GAO Report Tidbits

The annual Government Accountability Office weapons assessment report is out and here are some the lowlights.

AARGM-ER – The anti-radiation missile is experiencing production delays.
 

The AARGM-ER program continues to experience production delays. The program reported that the delays were related to missile qualification, hardware capability, and software problems discovered during testing.[1]

That’s what you get from concurrency.
 
As GAO notes,
 

We found that starting production before demonstrating a system will work as intended—which the Navy did—increases the risk of discovering deficiencies that require costly, time-intensive rework.[1]

Does the Navy have a regulation against doing anything smart?  It certainly seems so.
 
 
Ford Class – The class is a money pit;  a black hole of finances.
 

CVN 79 costs have increased by over $1.5 billion since 2021. Further, since last year, CVN 80 and 81 costs increased $500 million and $1.2 billion, respectively. The program began lead ship construction before completing design and implemented design changes on CVN 79 during its construction—out of line with our leading shipbuilding practices. According to officials, changes resulted, in part, from installing immature technologies that required further development.[1]

The Navy continues to demonstrate their inability to learn any lessons.
 

The Navy delayed planned delivery of CVN 79 by almost 2 years, until March 2027, since last year. Program officials attributed this delay to continued challenges with an elevator subsystem and a landing subsystem.[1]

Elevators and the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) are the same problems the Ford encountered and the Navy went ahead and installed the problematic equipment on the succeeding ships and are now surprised that they’re causing delays.
 
GAO now reports that the unit cost for the carriers is over $16B [1] and that’s with a LOT of buried and deferred costs since the Ford is still not fully operational.  The true cost is likely around $20B each.
 
 
Burke Flt III – Delays plague the program.
 

According to Navy estimates from June 2025, the first 13 follow-on DDG 51 ships are now up to 55 months behind schedule compared with up to 41 months, as we found in our last review. Further, cumulative delays across these ships grew from 323 months to 414 months since last year … [1]

Here’s an interesting aspect of ship costs that no one considers:
 

Additionally, the DDG 51 program office has invested nearly $1 billion since fiscal year 2021 in infrastructure initiatives at both shipyards.[1]

Thus, the cost of Burkes is the unit cost PLUS infrastructure money donated to the shipbuilder.  You won’t see that reported in any explanation of the ship cost.
 
 
F-18 IRST – The IRST program is an unmitigated disaster.
 

DOD and Navy independent testers assessed that IRST was neither operationally effective nor suitable based on test results, due in part to poor reliability. … Navy testers recommended that IRST continue to be introduced to the fleet, despite their findings.[1]

????  It’s not operationally effective or suitable so let’s send it to the Fleet???  I don’t even know how to comment on the level of stupidity demonstrated by this.
 
 
MQ-25 Unmanned Tanker - Attempting to explain significant cost estimation errors,
 

Program officials stated that due to the fixed-price nature of the development contract, they did not previously have access to data showing the actual cost of building the aircraft.[1]

Wait … the Navy entered into a contract without actual cost data?  If you were writing a farcical comedy, you couldn’t make this stuff up.
 
 
ORCA Extra Large Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (XLUUV) - Attempting to explain software delays, the Navy stated,
 

… the Navy has reported that it did not have any licenses for data rights or visibility into the ORCA software and was reliant on the contractor to make changes to the software.[1]

This has been a recurring problem that we’ve highlighted and some people still refuse to believe it.  The Navy, far too often, does not have access to product data or software rights.
 
 
Columbia SSBN -  Columbia is falling behind schedule.
 

SSBN 826, the lead ship, is at least 18 months behind its contracted delivery date as of July 2025.[1]

Virginia SSN – The Navy keeps assuring us that the submarine shortfall will be mitigated by producing 2-3 subs per year.  However,
 

The [Virginia] construction rate has generally stabilized, with shipbuilders working at a one-per-year pace as of June 2025—half the rate of the Navy’s two per year goal.[1]
 
While the Navy received delivery of two Block IV submarines in 2025, both were over 3 years late.[1]
 
The projected delivery dates for the first 10 Block V submarines continue to worsen, slipping by an average of almost 3 years since original contract award.[1]

 
 
Conclusion
 
The level of stupidity and the demonstrated lack of responsibility and integrity evidenced by these findings is mind-numbing.  Where is SecDef Hegseth?  Does he not read these reports?  He should be firing people by the truckload.  He is every bit as culpable as every other moron associated with these programs.

 
 
_____________________________

 
[1]Government Accountability Office, "Weapon Systems Annual Assessment", Jul 2026, p.144

Flower Class Corvette

The Flower class corvette was the epitome of a single purpose vessel (to be fair, most ships were in WWII).  It was designed and built to provide coastal convoy escort, specifically, anti-U-boat protection although it later proved adaptable to open ocean convoy escort thanks to its impressive range for its size.  While not designed or intended to hunt and kill U-boats, the class nevertheless managed to sink some fifty U-boats. 
 
