4 ms·

The US navy is in freefall. The best we can do is build a 40 year old destroyer hull and an aircraft carrier class that we plan to be building for literally 100

by kcb 9mo ago

The US navy is in freefall. The best we can do is build a 40 year old destroyer hull and an aircraft carrier class that we plan to be building for literally 100 years. Shipyards can't build anything. Every design is mismanaged so poorly and leached on by traitorous defense contractors so badly that we get essentially nothing but the bill.

JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
> best we can do Why would you take this as an indication of the “best we can do”?
- kcb 9mo ago
  I'm not saying its the best we should do. But its the best we are capable of doing.
- mpyne 9mo ago
  I think they pretty clearly meant 'practical best' rather than 'theoretical best'. Theoretically we could be so much better, which is why everyone is so grumpy about U.S. shipbuilding. For 'practical best' you'd normally point people to examples of warships the U.S. actually can build without much drama, but if you try this with the Navy you're basically left with, what, the last LPD class? 10 years ago you'd call the Virginia SSNs a success, but even those have now run into construction delays due to various issues, even as the Navy needs their #1 priority (Columbia-class SSBN, also delayed) to succeed to decommission the Ohios on time.
  - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
    > think they pretty clearly meant 'practical best' rather than 'theoretical best’ I guess I question this, too. This “battleship” a cartoon drawn for the President. It might damage our fighting ability if built. But it’s not reflective of our practical best. There is a broader, genuine criticism of American warship building. But this battleship has as much to do with that as do rubber ducks.
    - mpyne 9mo ago
      > But it’s not reflective of our practical best. Read the original comment they made again. They weren't talking about the proposed battleship at all, but about broader issues the U.S. Navy is already experiencing trying to build the already-approved designs. > It might damage our fighting ability if built. But it’s not reflective of our practical best. Indeed, it is beyond our current practical best, even if we assume the cartoon would ever be built. Which is, I suspect, what elicited the comment in the first place.
    - kcb 9mo ago
      Because this and further politicization just makes the decline even worse. This just caused the cancellation of the DDG(X), which I'm sure would have been its own boondoggle in time.
      - orwin 9mo ago
        The DDG(X) was the destroyer the US navy wanted to build no? I thought it was a nice concept on what a modern destroyer should do m, what was your issue with it (and it's cancelled now? For sure?)
        kcb 9mo ago
        https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4366952/trump-announces-new-class-of-battleship/ https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/436695... > The new Trump-class battleships will replace the Navy's previous plans to develop a new class of destroyer, the DDG(X). However, the sea service intends to incorporate the capabilities it had planned to employ on that platform into the new Trump-class ships.
- jasonwatkinspdx 9mo ago
  Because US Navy procurement has been a disaster for over two decades now? Just Zumwalt and LCS alone are like $50 billion burned up for nothing. The Navy's issues with procurement go all the way back to the retiring of the Oliver Hazard Perry class without a suitable replacement in the pipeline.
- Bratmon 9mo ago
  Because there's no secret group of competent people waiting in the wings. The military-industrial complex we have is the only one we got.
- jjk166 9mo ago
  One project becoming a boondoggle is evidence we're not living up to our potential. Every project becoming a boondoggle is evidence we are.
russdill 9mo ago
Hulls last a really long time and the relevance of a large navy has changed. Keeping existing hulls up to date seems like a much better use of funds, no?
- nradov 9mo ago
  The hulls on many older US Navy warships are literally cracking. They can be repaired at great expense but at this point it's more cost effective to scrap the old hulls and build new. https://www.twz.com/sea/navys-cruiser-modernization-a-lesson-in-how-to-not-run-such-a-program-gao-report https://www.twz.com/sea/navys-cruiser-modernization-a-lesson...
  - kcb 9mo ago
    Also, they are being loaded with equipment far over their initial design tonnage and power capabilities.

by kcb 9mo ago

JumpCrisscross 9mo ago

> best we can do Why would you take this as an indication of the “best we can do”?

kcb 9mo ago
I'm not saying its the best we should do. But its the best we are capable of doing.
mpyne 9mo ago
I think they pretty clearly meant 'practical best' rather than 'theoretical best'. Theoretically we could be so much better, which is why everyone is so grumpy about U.S. shipbuilding. For 'practical best' you'd normally point people to examples of warships the U.S. actually can build without much drama, but if you try this with the Navy you're basically left with, what, the last LPD class? 10 years ago you'd call the Virginia SSNs a success, but even those have now run into construction delays due to various issues, even as the Navy needs their #1 priority (Columbia-class SSBN, also delayed) to succeed to decommission the Ohios on time.
- JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
  > think they pretty clearly meant 'practical best' rather than 'theoretical best’ I guess I question this, too. This “battleship” a cartoon drawn for the President. It might damage our fighting ability if built. But it’s not reflective of our practical best. There is a broader, genuine criticism of American warship building. But this battleship has as much to do with that as do rubber ducks.
  - mpyne 9mo ago
    > But it’s not reflective of our practical best. Read the original comment they made again. They weren't talking about the proposed battleship at all, but about broader issues the U.S. Navy is already experiencing trying to build the already-approved designs. > It might damage our fighting ability if built. But it’s not reflective of our practical best. Indeed, it is beyond our current practical best, even if we assume the cartoon would ever be built. Which is, I suspect, what elicited the comment in the first place.
  - kcb 9mo ago
    Because this and further politicization just makes the decline even worse. This just caused the cancellation of the DDG(X), which I'm sure would have been its own boondoggle in time.
    - orwin 9mo ago
      The DDG(X) was the destroyer the US navy wanted to build no? I thought it was a nice concept on what a modern destroyer should do m, what was your issue with it (and it's cancelled now? For sure?)
      - kcb 9mo ago
        https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4366952/trump-announces-new-class-of-battleship/ https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/436695... > The new Trump-class battleships will replace the Navy's previous plans to develop a new class of destroyer, the DDG(X). However, the sea service intends to incorporate the capabilities it had planned to employ on that platform into the new Trump-class ships.
jasonwatkinspdx 9mo ago
Because US Navy procurement has been a disaster for over two decades now? Just Zumwalt and LCS alone are like $50 billion burned up for nothing. The Navy's issues with procurement go all the way back to the retiring of the Oliver Hazard Perry class without a suitable replacement in the pipeline.
Bratmon 9mo ago
Because there's no secret group of competent people waiting in the wings. The military-industrial complex we have is the only one we got.
jjk166 9mo ago
One project becoming a boondoggle is evidence we're not living up to our potential. Every project becoming a boondoggle is evidence we are.

russdill 9mo ago

Hulls last a really long time and the relevance of a large navy has changed. Keeping existing hulls up to date seems like a much better use of funds, no?

nradov 9mo ago
The hulls on many older US Navy warships are literally cracking. They can be repaired at great expense but at this point it's more cost effective to scrap the old hulls and build new. https://www.twz.com/sea/navys-cruiser-modernization-a-lesson-in-how-to-not-run-such-a-program-gao-report https://www.twz.com/sea/navys-cruiser-modernization-a-lesson...
- kcb 9mo ago
  Also, they are being loaded with equipment far over their initial design tonnage and power capabilities.