CDR Sal, thanks for doing the hard work of digging into this document at a detailed enough level to understand what's in it. Not an easy, or pleasant task. These are baby steps at the legislative level to actually get something done. Your truly disturbing report on the past, present, and current trajectory of the UK navy weighs heavy on my mind. History does not repeat, or rhyme, but patterns of human behavior (and empires) certainly do. Our recent past in DoW(D) may not support creating actual capability for our warfighters, but it has created a lot of personal wealth for recently retired flags, the "Prime" defense contractors, and the legislative branch. It has to be pointed out that "admiring the problem" is very profitable as a low effort, low risk (no CAPEX build of manufacturing capabilities required). IOW, high ROI for all concerned...except the warfighter and nation. The UK studied their problems to death, and eventually industrial and national will atrophied to the point of what appears to be no return. Here's hoping we see the lesson before us, take heed, and actually do something. If war comes in 2027, non bueno, and no material impact, but perhaps a demonstration of being serious will give an opponent pause. Fingers crossed...
Thank you CDR, you are correct, the Legislative Branch is who inform.
Please do not act as a “Lobbyist”! Take no monies from any firm, or you will be caught up in your skivvies. Depositions will nail you, and I’m just learning Law now…
Indeed, eyes on China and India because it’s their fleet of ships we must maneuver around! Ghost Ships are paid for and may or may not be insured. Please recommend all Merchant Vessels to contact appropriate Port Authorities and follow their guidance.
Please be my guest as to recommending forward fronting guns!
Please keep advocating for Robotic Mine Sweeping Artificial Intelligence.
Please be advised, Fuel sources will be needed “Over There”. Ships will carry that fuel. Don’t know any more than that. President Putin is very busy today!
Please be advised, if a back pack bomb can be detonated in Monaco, so too at our Important places! If you see it; Say it! Please do not allow dogs neither cats to distract your vigilant watch! Birds do react to wind, weather and drones, so please… eyes to the sky! Hydrate and be in the shade! Good luck! Nurse Jane
The first line (5719) indicates we're still dicking around with torpedo acquisition. Shouldn't this be simple low hanging fruit the USN already asked for in the budget?
So Congreff doesn’t give any sense on it, but under current naming practice ‘Midway’ and ‘Guadalcanal’ would go to America-class baby-CVs, right? Not some floating combat droid tender?
Somewhere I have a biography of Casimir Pulaski, the Polish nobleman, who was a soldier, and military commander on two continents; a true patriot to the cause of liberty. But, does the “The Father of American Cavalry,” deserve a naval ship? Shouldn’t destroyers be named for US Naval heroes, not soldiers.
I disagree. So much of the American Revolution was amphibious and BGEN Pulaski is no exception. The Navy has had a wooden steamer and an SSBN named in his honor. A DDG or FFG would be nice.
The Affair At Egg Harbor: Massacre Of The Pulaski Legion
Editor’s Note: I just realized that I set this up such that only paid subscribers could comment. That was not my intention and will not be the standard going forward. I will correct this later today to open in up for all. Sorry for any frustration this oversight of mine may have caused.
If the railgun is the holdup build the first 4 with more VLS instead.
Or... my personal preference.... an updated De Moines class auto loading 8" with precision guided, rocket/ram jet boosted projectiles. Even better, upscale it to 10" / 500 lb projectiles.
1) I am in full agreement on the “hold your horses” on the battleship”. I do think a common nuclear powered HM&E should be developed for multiple classes of vessels including amphibious, and logistical support. See Also the last Amendment comment.
2) Once U.S. industry begins real development of the Rail Gun things will begin to happen particularly now that we have multiple new players in the mix. They will help keep the costs down via competition, which the MIC has colluded against.
3) For not only the FF(X) development (combat system & HM&E) there should be Land Based Test Sites. This developmental effort should include the nuke plant for item #2.
4) The only RELIABLE AND WORKING Surface Combatant in the fleet should persist . . . until the replacement is out, proven, and produced in numbers by more than one shipyard. The ability to continue that construction as the fleet grows is in question for we have not the shipyards/talent pool at present.
