Disaster was set when Lehman did away with in house design of US ships and Rumsfeld determined to deliver a peace dividend brought us “we can do more with less”. Enter revolution and a true lack of fiscal oversight on the part of the politicians. The Navy can sell ice to Eskimos. Ever wonder why Ford’s maintenance logs and operational reports are classified after her first deployment? One would think The Navy would be shouting from rooftops of its efficiency.
The Navy plays politics just as the politicians but neither are held responsible for poor decisions or lack of vision. Previous Message
"Jefferson's" 2 Pounder navy... What a politician urged upon Congress, not what The Navy put before them.
These days, there is a smorgasbord of new development programs regularly brought to Congress. Some are pigs. Some are not. All get considered and debated. What then gets chosen is a product of Congress. And their decisions are not at all based purely on what might be the best weapon. They've been know to choose the pig over a better system when the services have put both before them.
So, it isn't always entirely the Navy's fault. That is way too simplistic. Previous Message
Yes political decisions based upon what The Navy puts before them. The Navy puts up a pig and the politician asks how much and which districts gets the work.
Congress approved Jefferson’s 2 Pounder Navy and that worked out really well too.
And so it goes. Previous Message
Graham,
Discussing geopolitical strategy as it relates to naval doctrine and funding priorities. I am not attacking people’s political views nor any specific politician. At the end of the day, what ships get built and their composition are political decisions.
Bill Previous Message
Bring it back! These continuous "We must go to war with China" diatribes are getting tedious - well, they always were. Previous Message
Ralph,
Both you and Bill bring valid points to the table. I would argue though the larger issues is the geopolitical strategy of the United States. Are we intent on following the strategy set out in the early 90s ("The New World Order") or are we going to divorce ourselves from that strategy and embark on a new one. One that potentially divorces the country from the strategy that views China as a potential partner and our source of manufactured goods.
There are powerful forces at play here, none the which is the trillions of dollars that have been invested by the west in developing infrastructure in China that are at risk of not generating a return. Make no mistake, the individuals beholden to these investments are not in a big hurry to embrace a strategy that would view China as an adversary. This is a large group of business people and politicians in the United States and Europe. They are not in a big hurry to spend money to on systems to fight the Chinese. A good case in point is the rece
Responses