 
Design Concept
 
It’s important to understand the ship’s intended role.  It was a convoy ASW escort.  Its responsibility was to deliver convoy ships not sink U-boats.  In other words, was designed to ensure that convoy ships arrived safely.  It was not designed to go hunt and kill U-boats.  The designers recognized that a mission kill, meaning forcing a U-boat to break off an attack, was just as good as a kill in that it delivered convoy ships safely to port.  Thus, the designers, wisely, didn’t try to load every known ASW weapon and sensor onto the ship.  That would have increased the size, cost, and complexity of the ship resulting in far fewer vessels being built which would have defeated the purpose of the class.  It is vitally important to recognize this concept:  greater individual ship capability would have negatively impacted the overarching goal of getting convoys safely to port.  We have completely lost sight of this balance between mission intent and individual ship design.  By insisting on building uber-capable Burkes (to the dubious extent that they still are) we’ve been forced to give up building true destroyers, frigates, and corvettes thus hurting our overall naval capability.
 

 
Another vital consideration for the designers was that trying to fit the ultimate, top-of-the-line ASW gear on every ship would have resulted in ASW equipment shortages for every other ship class.  In a time of war, resources (meaning weapons and sensors) are limited.  Maximum ASW fits for Flower class ships would have been a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.  We have completely lost sight of this concept today.  By only building high end Burkes we have ensured that we will be unable to outfit any other ship type (of which we have none!) in a time of war.
 
 
Design Specifics
 

• ASW fit sufficient for its task but no more than that which contributed to its affordability
• Buildable at small shipyards
• Affordable in large numbers (394 ships built)
• Good range at 3,500 nm at its cruising speed of 12 kts;  compare to a Burke with a range of 4,400 nm at its cruising speed of 20 kts
• Commercial machinery operable by reserve and merchant sailors
• Sufficient speed (16 kts) for its purpose
• Built to the minimum requirements not the maximum

 
What would a modern Flower class ship look like?  In other words, what would a modern, low end, affordable in numbers, minimally capable ASW corvette look like without advanced radars, high speed, helo hangar/flight deck, dozens of VLS, etc. look like?  Well, here’s a few characteristics:
 

• Moderate stealth shaping (no exotic coatings)
• 1x 76 mm Super Rapid STRALES/DART
• 2x Mk32 Triple Torpedo Launchers
• 2x RBU
• VDS
• Hull mounted, small, multi-frequency sonar
• SQR-20 Multi-function towed array
• Acoustic isolation
• Low end radar
• 18 kt top speed
• 5,000 nm range
• 1x CIWS/SeaRAM/RAM

 
Discussion
 
The Flower class was built not to kill submarines (though they managed to kill some fifty U-boats!) but to accomplish a mission which was the safe delivery of merchant ships to port and it filled that purpose admirably.  Given the mission, the designers recognized that a mission kill was just as good as an actual kill and cost a lot less money thus allowing the class to be built in large numbers across numerous yards.  The large numbers of vessels contributed to the mission success.  Mere presence achieved mission kills since submarines will go far out their way to avoid detection and this occurs whether the surface ship even knows the submarine is present or not.  In other words, presence equals mission kill which makes simple presence (numbers) a weapon in itself!  We need to re-learn those design lessons and re-embrace the low end, single purpose ship suitably updated and adapted to modern warfare. 

MEKO A-200 Frigate Cost

Just a quick note ... For those of you who continue to believe that foreign shipbuilders can build naval vessels faster and cheaper than US builders, here’s a data point.  The newly specified MEKO A-200 frigates for the German navy will reportedly cost $1.9B(USD) each for four ships and you can bet your soul that cost will increase as work actually commences.  We’re looking at a $2 - $2.5B frigate!  Yikes!

Constellation Frigate Update

As you know, the Navy has terminated the Constellation frigate program with only the first two ships possibly being completed and even that now appears to be unlikely, according to the most recent GAO annual weapons assessment report.[1]
 

According to senior Navy officials, these two ships are under review for potential termination.  ... These officials further stated that in March 2026, the Navy directed its shipbuilder to pause ordering material for FFG 62 and FFG 63 to evaluate its necessity as those ships remain under review.[1]

With the continuation of the two remaining ships under review and the shipbuilder having been directed to stop ordering materials, the conclusion seems inescapable:  the two ships will be terminated.
 
Why does this kind of debacle continue to happen to the Navy?  The Navy knowingly continues to commit programmatic suicide by failing to follow best practices.
 

