In my time as a contractor before becoming a GS, I worked Joint Test for 18 months and the POM for a year. I was struck by the enormous focus on the calendar and the process and the lack of awareness of the actual content resident in that community. Everyone was concerned about their "piece of the pie", and making sure someone else didn't get more than "their fair share" without surrendering on some other issue. Reminded me of why they ate with their hands at the royal table in the Middle Ages...they'd stick the knives and forks in each other if they were available. Funny only in a sad, pathetic way...
Oh no, CDR Salamander, don’t get “Angry”! Start building! And, if I may add, “Don’t take No for an answer!”
If I learned anything from USMC Mustang Lieutenant Joe Pratt, “Hit the beach, kick ass, take names, and don’t take no for an answer! Nurse Jane speaking.
Want money? Redirect the monies slated to build that “Ballroom”.
Appoint a Naval Auditor-Project Manager!
Follow the money-trail! Get that ship built. CDR Salamander you please name the what and the where, yes?
I’ll watch those other “Actors” you mentioned here. I’m in the “Spotlight” because I filed a “Building Violation” in Anne Arundel county.
I’m also in the “S” List of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation because they acknowledge I have a Lawyer. “Tell him,” I was told by CBF yesterday, by email. I already have! Stay warm and healthy.
War has already been declared, just not by our American Congress… yet. Very Respectfully, NJ
True enough. But ask yourself why those "private donors" (do we have a list?) don't think that fixing DoD procurement isn't a higher priority. All of us can get distracted by the bright and shiny things, even the President.
That’s speculative on your part; nobody said they didn’t. That said the Pentagon/DOD should absolutely without question undergo an audit/mass firings/housecleaning.
The MIC has become a beast unto itself ever since 1945.
Much of the "money" going to Ukraine is just Congressional write-offs for overvalued mothballed equipment that was never going to be used anyway. If you've ever had a government job, you know exactly how misleading this is. M1A1s are only worth their original value to Congress... we're on the M1A2 Sepv3 presently btw.
$30 billion of actual cash has gone to Ukraine.
That's closer to what Minnesota gave to Somali scammers ($10 -15 billion).
In the same period, we've handed $55 billion to Israel so they can have single payer healthcare and state funded abortions.
You seem to have some sort of animus toward Israel. You’ve been spending too much time listening to Tucker Carlson and the venom he spews out. No point discussing anything with you.
Maybe it’s because the Israelis fight and win while the Europeans just blather on and enjoy their fine wines and croissants.
You’ve got to admit it takes a lot of courage to enter a booby trapped Hamas tunnel to rescue hostages. Unless of course you just hate Jews then you won’t be impressed by anything.
US main problem with Ukrainean conflict is that by antagonizing Russia they drive Russia close to China. The basic military logic since dawn of time suggest that if you are preparing to face a powerful opponent, you should isolate him, deny him potential allies (preferably by bringing those potential allies on your side).
You are correct. Biden undid Richard Nixon’s greatest accomplishment of separating those two nations. Thanks to the dotard we are now confronted with the entire Eurasian landmass.
Show me your budget and I’ll show you your priorities. Well, our priorities are not in shipbuilding despite grand pronouncements and music videos. The Pentagon has been a clown show for years and it continues. All talk no action. I am prepared for a bitter horrifying loss. We are not ready; we won’t be ready. You can’t cosplay peace through strength, yet we do.
The US spends avout 40% of total world spending on the military. And it can still barely build any warships. Do you really think increasing their budget is going to improve that?
The ship building budget is already huge. There are only about 10 major shipyards in the USA where large warships can be built. Increasing the budget does not remove that bottleneck. And you can't fire bad performers becuase there are only 10 of them. If you want the capacity to build a large amount of warships thrn you need the underlying large commercial ship building industry. China has that. The USA does not.
The "bad performers" are largely in the employ of the US Navy/NAVSEA not the ship builders themselves. So yes they can be fired. A larger budget could be used to expand shipyard capacity as a first step.
But in the China - Taiwan situation there is no Poland and no Jews. It’s just one big happy Han family, in John Lennon’s words, “nothing to kill or die for”. There are more US neocons lusting to spill blood over Taiwan than there are Han Chinese, let them go there and fight then.
