Nope. State legislatures have drawn the districts where (if you are in a GOP district) you will get reelected every year, barring being caught with a dead girl or a live boy in bed. For Democrats, the only way they don't get reelected is if they stray from the Woke Collective.
Only in theory. Stats show that incumbents do not get fired- 90+% are reelected. The mantra seems to be that all the rascals must be fired, except for my rascal.
An astute observation! I would only favor term limits as a Constitutional amendment, so that it applies equally, across the board, in all constituencies.
So, let me understand your position. If me and the folks in my community want to pick a person to represent us in the Halls of Congress, and other folks in other communities don't think our guy should serve because he got elected once before we can't have the guy we want?
Ron Snyder does not like my neighbor's choice so he's going to have the central government take away the choice and tell us who we can have as our Representative.
When the government, not the people, choose the Representatives. you have a dictatorship. While our revolution was in full flame England herself was inches away from a revolution on this very question. Who is to choose?
Is there anyone over there who thinks, even for a moment, let's build something we know how to build as quickly as humanly possible?
Not everything needs to be cutting edge. Quantity has a quality all it's own, and if you are able to field 10 DD to every DDX, is the DDX really worth it?
Apparently not. A few Navalists (CDR Sal being among the foremost) talk about that often, making incremental changes, not evolutionary changes. We need more Chevys, not Porsches. Get more hulls displacing water.
A standard Navy destroyer is already one of the best ships in the world.
Current thinking: a) navy ships are lasting along time b) we must therefore "future proof" navy ships c) by taking them to the bleeding edge.
But reality is a) navy ships are lasting a long-time b) because they are timeless designs and easily upgraded c) incremental improvements and a flexible core design are the best way to go.
You can future proof by having a vibrant shipbuilding base so you can implement a build new strategy. No reason to keep ships longer than commercial fleets. We already know late life maintenance is a big known unknown.
Great point about restoring our shipbuilding base!
But "no reason to keep ships longer than the commercial fleet???" It is a math problem to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of keeping or shelving a platform.
Both long term and short term issues should be considered when choosing platforms. Yet another sad but unavoidable consideration is the inherent and inevitable unreliability of Congressional budgets and inconsistency of funding.
A commercial fleet meets different requirements than a military fleet and has different constraints. All the component parts must support the complex whole. If the Navy taught us anything it should have been systems management.
I still say it's a great question, Ron, even if I do not necessarily agree with your conclusion in every case. We have to take into account more factors than you have yet considered; for example, available trained crew! All systems' costs and capabilities should be measured tooth-to-toe nail over its entire life span and integrated with other fleet combat assets, versus the projected threat over the same time period.
Have you read Kill Chain? Every combat capability must be simultaneously integrated with every other asset, yet able to act independently.
Oh, heck! Pete has been under "trial by fire" since day one!
But Pete has also been a busy beaver since day one. Among other proactive actions, he made the senate rounds with a series of private meetings. It is my understanding that he already made his peace with Joni. ... No?
Yes, but. Pete must be confirmed by the Senate- it is a Pass/Fail test.
Joni is hedging her bet. My guess is that she will vote for him, as much not to make an enemy of Trump as anything else. This is from the Iowa Dispatch newspaper- "Joni Ernst, a Red Oak Republican, said she will seek a third term in 2026 but would be open to a Trump administration position." She didn't get to be a U.S. Senator by being a dummy.
Your points are well taken, Ron. You may enjoy this robust defense of Hegseth by MoH recipient David Bellavia, one of Hegseth's colleagues at the Vets Freedomnon-profit:
Medal of Honor Recipient David Bellavia Comes to Pete Hegseth’s Defense
I am still placing my bet on confirmation of every nominee but Gabbard. I am not so sure whether or not Gabbard can be confirmed, but it is still early in the game.
Trumps too. Its an American problem, but it seems like might punch the ticket to fix it this time. If we can't know for certain by the mid term it won't happen.
All 16" ammunition (projectiles and powder charges) have been disposed of. All spare 16" barrels have been scrapped or used as memorials. The plants which made 16" barrels (e.g.- Pocatello, ID) no longer have any of the equipment needed to make barrels.
Naval guns and US 155 howitzers have different trajectories, so you'd need to buy new ammo. But you could buy some from the Europeans who have longer barreled 155mm guns.
But probably best to stick to 5" unless there is a pressing reason to switch.
Two problems with an 8". First, now you have to get a supply chain running. The US hasn't had production for an 8" since at least the early 1990s. The Army removed the last M110 around 1994, and I've got a feeling they were using up ammo that was out of production for a while then. A new gun system would require spares, ammo, and testing there may not be time to obtain.
Second, 5" is a DP gun, and 8" was, historically, just a surface gun. If there's only space for a single gun, it's best to be DP, than SP. Considering that operations in the Red Sea against small, slow aircraft, have meant surface to air gun engagements, the 5" is the better choice here.