5) It is not just Shipyards, it is the technical population regardless of talent pool to man them. At present that talent pool does not exist. You can have all the shipyards you want, and it means nothing if there is no one to employ in them. Construction of Surface Combatants overseas may be required until this situation changes, and that [creation of the talent pool] is not going to happen quickly.
6) Concerning the ‘build one in the U.S. for every 12 overseas’ is ok . . . IF that shipyard can be determined, contracts awarded, and personnel available to perform the construction. At present that is a pipedream!
7) Concerning Amendments:
a. (5719) I actually like the idea of increased torpedo construction particularly considering the U.S. Navy's Mk58 Compact Rapid Attack Weapon (CRAW), and additional development is required for an extended range ASROC version, and aviation version. I would like to see ANDURIL in that development. It will not cost an arm & leg, and be delivered quickly.
b. (5720) Containerized ‘drop on’ Combat Management Systems (Aegis in a Box) . . . SHOULD BE developed IMHO! Most all the elements already exist.
c. (5783) IMHO the U.S. Navy should have NEVER divested itself of amphibious mono-hull seaplanes. The U.S. Navy no longer has an amphibious helo, and a P-8A Poseidon can find things quickly/efficiently, but it will NEVER land on the water.
d. (5787) Given the massive Chinese influence on Guadalcanal, and across the Solomon Islands I am in agreement with the sentiment of this item, and it should be an Aviation-Centric LHA-6 USS American Class “LIGHTNING CARRIER”.
e. (5788) A CVN-78 Class vessel should be named MIDWAY.
f. (5790) I agree with this amendment.
g. (5819) The result of this study will equal that of the same study for resuming F-22 assembly line, and the elevated cost of same will be much less than a new construction construct as has been demonstrated by the F-47. Perhaps it is time to just scale the Blended Wing Body (BWB) aircraft from C-130 to C-5 sizes, and move out. Jet Zero is working on the prototype.
h. (6311) IMHO is just meddling by the existing MIC. They are NOT producing even with $Billions in advanced/elevated investments, and they do not want to start over with Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs) and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) which will be easier to operate, maintain, repair, and cost less to boot. IMHO we SHOULD do this!
Like both ideas. Boeing would be the best selection for they have made many amphibians in the past.
W/r/t this topic I would like to see a new Aviation Tender made from the proposed AS(X) that would have a large flight deck and hanger aft with two large cranes that can lift a new amphibian on deck. The two cranes would be 30ton with significant reach, and be able to resupply surface combatants with VLS cells not just lift aircraft on deck requiring maintenance out of the water. Those cranes would be amidship aft just forward of the flight deck port/starboard.
The hangar should be able to contain two aircraft nose to tail.
The U.S. Navy has been hamstrung for decades because they do not have a rapid method to recover things at sea away from helo-equipped ships. The P-8A Poseidon can find things quickly . . . but they will NEVER LAND ON THE WATER. Multiple locations (more than you can count) will require logistical support during future conflicts and the amphibious capability will solve so many problems that just require more time to plan for today, and in combat that time is typically a rare commodity if it exist at all.
Buy some US-2s to get started but we can do far better than that as an Air Sea Rescue aircraft. One that is even jumpable, or can drop something larger than a valise-packed raft
As far as 'still not jumpable' . . . they have a large cargo door that can open in flight. They do not fly fast and can slow down a lot for deployment. However, the PBY can land on the water and deploy boats out the side. The DHC-515 can do the same.
The original PBY has inferior range and speed to US-2. The turbo PBY might close the gap some, but I'll bet the US-2 still has the edge. Also, US-2 has very impressive stall speed characteristics.
The PBY-5A had a range of 2190 nm. The US-2 has a range of 2300 nm. Not that big a difference.
But the problem with both is neither can safely deploy PJs, especially American-sized jumpers (tiny doors). Aside from that, they cannot deploy large rescue packages like RIBs
Back in the '60's Lockheed talked about building an amphib Hercules...That would be better. but would take some time to build. Other options exist, something like a CL-415, probably with a longer wing for fuel storage.
