US Navy News

[Nightwatch2]

Does sound like it should be called the Kitchen Sink Class.

I like it

[Lordroel]

US Navy Secretary Phelan fired, sources say
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-navy-s ... 026-04-22/

Navy Secretary John Phelan has ​been fired, a U.S. official and a person familiar with the matter said on Wednesday, in another wartime shakeup ‌at the Pentagon coming just weeks after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ousted the Army's top general.

The Pentagon announced his departure in a brief statement, saying he was leaving the administration "effective immediately." But it did not provide a reason or say ​whether it was his decision to go.

His firing was first reported by Reuters.

The sources, who spoke ​on condition of anonymity, said Phelan was dismissed in part because he was moving ⁠too slow to implement reforms to speed shipbuilding and because he had fallen out with key Pentagon ​leadership.

One source cited bad relationships with Hegseth, Hegseth's deputy, Steve Feinberg, as well as the Navy's No. 2 ​civilian, Hung Cao, who the Pentagon said will now take over as acting Navy secretary.

The source also cited an ethics investigation into Phelan's office.

A billionaire seen as having close ties to President Donald Trump, Phelan is the first administration-picked service secretary ​to be fired since Trump came back into office last year.

[kdahm]

The White Elephant class will take at least two years to design, and even longer to start construction. The next Administration will undoubtedly cancel it or convert the funding into something a bit more sane. If the Navy BuShips really sees it as a boondoggle, they can and will also slow roll it, delaying it further.

[Belushi TD]

Oh, it will easily take at least two years from today to design, unless they do something stupid like they did with FXX, and start cutting steel before the design is completed.

If we're going to spend 17 billion on shipbuilding, we should do the CXX and DGXX, rather than this thing.

Don't get me wrong.... Its amusing and would be a very capable combatant, but the US is not in the financial situation we were in 1938-1940, with low debt and the main domestic issue was getting out of the great depression.

Belushi TD

[Nightwatch2]

Oh, it will easily take at least two years from today to design, unless they do something stupid like they did with FXX, and start cutting steel before the design is completed.

If we're going to spend 17 billion on shipbuilding, we should do the CXX and DGXX, rather than this thing.

Don't get me wrong.... Its amusing and would be a very capable combatant, but the US is not in the financial situation we were in 1938-1940, with low debt and the main domestic issue was getting out of the great depression.

Belushi TD

This is going to drain funding from other programs.

[Belushi TD]

It will drain some.... If the Navy is smart, they will spend the most money on stuff that can be used on other ships.

Of course, the institution of the Navy is not known for its intelligence.....

Belushi TD

[Calder]

Could it happen sooner? If, for example, the DNC take the House and Senate after the mid-terms?

Perish the thought!!

BURN the heretic!!!

But for discussion only sake -

The Senate is unlikely to flip. It is possible but unlikely.

The House could but at this point unpredictable. The redistricting battle of unrestrained gerrymandering is working its way through and both parties are entrenching their advantages in only those states where they dominate. It is also true that the DNC agenda is increasingly unpopular among the general population even in blue states. On the other hand, the Republican Party is fumbling the whole opportunity (as usual).

Not to be the doom and gloom guy, and I echo the BURN the heretic line. But just in the interest in repeating information that has been coming out lately. There are some very serious reasons to be concerned with the caveats that past results don't guarantee future ones and the election is 6 months away and a lot can happen in that time. All of these concern elections that have happened after the November 2024 elections.

1. Across all elections (national\State\Country\Judicial etc) Zero Democratic seats have flipped to Republican. Over 90 have flipped from Republican to Democratic.
2. The partisan swing among those elections have averaged at 10-12 points in Democrats favor. (ie if Trump won a region 10 points and the following Election a Democrat won by 10 that would be know as a +20D partisan swing.)
3. If that 10 point swing holds the Republican's will lose 31 seats in the House and 3-4 in the Senate. I believe the current betting odds still favor Republicans keeping the Senate but it is a close run thing.
4. Only 2 times since the WWII has the president not lost seats in the House during the Midterms. With only a 3 seat advantage in the House keeping the House after the midterms is unlikely.

Given all of that if we want something critical done, Republican should do it now before the Midterms. Given Samuel Alito health problems he needs to retire. Clarence Thomas too if I had my way but he appears to want to break the record for longest sitting judge so I don't know how hard we want to push that button.

[Nightwatch2]

Could it happen sooner? If, for example, the DNC take the House and Senate after the mid-terms?

Perish the thought!!

BURN the heretic!!!

But for discussion only sake -

The Senate is unlikely to flip. It is possible but unlikely.

The House could but at this point unpredictable. The redistricting battle of unrestrained gerrymandering is working its way through and both parties are entrenching their advantages in only those states where they dominate. It is also true that the DNC agenda is increasingly unpopular among the general population even in blue states. On the other hand, the Republican Party is fumbling the whole opportunity (as usual).