Since you have to restart production anyway, split the difference with Ctrot35 and reboot the 6"/47DP Mark 16 which was available in both AP and VT at the time.
The 6"/47 automatic on the Worchesters was considered a failure due to reliability problems. If you want a heavy gun, resurrect the lightweight 8" from the 1970's or bring back the 8"/55 automatic from USS Salem.
In engineering, if you are having reliability problems then you have either done too little testing and design iteration or you have reached the limits of material properties in critical components. Since the proper way to do this would be a clean paper design, incorporate lessons from 5", 6", and 8" then see what shakes out.
8"/55 automatic was built after 6"/47 automatic, suggesting 6"/47 was insufficiently tested.
If you want 8", revive the lightweight 8". Nobody is going to let you have a dedicated gun cruiser; at best you'll get a good gun on a multi-role ship.
Someone posted something a few weeks ago that mentioned the Navy had tried to us Army 8" rounds in Navy 8" guns in Vietnam. Was not very successful. So be sure you understand the ammo and gun combination you are specifying.
The 8" MCLWG as mounted on USS HULL died when the expected supply of Army 8" projectiles was used up. There was an abortive attempt to convert the system to use of a slightly necked down 8"/55 case and surplus Army 175mm projectiles. Although technologically feasible, the project died and the Army 175mm projectiles were not available.
Dream about bigger and better guns, but they are the enemy of the good enough 5"54 which we know how to make, and are a damn sight better than no gun at all, or depending on multi million dollar missiles.
Time for examples. Find out who made these decisions and fire them and their team publicly. Might be nice people but sometimes you have to send a message
I understand that at least a Board of Inquiry is needed. I prefer to keep it simple- fire them, relieve them of their jobs, demote them, PCS to the Aleutians, or similar. The goal is to make them accountable, details TBD. When I say Flags, I mean Flags and SES, as appropriate.
I had not heard of this before. "By sending the cribbage board, Nimitz was essentially saying, "Figure it out yourself, you are capable of making the necessary decisions.""
My challenge is I will probably forget this anecdote in a week or so; then, it will be brand new to me when next I hear or read of it. Already happening with some books I know I've read before- not entirely a bad thing since I get to enjoy some books multiple times.
Dunno. Pretty small fleet these days, and not sure the sailorettes will be very effective at flogging, although some sailors today may actually be into that sort of thing. ;-)
Agreeing with you entirely on the need for guns, I respectfully submit that it appears that the OOD will have all of the windows depicted in the original conception. The second artsy drawing just tends to blend them into the superstructure plating due to a poor choice of colors. My problem with the design’s bridge is that the OOD has no bridge wing to stand on and confirm that the rumors provided by Combat and his camera system are valid.
Long retired from the Navy, but soaking up BIG bucks sitting in a swivel chair in some nice office inside the office building owned by one of the contractors building the floating suicide garbage scow.
While a good idea, alas, that's not really possible these days. When's the last time a USN ship was really in combat? Slinging TLAMs at beknighted heathens hardly counts.
I will give you a few recently as inbound anything that goes boom is adequate pucker factor. Before that? Early 1970"s? Maybe you can count the gun line off Beirut too.
Don't fall into this trap. The entire analysis is based on a cake. The reason the picture in the article is low quality is its from a cake. Its laughable. Is it April yet?
This is another journey into a blast furnace rabbit hole.
I'm as critical of the Navy as anybody, but this is just silly.
"The open conning station is a product of practical experience. It comes not from the design of the men behind the desks, but from the convoy lanes of the North Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the English Channel, from the most unpleasant and difficult escort work the war has known. "
Additional protection is good as well. Again from expereince, let's look at this ad hoc modification to the bridge surroundings by the crew of HMCS Prince David.
Nothing is surviving a direct hit to the bridge by missile or large caliber gun but not all will be direct hits and there is no reason not to have additional protection from secondary projectiles (larger & lower velocity) that are created by near misses.
Augmented visualization through video means to enhance the Mk I eyeball is also good (thermal, light amplification, 360 degree wrap around, etc.) as an addition though not a replacement.
CDR, love the lyrics in "Southern Cross"...and boy are they apropos. Human behavior 101, you get more of what you reward, and less of what you punish. Program failure has to result in negative consequences for those running the program...NOT PROMOTION! Otherwise, it's wash, rinse, repeat and more tut tut congressional hearings on why the program failed, the mission failed, and the strategy failed. Good luck to Pete Hegseth and DOGE in tackling government (and DoD) reform. I'm repeating myself, but the Augean Stables comes to mind in scale and odor.