An (or the) Amphibious Hercules would be a nightmare. Small float planes work well, but when you get medium size things start getting much more difficult for weights and balances in a dynamic environment over which you have no control (the ocean).
The Italians built the CANT Z.511 and it was a beast. For the operational record the U.S. Navy operated multiple amphibious aircraft successfully all through the war and after the war up to even today for a very few. From Grumman J2F Duck launching from individual ships, flying the mission, then landing next to the ship and craned back on board . . . the helo has pretty much replaced that capability, but range and speed suffer in our new platforms, and as stated in previous comments we no longer have amphibious helicopters in any service. The PBY-5A was probably one of the most prolific and successful amphibious platforms (but not the only one), and there are many a sailor walking around today because they existed. That equation no longer exist, and it is a true shame. Now that we will struggle in the Western Pacific Archipelagic AOR there are many places where the amphibious aircraft is a READY SOLUTION to quite a number of missions around islands and atolls that will never have a runway. THAT is the hole and navy mission sets has difficulty filling in each and every case.
I do like the DHC-515 Firefighter (formerly the Canadair CL-515). They fly today, and modified for long range patrol they would be excellent operating off of an Aviation Tender, and from shore bases. That could happen quickly.
With a 19 hour endurance at 185 mph these new Catalina's can cover a lot of water. Placing refueling capability on Small Boys will extend their operational capability. A PBY support kit for surface vessels would need to be developed and provided to the fleet in numbers.
Fuel consumption and drag will be slightly lower. I'd bet the difference would be so small it'd boil down to differences in rigging of the airframe and throttles.
Ideally the U.S. Navy would develop a common hull with double hull construction powered by Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). They should make at least 100 MW(e) per unit. The SMRs are being designed to make up to 300 MW(e) per unit. A scaling of this specific platform could make not just a common hull for a class, but a design for a line of USN vessels for various mission(s) using different hulls using the same propulsion system in three different sizes.
Power distribution would be via the U.S. Navy Integrated Power System (IPS) scaled for the applications.
So the HM&E could be common in many aspects between many platforms, but just have a different hull-form, bow, or above deck spaces as appropriate to support the mission of the ship. This kind of design criteria would facilitate easier logistical support and maintenance (preventative & corrective).
Of course NO ONE in NAVSEA thinks this way because the MIC does not want them too. The MIC wants to sell a specific highly unique widget for every job and purpose...with associated high expense.
Today we see no discipline in program management w/r/t design commonality across programs in almost any service but most particularly in USN systems (period)! Congress has not risen to the challenge of requiring this kind of activity to DELIBERATELY hold cost down, and make things more efficient/effective. To rape the American Taxpayer is the order of the day.
CDR Sal, thanks for doing the hard work of digging into this document at a detailed enough level to understand what's in it. Not an easy, or pleasant task. These are baby steps at the legislative level to actually get something done. Your truly disturbing report on the past, present, and current trajectory of the UK navy weighs heavy on my mind. History does not repeat, or rhyme, but patterns of human behavior (and empires) certainly do. Our recent past in DoW(D) may not support creating actual capability for our warfighters, but it has created a lot of personal wealth for recently retired flags, the "Prime" defense contractors, and the legislative branch. It has to be pointed out that "admiring the problem" is very profitable as a low effort, low risk (no CAPEX build of manufacturing capabilities required). IOW, high ROI for all concerned...except the warfighter and nation. The UK studied their problems to death, and eventually industrial and national will atrophied to the point of what appears to be no return. Here's hoping we see the lesson before us, take heed, and actually do something. If war comes in 2027, non bueno, and no material impact, but perhaps a demonstration of being serious will give an opponent pause. Fingers crossed...
Thank you CDR, you are correct, the Legislative Branch is who inform.
