an interesting summation, with a personal slant I'm sure - and that's not a negative comment.
I'm English and feel the present RN will fulfil much the same role as you see for the USN in any future conflict.
Because The Navy thinks revolution. You will only get so many budget dollars so get the best. As sold the formula of the “best” is a proposal of the defense industry and the hopes and wants of the war fighter. In this case the Fords. An obsolete platform of superior untried technology (weapon elevators, etc. etc.).
The Fords were sold to The Navy under the premise that it would generate more combat power for less maintenance/ operational dollars over the course of its operational life. So far it has had no operational life, its air wing is obsolete and it cost over runs probably will negate any savings.
And since you have all this untried technology, that you don’t know how to use, the training cycle is greater ( more dollars) and that hinders availability of the hulls to the fleet i.e. Ford, LCS. And since sailors are rotational beings of varying degrees of expertise , no guarantee you will use all technological features to their maximum effectiveness because you have to get that sailor to the fleet before his/her enlistment expires. This then attacks the ability to carry out proper procedure and ultimately your combat effectiveness. The Navy discovered this with the collisions of their DDGs. Still no solution to it.
Next comes maintenance and again since we went revolution maintenance is longer, more specialized repair in the hands of the few therefore more expensive. That is why The Navy will not release the maintenance expense reports for LCS and mainly why most sit at dock rather than deploy.
And even if revolution worked through no fault of its own The Navy lacks a coordinated vision and strategy of war fighting on the seas and littorals. Each Navy arm pushes for the best in the hopes the best is adaptable for the war that comes along be it peer war or not. That drives up the price tag and when the unit price tag goes up you have to calculate asset risk. Do I wish to hunt a couple of Kilos with a 2 billion dollar Virginia SSN, a cheap 125 million robot or a brand new 1 billion dollar frigate? Since sub hunting robots are not yet deployed you deploy what you have in the hopes you do not lose that asset in combat for there are no replacements.
The Navy that won WW2 and the Cold War was evolutionary and weapon systems like missiles though revolutionary were introduced incrementally over years not overnight.
The Navy and the Marines are pretty much finished as fighting force. Lot of poor decisions the last 20 years and billions wasted. In a peer war with China the USN will be pretty much a speed bump to Chinese ambitions.
Are there fixes? Yes some are evolutionary and believe it or not some maybe revolutionary. For example can we design a missile launch system which can be replenished at sea instead in port?
But if you are going to be revolutionary it has to be in affordable increments unlike Ford, LCS, Zumwalt and San Antonio which broke the financial back of Navy funding while not delivering on mission capability as promised. This for 3 reasons:
1. Because potential enemy capabilities advance far faster than you conceptual strategy and your revolutionary technology became obsolete. ( San Antonio)
2. Your revolutionary technologies could not be assimilated in competent capable and simple fashion of operating their full use or how to maintain them while at sea ( Ford, LCS)
3. And lastly it just doesn’t work because of expense or faulty technology (Ford, Zumwalt)
The Nimitz class 'wasn't bust', so why did they think they needed to fix it with the Fords?
(Remember the old acronym: ' F ound O n R oad D ead' - just got to come up with a nautical 'R' to update it.)
more trouble,seems like the "airline" style toilets are prone to blockages, requiring a special acid "flush" at $400.000 several times a year!! seems someone if taking the" P"