The people who brought us LCS, DDG-1000, and FFG-62 are now in charge of NAVSEA. No lessons are being learned because they remain convinced they were right in the first place—and why wouldn't they? The Navy has continued to reward them for failed programs; promoting them and moving them into more damaging positions. Additionally, they are the folks who embraced cutting the number of shipyards and reducing competition thereby delivering a crushing blow to Fleet maintenance. The Navy needs the Engineering Duty Officer Corps. But NAVSEA needs warriors in charge to define and oversee the implementation of strategic vision and common sense into our shipbuilding and maintenance programs.
Everyone associated with SW at NAVSEA needs to be fired.
So many processes are broken within the Navy (e.g., acquisition, shipbuilding, maintenance, personnel assessment), that we are easily a generation out from fixing these issues (i.e., the length of time necessary for a complete personnel turnover).
Concur with mass liquidation at NavSea. They have lost their way. Not being a SWO nor a naval architect but I'm pretty sure the readers of Old Sal could come up with a better design plan for less money/time/redesign that isn't beholden to the "missiles can do it all" mafia.
Funny thing, you look at the NavSea and Directorate leadership and they don't look like they've sold out to the Chinese.
In my corner, we have the "faster, lighter, smaller-yet-still-fewer", and the "massed fires are passé" crowds which results in the gypsy wagons we saw with all the "oh shit, people shoot back" add-ons in the Endless War. TBH, frear of NGOs and lawyers drive some of the massed fire nonsense. Dead Karl still makes good points about the utility of going ugly early, or.just.don't.go, but that's a different rant. One of my greatest contributions after I retired was being on the analyrical team that helped drive a stake through FCS by skewering the perfervid fantasies that drove it. "This changes everything!"
No it doesn't. Like the rifled musket, machinegun, tank, and yes, nukes, whatever shibboleth is hovering in the darkness (like, oh, FPV UAVs) will have an assymetric effect in the battlespace until the Privates, Sergeants, Lieutenants and Captains, the ones who do the dying, start honing their survival skills and figuring it out and tell the occupants of the swivel chairs what they really need, vice what the retired GOFO shilling for a metal-bending merchant of death tells them.
T'was ever thus.
"Sancho, saddle-up Rocinante while I rummage in the basement for my lance!"
The Navy learned the wrong lesson from the F/A-18EF. They were do an upgrade to the A/B and finessed an essentially new aircraft. This sort of "finessing" is infecting everything the Navy tries to do.
The Brits have yet to acheive success. If I were to look at which of their ships are moving fastest I would pick type 31 which is based on a foreign parent design.
Bryan Clark has fallen for USV too. Why do I want to spend 500 million for an Ambassador III with 8 Harpoon when I can have a 35 million dollar boat with far greater range capable of delivering 16 SM-6 or Tomahawk, hustling back and forth to do it over and over again competing with the salvo rate our bombers and other aircraft can deliver. Virtual Aegis finally makes any ship a shooting node in a kill web.
Why stick an SSN inside the Taiwan Strait to get hunted when you can put a midget submarine with vastly greater endurance in there to hunt like XLUUV.
I am even coming around to a stern lander for LSM. Hopefully we get to see the ones the Marines are leasing sometime this month.
No guns, not enough missiles and WTF….. no CIWS. There’s three lessons learned these so-called naval engineers never learned. It seems like just yesterday when CIWS shot down a drone. I know this stuff is expensive and I know you want hide the true cost by adding things during availability’s like PSA, but enough. If I read somewhere that it’s going to have crew of 50 I’m going to scream……
One exception that I emailed McGrath about: something with a lot of fuel (for range) and either 32-64 Mk. 41 tubes OR a couple Seahawks. Minimal manning, "slave" it a Burke, when out of missiles or helicopter juice/torpedoes, send back to re-arm/fuel. Build a bunch so you can keep the Burkes ammo for emergency reserve.
That makes some sense. Still, my issue with 'minimal manning' is it ends up cutting the junior positions that feed into senior ones. And we still have a lot of hard physical work to do.
Sweep, swab, wax & buff. Chip & paint. Factor that into retention when you advocate for minimum manning. My last my year of a 4 year tour on an OHP FFG, the ship was in the Naval Reserve Force. We were only ever minimally manned when the SELRES came aboard one weekend a month and for two weeks every year. The rest of the time we were woefully and painfully undermanned. The promised TAR's never arrived while I was aboard.
There is an app for everything on a smartphone. Issue all 50 with a $2000 smartphone and as many apps as possible. Are retirees eligible for bennysugs?
I can see no reason we shouldn't be doing some *incremental* improvements of all the hulls we currently build. Add more electrical generation, hell, turn the screws with electric motors if you want, add more VLS, more CIWS, SeaRam, Bushmasters, etc to the hulls. Stretch them a bit if you need to, rearrange compartmentation a bit, but use the same hulls.