Please do not act as a “Lobbyist”! Take no monies from any firm, or you will be caught up in your skivvies. Depositions will nail you, and I’m just learning Law now…
Indeed, eyes on China and India because it’s their fleet of ships we must maneuver around! Ghost Ships are paid for and may or may not be insured. Please recommend all Merchant Vessels to contact appropriate Port Authorities and follow their guidance.
Please be my guest as to recommending forward fronting guns!
Please keep advocating for Robotic Mine Sweeping Artificial Intelligence.
Please be advised, Fuel sources will be needed “Over There”. Ships will carry that fuel. Don’t know any more than that. President Putin is very busy today!
Please be advised, if a back pack bomb can be detonated in Monaco, so too at our Important places! If you see it; Say it! Please do not allow dogs neither cats to distract your vigilant watch! Birds do react to wind, weather and drones, so please… eyes to the sky! Hydrate and be in the shade! Good luck! Nurse Jane
The first line (5719) indicates we're still dicking around with torpedo acquisition. Shouldn't this be simple low hanging fruit the USN already asked for in the budget?
So Congreff doesn’t give any sense on it, but under current naming practice ‘Midway’ and ‘Guadalcanal’ would go to America-class baby-CVs, right? Not some floating combat droid tender?
Somewhere I have a biography of Casimir Pulaski, the Polish nobleman, who was a soldier, and military commander on two continents; a true patriot to the cause of liberty. But, does the “The Father of American Cavalry,” deserve a naval ship? Shouldn’t destroyers be named for US Naval heroes, not soldiers.
Naming conventions got trashed along time ago. And there is precedent with the Lafayette, SSBN-616.
Just because they fell out of style does not mean they should be abandoned. USS Lafayette, no. USS Comte de Grasse, yes.
SSBN-633 also established the precedent.
So, why's he get another one? Capital ships should be named for states, cruisers for cities, and destroyers for naval heroes.
I had no idea the LCS were cruisers. :)
Why not? An imaginary warship might as well be an imaginary cruiser.
As far as I am concerned, as long as they build it, they can name it whatever they want; just build the damn things.
I disagree. So much of the American Revolution was amphibious and BGEN Pulaski is no exception. The Navy has had a wooden steamer and an SSBN named in his honor. A DDG or FFG would be nice.
The Affair At Egg Harbor: Massacre Of The Pulaski Legion
https://allthingsliberty.com/2017/10/affair-egg-harbor-massacre-pulaski-legion/
Pulaski: A Heros final rest
https://sr1776.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/FL23-4.pdf
Editor’s Note: I just realized that I set this up such that only paid subscribers could comment. That was not my intention and will not be the standard going forward. I will correct this later today to open in up for all. Sorry for any frustration this oversight of mine may have caused.
UPDATE: Comments are opened up!
stuff happens ..
Fifty Frigates for Freedom!!!
If the railgun is the holdup build the first 4 with more VLS instead.
Or... my personal preference.... an updated De Moines class auto loading 8" with precision guided, rocket/ram jet boosted projectiles. Even better, upscale it to 10" / 500 lb projectiles.
1) I am in full agreement on the “hold your horses” on the battleship”. I do think a common nuclear powered HM&E should be developed for multiple classes of vessels including amphibious, and logistical support. See Also the last Amendment comment.
2) Once U.S. industry begins real development of the Rail Gun things will begin to happen particularly now that we have multiple new players in the mix. They will help keep the costs down via competition, which the MIC has colluded against.
3) For not only the FF(X) development (combat system & HM&E) there should be Land Based Test Sites. This developmental effort should include the nuke plant for item #2.
4) The only RELIABLE AND WORKING Surface Combatant in the fleet should persist . . . until the replacement is out, proven, and produced in numbers by more than one shipyard. The ability to continue that construction as the fleet grows is in question for we have not the shipyards/talent pool at present.
5) It is not just Shipyards, it is the technical population regardless of talent pool to man them. At present that talent pool does not exist. You can have all the shipyards you want, and it means nothing if there is no one to employ in them. Construction of Surface Combatants overseas may be required until this situation changes, and that [creation of the talent pool] is not going to happen quickly.
