117 Comments
User's avatar
Nigel Sutton's avatar

This is very positive, and I believe he will shake things up. Yes, a submariner.....but as you stated... he is very good at math.

Quartermaster's avatar

But, but.....math is hard!!!

Steve's avatar

Relax, he's a nuke.

David Donohue's avatar

Jimmy Carter was a nuke too... We don't all turn out well

Quartermaster's avatar

More importantly, he came from an Engineering School.

Kelsey H's avatar

Timing-wise, it sounds like he was nowhere near that boneheaded Fleet Forces COVID era FRAGORD that tried to ban sailors (and their spouses!!!) from attending church. Good.

Sicinnus's avatar

More importantly, he executed on the 250 years of combined Navy experience with controlling outbreaks of highly contagious diseases at sea and didn't do anything stupid ("modern"/CDC/NIH/hypothetical) to his submarine force. THAT is leadership.

https://portal.ct.gov/oma/in-the-news/2020-news/submarines-usually-an-ideal-place-for-disease-to-spread-manage-to-keep-covid-19-at-bay

Adm leggoff's avatar

best news I've heard in a while

Steel City's avatar

Among more pressing operational issues, aybe he can stop the Navy budget games of under-funding ship construction...i.e. only one VA Class and no DDGs in the FY26 budget.

John S.'s avatar

You got another source to build VA class subs that can accept more orders? We are sort of maxed out with our current very limited shipbuilding capacity of all types. Even if we had funding for more orders. And, there is a shortage of shipfitters and other yardbirds to man them. (Hat tip to Byron Audler who warned us of that for years!)

Quartermaster's avatar

Byron has abandoned his duty station.

Steel City's avatar

That's all true however it's still budgetary gimmicky since Navy has long since signed multi-year procurement contracts at 2 per year.

Jim Whall's avatar

Maybe he can start fixing acquisition? I have to admit the Navy’s ability to screw up the purchase of a FREMM frigate just about put a pin in any remaining optimism I had.

Pete's avatar

OCS. Wow. I hope the folks who went to Canoe U don’t resent him and try to undermine him as they did with Admiral Boorda.

Jetcal1's avatar

First thing that occurred to me as well.

Fear the Goat_69's avatar

Jetcal: Always enjoy and appreciate your comments. Pls see my note to Pete.

Jetcal1's avatar

If Boorda had a flaw it was a lack preparedness for the vicious internecine political warfare in D.C. and how the Pentagon insiders have willing sycophants in the press who thrive on character assassination.

Quartermaster's avatar

If they do, then cashier them. After 15 or 20 like that, they will get the message.

Sluggo's avatar

No resentment from me at all. In fact, without a SERIOUS course-correction at USNA, if this CNO is successful, it will lend more credence to the argument that USNA has outlived its usefulness and is no longer necessary.

I’m actually pleased to see this. As a USNA grad, as I see today’s Navy, I don’t think I’d go there now. Further, when asked by parents, I’ve told them their son or daughter can have an excellent naval career with a NROTC or OCS commissioning source.

Scoobs's avatar

Some harsh words about our alma matter. I went to the Boat School as the son and grandson of lowly reservist aviators who between the two of them racked up most of the combat gongs short of The Big One - 9/11 happened and all I wanted wanted to do was graduate and follow in their footsteps to The Fleet. Waived my graduation leave to get down to Pensacola early, took every opportunity to accelerate the pipeline and get to the soonest deploying squadron. My wish was granted and racked up 3 deployments in 3 years plus a “hard deal” IA which I volunteered for. At the end of that tour when I was up for shore duty I tried again to return to the Middle East to continue supporting the fight but got told Nay - it’s bad for your career! I know numerous Grads with similar stories - the Academy doesn’t need to be shut down, but it does a significant course correction!

Sluggo's avatar

Absolutely harsh. I am not a fan of the place. The eye is off the ball at Annapolis. Unless things change - drastically and soon - it is a waste of the taxpayers’ money.

Getting rid of the DIE Supe would be a perfect start; put a warrior in her place that knows, and is not ashamed to say it, that the purpose of the military is to kill the bad guys and destroy their sh!t. Anything getting in the way of this is rubbish.

Scoobs's avatar

I hear yeah - I was a Mid when Jim Webb was invited back for a tightly choreographed song & dance about one of his novels. A leadership change and tightening of standards is definitely in order - Scoobs has pondered that if he was SECNAV for day, he’d slash the D1 football requirement and up the service commitment requirement beyond that of ROTC.

Sluggo's avatar

USNA started veering off course in the mid-90’s under Clinton. Really steered into shoal water under BarryO.