I'm pretty sure, I could turn a FFG-7 into a pretty good modern ship: Put the 76mm forward where the Mk13 used to go (you could probably put a 5" there as well). Take out the wasp waist amidships and stack it full of VLS, modernize the mast and put in an Aegis variant radar system. Maybe you're down to one helo, or a helo and a drone, or maybe just a couple drones. But we know the hull and how it performs, we know all the current systems, just Lego them together.
Take a look a Cunard's queens. A bunch of little diesels in a bunch of different compartments, diesel motors like the FRAMcan's emergency generators, could be a very interesting approach to damage control.
We'd be smart to build an efficient Flt IV Burke so we could be getting 96 cells at something close to the 32 cell price. 2 most expensive items on a ship are the combat system and radar. 3 face EASR and no illuminators. Delete bow sonar. Delete 2 gas turbines. Add the hybrid 1.5MW motors and gensets where the 2 deleted turbines were. CAPTAS-4 aft. Keep both CIWS for Phalanx or Searam and then whatever comes along.
With a little luck, Pete Hegseth, DOGE, and the Trump "Navalist" administration will do exactly as you propose: fire them all and start over!
Can you fire congress critters?
Yes, every two years!
Urban legend.
Nope. State legislatures have drawn the districts where (if you are in a GOP district) you will get reelected every year, barring being caught with a dead girl or a live boy in bed. For Democrats, the only way they don't get reelected is if they stray from the Woke Collective.
The number of competitive seats is tiny.
Yes, indeed, every two years! ... as Tom already noted.
As noted above, only in theory.
Only in theory. Stats show that incumbents do not get fired- 90+% are reelected. The mantra seems to be that all the rascals must be fired, except for my rascal.
An astute observation! I would only favor term limits as a Constitutional amendment, so that it applies equally, across the board, in all constituencies.
It would take a Constitutional Amendment to alter the terms of Federal Officials.
My point exactly!
So, let me understand your position. If me and the folks in my community want to pick a person to represent us in the Halls of Congress, and other folks in other communities don't think our guy should serve because he got elected once before we can't have the guy we want?
Ron Snyder does not like my neighbor's choice so he's going to have the central government take away the choice and tell us who we can have as our Representative.
When the government, not the people, choose the Representatives. you have a dictatorship. While our revolution was in full flame England herself was inches away from a revolution on this very question. Who is to choose?
Is there anyone over there who thinks, even for a moment, let's build something we know how to build as quickly as humanly possible?
Not everything needs to be cutting edge. Quantity has a quality all it's own, and if you are able to field 10 DD to every DDX, is the DDX really worth it?
Great question!
Apparently not. A few Navalists (CDR Sal being among the foremost) talk about that often, making incremental changes, not evolutionary changes. We need more Chevys, not Porsches. Get more hulls displacing water.
A standard Navy destroyer is already one of the best ships in the world.
Current thinking: a) navy ships are lasting along time b) we must therefore "future proof" navy ships c) by taking them to the bleeding edge.
But reality is a) navy ships are lasting a long-time b) because they are timeless designs and easily upgraded c) incremental improvements and a flexible core design are the best way to go.
We can try to anticipate, but nobody is smart enough to future-proof everything.
Key points:
1. Long lasting
2. Easily upgraded
3. Flexible core design
You can future proof by having a vibrant shipbuilding base so you can implement a build new strategy. No reason to keep ships longer than commercial fleets. We already know late life maintenance is a big known unknown.
Great point about restoring our shipbuilding base!
But "no reason to keep ships longer than the commercial fleet???" It is a math problem to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of keeping or shelving a platform.
Both long term and short term issues should be considered when choosing platforms. Yet another sad but unavoidable consideration is the inherent and inevitable unreliability of Congressional budgets and inconsistency of funding.
A commercial fleet meets different requirements than a military fleet and has different constraints. All the component parts must support the complex whole. If the Navy taught us anything it should have been systems management.
Yeah, odds are the commercial ship made its maintenance schedule if the owner isn't going broke.
Let's be honest. They are cruisers, not destroyers. You can't be a "small boy" when you are a giant.
I still say it's a great question, Ron, even if I do not necessarily agree with your conclusion in every case. We have to take into account more factors than you have yet considered; for example, available trained crew! All systems' costs and capabilities should be measured tooth-to-toe nail over its entire life span and integrated with other fleet combat assets, versus the projected threat over the same time period.
Have you read Kill Chain? Every combat capability must be simultaneously integrated with every other asset, yet able to act independently.
Best truck statistically at the moment pound for pound is the MUSV/Overlord hull.
Pete's initial political trial by fire comes tomorrow, starting at 0930. Joni needs to mind her manners.
Oh, heck! Pete has been under "trial by fire" since day one!
