant Turtles in his state being cancelled, but if anyone in the incomingTrump Administration is thinking they will be popular they ought be done worth that thought rather quickly. Maybe just maybe we can tell the enviros that we are going to use terribly toxic paints on our warships that spend inordinate amounts of time at sea, defending Pax Americana from….well you name the bad guys, but until there is alignment on that front with a lucid foreign policy we are going to paint our warships with paint that doesn’t contribute to rust. Thanks for link.
Stop with the lead paint nonsense. We do not need to foul the waters and retard the development of children to keep ships from rusting; any more than we need to fuel our ships with coal.
There are far superior corrosion controls in 2024 than there were in 1918, just like there are more efficient means of propulsion than coal fired paddlewheels. Come on down to the Port of Miami, look at the gleaming white cruise ships. Our navy could look good too, if the leadership made it a priority. The crappy look of our naval ships is caused by too few vessels with too small crews, not our abandonment of environmentally destructive lead paint.
If your kids are drinking seawater..... leaf paint isn't a problem.
"Oysters can also be contaminated by heavy metals like cadmium and lead. Acute toxicity resulting from consumption of contaminated food is uncommon but chronic exposure can result in undesirable toxic effects." https://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/multimedia/multimedia_pub/multimedia_pub_fsf_90_01.html#:~:text=Heavy%20Metals%20in%20Oysters,result%20in%20undesirable%20toxic%20effects.
I was in Destin over the weekend, and ate oysters.
I worry much more about Vibrio....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkjpKXDqKLI
Of significance to us in the LPTB (Little Plastic Toy Boat) World here on the Great Lakes, the Canadians have banned the use of VC-17 (and other similar brands), which is the most effective bottom paint in use here.
Without warning, VC17 is coming off the market
https://boatingindustry.ca/current-news/without-warning-vc17-is-coming-off-the-market/
I am all for the environment, but its capricious rule making by bureaucrats... who often harbor beliefs that are more philosophical and political than scientific... that is a serious issue.
https://www.mercatus.org/research/public-interest-comments/epas-irrational-uncompliant-benefit-cost-analysis-requires
https://energycommerce.house.gov/posts/e-and-c-republican-staff-report-details-cronyism-within-biden-harris-epa-s-multibillion-dollar-environmental-justice-grant-programs-1
Its not the "right wing assholes" who wield ...and routinely abuse... the power in these matters Tom.
You would do better to worry about land based pollution contaminating shellfish.
My kids are apex predators. Its their problem and yours.
" Come on down to the Port of Miami, look at the gleaming white cruise ships"
Ever consider why the cruise ships all go to a yard in the Bahamas instead of say, Jacksonville, Tom? Those ships are never painted in Miami.
https://cruiseindustrynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/gbsl.jpg
https://cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/2023/10/grand-bahama-shipyard-launches-600-million-transformation/
Grand Bahama Shipyard Launches $600 Million Transformation
Grand Bahama Shipyard announced a $600 million transformation project to expand its operations and regain its position as the largest cruise ship repair facility in the world.
https://grandbahamashipyard.com/
My point is not that the ships are painted in Miami, my point is that there is proper corrosion control that can be applied. Our host has exhaustively catalogued the issue of too few ships, crewed by too few sailors, and a chain of command focused on nonsense. Our ships look like crap because the head of our Navy allows it; not because we stopped poisoning the environment with lead.
You are not going to get support for the Navy our nation needs by acting like a bunch of right-wing assholes. Nonsense like this turns off the folks you need. You need liberals and conservatives to pressure their congressmen to pass a budget which provides for ship construction. You need Democrats to support ship construction, so that when the legislature turns over, ships continue to slide down the ways.
Normal folks care about clean air and clean water they are not going to accept pollution just because the Navy is too lazy to apply the proper preservative.
Nice knee jerk to your "right wing assholes" bastion where you dont have to engage in critical thinking Tom.