OrwellWasRight's avatar

It was starting to embrace the divisive identity groups in the 80s as well

OrwellWasRight's avatar

I was a mid there when he came to talk to us as SecNav

Fear the Goat_69's avatar

Concur. Get rid of Supe and the affinity groups asap. Back to company field ball, batt teams and overall group team building at the company level!

Fear the Goat_69's avatar

Concur! USNA years ago is not the same as today. I pray it will return to its roots.

Fear the Goat_69's avatar

I worked for the late Adm Boorda as a CO and saw him close up. I never thought he wasn’t anything but the best. My view was he always striving to make everyone the best CO, Officer or sailor one could be. Good “boat school” grads will recognize talent wherever the source.

Pete's avatar

Agreed, but there were some not so good boat school grads who resented him.

Do you remember the hit piece that appeared in USNI Proceedings?

Fear the Goat_69's avatar

Good point, must admit there was resentment. At the time I thought the “obstinance was his enlisted experience, but it may have been wrapped in didn’t go to the alma mater.

Pete's avatar

Being appointed by Bill Clinton didn’t help.

Ken Mitchell's avatar

Nice to have a CNO who has been at the pointy end of the spear.

Tom Pearson's avatar

Like that he is a N.C. State grad, as the father of one of their engineering grads I have no complaints about their academic rigor.

Phil Osterli's avatar

Thanks again for posting this article. NC State & OCS grad? Sounds like a solid choice. Also appreciate you listing all his operational and Command tours...not a favorite son of "the Potomac Navy", as you put it. From the Defense Scoop web page (https://defensescoop.com/2025/06/05/trump-nominates-new-combatant-commanders/): "On Tuesday, Hegseth announced that Vice Adm. Frank Bradley, who comes from the Navy SEAL community, was selected for appointment to the grade of admiral and to lead U.S. Special Operations Command. He’s currently serving as commander of Joint Special Operations Command." My old boss Mitch Bradley is a great choice as well - well versed in GPC and despite being an Academy grad, has a great sense of humor :). Sad part is that I have heard from numerous choices that POTUS had to overrule SECDEF on this, as Pete was leaning towards GEN Braga, a SF warrior who unfortunately turned woke statist. Bullet dodged indeed...and that is coming from a former Army SOF guy. Back to the SD - he does many things well, but he is woefully behind in culling those "senior leaders" who exchanged their "oath to support and defend the Constitution" for political expediency and career progression. The Administration could save a considerable amount of money by reducing GOFO billets and help preserve the Republic in the process. also, Happy 250th Birthday to the Army! RTLW!

Tom Yardley's avatar

Having an Admiral in charge of "Special Forces" is exactly what's wrong with the Navy. We shouldn't have more special forces than a Commander can ride herd over. We need to go back to the days when the Gunner, the Boatswain and their mates were a significant force.

Jetcal1's avatar

Having an Admiral in charge of "JAG" is exactly what's wrong with the Navy. We shouldn't have more special forces than a Commander can ride herd over. We need to go back to the days when the Gunner, the Boatswain and their mates were a significant force. 👋😁

Tom Yardley's avatar

You make an interesting point.

"Special" forces should be primarily enlisted sailors. Officers should not be involved in such small unit. There should not be many commissioned special forces officers; these are jobs that a Warrant Officer should fill.

As for your JAGs, we only have three Admirals. Your JAG's are what the Army calls REMFs. They are office workers pushing paper far, far, away from where the action is; like nurses, but without the physical courage nurses have to display when playing with the Corps. On the pecking order they are below the Supply Corps. The JAGs do have administrative or support positions that are important. Somebody has to read logistics and procurement paperwork. Somebody has to process sailors to the brig, and do all the dull work that running a Navy base requires.

But, a JAG corps is going to be top heavy. The lawyers all have commissions, so the group is going to be all officers. A good seal unit would be 10 E-5 and under, 4 E-6s, a Chief and a WO. Take the same group, but make them lawyers, with their expensive commissions, and you have a gaggle of Lieutenants, a bunch of Commanders and a full bird at the helm.

The fact of the matter is that the three JAG admirals are 1% of the Navy's officers holding the rank of Admiral. Now, lawyers are .04% of the population so the number of lawyer Admirals is higher than the .04%, but the Navy is an enterprise, with a Judicial System, so maybe having 1% of your officers safely pushing paper far from the waterfront is about right.

Jetcal1's avatar

Why do we have anything over an O-6 running the JAG? It's not like they're a line officer or command anything of importance. The CNO has a E-9 direct report. Why not a JAG O-6?

Tom Yardley's avatar

I think I explained. JAG officers are not real officers, but they have high rank. That's the way Congress set it up. Don't they come in at 0-3?

Jetcal1's avatar

Why do they need Admirals? Isn't that an unnecessary burden on the taxpayers?