Yes, precisely. The German war against Poland happened because Jews and Poles are not Germans. Such a disparity does not exist in the China - Taiwan situation, they are the same people. When push comes to shove, my opinion is that re-unification may involve a few pushes but won’t take a lot of shoving.
Watch the rapturous crowds in Vienna throwing flowers at the Wehrmacht. Didn’t see a lot of that in Poland, huh?
So in other words in your alternate behavioral universe the very bloody most recent 22 year long Chinese civil war in which millions of Chinese died at the hands of other Chinese never happened because that would indicate that yes the Chinese are quite capable of killing other Chinese to achieve political goals.
Please explain what exactly has happened in the subsequent 76 years that has changed the 25+ century history of Chinese killing Chinese for political goals?
We have to be honest about our own scorecard this year.
- Safeboats - After cancelling US orders for Mk VI PB, we now have a stop work on the Mk VI PBs for Ukraine due to foreign aid pause. Keep in mind their entire second facility is for that production.
- Marine Group Boat Works - Two 35m patrol boats for Jordan also on hold with foreign aid pause. They don't have a ton of room to let those hulls sit without an impact to their other business.
- With foreign aid not moving our U.S. flag fleet and ready reserve fleet have less sailings, sit, and rot.
- Not sure how many sail drones have been delivered, but 4 were sailing off San Diego last night.
- The first LCU-1700 is in the water. It sits by the has never been outfitted OUSV-3 Vanguard hull that has been sitting for over 2 years.
- 1 oiler came into service, 1 T-ATS hit the water
- Saudi MMSC hit the water.
- 4 frigates cancelled.
- 4 OPCs cancelled with 2 of those 4 potentially getting completed.
- Last NSC cancelled and revived as FFX.
- Ford looks productive.
- DDG Flt III has actually been through live fire testing.
-Saronic has 3 large/medium unmanned ships under construction. No idea if they have a buyer.
-FRCs still keep delivering like hotcakes.
-BBG design contract will conclude in 2032?
I am sure there is more, but I have to go face old man winter now. Feel free to add on.
At this point we should offer intensive skills trading to work in yards to anyone in the U.S. Military who is ending their enlistment contract so we can have a staffed up workforce in the shipyards. You are preselecting guys who can show up on time and already of some clearance vetting. Move to X town, work in this yard for y years, subsidized housing and the rest. Expensive but we need skilled bodies
Young men with good jobs are going to attract young women looking for such.
The shipyard can be a career, the point being discussed is getting back into shipbuilding moving forward, not a brief spasm.
If former military go to work building gummint ships, let them apply the time in some fashion or percentage to their military retirement. Same as folks double dip fed and State now.
Although, in seriousness, I am not sure that is true. I think the biological factors are overstated because people really want to avoid talking about a lot of social confounders of the modern era. But that's neither here nor there.
The US naval forces are designed for force projection around the globe, are they not?
While China's have been for defending the homeland and projecting force in close proximity (geostrategically speaking). I don't know enough about ship-classes and types to say, but wouldn't a key feature to look for be how China's logistics-and-support chain for the new vessels and their navy is designed, and if it is undergoing changes pointing to force projection farther from home?
It's one thing to have X ships of Y type, but no logistics to support them farther away than say Australia, India or Bering Strait, is my thinking - and another thing to have preparations under way for Chinese naval presence outside Panama.
I wondered what AI would think about the Navy's current plight. So I asked Google's Gemini AI to weigh in. The following -- between the asterisks -- popped out:
*****
Rise of American Naval Power and Its Modern Industrial Challenges
Summary
From a ranking of 12th in 1880, the U.S. Navy rose to global dominance through Alfred Thayer Mahan’s strategic theories and Theodore Roosevelt’s political will, culminating in the Great White Fleet’s public spectacle. However, post-Cold War budget cuts and the collapse of commercial shipbuilding have left the modern industrial base brittle, causing severe delays and low production rates.
The Rise to Dominance (1880s–1991)
Intellectual Foundation and Political Will
In the early 1880s, the U.S. Navy was a minor force consisting largely of outdated wooden vessels, ranked 12th globally. The transformation began with a shift in strategic thought spearheaded by Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan. His 1890 work, The Influence of Sea Power upon History, provided the intellectual framework for expansion, arguing that national prosperity and commerce required a powerful battlefleet and overseas bases rather than mere coastal defense.
