The point is that the Navy has 75-100% as many ships at sea at a time with less than half the fleet, with associated impacts on maintenance, morale, and retention.

The only part of this that’s subtweeting is the part where we’re tweeting about subs

"no it's not that you're not *allowed* to read it, it's that you can't because it's unwritten"

If I had a dollar… Christ that’s a lot of money

These requirements often cause chain reactions when designs not made to NAVSEA spec have to change because they are fundamental to how general arrangements are laid out.

What happened to HELGE INGSTAD is not supposed to be possible to an American warship.

I’m not going to quote NAVSEA instructions here, but NAVSEA specifies a number of things related to both structural strength and the dimensions of structural components, as well as metrics like stability under damage across fractions of ship length and compromised compartments.

One of DC’s greatest weaknesses (and why I so frequently answer “Where can I read about this?” with twists on “Sorry you can’t”)

*glares at SSN production in the 90’s and SSN-related RDT&E 90s-10’s*

That’s CG(X). 20K tons, SPY-6+ radar, 120-something VLS tubes, nuclear power. Oh yeah and pitched to Congress 2005-2007 timeframe.

I don’t have anything to recommend offhand, but generally where you want to look when unclass are statements to Congress about requirements, and later DOT&E reports about the same. CRS is reliable, GAO is hit and miss at best.

You mean CG(X)? Or earlier DD-21 concepts?

A very expensive thing to have a spare of, as the modern 774 program demonstrates. The COTS SSN it is no longer.

This. USN standards are basically never met by foreign warships.

Because we’re allergic to being patient

About which? About all of them at once, none.

The Burke hull form is at end of life. It needs to be replaced.

Every time I say this I end with Europeans in both my and friends’ mentions over this, but I’ll say it again: there are no foreign warships that are known to meet NAVSEA seakeeping and damage control (including damaged stability) criteria.

The original plan was that all of the tech that ended up in FORD was supposed to be phased over FORD, JFK, and ENTERPRISE. Rumsfeld personally spiked that football c. 2001 iirc

This. The Navy after him tried to kill it, and so did OSD. It wasn’t for lack of attempts off the Hill.

The NGSW program projected cost back in 2022 was $7.2bn, so nearly four DDG 51s or nearly two *Zumwalt*s. Also, what’s the current projection for the gap between the first M1 and the first M1E3? (And I’m never gonna defend Richardson, fire away)

Absolutely a give and take on the Hill for sure. But the problems don’t both start and end in the Navy Yard

Yeah the Sentinel fuckup was different

I ain’t gonna go all the way to good but I’ll give it unfairly maligned

Oh to be clearer on the F-35, the tri-service commonality was also the Hill

Bonus: FORD - SecDef Rumsfeld

There is a plurality there, and it’s not OPNAV

Reasons, in order:
- Bad cost estimate then Congress killed it
- CNO Richardson
- Mediocre idea that Congress forced the Navy to buy
- End of the Cold War, then Congress killed it
- Congress killed it (honorable mention to GWOT)
- Narcissism
- Obscene requirements
- the F-35B
- Requirements creep

And any attempt to make it remote control rather than FTL increases cost, signature, maintenance, or some combo up to all of the above. The tech is not there yet.

Not to take away from the good doctor’s point about the usefulness and clarity of your last post, but even if the logistics burden of a second vehicle was minimal (and it’s not), automatic follow-the-leader that can be trusted in a combat environment is just that, fantasy.

As the American tradition defines it.