But Pete has also been a busy beaver since day one. Among other proactive actions, he made the senate rounds with a series of private meetings. It is my understanding that he already made his peace with Joni. ... No?
Yes, but. Pete must be confirmed by the Senate- it is a Pass/Fail test.
Joni is hedging her bet. My guess is that she will vote for him, as much not to make an enemy of Trump as anything else. This is from the Iowa Dispatch newspaper- "Joni Ernst, a Red Oak Republican, said she will seek a third term in 2026 but would be open to a Trump administration position." She didn't get to be a U.S. Senator by being a dummy.
https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/senator-joni-ernst-profile-bbb6d50a
Your points are well taken, Ron. You may enjoy this robust defense of Hegseth by MoH recipient David Bellavia, one of Hegseth's colleagues at the Vets Freedomnon-profit:
Medal of Honor Recipient David Bellavia Comes to Pete Hegseth’s Defense
https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/01/13/medal-honor-david-bellavia-hegseths-defense/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=ODI0LU1IVC0zMDQAAAGYA4MqwC6GootJU21wtcTAaT1gYOUasVY7b3Ivj7ozmeXl2YEq13E-fREYH6iDQsEC4_nHCl1mKLxL8PzfIztaRdVFPstf6FOsICrSE3Xdy2ZaDxTq1Q
I am still placing my bet on confirmation of every nominee but Gabbard. I am not so sure whether or not Gabbard can be confirmed, but it is still early in the game.
When are warships going to be designed by warriors? Nice use of "Southern Cross" lyrics, by the way.
C'mon. You know we don't know anything about ships and fighting. Only the SES has the proper background for such decisions.
Make it an 8" instead....
It's going to be enough to get a 5". If bigger, it'd probably use 155mm standard.
5" with 2 additional radar-directed 57mm at each end for boats, aircraft, and missiles.... that we might get.
A man can dream
If you are going to dream, then dream of four battleships with 16" guns. Nothing says I love you more than a 2,000-pound shell.
Ryan Shemanski (sp?) the curator of Battleship New Jersey was talking about the problems in reactivating the Iowas....
In particular, the fuel lines are badly rusted: And being buried in armor there's little way to repair them. That would be a problem.
And do we have any ammo left?
IIRC, John Donovan (AKA The Armorer) at Castle Arrgghhh had a post on the disposal of the last of the 16" ammo. Alas, his site is now history.
It would not be a problem for FDR's Navy.
Building a rowboat seems to be beyond the capabilities of Biden's Navy.
'
Trumps too. Its an American problem, but it seems like might punch the ticket to fix it this time. If we can't know for certain by the mid term it won't happen.
All 16" ammunition (projectiles and powder charges) have been disposed of. All spare 16" barrels have been scrapped or used as memorials. The plants which made 16" barrels (e.g.- Pocatello, ID) no longer have any of the equipment needed to make barrels.
The 16 inch gun systems are officially extinct.
'Tis to cry.
Absolutely!
Naval guns and US 155 howitzers have different trajectories, so you'd need to buy new ammo. But you could buy some from the Europeans who have longer barreled 155mm guns.
But probably best to stick to 5" unless there is a pressing reason to switch.
Using a 155 is not a bad idea.
Two problems with an 8". First, now you have to get a supply chain running. The US hasn't had production for an 8" since at least the early 1990s. The Army removed the last M110 around 1994, and I've got a feeling they were using up ammo that was out of production for a while then. A new gun system would require spares, ammo, and testing there may not be time to obtain.
Second, 5" is a DP gun, and 8" was, historically, just a surface gun. If there's only space for a single gun, it's best to be DP, than SP. Considering that operations in the Red Sea against small, slow aircraft, have meant surface to air gun engagements, the 5" is the better choice here.
Since you have to restart production anyway, split the difference with Ctrot35 and reboot the 6"/47DP Mark 16 which was available in both AP and VT at the time.
https://www.usslittlerock.org/armament/little_rock_6_inch_gun.html
The Cleveands were 11.7 k tons and 600 ft at the waterline compared to a Tico that are 9.6k tons and 560 feet. DDG 1Ks are 14.5k tons and 600 ft.
Golly gee! It would be nice to get back in the cruiser construction business again.
That would be nice, but I'd like ships in the water ASAP, and that means stuff we've already got in the system for parts.
The 6"/47 automatic on the Worchesters was considered a failure due to reliability problems. If you want a heavy gun, resurrect the lightweight 8" from the 1970's or bring back the 8"/55 automatic from USS Salem.
I'd go for the 8"/55.
In engineering, if you are having reliability problems then you have either done too little testing and design iteration or you have reached the limits of material properties in critical components. Since the proper way to do this would be a clean paper design, incorporate lessons from 5", 6", and 8" then see what shakes out.
8"/55 automatic was built after 6"/47 automatic, suggesting 6"/47 was insufficiently tested.