Theodore Roosevelt became the primary political architect of this vision. First as Assistant Secretary of the Navy and later as President, Roosevelt tirelessly prodded Congress to authorize modern steel battleships. To secure public funding and enthusiasm, he orchestrated a masterstroke of outreach: the cruise of the Great White Fleet (1907–1909). This circumnavigation by 16 battleships vividly demonstrated American sea power to the world and the American taxpayer, solidifying domestic support for a first-class navy.
Legislative Action
Political support materialized in landmark legislation like the "Two-Ocean Navy Act" of 1940, which authorized a massive expansion to combat threats from both Japan and Germany.
The act's rapid passage was facilitated by veteran pro-Navy legislators who had spent years laying the groundwork.
Carl Vinson: Known as the "Father of the Two-Ocean Navy," Vinson chaired the House Naval Affairs Committee. He utilized his reputation for "horse trading" and deal-making—earning him the nickname "Georgia Swamp Fox"—to push through naval expansions even during the Great Depression.
David I. Walsh: As Chairman of the Senate Naval Affairs Committee, Walsh co-sponsored the bill, ensuring coordinated support across both chambers of Congress.
Following World War II, where the U.S. fleet grew larger than all other navies combined, the Cold War necessitated a strategy of forward presence to contain Soviet influence. This era culminated in the 1980s with the Reagan administration's "600-ship Navy" goal, a political initiative that secured high levels of funding to counter Soviet maritime growth.
Post-Cold War Decline: Why Building Ships is Now Slow and Difficult
Since the Cold War ended in 1991, the U.S. Navy has struggled to build ships in significant numbers or on schedule. This decline is driven by four primary factors identified in recent industrial analyses:
1. The "Procurement Holiday" and Budget Instability: Following the Soviet Union's collapse, defense spending was slashed in pursuit of a "peace dividend." In the 1990s, the Navy procured only 71 ships, compared to 137 in the 1980s. This "holiday" forced the consolidation of defense contractors and caused the skilled workforce to atrophy.
2. Collapse of Commercial Shipbuilding: Unlike China or South Korea, the U.S. effectively has no commercial shipbuilding industry to absorb overhead costs or maintain a labor pool between naval orders. Subsidies for commercial yards were removed in the 1980s, and by 2023, the U.S. accounted for less than 0.10% of global commercial shipbuilding. This leaves naval shipyards as isolated, specialized facilities with no surge capacity.
3. Workforce and Supply Chain Fragility: Shipbuilders currently face a critical shortage of skilled workers (welders, electricians) and rely on "just-in-time" supply chains that are easily disrupted. As a result, even when funding is available, yards physically lack the personnel to increase production rates.
4. Acquisition Mismanagement: The Navy frequently begins construction on ships before designs are finalized, leading to costly mid-build changes. This practice, seen in the Littoral Combat Ship and Ford-class carrier programs, results in chronic delays and budget overruns.
*******
Where are our current Mahan, Roosevelt and Vinson? IMO, building a modern navy is a political issue and needs public champions. My guess is that the current Administration, if US forces/bases are not directly attacked in the opening phases of the PLAN's assault on Taiwan, will sit on their hands. After that happens, the USN is likely to be much, much smaller.
Please don’t depend on the Somalis! They are “Takers”. We have to “Take” our American Dollers out of this Balltoom project. Yes? We have to be very careful with now with our American Dollsrs!
Let us build the ship CDR Salamander wants; built and launched in 2026? Understand? I spoke to Ms Sharron who grew up in Southeast D. C. I asked her if she had any “Connections”. Her grandmother was German! Ms Sharron said, “I love you Nurse Jane’l Please spread the word… Nsval Ship or Ball Room? I say “Navy Ship@. Who’s behind me echoing… “Build our Navy Ship’! Thank you! NJ
Expecting the 7th Fleet to, by itself, be the same size as China's entire Navy is disingenuous.
The US Economy cannot support such an endeavor. Especially with the current Elonian fiscal politics.
Our adversaries -- generally, not just China -- have the advantage of initial local superiority. This is always the case, because the US military spans the globe. Nonetheless, it's a short-lived advantage.
In total, we have 11 aircraft carriers and 9 "helo" carriers.
China has 3 and 4, respectively.
11 vs 3
9 vs 4
Not including our allies (Japan 0/4, ROK 0/2, Aus 0/2).