Fear the Goat_69's avatar

After we fix the Pentagon we need to fix the Chiefs Mess. My grandfather is rolling over in his grave.

Fear the Goat_69's avatar

When I was in the service and did my DC tour we called it the “Army of Northern VA”. I guess that went out of favor about the time we decided to rename USS Chancellorsville.

John S.'s avatar

It will be interesting to see if he sticks to the lane as Chief of Naval OPERATIONS, or can also nudge others in the adjacent lanes of procurement, personnel and the cancerous jointness nonsense.

His lack of the usual USNA and beltway-centric career path inspires great hope that he will reject the "we've always done it that way" mindset which has plagued us for too long. And, that his "math skills" will pierce the fog of BS which have combined to put us in our current dilemmas. And, maybe he will begin to cull the upper ranks of sycophants and needless layers of bureaucracy which impede the return to a force ready and able to win wars at sea.

He does not need to kowtow to the problem children within the beltway. He only needs to please SECNAV, SECDEF and POTUS. And maybe avoid overly irritating everyone in Congress.

Tsevp's avatar

Let There Be Math!

Quartermaster's avatar

But math is hard!!!

DEBRA O MADDRELL's avatar

This does sound like good news. Does he glow in the dark?

Tom Yardley's avatar

Only in a full moon.

Cheryl's avatar

A non-Academy guy? That is super interesting, and an interesting change.

Ron Snyder's avatar

A needed change. Same as SCOTUS needs more non-Ivy League types in its mix. In both cases, some diversity is necessary to prevent undue and toxic institutional influence.

Cheryl's avatar

My son is a ROTC officer. He says he’s glad of his college experience. Of course he knows plenty of academy guys but they have such a different POV.

Quartermaster's avatar

The academies need to be closed.

Scoobs's avatar

Why? So we can have more Mike Boordas and Vern Clarks?

Quartermaster's avatar

The academies are not cost effective adn the quality of officer produced is no better than what comes out of ROTC or OCS.

Scoobs's avatar

Ok - show me some stats. Admittedly I might not be the most credentialed USNA cheerleader: my grades were average, my class standing middling - all I cared about was sailing - and getting into the fleet and making a difference. Numerous Shipmates later reacted with surprise when they learned that I was a “Ringknocker” (never wore mine and lost it years ago) - not sure if that’s an insult or a compliment!

Quartermaster's avatar

You're asking for something that does not exist. Fitness reports, the only thing used to rate an officer, are subjective. I had a ring knocker CO on Courtney, adn he was terrible. He took an already unhappy crew, ... lets just say his command environment was toxic. Very toxic.

The term "ring knocker" is understood in all branches of the military, and means the same thing. It is not a compliment. I met a few Academy grads I could respect. My first DivO was an Academy bug and a decent officer. He was screwed royally by the toxic CO I referred to above. The rest were ROTC or OCS grads.

Doug Hasler's avatar

I believe the military acadmies are beneficial to the armed services and the nation.

The military academies call upon their Midshipmen/Cadets to make sacrifices far greater than is demanded of those participating in ROTC programs. Mids/Cadets are immersed in a military environment on a virtual 24/7 basis. I submit these are good foundations for the formation of a future military officer.

Like all organizations, the military academies change over time. Some changes are for the good, others not so much. We always need to be vigilant to weed out aspects of the military academy experience which are inconsistent with the needs of the armed services.

We are fortunate that many officers who are commissioned through ROTC go on to serve as great leaders in our military. The same is true of military academy grads, of course.

And if you had the unfortunate experience of serving under a military academy grad who happened to be an a**hole, I'm sorry. It is a sad fact that there are many such a**holes spread across all parts of our society, including among those professions which are held in great esteem (doctors, teachers, members of the clergy, etc.). In most instances, the poor leadership/behavior of an individual is more reflective of his/her lack of character than on the university they attended.

sobersubmrnr's avatar

A counter view - the biggest jacka$$ officers I ever had to deal with were NROTC types. And man let me tell you, they were bad. Tyrants to the bone. One of my Navigators was a Villanova grad with a BIG anger management problem. The XO actually protected me from him. And yet I was treated alright by the ring knockers.

Agree about getting rid of the service academies, though. USMA and USNA became degree granting institutions back when there weren't many opportunities for people to get an advanced education. There just weren't many universities in the early 19th Century. But now? I'm all for reducing the academies down to schools based on the British model - they train officers, period. No degrees. Offer to pay off student loan debt in return for a certain number of years on AD. 10-11 months in an academy and then commission.

Ron Snyder's avatar

Based on what I've read from those with the relevant experience and expertise to provide a qualified opinion, I agree. Perhaps they could be saved by closing them for a year and ripping out the cancers by root & branch. But, are they worth saving? Worthy of debate.