Road to 350: What Does the US Navy Do Anyway?

[phrogdriver]

You've lost me when you're going to cut snippets out of context.

In your entire post, you missed the point - is the CG a capability that we need? I think that answer is yes, or else we would have fully mothballed all of them years ago.

And if it is, then we need to replace them. Operational necessity is what drives the procurement. Flag officers having 'fully-informed' conversations are saying they need this capability. It's possible that dozens of people got it wrong, but I doubt it.

I get that Trump is calling their replacement a 'battleship,' but modern CGs are already the size of WWII era battleships.

Yes, it will require investing into shipbuilding and infrastucture to get there. There is quite a bit of risk in execution that's quite easy to poo poo on. But I think that criticism is more easily levied on someone who can't accept that the Emancipation Proclamation was signed at the antique desk in the WH, and not the Gettysburg Address. Which is why I postulate: let's strip back the emotion in assuming / thinking that Trump, Hegseth, and Phelan are incompent idiots, and have a more rational discussion in the CG(N)'s role in modern naval warfare. To the extent that's not possible *shrug*, you're part of the problem.

As for qualified nukes - we have already met FY26 recruitment goals for nukes. There are more people who want to be nukes than jobs available.

When our core gap is in numbers smaller surface combatants, why suddenly take a left turn into a needlessly large and expensive ship?

We can’t build frigates, and our current destroyer fleet has no room for growth? How about we address those problems before wasting money on a ridiculous boondoggle.

If we need more VLS cells, unmanned ships would be far better choices that a massive gold plated monstrosity.

This administration has no strategic vision other than its own self-dealing and glorification. I’d be shocked if a single simulation or war game was done to justify what could be an immense program.

 

[123412131]

You've lost me when you're going to cut snippets out of context. When they say people can't read above a 7th-8th grade level, they mean that people can't synthesize ideas more than 1-3 lines apart nor understand literary devices like inference, hyperbole, and metaphor.

You’ve lost me with the “out of context” thing. I quoted your whole comment and responded to each claim in the exact same commenting format you used. Every word you wrote was included.

In your entire post, you missed the point - is the CG a capability that we need? I think that answer is yes, or else we would have fully mothballed all of them years ago.

The point is whether this specific program makes any sense. These are not cruisers in any meaningful Ticonderoga-replacement sense, and they are clearly not being pushed as a replacement for the Ticos, all of which are being retired by the end of the decade. They are roughly twice as long, around four times the displacement, nuclear-powered, anywhere from 6x to 8x as expensive, and potentially 3x as manpower-intensive. That is not a CG replacement.

And if it is, then we need to replace them. Operational necessity is what drives the procurement. Flag officers having 'fully-informed' conversations are saying they need this capability. It's possible that dozens of people got it wrong, but I doubt it.

You brought up the LCS. If your argument is that dozens of informed people in the Navy and DoD probably cannot get something badly wrong, then what happened there? What happened with A-12? Zumwalt? Seawolf? The requirement can be real and the procurement answer can still be bad. Those are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, it will require investing into shipbuilding and infrastucture to get there. There is quite a bit of risk in execution that's quite easy to poo poo on. But I think that criticism is more easily levied on someone who can't accept that the Emancipation Proclamation was signed at the antique desk in the WH, and not the Gettysburg Address. Which is why I postulate: let's strip back the emotion in assuming / thinking that Trump, Hegseth, and Phelan are incompent idiots, and have a more rational discussion in the CG(N)'s role in modern naval warfare.

Phelan was fired so I can’t speak on how his competance was viewed by the administration. As I’ve already stated, BBG(X) isn’t a CG program and you’re misrepresenting the program by saying it is.

As for qualified nukes - we have already met FY26 recruitment goals for nukes. There are more people who want to be nukes than jobs available.

I’m not going to directly doubt your knowledge but I’m having a hard time believing this. It’s also retention just as much as it’s recruiting. Nuke Os are still getting 200,000+ to sign on for their DH tour.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

I’m not going to directly doubt your knowledge but I’m having a hard time believing this. It’s also retention just as much as it’s recruiting. Nuke Os are still getting 200,000+ to sign on for their DH tour.

The USN always screams they need more nukes or they need to keep more nukes. Now if they really needed to keep more they wouldn't let nukes lateral to other designators, or the advancement rates for enlisted would be very high and they just aren't for all designators and paygrades.

The best one was when I was on sea duty and I was in my office hearing the RO talk to all the JO's about staying in and how the USN needed you to stay in so they needed to all go talk to the detailer when he came aboard in June I believe? Then when my DIVO went to talk to the detailer and asked about orders he was told this is what we have, he asked the detailer about different order since they needed JO's to stay in, what the detailer told him was that the USN already met the goal for JO's to stay for that FY and if he wanted to stay in or get out it didn't matter to him.

When on recruiting duty each year we always met our Nuke O goal with many months to spare.

 

[Brett327]

You’ve lost me with the “out of context” thing. I quoted your whole comment and responded to each claim in the exact same commenting format you used. Every word you wrote was included.



The point is whether this specific program makes any sense. These are not cruisers in any meaningful Ticonderoga-replacement sense, and they are clearly not being pushed as a replacement for the Ticos, all of which are being retired by the end of the decade. They are roughly twice as long, around four times the displacement, nuclear-powered, anywhere from 6x to 8x as expensive, and potentially 3x as manpower-intensive. That is not a CG replacement.




You brought up the LCS. If your argument is that dozens of informed people in the Navy and DoD probably cannot get something badly wrong, then what happened there? What happened with A-12? Zumwalt? Seawolf? The requirement can be real and the procurement answer can still be bad. Those are not mutually exclusive.



Phelan was fired so I can’t speak on how his competance was viewed by the administration. As I’ve already stated, BBG(X) isn’t a CG program and you’re misrepresenting the program by saying it is.



I’m not going to directly doubt your knowledge but I’m having a hard time believing this. It’s also retention just as much as it’s recruiting. Nuke Os are still getting 200,000+ to sign on for their DH tour.

It's a waste of time arguing with him. His ideas are as outlandish as they seem, and he cannot be reasoned with. I'm impressed by your level of knowledge on this stuff and I think it makes a meaningful contribution to the thread.