Upgraded Cannons for Old Ironsides

The Navy has announced that USS Constitution, Old Ironsides, will receive upgrades to its 32 pounder cannons which enable more précised fire control as the ship pitches and rolls in battle.  The wooden sailing ship is one of the Navy’s true success stories and this upgrade will keep Old Ironsides at the forefront of naval development.
 
Amazingly, the Navy has also announced yet another upgrade for the E-2 Hawkeye, the airborne early warning and battle management aircraft that has been around almost as long as Old Ironsides.  The propeller driven aircraft with the giant rotunda radar dome on its back that has a radar signature the size of the Empire State Building is the Navy’s newest AEW platform, having begun development in 1956 and first flown in 1960.  Truly now state of the art in modern aerial sensor platforms!
 

The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye Block II upgrade passed its critical design review … [1]

I know the Navy is pathologically gun shy after a couple of decades of successive program failures but, at some point, you have to move on to new technology.  Perhaps a jet engine for the E-2?  Whoa!  I’m sorry, that’s just crazy talk!  I didn’t mean it.
 

32 Pounder Cannon Undergoing Upgrade Tests

Seriously, we’ve talked about the need for a stealth version of the E-2 and/or, perhaps, an emphasis on passive sensing as opposed to a giant billboard of active emissions saying, here I am!  At some point, the Navy has to develop a new AEW aircraft.  Perhaps after the run of Burkes ends in the year 2167 with the Flt 217 Burke?
 
 
 
______________________________ 
[1]USNI News website, “E-2D Advanced Hawkeye Block II Passes Critical Design Review as Navy Plans to Expand Fleet”, Sam LaGrone, 18-Aug-2026,
https://news.usni.org/2026/08/18/e-2d-advanced-hawkeye-block-ii-passes-critical-design-review-as-navy-plans-to-expand-fleet

Submarine Anti-Air Capability

The Navy is looking to develop an anti-air missile for use in submarines (and surface ships).
 

The U.S. Navy has shared details about its vision for a new family of modular surface-to-air missiles that is expected to include a version that will arm future variants of the Virginia class submarine.[1]

The War Zone website has an interesting article about this with a decent discussion of the weapon and some of the benefits and drawbacks.[1]  The weapon is presented as a modular miracle that can include hypersonic versions, various ranges, and various packaging options and will be capable of destroying everything that flies, from drones to hypersonic ballistic missiles.  Truly a miracle weapon … as all new weapons are.
 
Will this be a common sense, evolutionary development or enhancement of an existing, proven weapon?  No!  It will be revolutionary!
 

The United States Navy (USN) is seeking a new, modular interceptor to serve as the basis for the Naval Modular Missile (NMM) program, a next-generation initiative designed to revolutionize surface naval capabilities … [1]

How many weapon systems just over the last few years have promised to revolutionize naval warfare?  Dozens!
 
How many weapon systems have actually revolutionized naval warfare?  None!
 
And yet we keep making the claim.  Hmm …
 
But, let’s get back to the specifics on this particular system.
 
The article describes the potential use by submarines to shoot down ballistic missiles in the launch/boost stage, at any point in flight, or for terminal defense as well as for use in providing AAW protection for carriers and, of course, for shooting down local ASW helos and patrol planes. 
 
To be fair, the article does briefly mention a few potential issues with this and we can think of others.
 
A submarine operating tactically close enough to a surface group to provide anti-air protection is subject to the ages old problem of blue-on-blue friendly fire.  No surface ship is going to allow an unknown submarine to operate near it on the possibility that it might be friendly.  Submarines are a sink-on-sight target, no questions asked.  It is the responsibility of the submarine to not operate near any other friendly submarine or ship because of the inability to distinguish friend from foe.
 
Every subsurface to air missile cuts into the very limited missile inventory of the submarine and reduces its offensive capability which is, of course, the submarine’s entire reason for being.  A submarine’s need for subsurface to air (SSAM) capability would be extremely rare.  Let’s face it, if you’re a submarine captain and you find you need SSAM very often then you’re not doing your job correctly!
 
A submerged missile launch requires the submarine to come to a shallow depth – generally the opposite of what a submarine wants to do in combat.
 
A missile launch creates a great deal of noise, heat, and visual display.  In other words, it likely gives away the submarine’s position.
 
Most obviously, the major issue is targeting.  A submerged submarine has extremely limited air search capabilities so where is the targeting for all these wondrous anti-air scenarios coming from?  Even the local anti-air scenario presents difficulties in targeting.  You may be able to hear a helo and have a general direction but that’s not enough for an anti-air launch.  Surface ships with exact radar pictures have a hard time establishing exact targeting for SAMs and a submerged submarine has far less chance.  Simply launching a SSAM and hoping it can find a target somewhere in the hemisphere around the sub is a recipe for wasting missiles. 
 