6) Concerning the ‘build one in the U.S. for every 12 overseas’ is ok . . . IF that shipyard can be determined, contracts awarded, and personnel available to perform the construction. At present that is a pipedream!
7) Concerning Amendments:
a. (5719) I actually like the idea of increased torpedo construction particularly considering the U.S. Navy's Mk58 Compact Rapid Attack Weapon (CRAW), and additional development is required for an extended range ASROC version, and aviation version. I would like to see ANDURIL in that development. It will not cost an arm & leg, and be delivered quickly.
b. (5720) Containerized ‘drop on’ Combat Management Systems (Aegis in a Box) . . . SHOULD BE developed IMHO! Most all the elements already exist.
c. (5783) IMHO the U.S. Navy should have NEVER divested itself of amphibious mono-hull seaplanes. The U.S. Navy no longer has an amphibious helo, and a P-8A Poseidon can find things quickly/efficiently, but it will NEVER land on the water.
d. (5787) Given the massive Chinese influence on Guadalcanal, and across the Solomon Islands I am in agreement with the sentiment of this item, and it should be an Aviation-Centric LHA-6 USS American Class “LIGHTNING CARRIER”.
e. (5788) A CVN-78 Class vessel should be named MIDWAY.
f. (5790) I agree with this amendment.
g. (5819) The result of this study will equal that of the same study for resuming F-22 assembly line, and the elevated cost of same will be much less than a new construction construct as has been demonstrated by the F-47. Perhaps it is time to just scale the Blended Wing Body (BWB) aircraft from C-130 to C-5 sizes, and move out. Jet Zero is working on the prototype.
h. (6311) IMHO is just meddling by the existing MIC. They are NOT producing even with $Billions in advanced/elevated investments, and they do not want to start over with Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs) and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) which will be easier to operate, maintain, repair, and cost less to boot. IMHO we SHOULD do this!
Just my 2¢.
TORCH OUT
It says contract to build one for every 12 O'seas.
That is not, thankfully, a limit....it's an expense when the contract is cancelled after 120 are built
re 7C - The P8 does land on water....once.
We did have one in Hawaii didn't we.
7c. License build Shinmaywa US-2. Don't waste money on a development cycle for a capability that already exists.
7e. Concur that a future CVN should be named USS Midway, preferably to be home-ported in Yokosuka as its namesake was.
Like both ideas. Boeing would be the best selection for they have made many amphibians in the past.
W/r/t this topic I would like to see a new Aviation Tender made from the proposed AS(X) that would have a large flight deck and hanger aft with two large cranes that can lift a new amphibian on deck. The two cranes would be 30ton with significant reach, and be able to resupply surface combatants with VLS cells not just lift aircraft on deck requiring maintenance out of the water. Those cranes would be amidship aft just forward of the flight deck port/starboard.
The hangar should be able to contain two aircraft nose to tail.
The U.S. Navy has been hamstrung for decades because they do not have a rapid method to recover things at sea away from helo-equipped ships. The P-8A Poseidon can find things quickly . . . but they will NEVER LAND ON THE WATER. Multiple locations (more than you can count) will require logistical support during future conflicts and the amphibious capability will solve so many problems that just require more time to plan for today, and in combat that time is typically a rare commodity if it exist at all.
Buy some US-2s to get started but we can do far better than that as an Air Sea Rescue aircraft. One that is even jumpable, or can drop something larger than a valise-packed raft
The Turbo PBY is coming back.
Still not jumpable or able to launch anything larger than a valise raft.
I suppose they could try dropping full size wooden ships boats, a'la SB-17G Dumbos.....
As far as 'still not jumpable' . . . they have a large cargo door that can open in flight. They do not fly fast and can slow down a lot for deployment. However, the PBY can land on the water and deploy boats out the side. The DHC-515 can do the same.
The original PBY has inferior range and speed to US-2. The turbo PBY might close the gap some, but I'll bet the US-2 still has the edge. Also, US-2 has very impressive stall speed characteristics.