As we previously reported, the Navy had obligated over $3.4 billion to construct six ships before completing the frigate’s basic and functional design—an approach counter to shipbuilding leading practices.[1]

The Navy paid for a ship that didn’t even have a design.  Who could have anticipated anything would go wrong with that?
 
What went wrong?
 

The extent of design changes exceeded the original expectation of conducting limited design changes on the parent design.[1]

This tells me the Navy is incompetent on an almost unimaginable scale and failed to do their homework before committing.  How has no one been fired over this?
 
As weight growth became an issue, the Navy’s response was hilariously stupid.
 

Concurrently, the Navy and shipbuilder have evaluated weight savings opportunities, including removing redundant systems, removing primer from steel plating, and reducing firefighting system capacity, among other things.[1]

What could possibly go wrong by removing redundant systems (a vital element of combat survivability), removing primer from steel (of course the paint will stick without primer … won’t it??), and reducing firefighting capacity (every damage control effort in history has depended on firefighting – did the Navy learn nothing from the 202 fire aboard USS Bonhomme Richard?)? 
 
Eliminate primer and reduce firefighting?  Come on.  I couldn’t even sell that as an April Fools joke.
 
There’s stupid and then there’s Navy stupid which is just a whole ‘nother level of stupid.  How has no one been fired for even considering these changes?
 
I can only conclude that one of the requirements of for attaining flag rank is to undergo a lobotomy and a pretty extensive one, at that.  Either that or they’re all Chinese agents.  Nothing else can explain the non-stop parade of stupid ideas and decisions spewing forth from Navy leadership.

__________________________________

[1]Government Accountability Office, "Weapon Systems Annual Assessment", Jul 2026, p.144

"Existing Design With Only Minor Modification" Trap

More and more, the Western naval ship acquisition world is reverting to ‘existing designs with only minor modifications’ instead of new ship designs.  This is due to fear rather than combat requirements: fear of runaway costs, fear of schedule delays, fear of bad publicity and criticism, fear of innovation, etc.  Fear.  The Western naval world is acquiring ships as a reaction to fear of their own ineptitude. 
 
Instead of honestly and objectively assessing the reasons for acquisition failures and fixing the problems, Western navies have opted for the perceived path of safety over that of combat effectiveness.
 
The latest victim is Germany which has cancelled its F126 frigate acquisition program. 
 

The German Ministry of Defense has decided to discontinue the construction of six F126-class frigates …[1]
 
According to the BMVg, Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding (DSNS), the company initially contracted as the prime contractor, was unable to meet the agreed-upon time and budget constraints.[1]

The program began around 2015, depending on what one considers the starting point, and the first production contract was issued in 2020.  Lead ship delivery had been delayed until 2032 and costs were ballooning.
 
Burned by the failure and afraid of a repeat, Germany has opted to proceed with an existing design, the MEKO A-200 frigate.
 

Instead of planning a new ship, the decision was made to use a readily available, off-the-shelf vessel with only minor modifications.[1]

On a side note, this is yet another bit of evidence that the widespread belief among American naval observers that other countries can produce quality ships, on time, on or under budget, and cheaper than US shipbuilders is false.  But, I digress …
 
So, what is the problem with using an existing design with only minor modifications?
 
There are multiple problems:
 
The “minor modifications” never happens.  The existing design gets heavily modified, commonality disappears, and the costs balloon while the schedule slips.  The US Constellation program was a prime example of this.
 
Far more serious, though, is the trap that existing designs present.  If one never builds new designs, how do ships ever get better?  At some point, you have to move to a new design in order to incorporate new technology.  There’s a reason we’re not still building sailing ships.  Yes, you can upgrade individual pieces of equipment (though limited by ship’s utilities capacity, internal volume, weight margins, etc.) but you can’t improve or change the basic ship.  No amount of equipment upgrades could turn a Burke into a Visby-level stealth ship.  If you want a Visby-level stealth warship – and you do! – it’s got to be a new design.
 
Given the several year (or decade+)  build time for a modern naval vessel, even if the parent design was adequate when the program began, it will be obsolete by the time it enters service.  Of course, existing designs are not adequate.  Consider the MEKO A-200 that Germany now intends to acquire.  The original MEKO 200 design dates back to 1987 and even the MEKO A-200 dates back to 2001, making it already a 25 year old design which will be 30+ years old by the time the ships enter service.  Is a 30+ yr old design really what you want for your most modern, front line surface warship?
 
Take a look at the MEKO A-200.  It’s not particularly stealthy which is the major survival requirement for the modern battlefield.  Its electrical capacity for the perpetually ‘just around the corner’ lasers and rail guns is inadequate.  And so on.
 