If you want 8", revive the lightweight 8". Nobody is going to let you have a dedicated gun cruiser; at best you'll get a good gun on a multi-role ship.
Someone posted something a few weeks ago that mentioned the Navy had tried to us Army 8" rounds in Navy 8" guns in Vietnam. Was not very successful. So be sure you understand the ammo and gun combination you are specifying.
Same applies to 155 mm rounds. The Navy built a 155 mm “gun” completely incompatible with existing 155 mm rounds.
The 8" MCLWG as mounted on USS HULL died when the expected supply of Army 8" projectiles was used up. There was an abortive attempt to convert the system to use of a slightly necked down 8"/55 case and surplus Army 175mm projectiles. Although technologically feasible, the project died and the Army 175mm projectiles were not available.
Dream about bigger and better guns, but they are the enemy of the good enough 5"54 which we know how to make, and are a damn sight better than no gun at all, or depending on multi million dollar missiles.
The second paragraph is exactly my point.
Agreed... wouldn't be hard to bring that MCLWG back... if only there was a will.
Time for examples. Find out who made these decisions and fire them and their team publicly. Might be nice people but sometimes you have to send a message
And fire at least the first Flag in their chain of command. Let the lessons begin.
Admiral John Byng?
Il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres.
It worked on horse thieves.
I think the rest of the Admiralty got the message. The RN did eventually rehabilitate the man.
The whole affair is quite interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Byng#Court-martial
Can't just fire them. Need to court martial a few senior folks for negligence.
Easy to fire someone and destroy their careers. Very difficult to court martial someone just for doing something stupid.
Do you not think that some careers should be destroyed for the continued significant failures of the Navy over the past twenty-plus years?
I understand that at least a Board of Inquiry is needed. I prefer to keep it simple- fire them, relieve them of their jobs, demote them, PCS to the Aleutians, or similar. The goal is to make them accountable, details TBD. When I say Flags, I mean Flags and SES, as appropriate.
Treat them as Nimitz did Fletcher. When Fletcher asked what he would be doing, Nimitz sent him a Cribbage board.
I had not heard of this before. "By sending the cribbage board, Nimitz was essentially saying, "Figure it out yourself, you are capable of making the necessary decisions.""
My challenge is I will probably forget this anecdote in a week or so; then, it will be brand new to me when next I hear or read of it. Already happening with some books I know I've read before- not entirely a bad thing since I get to enjoy some books multiple times.
I used to have Potter's bio of Nimitz and read that there. Alas, the book disappeared into the brotherhood of book borrowers.
Then row them around the fleet in Norfolk and lay 100 of the best on them
Before hanging.
If we are going to flog them through the fleet, they, most likely, will already be dead before they complete the circuit.
Dunno. Pretty small fleet these days, and not sure the sailorettes will be very effective at flogging, although some sailors today may actually be into that sort of thing. ;-)
Perp walk them out of the building?
Whats going on with the Fat Albert case? Last I heard most everyone got off.
I think the main perp was sentenced to serious time. The Ossifers that were implicated had the charges thrown out, IIRC.
Unexpectedly!
Agreeing with you entirely on the need for guns, I respectfully submit that it appears that the OOD will have all of the windows depicted in the original conception. The second artsy drawing just tends to blend them into the superstructure plating due to a poor choice of colors. My problem with the design’s bridge is that the OOD has no bridge wing to stand on and confirm that the rumors provided by Combat and his camera system are valid.
There's a deck officer for you, always suspicious of the "rumors" provided by CIC.
Well, they are running kettlebell workout sessions instead of that whole staring at screens thing.
Scope dopes not watching the scopes? What is the world coming to.
Hmm…. This: “According to the U.S. Navy, DDG(X) will be the most complex ship ever fielded.”
And they’re bragging about that? Seriously?
Begin construction in 2032 - which means the people in the swivel chairs today will be long retired.
Long retired from the Navy, but soaking up BIG bucks sitting in a swivel chair in some nice office inside the office building owned by one of the contractors building the floating suicide garbage scow.
And shadowboxes filled with Legions of Merits and other medals.
Mandate that they have to serve in combat on any ship they made decisions on.
While a good idea, alas, that's not really possible these days. When's the last time a USN ship was really in combat? Slinging TLAMs at beknighted heathens hardly counts.
I will give you a few recently as inbound anything that goes boom is adequate pucker factor. Before that? Early 1970"s? Maybe you can count the gun line off Beirut too.
Still, that a real exclusive club right now.
Yeah, of every mistake listed so far this is the most representative of failure to learn anything on their part.
Wasn't that tittle held by DDG-1000?
Even more complex than a FORD? Why?
It'd be interesting to at least hear someone involved defend the deletion of the gun.