Did you know that its the paint process that is the most expensive portion of a US shipyard flow, and the biggest contributor for bottlenecks Tom?
Cruise ship operators get to avoid the expense and possible loss of use of their ships using foreign shipyards Tom.
Is Grand Bahama Island a toxic wasteland?
Here. Let me help you dig out of your continuing ignorance of shipyard matters...
https://www.nsrp.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Foreign_Shipyards_Coatings_Benchmarking-2013.pdf
DoD systems acquisition is filled with case studies in "sunk cost fallacy".
I did not work any part of F-35! But I knew it was a mess many years ago when I read that tests of measurable specification requirements, on contract!!!, were put off, never passed! IOW the parts did not get tested so the whole is in trouble.
F-35 is SOP!
The system does not have the capacity to walk away from a failed system.
Goes back to 1947!
Great read! Hope this author and the new SECDEF meet soon to discuss.
Make this guy SECDEF & Pete DEI Czar.
Various comments about who is talking to who makes me believe there is and will be substantial discussions among top-tier talent in our National Security realm. Zero chance that Palintir execs will not share information/insights with Trump, SecDef, Elon, Vivek and similar. "Palantir Technologies has named Mike Gallagher, the former congressman who led the House Select Committee on China, to lead its defense business, the company announced Thursday. (Aug 2024)" Mike and Pete Hegseth are of like minds.
CDR Sal - I'm not smart enough to fully understand all that is written here but I am able to comprehend the overarching message. I'm hoping that, as you indicate, the article can find its way into the hands who are able to take decisive action. Thanks for keeping us posted and best wishes to you.
So, Palantir's a buy?
I just checked the stock price and am contemplating a small buy.
Jetcal1: PLTR is down, today. I double posted by mistake (see below). I noticed your comment about Palantir being a software company. It started as a pure spook operation--data analysis in the Global War on Terror. That's what the company does. No hardware, at least, not yet. PLTR could be a great stock for the future or a big pump-and-dump. Executive compensation at Palantir is enormous.
The compensation is part of why Mike Gallagher left Congress and joined the Palantir executive team. Smart move on his part, and America will still benefit from his talents.
I bought the day they went public. One of the smartest decisions I ever made.....
Good pull CDR, 'course we're all already acolytes of his views to some extent. It was easy to think of the similarities to the FAA in initial reading and then? Poof! The subject of drones is brought up. In regards to commercial spaceflight, the FAA structure and rigidity probably killed alot of innovation as well.
Perhaps as the giants like Boeing and Lockheed start shedding their smaller companies (Like Ball Aerospace, Cessna, etc.) to generate revenue to cover their losses they will run like Mr. Sankar suggests.
However, one caveat. Mr. Sankar deals in S/W. And the transition of some of his ideas where S/W is king and not people may not translate 100% to the factory floor.
So, Palantir stock (PLTR) is a buy? Most interesting to me is the chart where Sankar, the CEO, lists Palantir as a defense contractor and places his company at the top of the list. Note that document was published in October, 2024, before the election. During that time, Sankar, Thiel and Musk were pulling together their strategy to "re-invent" (or overhaul, or streamline, or take over; I'm not sure!) FedGov.
In February, 2024, PLTR was trading around $25/share. Recently, it reached about $76 share. Much of that run-up took place in the last three months.
There's an interesting defense story here and there's also an interesting stock market story. The stories are most definitely related.
"Productivity is more lethal than weapon stockpiles." - only if your productivity is at actual warfighting rate. No Congress will ever pay for that much productivity in peacetime, so I suggest you get busy building a MUCH bigger stockpile.
I sure hope at least some of this sticks, but I'm sure there are efforts underway to declare Mr. Sankar is "unqualified" to have any say on the matter.
Meanwhile, I ran across this sad picture. There is so much in there that is... Just. Wrong....
https://media.defense.gov/2024/Oct/29/2003573515/1460/1280/0/241024-N-N0801-1001.JPG
https://www.cpf.navy.mil/Newsroom/News/Article/3947168/readout-pacific-fleet-commanders-travel-to-republic-of-korea-oct-23-24/
Peter Theil, Elon Musk, Mike Gallagher, and others will run interference for those who try to kneecap Mr. Sankar.