Consider the US National Security Cutter (NSC) which is to be the basis for the next iteration of the Navy’s attempt at procuring a frigate.  The design dates back to the late 1990’s and is not even built to combat standards.  Assuming the project isn’t cancelled, the Navy is going to accept frigates whose base design is going to be around 40 years old by the time they enter service!  The NSC meets none of the requirements for success on the modern naval battlefield and yet the Navy has turned to them out of desperation and fear – fear of yet another ship acquisition fiasco.  We’re not designing for combat;  we’re designing for programmatic and career safety and public relations.
 
We cannot successfully build new designs until we objectively and honestly figure out why we keep failing.  Just to save Western navies decades of study, I’ll tell you why we keep failing:
 

• CONOPS, CONOPS, CONOPS
• Change Orders

 
There you have it, Western navies.  I’ve done your job for you.  Now, go build a new ship that actually belongs on the modern battlefield.
 
 
_______________________________

 
[1]Naval News website, “Germany is cancelling the F126 frigate project and procuring eight MEKO frigates”, Staff, 24-Jun-2026,
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2026/06/germany-is-cancelling-the-f126-frigate-project-and-procuring-eight-meko-frigates/

Air Force Follows Navy Playbook for A-10

You probably know that the Air Force has attempted to kill the A-10 Warthog, the best close air support aircraft ever built, for many years now but has been repeatedly thwarted by Congress.
 
The Navy faced a similar situation with the Ticonderoga class cruisers.  They attempted to early retire them, multiple times, only to be thwarted by Congress.  The Navy’s solution was to agree to a blatantly bogus “modernization” program which, in reality, was a way to remove funding for the cruisers while they literally rotted pier side until the Navy could claim that they could no longer be economically upgraded.
 
Like the Navy, the Air Force has, yet again, been prevented by Congress from retiring the A-10 but, ignoring the intent of Congress, has settled on the tactic of simply no longer funding the operation, maintenance, and support of the A-10.  As Redstate website reports,
 

… by the end of this year, the A-10 will be without depot support, without a training pipeline, without weapons-school instruction, and without operational-test capacity.[1]

With no funding for support, the aircraft  will rapidly fall into unflyable status.  The Air Force will have, technically, kept the A-10 but will have achieved practical retirement.
 
Congress should fire every Air Force general and withhold all Air Force funding until A-10 support is restored.
 
The military seems to feel it is above the will of Congress.  It is past time for Congress to re-exert its authority.
 
 
______________________________

 
[1]Redstate website, “Act Now: Fund A-10 Warthog or Lose Combat Power Forever”,  Ward Clark, 24-Jun-2026,
https://redstate.com/wardclark/2026/06/24/act-now-fund-a-10-warthog-or-lose-combat-power-forever-n2203670

ASROC or Helicopters?

Helicopters are generally recognized as the best ASW platform above the surface; another submarine being the best ASW platform below the surface, of course.  Unfortunately, this leads to the widespread mindset that every ship must have helos embarked for ASW.
 
The problem with the concept of helos on every ship is that the aviation element of a ship is shockingly expensive.  A helo needs a flight deck (something on the order of 80ft x 50ft), hangar (another 80ft x 50 ft), dedicated weapon magazines, fuel storage, maintenance shops and parts storage, pilot and maintainer berthing (and food, water, etc.).  The extra 160ft x 50ft of ship size means more power is needed to move the ship which means bigger engines which requires more ship size which …  You get the idea.

Another problem is that helos are only sporadically available, being notorious for needing maintenance at inconvenient times.
 
Sure, there’s a penalty to be paid for putting helos on every ship but, really, what’s the alternative since we need ASW?  Well, one alternative is ASROC (anti-submarine rocket).  ASROC began back when submarines still had to get fairly close to their target in order to attack.  Today, submarines can attack with torpedoes or missiles from far beyond ASROC range (vertical launch ASROC has a range of around 12 nm). What’s needed is a much longer range ASROC, perhaps on the order of a hundred miles.  Given that we have thousand mile cruise missiles I can’t see any problem with developing a hundred mile ASROC. 
 
In the past, ASROC used arm launchers, box launchers, and common VLS cells.  The flexibility in launch mechanism means that some kind of suitable launcher can be placed on any ship tasked with ASW.
 

A long range ASROC would offer a viable alternative to the incredibly expensive helicopter on every ship.  Note that this does not mean we don’t need ASW helicopters.  We do!  We just don’t need them on every ASW ship.  Helicopters should be reserved for true destroyers (of which there are none in the world), ASW carriers, and, perhaps, a specialized convoy escort frigate.  They should not be on corvettes, general purpose frigates, and cruisers (meaning Burke/Zumwalt “destroyers”).  Want to build a cheaper Burke?  Eliminate the helicopter!