On the bridge windows? Have mixed feelings about that. There should be as many as possible made as small possible and still be useful.
Losing people to shattered glass is something that should be considered even with our thin skinned ships.
Don't fall into this trap. The entire analysis is based on a cake. The reason the picture in the article is low quality is its from a cake. Its laughable. Is it April yet?
This is another journey into a blast furnace rabbit hole.
I'm as critical of the Navy as anybody, but this is just silly.
Special glass and films minimize casualties due to glass shattering.
Much like the utility of the gun, too much experience with bridge design has been lost to the swivel chairs. From 1944 on DE bridge layout:
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1944/january/case-open-bridge
"The open conning station is a product of practical experience. It comes not from the design of the men behind the desks, but from the convoy lanes of the North Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the English Channel, from the most unpleasant and difficult escort work the war has known. "
Additional protection is good as well. Again from expereince, let's look at this ad hoc modification to the bridge surroundings by the crew of HMCS Prince David.
https://laststandonzombieisland.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/commandos-strike-at-dawn.jpg
Nothing is surviving a direct hit to the bridge by missile or large caliber gun but not all will be direct hits and there is no reason not to have additional protection from secondary projectiles (larger & lower velocity) that are created by near misses.
Augmented visualization through video means to enhance the Mk I eyeball is also good (thermal, light amplification, 360 degree wrap around, etc.) as an addition though not a replacement.
CDR, love the lyrics in "Southern Cross"...and boy are they apropos. Human behavior 101, you get more of what you reward, and less of what you punish. Program failure has to result in negative consequences for those running the program...NOT PROMOTION! Otherwise, it's wash, rinse, repeat and more tut tut congressional hearings on why the program failed, the mission failed, and the strategy failed. Good luck to Pete Hegseth and DOGE in tackling government (and DoD) reform. I'm repeating myself, but the Augean Stables comes to mind in scale and odor.
Big Navy is also getting wasted on the way. Or is that Ways? Not sure. 😁
The people who brought us LCS, DDG-1000, and FFG-62 are now in charge of NAVSEA. No lessons are being learned because they remain convinced they were right in the first place—and why wouldn't they? The Navy has continued to reward them for failed programs; promoting them and moving them into more damaging positions. Additionally, they are the folks who embraced cutting the number of shipyards and reducing competition thereby delivering a crushing blow to Fleet maintenance. The Navy needs the Engineering Duty Officer Corps. But NAVSEA needs warriors in charge to define and oversee the implementation of strategic vision and common sense into our shipbuilding and maintenance programs.
Everyone associated with SW at NAVSEA needs to be fired.
So many processes are broken within the Navy (e.g., acquisition, shipbuilding, maintenance, personnel assessment), that we are easily a generation out from fixing these issues (i.e., the length of time necessary for a complete personnel turnover).
Of course, by then it will be much too late.
Concur with mass liquidation at NavSea. They have lost their way. Not being a SWO nor a naval architect but I'm pretty sure the readers of Old Sal could come up with a better design plan for less money/time/redesign that isn't beholden to the "missiles can do it all" mafia.
Funny thing, you look at the NavSea and Directorate leadership and they don't look like they've sold out to the Chinese.
In my corner, we have the "faster, lighter, smaller-yet-still-fewer", and the "massed fires are passé" crowds which results in the gypsy wagons we saw with all the "oh shit, people shoot back" add-ons in the Endless War. TBH, frear of NGOs and lawyers drive some of the massed fire nonsense. Dead Karl still makes good points about the utility of going ugly early, or.just.don't.go, but that's a different rant. One of my greatest contributions after I retired was being on the analyrical team that helped drive a stake through FCS by skewering the perfervid fantasies that drove it. "This changes everything!"
No it doesn't. Like the rifled musket, machinegun, tank, and yes, nukes, whatever shibboleth is hovering in the darkness (like, oh, FPV UAVs) will have an assymetric effect in the battlespace until the Privates, Sergeants, Lieutenants and Captains, the ones who do the dying, start honing their survival skills and figuring it out and tell the occupants of the swivel chairs what they really need, vice what the retired GOFO shilling for a metal-bending merchant of death tells them.
T'was ever thus.
"Sancho, saddle-up Rocinante while I rummage in the basement for my lance!"
Heh. That’s our métier, Sal. 😄
"Analyrical." That *should* be a word.
We've just witnessed the miracle of birth.
It turned out it was hard to have information superiority on a land mine. And worse, it didn't really matter if you did or not.
Good to see you Sir John. Alas, I misspelled Argghhh above. I humbly seek absolution for my sin.
The Navy learned the wrong lesson from the F/A-18EF. They were do an upgrade to the A/B and finessed an essentially new aircraft. This sort of "finessing" is infecting everything the Navy tries to do.