The camo is embarrassing. I doubt that Pete Hegseth will allow this practice of wearing camo to continue.
Agree, but so many don't see the message they are sending.
At least the Admiral isn't in a flight suit...
Oh. Wait.
https://media.defense.gov/2024/Oct/15/2003565131/1460/1280/0/241011-N-KE644-1206.JPG
Dress the part Admiral. Your hot stick/cool callsign days are behind you.
How about COMPACFLT smiling about the fact that a critical asset like that T-AKE has to be in a Korean yard to get fixed?
And he is smiling in front of that long neglected, embarrassing, lubberly, transom.
The other day, Sal had written a post about having a Board of Inquiry for those who wear camo in inappropriate situations. I thought Sal's suggestion was spot on and would quickly end our officers wearing camo instead of the appropriate uniform. This is especially applicable for the most senior ranks as it shows a disrespect for themselves, the uniform, their position, the Service, and the person(s) they are meeting.
Speaking of foreign yards...anybody know the latest on Big Horn?
Last heard on Cavas' podcast, USN plans to scrap her and bypass any repairs.
Wow...
Exactly what did happen to her?
The USN can ill afford disposable hulls...
https://maritime-executive.com/article/u-s-navy-s-afloat-accident-rate-hits-decade-high-led-by-msc
Bourbon for the soul. Now find a small nibble team that understands this deep in their bones. Place them in the top spots & several layers down & tell the to proceed as if we were attacked yesterday.
I read this and it reinforces my belief we have the wrong guy nominated for SECDEF. He’s fighting the last war not the one in front of us today.
DEI must die & Pete is a fine Social Justice Warrior but he has yet to address the deeper issues nor show he understands them.
Sal4DefSec.
HMSLion for SECNAV. May as well get the best... :-)
OUT OF THE PARK!!!!!!!
All the big boys are writing checks to democrats at this very moment. Most would have to break up under this plan.
I’m assuming you’re in talks with Pete Hegseth to be a prominent member of his team…
Is it a good idea for the COCOMS to define requirements?
Its all too chaotic already.
Each CNO comes along with their own pet projects.
Boorda with the Arsenal Ship
Clark with the LCS
Franchetti with Lethality
I will posit a central problem is that there hasn't been a coherent process of Requirements definition in decades. Adding the COCOMS in will just add yet another dimension to the Who's on First games.
Time for a modern analogue to the General Board.
https://www.amazon.com/Agents-Innovation-General-Defeated-Japanese/dp/1591144485
Agents of Innovation: The General Board and the Design of the Fleet that Defeated the Japanese Navy
Agents of Innovation examines the influence of the General Board of the Navy as agents of innovation during the period between World Wars I and II. The General Board, a formal body established by the Secretary of the Navy to advise him on both strategic matters with respect to the fleet, served as the organizational nexus for the interaction between fleet design and the naval limitations imposed on the Navy by treaty during the period. Particularly important was the General Board's role in implementing the Washington Naval Treaty that limited naval armaments after 1922. The General Board orchestrated the efforts by the principal Naval Bureaus, the Naval War College, and the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations in ensuring that the designs adopted for the warships built and modified during the period of the Washington and London Naval Treaties both met treaty requirements while attempting to meet strategic needs. The leadership of the Navy at large, and the General Board in particular, felt themselves especially constrained by Article XIX (the fortification clause) of the Washington Naval Treaty that implemented a status quo on naval fortifications in the Western Pacific. The treaty system led the Navy to design a measurably different fleet than it might otherwise have in the absence of naval limitations. Despite these limitations, the fleet that fought the Japanese to a standstill in 1942 was predominately composed of ships and concepts developed and fostered by the General Board prior to the outbreak of war.