Not to be the doom and gloom guy, and I echo the BURN the heretic line. But just in the interest in repeating information that has been coming out lately. There are some very serious reasons to be concerned with the caveats that past results don't guarantee future ones and the election is 6 months away and a lot can happen in that time. All of these concern elections that have happened after the November 2024 elections.

1. Across all elections (national\State\Country\Judicial etc) Zero Democratic seats have flipped to Republican. Over 90 have flipped from Republican to Democratic.
2. The partisan swing among those elections have averaged at 10-12 points in Democrats favor. (ie if Trump won a region 10 points and the following Election a Democrat won by 10 that would be know as a +20D partisan swing.)
3. If that 10 point swing holds the Republican's will lose 31 seats in the House and 3-4 in the Senate. I believe the current betting odds still favor Republicans keeping the Senate but it is a close run thing.
4. Only 2 times since the WWII has the president not lost seats in the House during the Midterms. With only a 3 seat advantage in the House keeping the House after the midterms is unlikely.

Given all of that if we want something critical done, Republican should do it now before the Midterms. Given Samuel Alito health problems he needs to retire. Clarence Thomas too if I had my way but he appears to want to break the record for longest sitting judge so I don't know how hard we want to push that button.

That’s all true

HOWEVER

Most of those special elections have been in democrat strongholds. Not too surprising really. Special elections also don’t have the turnout so tend not to be all that representative of the district in General Election trends.

But indeed concerning.

The democrat agenda is not popular even among democrats. But the Republicans have to run smart and disciplined campaigns keeping in mind that national trends don’t always translate to local districts. And all elections are local.

We do live in “Interesting Times”.

[jemhouston]

Nightwatch, the only time I can remember the GOP running smart and disciplined campaigns were Reagan's two campaign, although in the second one he should have spent more time on the down ballot races instead of trying for a fifty state sweep. I'd add Trump's third race if I was grading a slight curve.

[Nightwatch2]

Nightwatch, the only time I can remember the GOP running smart and disciplined campaigns were Reagan's two campaign, although in the second one he should have spent more time on the down ballot races instead of trying for a fifty state sweep. I'd add Trump's third race if I was grading a slight curve.

I may be slightly biased from my own experience in local races. but my point is that all elections are essentially won at the local level, district by district and race by race.

yes, on the national level I would say that you are right. I would add the Republican Contract With America that flipped the House and Senate in 1994. That was the type of disciplined and coordinated campaign that I mean that was fought out district by district. But my point is that has to extend to the down ballot races in each state senate and state house district. The states are where the bench for the next generation of Congresscritters comes from. And that extends all the way down to the local municipal races.

Neither party has done that very well. But I think that is where the Republicans can best campaign and win and that will extend from the bottom up all the way to the Congressional midterms and the next big fight in 2028.

I did my part. Its up to the next team now. I can only advise

[Nightwatch2]

And just to get back on topic -

What does that all portend for the Navy shipbuilding program?

Hard to say, really, because both parties like big contracts in the various congressional districts.

The Trump battleship would likely, er, sink just because. But most everything else should, er, sail on through.

Now one interesting question is the construction of US Navy ships in foreign shipyards. Allegedly that was one of the points that Sec Phelan raised with the President as the only way that the desired schedule of delivery could be met. Apparently that didn’t go over well.

Reality, however, is intruding. It will take a little while for the US shipbuilding industrial base to get there.

[jemhouston]

If you could put a new shipyard for construction of new ships, where would you put it?

I hate to say this, but we need to go full Poohbah in regards to naval shipbuilding and maintenance.

[Bernard Woolley]

If the USN wants a large combatant like BBG(X), then the last thing it needs, IMVHO, is to attach any one President’s name to it. Call it the Defiant Class, after the first ship of class.

[Calder]

And just to get back on topic -

What does that all portend for the Navy shipbuilding program?

Hard to say, really, because both parties like big contracts in the various congressional districts.

The Trump battleship would likely, er, sink just because. But most everything else should, er, sail on through.

Now one interesting question is the construction of US Navy ships in foreign shipyards. Allegedly that was one of the points that Sec Phelan raised with the President as the only way that the desired schedule of delivery could be met. Apparently that didn’t go over well.

I am going to propose something somewhat radical so I am going to start with some premisses first.
1. The American public is extremely war weary. I don't think there is any chance the american public will support the president in a major land war unless the US is directly attacked.
2. We are already spending far more than we take in as taxes. We are nearing the end of the end of what can be supported by deficit spending. (Servicing just the interest of the debt is now 3rd biggest behind only medicare and medicaid.)