Notably, Japan and Australia have the F35B which can be used on their 6 "helo" destroyers.
Our Navy is already built. China's isn't. We don't need to match China's production, especially in light of using nuclear reactors.
The Stennis is currently being refit, which is just as important as building new carriers.
Speaking of which, I'm not sure the US + Allies need carriers so desperately in the Pacific.
We are on the "defensive" in this arena. We already have a natural land-based blockade between Singapore, Philippines, Taiwan, Okinawa, Japan, ROK with the advantage of interior lines and short resupply windows with strong reserve locations in Guam and Hawaii.
Speaking of Guam, I'm more concerned with USAF and USMC moving assets off Okinawa than I am with the 7th fleet matching 1:1 with China's entire military.
More important than volume of VLS is the ability to reload and resupply VLS. That's a much more critical issue than raw volume.
In my time as a contractor before becoming a GS, I worked Joint Test for 18 months and the POM for a year. I was struck by the enormous focus on the calendar and the process and the lack of awareness of the actual content resident in that community. Everyone was concerned about their "piece of the pie", and making sure someone else didn't get more than "their fair share" without surrendering on some other issue. Reminded me of why they ate with their hands at the royal table in the Middle Ages...they'd stick the knives and forks in each other if they were available. Funny only in a sad, pathetic way...
The process is the purpose.
The process is the point.
The process is the goal.
The process is the problem.
The process is the retirement plan
Oh no, CDR Salamander, don’t get “Angry”! Start building! And, if I may add, “Don’t take No for an answer!”
If I learned anything from USMC Mustang Lieutenant Joe Pratt, “Hit the beach, kick ass, take names, and don’t take no for an answer! Nurse Jane speaking.
Want money? Redirect the monies slated to build that “Ballroom”.
Appoint a Naval Auditor-Project Manager!
Follow the money-trail! Get that ship built. CDR Salamander you please name the what and the where, yes?
I’ll watch those other “Actors” you mentioned here. I’m in the “Spotlight” because I filed a “Building Violation” in Anne Arundel county.
I’m also in the “S” List of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation because they acknowledge I have a Lawyer. “Tell him,” I was told by CBF yesterday, by email. I already have! Stay warm and healthy.
War has already been declared, just not by our American Congress… yet. Very Respectfully, NJ
Maybe the Somalis in MN will lend us the money to build one cruiser?
The ballroom $$ are from private donors not taxpayers.
And its still not his house, and bunker below isn't the donor's.
True enough. But ask yourself why those "private donors" (do we have a list?) don't think that fixing DoD procurement isn't a higher priority. All of us can get distracted by the bright and shiny things, even the President.
That’s speculative on your part; nobody said they didn’t. That said the Pentagon/DOD should absolutely without question undergo an audit/mass firings/housecleaning.
The MIC has become a beast unto itself ever since 1945.
Happy New Year. All
2017 Rand report.
https://www.rand.org/paf/projects/us-china-scorecard.html
Either we scale back on our commitments or we expand our fleet.
If the former then the fist thugs I would ax would be Ukraine, Black Sea and Baltic Sea.
Which carrier group is in Ukraine's area?
The Ford is messing around with Venezuela.
That's the only carrier group "committed" to a random location you could reroute.
And of course, there's little logic to randomly reroute it to China until Intel shows an imminent buildup.
Resources. Ukraine is sucking up money.
We send more money to Israel.
Much of the "money" going to Ukraine is just Congressional write-offs for overvalued mothballed equipment that was never going to be used anyway. If you've ever had a government job, you know exactly how misleading this is. M1A1s are only worth their original value to Congress... we're on the M1A2 Sepv3 presently btw.
$30 billion of actual cash has gone to Ukraine.
That's closer to what Minnesota gave to Somali scammers ($10 -15 billion).
In the same period, we've handed $55 billion to Israel so they can have single payer healthcare and state funded abortions.
You seem to have some sort of animus toward Israel. You’ve been spending too much time listening to Tucker Carlson and the venom he spews out. No point discussing anything with you.
Israel is the only country that the USA really cares about. It is happy to pour money but expects nothing material return.
The USA complains about how it has to subsidise European defence spending but it does proportionally much, much more for Israel.
No idea why. Probably an Evangelical thing. Rapture, End of Days and All That Jazz.
Maybe it’s because the Israelis fight and win while the Europeans just blather on and enjoy their fine wines and croissants.