As far as receiving targeting from a remote platform, it is challenging, at best, to send real time targeting data to a submerged submarine without unacceptable risk to the submarine.  This also ignores the practical question of what platform could survive long enough to produce targeting data deep inside enemy waters.
 
 
Discussion
 
The SSAM inventory on a submarine would be very small unless someone wanted to abandon the submarine’s primary mission and instead perform AAW.  Is a very small inventory, meaning a very small AAW contribution, worth risking the submarine and compromising its main role?  I think not.  This smacks of yet another example of the Navy’s misguided attempts to make every platform a single-handed war winner.  We have ships designed specifically for the AAW role.  Let them do their job and let submarines do theirs which is offensive operations.  Do we want to risk (due to friendly or unfriendly fire) a several billion dollar sub trying to shoot down a million dollar missile when there are surface ships (Aegis) designed and suited exactly for that task?
 
Some might say that a submarine could be the unseen, forward AAW “shooter” with targeting provided by some other platform in a scenario analogous to the unmanned USV “shooter” vessel being placed far in front of a surface group and cued by a Burke or patrol plane .  Of course, that ignores the problem of how to communicate real time targeting data to a far distant, submerged submarine (as well as the blue-on-blue issue).  As far as I know, that’s a practical impossibility.
 
That said, it might be worthwhile having a half dozen or so SSAMs for the local defense scenario (anti-ASW helo) if the targeting issue can be solved.
 
There’s a reason why there has not been wide spread adoption of this technology among world navies.
 
 
 
_____________________________

 
[1]The War Zone website, “U.S. Navy Is Seeking A Submarine Launched Anti-Air Missile”, Joseph Trevithick, 31-Jul-2026,
https://www.twz.com/sea/u-s-navy-is-seeking-a-submarine-launched-anti-air-missile

Burke Destroyer Adrift

By now I’m sure you’ve heard that the USS Benfold, a Burke class destroyer, was left adrift, without any power, for four days.  Worse, the crew was unable to repair the ship in that time and had to be towed to port where repairs required an additional ten days or so.
 

Benfold lost power on July 24. It was towed to Subic Bay on July 28. Power was restored two days later with all repairs completed by Aug. 7 …[1]

Ships break down all the time and engineering casualties are far from uncommon.  That a breakdown occurred does not bother me as there has been no trend of Burke class engineering casualties that I’m aware of.  So … stuff breaks.  It happens.  No big deal.  However, there are a few disturbing aspects to this incident.
 
Bear in mind that we have no details about what happened.
 
Repair – It is disturbing that the crew was unable to restore even partial power during four days.  A ship that can’t repair itself, at least to a “limp along” capability, is a poorly designed ship.  Was the crew lacking machine shops?  No qualified technicians?  No parts on hand?  Lack of knowledge about their own ship?
 
We know that the Navy has drastically de-emphasized onboard maintenance and has all but eliminated onboard maintenance and machine shops.  This is a disturbing trend for warships that can expect to find themselves damaged at sea and out of reach of immediate assistance.  It is vital that ships be able to repair themselves at least enough to escape the area.  Ships did this routinely in WWII.  We’ve all but lost this capability today.
 
Generators – The Burke class has multiple generators of various types, including emergency generators, physically remote from each other.  Total power failure should be impossible.  Even an explosion should not be able to take out every generator.  I can’t even imagine what kind of failure can result in total power loss especially since there have been no reports of explosions, fire, or any other destructive calamity.
 
We’ll have to wait to find out the details (my guess is that the Navy will classify the news as seems to be their habit now) but this has to be a screaming cry to the Navy’s ship designers to modify the design and damage control procedures to prevent this from ever happening again.  Even if the fuel supply were suddenly contaminated to the point of unusability, I would assume that a Burke has multiple, isolated fuel tanks.  Maybe not?  Again, we’ll have to wait and see.
 
Repair Time – It is also disturbing that it required ten days to repair even after being towed back to port.  Again, with no calamitous event, what go have happened that would require ten days of repairs?  Was the time period due to the complexity of the repair or, alternatively, a lack of repair capability in port (Subic Bay)?