Given the above I think we need something very close to Sandy Defense Review that Britain had to go through in the early 1960s. (I don't think it needs to be anywhere near as devastating but I would like to reorganize the military.) Given #2 above there isn't much chance of getting major increases in defense spending. Given #1 we aren't going to be using large land armies in the next 10 years. Given that. I propose the following.

1. Radically cut Army funding and size to support increases to the Navy and smaller increases to the Marines.
2. Stop building transformational ships that don't end up getting built. The last 3 new ships designs of the last 20 years have been pretty much abject failures. That means dumping the Trump BB and building something more reasonable. Cost per ship and technical design risks have to have priority over performance as we need numbers.
3. Cut Sentinel as the costs keep ballooning further and further out of reach. Yes, that means the Nuclear triad is going away but I don't see why we can't just switch to having a single backup instead of two. Bombers and Subs can be used for more than just nuclear war so I see them as much more useful.
4. Ruthlessly review the rest of the military for other area's we could cut costs. I am sure there are other area's as I don't think we can afford to be the world leader in every military category anymore. We have two large ocean's on our borders so we just don't have to have a large army. If our allies committments force us into a war rely on our airforce and navy to do most of the heavy lifting in the war. (Basically do what Britain did during their golden age of letting other powers focus on the army while we control the sea and air.

[Nightwatch2]

And just to get back on topic -

What does that all portend for the Navy shipbuilding program?

Hard to say, really, because both parties like big contracts in the various congressional districts.

The Trump battleship would likely, er, sink just because. But most everything else should, er, sail on through.

Now one interesting question is the construction of US Navy ships in foreign shipyards. Allegedly that was one of the points that Sec Phelan raised with the President as the only way that the desired schedule of delivery could be met. Apparently that didn’t go over well.

I am going to propose something somewhat radical so I am going to start with some premisses first.
1. The American public is extremely war weary. I don't think there is any chance the american public will support the president in a major land war unless the US is directly attacked.
2. We are already spending far more than we take in as taxes. We are nearing the end of the end of what can be supported by deficit spending. (Servicing just the interest of the debt is now 3rd biggest behind only medicare and medicaid.)

Given the above I think we need something very close to Sandy Defense Review that Britain had to go through in the early 1960s. (I don't think it needs to be anywhere near as devastating but I would like to reorganize the military.) Given #2 above there isn't much chance of getting major increases in defense spending. Given #1 we aren't going to be using large land armies in the next 10 years. Given that. I propose the following.

1. Radically cut Army funding and size to support increases to the Navy and smaller increases to the Marines.
2. Stop building transformational ships that don't end up getting built. The last 3 new ships designs of the last 20 years have been pretty much abject failures. That means dumping the Trump BB and building something more reasonable. Cost per ship and technical design risks have to have priority over performance as we need numbers.
3. Cut Sentinel as the costs keep ballooning further and further out of reach. Yes, that means the Nuclear triad is going away but I don't see why we can't just switch to having a single backup instead of two. Bombers and Subs can be used for more than just nuclear war so I see them as much more useful.
4. Ruthlessly review the rest of the military for other area's we could cut costs. I am sure there are other area's as I don't think we can afford to be the world leader in every military category anymore. We have two large ocean's on our borders so we just don't have to have a large army. If our allies committments force us into a war rely on our airforce and navy to do most of the heavy lifting in the war. (Basically do what Britain did during their golden age of letting other powers focus on the army while we control the sea and air.

Calder for US Defense Review Chairman! We are in sync.

One comment - the President is not anywhere near pushing for a land war anywhere. He is already on thin ice with much of his base.

I, for one, am in support of the military actions actually taken thus far. I am NOT in favor of some of the threats tossed around and certainly not in favor of threatening allies. (But I take that as his “negotiating style” not to be taken literally. )

[Rocket J Squrriel]

Only thing I would change is the funding increase for the Marines. Hold that until they have a better doctrine that trying to hide little groups of Marines on islands with a few missiles to take on China. The idea you will extract them in a modern LST (Large Slow Target) and covertly move them to another island to do it again is silly.

[Nightwatch2]

Only thing I would change is the funding increase for the Marines. Hold that until they have a better doctrine that trying to hide little groups of Marines on islands with a few missiles to take on China. The idea you will extract them in a modern LST (Large Slow Target) and covertly move them to another island to do it again is silly.

Wellllllll…..

We used to garrison islands across the Pacific with Marines equipped with shore batteries. At Wake Island they sank the first IJN ships of WWII.

Today a battalion of Marines with ASCM batteries and ADA, plus a shipload of drones, is the rough equivalent of an unsinkable DDG which secures a chunk of ocean.

Obviously not for the ENTIRE Corps but a useful contribution to the Pacific Campaign West of the Dateline.