You’ve got to admit it takes a lot of courage to enter a booby trapped Hamas tunnel to rescue hostages. Unless of course you just hate Jews then you won’t be impressed by anything.
Evangelical and historical.
The Bible tells us that those who bless Israel will be blessed.
History tells us that nations that engage in anti Semitism will be ruined.
US main problem with Ukrainean conflict is that by antagonizing Russia they drive Russia close to China. The basic military logic since dawn of time suggest that if you are preparing to face a powerful opponent, you should isolate him, deny him potential allies (preferably by bringing those potential allies on your side).
You are correct. Biden undid Richard Nixon’s greatest accomplishment of separating those two nations. Thanks to the dotard we are now confronted with the entire Eurasian landmass.
Nixon goes to China works in reverse.
Show me your budget and I’ll show you your priorities. Well, our priorities are not in shipbuilding despite grand pronouncements and music videos. The Pentagon has been a clown show for years and it continues. All talk no action. I am prepared for a bitter horrifying loss. We are not ready; we won’t be ready. You can’t cosplay peace through strength, yet we do.
Exactly, at least 60% of the US federal budget goes to "Welfare State" programs.
The US spends avout 40% of total world spending on the military. And it can still barely build any warships. Do you really think increasing their budget is going to improve that?
Increasing the ship building budget is part of the solution, firing bad performers is another.
The ship building budget is already huge. There are only about 10 major shipyards in the USA where large warships can be built. Increasing the budget does not remove that bottleneck. And you can't fire bad performers becuase there are only 10 of them. If you want the capacity to build a large amount of warships thrn you need the underlying large commercial ship building industry. China has that. The USA does not.
The "bad performers" are largely in the employ of the US Navy/NAVSEA not the ship builders themselves. So yes they can be fired. A larger budget could be used to expand shipyard capacity as a first step.
There is not going to be any fighting West of Kauai.
Don't think Poland 1939. Think Austria 1938.
Blood is thicker than water.
Maybe. But the time from Austria to Poland was pretty brief.
But in the China - Taiwan situation there is no Poland and no Jews. It’s just one big happy Han family, in John Lennon’s words, “nothing to kill or die for”. There are more US neocons lusting to spill blood over Taiwan than there are Han Chinese, let them go there and fight then.
Ah, the dread “neocons”.
Pure bloodlust and no chance American security might be involved.
Also, there were lots of Jews in Poland in 1938. Not so many by 1945.
Yes, precisely. The German war against Poland happened because Jews and Poles are not Germans. Such a disparity does not exist in the China - Taiwan situation, they are the same people. When push comes to shove, my opinion is that re-unification may involve a few pushes but won’t take a lot of shoving.
Watch the rapturous crowds in Vienna throwing flowers at the Wehrmacht. Didn’t see a lot of that in Poland, huh?
Well, if the Taiwanese just surrender, intervention to stop China will be moot on the narrow issue.
We’ll then see what China does with the cork in that bottle popped.
So in other words in your alternate behavioral universe the very bloody most recent 22 year long Chinese civil war in which millions of Chinese died at the hands of other Chinese never happened because that would indicate that yes the Chinese are quite capable of killing other Chinese to achieve political goals.
Please explain what exactly has happened in the subsequent 76 years that has changed the 25+ century history of Chinese killing Chinese for political goals?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_non-international_armed_conflicts
“Fear and Shame” have been the subtitles for our NSS for at least two decades now.
We have to be honest about our own scorecard this year.
- Safeboats - After cancelling US orders for Mk VI PB, we now have a stop work on the Mk VI PBs for Ukraine due to foreign aid pause. Keep in mind their entire second facility is for that production.
- Marine Group Boat Works - Two 35m patrol boats for Jordan also on hold with foreign aid pause. They don't have a ton of room to let those hulls sit without an impact to their other business.
- With foreign aid not moving our U.S. flag fleet and ready reserve fleet have less sailings, sit, and rot.
- Not sure how many sail drones have been delivered, but 4 were sailing off San Diego last night.
- The first LCU-1700 is in the water. It sits by the has never been outfitted OUSV-3 Vanguard hull that has been sitting for over 2 years.
- 1 oiler came into service, 1 T-ATS hit the water
- Saudi MMSC hit the water.
- 4 frigates cancelled.
