4 ms·

Sometimes I wonder if US leadership, above the paygrade of naval leadership, assume that large surface combatants likely won't be survivable in a peer war. Then

Sometimes I wonder if US leadership, above the paygrade of naval leadership, assume that large surface combatants likely won't be survivable in a peer war. Then they'd do exactly what they're doing now... stall naval projects and pivot. There's a lot of motivated naval lobbying decrying the state of US ship building, but we can see in semi that US leadership fine with pouring 100s of billions in urgent industrial policy. Maybe US ship building is actually that broken, but IMO that wouldn't stop the spigot from flowing. At some point, it's hard to differentiate if current state of naval procurement is incompetent by malice/design. It's hard to explain how little is being done.

pyuser583 3y ago
The smart people seem to agree that submarine will be the most important naval vessels in the next war. Submarine operations, including production, are extremely hush-hush. Last I heard the US had two submarine fleets: the ones the Navy openly discusses, and the useful ones which are discussed in whispers. I like to think the hush-hush subs are being built and deployed en masse.
- appplication 3y ago
  Surface drones like the ones used in Ukraine are also not to be underestimated. Russia is struggling to combat these effectively, and even the US navy doesn’t have any specific technological answer to them at present.
  - _boffin_ 3y ago
    I believe they’re actively testing microwave on at least one ship.
- nradov 3y ago
  The US Navy might have secret programs for some small underwater combat drones but there are no "hush-hush subs". A modern SSN/SSBN costs billions of dollars and takes thousands of workers years to build. There's just no way to keep them secret. Some of the internal systems and capabilities are secret but the number of hulls is public knowledge.
- maxglute 3y ago
  Submarines also suffering delays, but current USN subs still have enough lead enough that SSNX isn't urgent as updating surface combatants as long as current sub fleet is replaced at relative parity. I don't think there's secret fleet, dry docks are easy to monitor. Maybe some XLUUVs, that can be built in an enclosed plant and shuttled around. I think more trying to figure out naval unmanned platforms, to see what future fleet composition will be, i.e. navy Force Design 2045 wants 370 manned ships, 150 unmanned, maybe better off with 300 manned and 200 unmanned.
somenameforme 3y ago
IMO it's all about the money being the main motivating factor. With government contracts more money should mean you can do a better job - which is why these contracts are so large. But there's a conflicting motivation to 'generate value for shareholders.' And this is further confounded by conflicts of interest in oversight. Congress not only receives large donations from the military industrial complex, but is also literally invested in these companies, and also stands to work as 'consultants', lobbyists, and and the like after leaving office for 7+ figure salaries. So you get a system where so long as money's getting spent, everybody's pretty happy - and the more, the merrier. It seems that in the past there was more ideologically (rather than financially) motivated leadership of many industries. One can see this today by comparing companies like SpaceX with Boeing. SpaceX is an ideologically driven company with a goal of colonizing Mars, headed by an eccentric engineer. Boeing is a financially driven company headed by an accountant. One has already revolutionized the entire space industry multiple times and is sending costs plummeting. The other has now spent tens of billions of dollars and well over a decade trying to rework Space Shuttle era tech into a new overpriced rocket that's already effectively obsolete before it's even finished. [1] And Boeing is also one of the largest military industrial complex contractors. Of course in 40 or 50 years, SpaceX will just be another Boeing. Maybe there's an argument for not perpetuating massive companies. They all seem to go from ideologically driven to MBA driven, yet their inertia and size makes it quite difficult to compete against them, resulting in an overall stagnation in technology and efficiency. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System
- euroderf 3y ago
  > They all seem to go from ideologically driven to MBA driven OT but, is there a public database of how many MBAs (as a %-age of workforce) are employed by various public companies ? It would be a helpful guide to companies to avoid.
  - red-iron-pine 3y ago
    if i had to bet money, there would be a high enough proportion in most large companies that you have to avoid every publicly traded company. plus proportions are deceptive. you just need one in an accounting dept. with enough empowerment to cut cut cut. a couple of em in CFO and COO roles, for example.

pyuser583 3y ago

The smart people seem to agree that submarine will be the most important naval vessels in the next war. Submarine operations, including production, are extremely hush-hush. Last I heard the US had two submarine fleets: the ones the Navy openly discusses, and the useful ones which are discussed in whispers. I like to think the hush-hush subs are being built and deployed en masse.

appplication 3y ago
Surface drones like the ones used in Ukraine are also not to be underestimated. Russia is struggling to combat these effectively, and even the US navy doesn’t have any specific technological answer to them at present.
- _boffin_ 3y ago
  I believe they’re actively testing microwave on at least one ship.
nradov 3y ago
The US Navy might have secret programs for some small underwater combat drones but there are no "hush-hush subs". A modern SSN/SSBN costs billions of dollars and takes thousands of workers years to build. There's just no way to keep them secret. Some of the internal systems and capabilities are secret but the number of hulls is public knowledge.
maxglute 3y ago
Submarines also suffering delays, but current USN subs still have enough lead enough that SSNX isn't urgent as updating surface combatants as long as current sub fleet is replaced at relative parity. I don't think there's secret fleet, dry docks are easy to monitor. Maybe some XLUUVs, that can be built in an enclosed plant and shuttled around. I think more trying to figure out naval unmanned platforms, to see what future fleet composition will be, i.e. navy Force Design 2045 wants 370 manned ships, 150 unmanned, maybe better off with 300 manned and 200 unmanned.

somenameforme 3y ago

IMO it's all about the money being the main motivating factor. With government contracts more money should mean you can do a better job - which is why these contracts are so large. But there's a conflicting motivation to 'generate value for shareholders.' And this is further confounded by conflicts of interest in oversight. Congress not only receives large donations from the military industrial complex, but is also literally invested in these companies, and also stands to work as 'consultants', lobbyists, and and the like after leaving office for 7+ figure salaries. So you get a system where so long as money's getting spent, everybody's pretty happy - and the more, the merrier. It seems that in the past there was more ideologically (rather than financially) motivated leadership of many industries. One can see this today by comparing companies like SpaceX with Boeing. SpaceX is an ideologically driven company with a goal of colonizing Mars, headed by an eccentric engineer. Boeing is a financially driven company headed by an accountant. One has already revolutionized the entire space industry multiple times and is sending costs plummeting. The other has now spent tens of billions of dollars and well over a decade trying to rework Space Shuttle era tech into a new overpriced rocket that's already effectively obsolete before it's even finished. [1] And Boeing is also one of the largest military industrial complex contractors. Of course in 40 or 50 years, SpaceX will just be another Boeing. Maybe there's an argument for not perpetuating massive companies. They all seem to go from ideologically driven to MBA driven, yet their inertia and size makes it quite difficult to compete against them, resulting in an overall stagnation in technology and efficiency. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

euroderf 3y ago
> They all seem to go from ideologically driven to MBA driven OT but, is there a public database of how many MBAs (as a %-age of workforce) are employed by various public companies ? It would be a helpful guide to companies to avoid.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  if i had to bet money, there would be a high enough proportion in most large companies that you have to avoid every publicly traded company. plus proportions are deceptive. you just need one in an accounting dept. with enough empowerment to cut cut cut. a couple of em in CFO and COO roles, for example.