[Johnnie Lyle]

Only thing I would change is the funding increase for the Marines. Hold that until they have a better doctrine that trying to hide little groups of Marines on islands with a few missiles to take on China. The idea you will extract them in a modern LST (Large Slow Target) and covertly move them to another island to do it again is silly.

Wellllllll…..

We used to garrison islands across the Pacific with Marines equipped with shore batteries. At Wake Island they sank the first IJN ships of WWII.

Today a battalion of Marines with ASCM batteries and ADA, plus a shipload of drones, is the rough equivalent of an unsinkable DDG which secures a chunk of ocean.

Obviously not for the ENTIRE Corps but a useful contribution to the Pacific Campaign West of the Dateline.

Or a self-garrisoning POW camp, assuming you even have sufficient logistics and seapower to supply them. As the Japanese discovered during the late unpleasantness. They’re basically a garrison we have to commit resources to support and defend, and that’s assuming we’re sufficiently cognizant of the threat profile to get them into position on the key terrain before the threat develops. More likely, we will have to throw so wide a net to ensure we have “sea denial” capability everywhere that we will be wasting vital resources at best - just as the Japanese did.

They’re useful for defending bases we intend to use and can support, but even then they require disproportionate surveillance assets to keep from getting jumped. They are not a replacement for warships.

[Nightwatch2]

Only thing I would change is the funding increase for the Marines. Hold that until they have a better doctrine that trying to hide little groups of Marines on islands with a few missiles to take on China. The idea you will extract them in a modern LST (Large Slow Target) and covertly move them to another island to do it again is silly.

Wellllllll…..

We used to garrison islands across the Pacific with Marines equipped with shore batteries. At Wake Island they sank the first IJN ships of WWII.

Today a battalion of Marines with ASCM batteries and ADA, plus a shipload of drones, is the rough equivalent of an unsinkable DDG which secures a chunk of ocean.

Obviously not for the ENTIRE Corps but a useful contribution to the Pacific Campaign West of the Dateline.

Or a self-garrisoning POW camp, assuming you have sufficient logistics and seapower to supply them. As the Japanese discovered during the late unpleasantness. They’re basically a garrison we have to commit resources to support and defend, and that’s assuming we’re sufficiently cognizant of the threat profile to get them into position on the key terrain before the threat develops. More likely, we will have to throw so wide a net to ensure we have “sea denial” capability everywhere that we will be wasting vital resources at best - just as the Japanese did.

They’re useful for defending bases we intend to use and can support, but even then they require disproportionate surveillance assets to keep from getting jumped. They are not a replacement for warships.

Yes on all points. They are not independent or self sufficient.

But they can contribute significantly to the overall campaign.

[Johnnie Lyle]

Wellllllll…..

We used to garrison islands across the Pacific with Marines equipped with shore batteries. At Wake Island they sank the first IJN ships of WWII.

Today a battalion of Marines with ASCM batteries and ADA, plus a shipload of drones, is the rough equivalent of an unsinkable DDG which secures a chunk of ocean.

Obviously not for the ENTIRE Corps but a useful contribution to the Pacific Campaign West of the Dateline.

Or a self-garrisoning POW camp, assuming you have sufficient logistics and seapower to supply them. As the Japanese discovered during the late unpleasantness. They’re basically a garrison we have to commit resources to support and defend, and that’s assuming we’re sufficiently cognizant of the threat profile to get them into position on the key terrain before the threat develops. More likely, we will have to throw so wide a net to ensure we have “sea denial” capability everywhere that we will be wasting vital resources at best - just as the Japanese did.

They’re useful for defending bases we intend to use and can support, but even then they require disproportionate surveillance assets to keep from getting jumped. They are not a replacement for warships.

Yes on all points. They are not independent or self sufficient.

But they can contribute significantly to the overall campaign.

Maybe. But a lot of things have to go completely right for the concept as advocated by the former Commandant to succeed.

It’s worked once or twice, ish - but failed considerably more than it succeeded. 1st Wake worked because the IJN was under resourced, and Midway worked because we had 2 carriers + Bad HORNET parked on the enemy flank. Pretty much every other example failed to hold the island or inflict even moderate damage on the attacking fleet.

I don’t think much of the Chinese artificial island strategy as a wartime doctrine - to bastardize General Hood from Gettysburg, you don’t even need guns to destroy them. A baby typhoon will do the job. It’s a maritime sovereignty assertion strategy, under the assumption nobody will go to war. In a war, they’re sitting ducks, or are going to suck in so many air defense resources to protect that they’re leaving the Chinese vulnerable elsewhere.

Same with us trying to do the same thing. If we have massive resources, then it might be feasible - but even then, those resources are much more useful doing better things.

Guam and Okinawa are probably the only islands worth defending that heavily; maybe a place like Ulithi if we set up a fleet anchorage there. Otherwise we don’t need it.