- 4 OPCs cancelled with 2 of those 4 potentially getting completed.
- Last NSC cancelled and revived as FFX.
- Ford looks productive.
- DDG Flt III has actually been through live fire testing.
-Saronic has 3 large/medium unmanned ships under construction. No idea if they have a buyer.
-FRCs still keep delivering like hotcakes.
-BBG design contract will conclude in 2032?
I am sure there is more, but I have to go face old man winter now. Feel free to add on.
At this point we should offer intensive skills trading to work in yards to anyone in the U.S. Military who is ending their enlistment contract so we can have a staffed up workforce in the shipyards. You are preselecting guys who can show up on time and already of some clearance vetting. Move to X town, work in this yard for y years, subsidized housing and the rest. Expensive but we need skilled bodies
- No opportunity to start a family in a small town with a sudden influx of young men.
- What is their career path after the shipyard?
These are the questions young men getting out of the Navy are going to ponder. If you can't address them, it's a dead-end.
Young men with good jobs are going to attract young women looking for such.
The shipyard can be a career, the point being discussed is getting back into shipbuilding moving forward, not a brief spasm.
If former military go to work building gummint ships, let them apply the time in some fashion or percentage to their military retirement. Same as folks double dip fed and State now.
Well, at least 5% of young men with good jobs would be gay just statistically)
Heh, fair enough.
Although, in seriousness, I am not sure that is true. I think the biological factors are overstated because people really want to avoid talking about a lot of social confounders of the modern era. But that's neither here nor there.
Thinking:
The US naval forces are designed for force projection around the globe, are they not?
While China's have been for defending the homeland and projecting force in close proximity (geostrategically speaking). I don't know enough about ship-classes and types to say, but wouldn't a key feature to look for be how China's logistics-and-support chain for the new vessels and their navy is designed, and if it is undergoing changes pointing to force projection farther from home?
It's one thing to have X ships of Y type, but no logistics to support them farther away than say Australia, India or Bering Strait, is my thinking - and another thing to have preparations under way for Chinese naval presence outside Panama.
Happy New Year!
Sorry to be a noodge, it seems in recent light of China Developing World's Oldest Warship? Your VLS count is now off.
touche' !!!
I wondered what AI would think about the Navy's current plight. So I asked Google's Gemini AI to weigh in. The following -- between the asterisks -- popped out:
*****
Rise of American Naval Power and Its Modern Industrial Challenges
Summary
From a ranking of 12th in 1880, the U.S. Navy rose to global dominance through Alfred Thayer Mahan’s strategic theories and Theodore Roosevelt’s political will, culminating in the Great White Fleet’s public spectacle. However, post-Cold War budget cuts and the collapse of commercial shipbuilding have left the modern industrial base brittle, causing severe delays and low production rates.
The Rise to Dominance (1880s–1991)
Intellectual Foundation and Political Will
In the early 1880s, the U.S. Navy was a minor force consisting largely of outdated wooden vessels, ranked 12th globally. The transformation began with a shift in strategic thought spearheaded by Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan. His 1890 work, The Influence of Sea Power upon History, provided the intellectual framework for expansion, arguing that national prosperity and commerce required a powerful battlefleet and overseas bases rather than mere coastal defense.
Theodore Roosevelt became the primary political architect of this vision. First as Assistant Secretary of the Navy and later as President, Roosevelt tirelessly prodded Congress to authorize modern steel battleships. To secure public funding and enthusiasm, he orchestrated a masterstroke of outreach: the cruise of the Great White Fleet (1907–1909). This circumnavigation by 16 battleships vividly demonstrated American sea power to the world and the American taxpayer, solidifying domestic support for a first-class navy.
Legislative Action
Political support materialized in landmark legislation like the "Two-Ocean Navy Act" of 1940, which authorized a massive expansion to combat threats from both Japan and Germany.
The act's rapid passage was facilitated by veteran pro-Navy legislators who had spent years laying the groundwork.
Carl Vinson: Known as the "Father of the Two-Ocean Navy," Vinson chaired the House Naval Affairs Committee. He utilized his reputation for "horse trading" and deal-making—earning him the nickname "Georgia Swamp Fox"—to push through naval expansions even during the Great Depression.
David I. Walsh: As Chairman of the Senate Naval Affairs Committee, Walsh co-sponsored the bill, ensuring coordinated support across both chambers of Congress.
