"This is obviously incredibly important for the U.S.’ current situation. We are not even remotely worried enough about a conflict with China, and as a result we’re not making anything remotely resembling the investments or the regulatory changes needed to fund a scale-up of our defense industry. Orders from Ukraine and Taiwan could be providing the steady demand for the U.S. defense industry to revitalize itself, but our government has been inconsistent with the necessary funding.
I worry that the only country learning the lessons of the U.S.’ World War 2 production miracle is China."
The commission and you have a very interesting wish list. All it takes is increasing SCN (as an overall Navy top line increase, because you also have bunch of aviation re-capitalizations looming) to about $35B+ in 2021$ for the next 20 years, plus inflation, to pay for that CVN every 4 yrs, and that 2nd VA B5 every year ( but know that it will be delivered 2 yrs late, and AUKUS will further strain an already dysfunctional, over promising and under delivering Sub industrial base), and that much needed LSCombatant (because yes, DDG IIAs and IIIs are SWAP and Kg limited). It’s all about the $$, so get your commission focused on that, while keeping Army and AF lobbies assuaged.
Now, if you really want to do something innovative, amend or get rid of the Jones Act and allow foreign shipyards to bid directly on Navy ships, because there are no more shipyard locations (we gave them away in the ill advised BRACS of the 90’s, and even if we could identify one the cost of building a new public shipyard would be so costly and take too long to build), and the foreign shipyards are your only viable, affordable pathway to create more shipbuilding capacity.
We should open yards in the San Fransisco Bay, Especially in the Stockton area. Stockton is completely unlike San Fransisco (almost 100 miles away in fact) and the "tech" part of the bay area, with much lower housing costs and overall constriction of crazy liberals and NIMBYs. Labor and land is (relatively) cheep, and there is already a maritime and drydock workforce in the area. Even if you didn't have the infrastructure to build ships, being able to repair them on the west coast would both reduce maintenance demands on other yards, and allow ships to be repaired and re-fitted without going the whole way to the gulf or east coast (increasing readiness.) Getting influential California politics on board via jobs creation in one of the poorest areas of the state could also help ensure that Navy friendly appropriations bills get through congress. Just a thought
Great post. The capability gap is widening. Is there any talk of using leased commercial shipping to address the Amphibious Capability gap in the short term? I am referring to either schemes comparable to those that employ platforms such as the MV Ocean Venture (SOCOM) or such as the Royal Navy executed in order to form the Falklands Task Force. Specifically a mix of commercial and USN ships that would allow sufficient capability until the decline in USN Amphibious Shipping production and readiness was sufficiently reversed. While sub par, I would suggest such an approach would work to maintain interim capability, while allowing a focus on the surface and sub-surface vessels that would provide some measure of compensation for the natural lack of combat capability inherent with using ships taken up from trade / off the shelf solutions.
Looking at a map of the earth and viewing possible adversaries, Russia, China and India, only India is not bounded by geography. These countries have the GDP to do us dirty via arms. Russia and China are bounded by geography which limits their ability to project power distant from their mainlands. Those damned island arcs and narrow passage ways get in the way. Of course that geography makes it harder for the US to project power close to them
I don't think India has any reason to get into a contest with the US in the Indian Ocean.
From those pea brained observations, I don't see the Navy going peer to peer with Russia or China.
That said, I don't rule out rulers coming to power in Russia and China who are batshit crazy.
The Navy in being gives batshit crazy rulers around the world second thoughts about screwing with the US.
That is a long winded preface to thinking that maintaining what we have is good enough for next decade.
Another pea brained thought is wondering if sailing our carriers in narrow waters is a good idea. I think the Med, the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, Gulf or Oman and the Persian Gulf are narrow due to modern weapons.
I am pleased things may be moving, but concerned, deeply concerned at the state of things. I'm worried about how little can be done to move back toward basic naval preparedness in the short term. With ships and navies, nothing is "short term". Any moves now will take more than a decade to make any real difference, and a generation to really take effect. We don't have that kind of time.
It seems to me your writ is too constrained. A report, as a result, would not address the totality of our maritime requirement for effective warfighting. I suggest you take an expansive view of your charter and address all elements of our requirements.
Damn this is sad news!!
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/31/us/navy-admiral-arrested-bribery-scheme.html
Late to the party again.
Here is a link to a story about WW2 aircraft production that towards the very end has some interesting comments about our preparedness: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/at-least-five-interesting-things-f84?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=35345&post_id=144998674&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1nzbtr&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
See #1
"This is obviously incredibly important for the U.S.’ current situation. We are not even remotely worried enough about a conflict with China, and as a result we’re not making anything remotely resembling the investments or the regulatory changes needed to fund a scale-up of our defense industry. Orders from Ukraine and Taiwan could be providing the steady demand for the U.S. defense industry to revitalize itself, but our government has been inconsistent with the necessary funding.