The PBY-5A had a range of 2190 nm. The US-2 has a range of 2300 nm. Not that big a difference.
But the problem with both is neither can safely deploy PJs, especially American-sized jumpers (tiny doors). Aside from that, they cannot deploy large rescue packages like RIBs
Back in the '60's Lockheed talked about building an amphib Hercules...That would be better. but would take some time to build. Other options exist, something like a CL-415, probably with a longer wing for fuel storage.
An (or the) Amphibious Hercules would be a nightmare. Small float planes work well, but when you get medium size things start getting much more difficult for weights and balances in a dynamic environment over which you have no control (the ocean).
The Italians built the CANT Z.511 and it was a beast. For the operational record the U.S. Navy operated multiple amphibious aircraft successfully all through the war and after the war up to even today for a very few. From Grumman J2F Duck launching from individual ships, flying the mission, then landing next to the ship and craned back on board . . . the helo has pretty much replaced that capability, but range and speed suffer in our new platforms, and as stated in previous comments we no longer have amphibious helicopters in any service. The PBY-5A was probably one of the most prolific and successful amphibious platforms (but not the only one), and there are many a sailor walking around today because they existed. That equation no longer exist, and it is a true shame. Now that we will struggle in the Western Pacific Archipelagic AOR there are many places where the amphibious aircraft is a READY SOLUTION to quite a number of missions around islands and atolls that will never have a runway. THAT is the hole and navy mission sets has difficulty filling in each and every case.
I do like the DHC-515 Firefighter (formerly the Canadair CL-515). They fly today, and modified for long range patrol they would be excellent operating off of an Aviation Tender, and from shore bases. That could happen quickly.
With a 19 hour endurance at 185 mph these new Catalina's can cover a lot of water. Placing refueling capability on Small Boys will extend their operational capability. A PBY support kit for surface vessels would need to be developed and provided to the fleet in numbers.
Fuel consumption and drag will be slightly lower. I'd bet the difference would be so small it'd boil down to differences in rigging of the airframe and throttles.
"Directs a briefing on plans to support development, experimentation, and potential fielding ..."
We're going to have a preliminary meeting to plan a preliminary meeting about preliminary meetings that might someday do something.
What are you, NASA?
USS Midway and USS Guadalcanal should be a must for USN
as for USS Casimir Pulaski... to quote Tolkien:
“No alliance of men is more sure than the bond between our realms, and it shall endure so long as we endure.”
I wonder if in our lifetime we will see an Iowa sized Battle ship armed with three, nine railgun turrets?
I have been enjoying this substack almost as much as the Commander’s. Any fan of this blog should read this post. https://centristlibertarianpatriot.substack.com/p/a-jones-act-revision-for-the-21st?r=28ve50&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
Thank you Tom.
Ideally the U.S. Navy would develop a common hull with double hull construction powered by Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). They should make at least 100 MW(e) per unit. The SMRs are being designed to make up to 300 MW(e) per unit. A scaling of this specific platform could make not just a common hull for a class, but a design for a line of USN vessels for various mission(s) using different hulls using the same propulsion system in three different sizes.
Power distribution would be via the U.S. Navy Integrated Power System (IPS) scaled for the applications.
So the HM&E could be common in many aspects between many platforms, but just have a different hull-form, bow, or above deck spaces as appropriate to support the mission of the ship. This kind of design criteria would facilitate easier logistical support and maintenance (preventative & corrective).
Of course NO ONE in NAVSEA thinks this way because the MIC does not want them too. The MIC wants to sell a specific highly unique widget for every job and purpose...with associated high expense.
Today we see no discipline in program management w/r/t design commonality across programs in almost any service but most particularly in USN systems (period)! Congress has not risen to the challenge of requiring this kind of activity to DELIBERATELY hold cost down, and make things more efficient/effective. To rape the American Taxpayer is the order of the day.
Where is the amendment requiring sufficient missile inventory?
Thank you very much for the idea!!!!
Very nice analysis