"Great repairs" for another example. The problem being Super Hornets are awesome.... the LCS and probably FrankenFREMM, not so much.
Does again make obvious rhe navy is ruled by the brown shoes.
And the Nukes. Word was that Richardson's Job 1 was getting COLUMBIA-class into production with a minimum of delays, which seems to have happened.
Type 83 for DDG(X). You know it makes sense.
Type 26 vs Constitution class - no contest
Why is it that the last three classes of USN 'warships' remind me of a song that was popular on this side of the pond: to paraphrase
W.... What is it good for, absolutely nothing, sing it again
The Brits have yet to acheive success. If I were to look at which of their ships are moving fastest I would pick type 31 which is based on a foreign parent design.
If even Bryan McGrath has fallen for USV, we shouldn't be surprised that less competent people fall for "we won't need guns".
Bryan Clark has fallen for USV too. Why do I want to spend 500 million for an Ambassador III with 8 Harpoon when I can have a 35 million dollar boat with far greater range capable of delivering 16 SM-6 or Tomahawk, hustling back and forth to do it over and over again competing with the salvo rate our bombers and other aircraft can deliver. Virtual Aegis finally makes any ship a shooting node in a kill web.
Why stick an SSN inside the Taiwan Strait to get hunted when you can put a midget submarine with vastly greater endurance in there to hunt like XLUUV.
I am even coming around to a stern lander for LSM. Hopefully we get to see the ones the Marines are leasing sometime this month.
No guns, not enough missiles and WTF….. no CIWS. There’s three lessons learned these so-called naval engineers never learned. It seems like just yesterday when CIWS shot down a drone. I know this stuff is expensive and I know you want hide the true cost by adding things during availability’s like PSA, but enough. If I read somewhere that it’s going to have crew of 50 I’m going to scream……
Don't worry. It will be a very diverse and inclusive 50, ensuring the strengthiest and most competentest crew ever!
50 means you can't fix anything, can't fight a casualty, and can't train your relieving personnel the Right Way.
One exception that I emailed McGrath about: something with a lot of fuel (for range) and either 32-64 Mk. 41 tubes OR a couple Seahawks. Minimal manning, "slave" it a Burke, when out of missiles or helicopter juice/torpedoes, send back to re-arm/fuel. Build a bunch so you can keep the Burkes ammo for emergency reserve.
That makes some sense. Still, my issue with 'minimal manning' is it ends up cutting the junior positions that feed into senior ones. And we still have a lot of hard physical work to do.
Sweep, swab, wax & buff. Chip & paint. Factor that into retention when you advocate for minimum manning. My last my year of a 4 year tour on an OHP FFG, the ship was in the Naval Reserve Force. We were only ever minimally manned when the SELRES came aboard one weekend a month and for two weeks every year. The rest of the time we were woefully and painfully undermanned. The promised TAR's never arrived while I was aboard.
Chip? Paint?
Tell me, Admiral Jones: Have you looked at a USN ship lately?
Can you elaborate on that? You are thinking like the DDC concept where its a manned corvette until it just needs to be an unmanned missile wagon?
There is an app for everything on a smartphone. Issue all 50 with a $2000 smartphone and as many apps as possible. Are retirees eligible for bennysugs?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
time for an A-12 action. Cancel the program and use the shipyards to catch up on maintenance and build constellations...
Constellations seem broken now.
I can see no reason we shouldn't be doing some *incremental* improvements of all the hulls we currently build. Add more electrical generation, hell, turn the screws with electric motors if you want, add more VLS, more CIWS, SeaRam, Bushmasters, etc to the hulls. Stretch them a bit if you need to, rearrange compartmentation a bit, but use the same hulls.
I'm pretty sure, I could turn a FFG-7 into a pretty good modern ship: Put the 76mm forward where the Mk13 used to go (you could probably put a 5" there as well). Take out the wasp waist amidships and stack it full of VLS, modernize the mast and put in an Aegis variant radar system. Maybe you're down to one helo, or a helo and a drone, or maybe just a couple drones. But we know the hull and how it performs, we know all the current systems, just Lego them together.
Take a look a Cunard's queens. A bunch of little diesels in a bunch of different compartments, diesel motors like the FRAMcan's emergency generators, could be a very interesting approach to damage control.
The Aussie SEA 1390 upgrades to their FFG-7 was a nice start. Chile benefits from those now.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australias-hazardous-frigate-upgrade-04586/
We'd be smart to build an efficient Flt IV Burke so we could be getting 96 cells at something close to the 32 cell price. 2 most expensive items on a ship are the combat system and radar. 3 face EASR and no illuminators. Delete bow sonar. Delete 2 gas turbines. Add the hybrid 1.5MW motors and gensets where the 2 deleted turbines were. CAPTAS-4 aft. Keep both CIWS for Phalanx or Searam and then whatever comes along.