Following World War II, where the U.S. fleet grew larger than all other navies combined, the Cold War necessitated a strategy of forward presence to contain Soviet influence. This era culminated in the 1980s with the Reagan administration's "600-ship Navy" goal, a political initiative that secured high levels of funding to counter Soviet maritime growth.
Post-Cold War Decline: Why Building Ships is Now Slow and Difficult
Since the Cold War ended in 1991, the U.S. Navy has struggled to build ships in significant numbers or on schedule. This decline is driven by four primary factors identified in recent industrial analyses:
1. The "Procurement Holiday" and Budget Instability: Following the Soviet Union's collapse, defense spending was slashed in pursuit of a "peace dividend." In the 1990s, the Navy procured only 71 ships, compared to 137 in the 1980s. This "holiday" forced the consolidation of defense contractors and caused the skilled workforce to atrophy.
2. Collapse of Commercial Shipbuilding: Unlike China or South Korea, the U.S. effectively has no commercial shipbuilding industry to absorb overhead costs or maintain a labor pool between naval orders. Subsidies for commercial yards were removed in the 1980s, and by 2023, the U.S. accounted for less than 0.10% of global commercial shipbuilding. This leaves naval shipyards as isolated, specialized facilities with no surge capacity.
3. Workforce and Supply Chain Fragility: Shipbuilders currently face a critical shortage of skilled workers (welders, electricians) and rely on "just-in-time" supply chains that are easily disrupted. As a result, even when funding is available, yards physically lack the personnel to increase production rates.
4. Acquisition Mismanagement: The Navy frequently begins construction on ships before designs are finalized, leading to costly mid-build changes. This practice, seen in the Littoral Combat Ship and Ford-class carrier programs, results in chronic delays and budget overruns.
*******
Where are our current Mahan, Roosevelt and Vinson? IMO, building a modern navy is a political issue and needs public champions. My guess is that the current Administration, if US forces/bases are not directly attacked in the opening phases of the PLAN's assault on Taiwan, will sit on their hands. After that happens, the USN is likely to be much, much smaller.
Outstanding CDR Salamander, my latest as well, https://donvandergriff.substack.com/p/my-message-to-my-fellow-americans
Good piece, and happy new Year!
Dear Shipmates,
Please don’t depend on the Somalis! They are “Takers”. We have to “Take” our American Dollers out of this Balltoom project. Yes? We have to be very careful with now with our American Dollsrs!
Let us build the ship CDR Salamander wants; built and launched in 2026? Understand? I spoke to Ms Sharron who grew up in Southeast D. C. I asked her if she had any “Connections”. Her grandmother was German! Ms Sharron said, “I love you Nurse Jane’l Please spread the word… Nsval Ship or Ball Room? I say “Navy Ship@. Who’s behind me echoing… “Build our Navy Ship’! Thank you! NJ
Expecting the 7th Fleet to, by itself, be the same size as China's entire Navy is disingenuous.
The US Economy cannot support such an endeavor. Especially with the current Elonian fiscal politics.
Our adversaries -- generally, not just China -- have the advantage of initial local superiority. This is always the case, because the US military spans the globe. Nonetheless, it's a short-lived advantage.
In total, we have 11 aircraft carriers and 9 "helo" carriers.
China has 3 and 4, respectively.
11 vs 3
9 vs 4
Not including our allies (Japan 0/4, ROK 0/2, Aus 0/2).
Notably, Japan and Australia have the F35B which can be used on their 6 "helo" destroyers.
Our Navy is already built. China's isn't. We don't need to match China's production, especially in light of using nuclear reactors.
The Stennis is currently being refit, which is just as important as building new carriers.
Speaking of which, I'm not sure the US + Allies need carriers so desperately in the Pacific.
We are on the "defensive" in this arena. We already have a natural land-based blockade between Singapore, Philippines, Taiwan, Okinawa, Japan, ROK with the advantage of interior lines and short resupply windows with strong reserve locations in Guam and Hawaii.
Speaking of Guam, I'm more concerned with USAF and USMC moving assets off Okinawa than I am with the 7th fleet matching 1:1 with China's entire military.
More important than volume of VLS is the ability to reload and resupply VLS. That's a much more critical issue than raw volume.
They built over 1/2 of a seventh fleet in one year. That is the more interesting concern.