I worry that the only country learning the lessons of the U.S.’ World War 2 production miracle is China."
Appreciate the posting. Really insightful. Many thanks.
Good to hear. As you say, winter is coming.
The commission and you have a very interesting wish list. All it takes is increasing SCN (as an overall Navy top line increase, because you also have bunch of aviation re-capitalizations looming) to about $35B+ in 2021$ for the next 20 years, plus inflation, to pay for that CVN every 4 yrs, and that 2nd VA B5 every year ( but know that it will be delivered 2 yrs late, and AUKUS will further strain an already dysfunctional, over promising and under delivering Sub industrial base), and that much needed LSCombatant (because yes, DDG IIAs and IIIs are SWAP and Kg limited). It’s all about the $$, so get your commission focused on that, while keeping Army and AF lobbies assuaged.
Now, if you really want to do something innovative, amend or get rid of the Jones Act and allow foreign shipyards to bid directly on Navy ships, because there are no more shipyard locations (we gave them away in the ill advised BRACS of the 90’s, and even if we could identify one the cost of building a new public shipyard would be so costly and take too long to build), and the foreign shipyards are your only viable, affordable pathway to create more shipbuilding capacity.
We should open yards in the San Fransisco Bay, Especially in the Stockton area. Stockton is completely unlike San Fransisco (almost 100 miles away in fact) and the "tech" part of the bay area, with much lower housing costs and overall constriction of crazy liberals and NIMBYs. Labor and land is (relatively) cheep, and there is already a maritime and drydock workforce in the area. Even if you didn't have the infrastructure to build ships, being able to repair them on the west coast would both reduce maintenance demands on other yards, and allow ships to be repaired and re-fitted without going the whole way to the gulf or east coast (increasing readiness.) Getting influential California politics on board via jobs creation in one of the poorest areas of the state could also help ensure that Navy friendly appropriations bills get through congress. Just a thought
False. Hit google earth and start researching past and present yards.
I miss Elaine Luria. I think she spoke for many liberals and conservatives.
Great post. The capability gap is widening. Is there any talk of using leased commercial shipping to address the Amphibious Capability gap in the short term? I am referring to either schemes comparable to those that employ platforms such as the MV Ocean Venture (SOCOM) or such as the Royal Navy executed in order to form the Falklands Task Force. Specifically a mix of commercial and USN ships that would allow sufficient capability until the decline in USN Amphibious Shipping production and readiness was sufficiently reversed. While sub par, I would suggest such an approach would work to maintain interim capability, while allowing a focus on the surface and sub-surface vessels that would provide some measure of compensation for the natural lack of combat capability inherent with using ships taken up from trade / off the shelf solutions.
It's gonna take a lot of ideas like that to close gaps quickly. A lot.
Looking at a map of the earth and viewing possible adversaries, Russia, China and India, only India is not bounded by geography. These countries have the GDP to do us dirty via arms. Russia and China are bounded by geography which limits their ability to project power distant from their mainlands. Those damned island arcs and narrow passage ways get in the way. Of course that geography makes it harder for the US to project power close to them
I don't think India has any reason to get into a contest with the US in the Indian Ocean.
From those pea brained observations, I don't see the Navy going peer to peer with Russia or China.
That said, I don't rule out rulers coming to power in Russia and China who are batshit crazy.
The Navy in being gives batshit crazy rulers around the world second thoughts about screwing with the US.
That is a long winded preface to thinking that maintaining what we have is good enough for next decade.
Another pea brained thought is wondering if sailing our carriers in narrow waters is a good idea. I think the Med, the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, Gulf or Oman and the Persian Gulf are narrow due to modern weapons.
Spot on. Keep writing.
I am pleased things may be moving, but concerned, deeply concerned at the state of things. I'm worried about how little can be done to move back toward basic naval preparedness in the short term. With ships and navies, nothing is "short term". Any moves now will take more than a decade to make any real difference, and a generation to really take effect. We don't have that kind of time.
Not great.
"We have whistled past the graveyard for far too long,"
Quite.
It seems to me your writ is too constrained. A report, as a result, would not address the totality of our maritime requirement for effective warfighting. I suggest you take an expansive view of your charter and address all elements of our requirements.
"As it is (at this writing) fourteen months past that start date with the Commission never having been empaneled, inquiring minds are left to wonder."
Yet one more High Level DC panel which will accomplish...Nothing.
I suggest a High level Panel to find out Why this is so. I'm not busy.