_______________________________

 
[1]USNI News website, “USS Benfold Leaves Japan After Returning from Power Failure Repairs”, Heather Mongilio, 17-Aug-2026,
https://news.usni.org/2026/08/17/uss-benfold-leaves-japan-after-returning-from-power-failure-repairs

Memo From the President On Shipbuilding

The Navy is currently a flaming hot mess.  It’s not even debatable and I won’t bother listing all the problems.  President Trump appears to recognize this to an unknown, but significant, degree and has issued a memo calling for various actions to improve naval shipbuilding capabilities and capacities.
 
The memo is a fascinating blend of solid, beneficial concepts and technical and legal challenges.  It also fails to address, or even mention, the root cause of the Navy’s shipbuilding woes.  Let’s take a closer look.
 
The very first sentence recognizes and states the problem (well, one of the problems) quite forcefully and succinctly.
 

The United States Navy has experienced a series of shipbuilding setbacks stemming from overly complex designs and iterative design change procedures …[1]

In plainer terms, it states that the Navy’s ship acquisition process is a steaming pile of crap and, very importantly,  identifies at least a couple of the major contributing factors.  Excellent!
 
It goes on to say,
 

The Department of War shall restore both capacity and competition to the maritime industrial base ,,,[1]

That’s nice but it’s like calling for world peace – a noble goal but pointless without specific, effective actions and none are listed.  Miss America calls for world peace every year but I’m pretty sure it’s still a problem.
 
We then see a vague recognition of part of the problem.
 

It will use proven, reliable, and affordable technologies and ship designs …[1]

This is saying that the days of trying to incorporate non-existent, leap ahead technologies are over.  That’s a great sentiment which I heartily endorse.  Now, ruthlessly enforce it.  However, there is also a potential pitfall here.  If we never incorporate new technology, we’ll never advance.  There needs to be a corresponding directive to make use of one-off prototypes specifically to evaluate and develop new technologies.
 
Now, here’s a stunner.
 

Within 60 days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of War, in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy, shall provide to the President, … a plan on the required measures to replace the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System and Advanced Weapons Elevators with steam and hydraulic systems for the construction of CVN-81 ...[1]

This has long been one of the President’s pet peeves and he appears to be trying to act on it.  I fully support this but the inertia and incompetence in Navy leadership is not going to take this lying down.  This will be vigorously opposed .  Unless the President has the complete agreement and backing of SecNav and CNO, this will not happen.  A great way to get such agreement and backing is to start firing people until people can be found who are on board with the President.
 
The memo repeatedly calls for foreign involvement in the shipbuilding process, both directly and indirectly.  This is a concept that has some appeal, under certain, limited circumstances, but has a great deal of potential to run afoul of legislative roadblocks.  Beyond that, what the President is calling for has been attempted and resulted in the spectacular failures of the LCS and Constellation.  Repeating a set of actions and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity.  This needs to be very carefully thought out and managed and the Navy has emphatically demonstrated they have no such management capability.  Wholesale firings of the existing flag ranks would go a long way to solving this.
 
Another major problem is addressed.
 

The Navy shall not impose iterative design changes upon the original mature parent designs within the above programs implemented pursuant to the plans developed under subsections (a) through (b) of this section. No changes from parent designs shall be made without the approval of the Secretary of War ,,,[1]

This is recognizing the destructive impact of the Navy’s never-ending change orders.  Again, though, the embedded inertia of incompetent leadership will make this nearly impossible to enforce.  Remember , the Constellation was going to a parent design with only minor changes and, yet, before it was cancelled, almost all commonality with the parent design had vanished.  I enthusiastically support this but it will require ruthless enforcement.  My suggestion is that any program manager who proposes a change order be summarily fired.
 
Here’s one of the major challenges that we mentioned above.
 

… for purposes of waiving the general prohibition on Armed Forces shipbuilding in foreign shipyards.[1]

The President is going to find that getting Congress to go along with any attempt to utilize foreign shipyards is going to be poorly received and strongly opposed.  There are also practical concerns with technological security.  Still, under certain circumstances this could be beneficial.  I’d prefer to build up our own shipbuilding capacity rather than rely on foreign involvement.
 
The memo calls for establishing a new public shipyard for maintenance and support.  Challenging but outstanding!
 
Here’s another good idea.
 

… establish a Component Repair Center to receive new and refurbish old components and parts as required by the submarine repair industrial base.[1]

Outstanding!
 
And finally, a major, major action calling for a gutting and rework of NAVSEA.
 

Reforming Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). Within 120 days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of War, in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy, shall submit to the President, through the Director of OMB and the APNSA, a review of NAVSEA, including recommendations for implementing personnel, organizational, and structural reforms. The objective of these reforms should be to: introduce results‑based accountability for NAVSEA leadership, determined by speed of delivery of vessels and systems; reduce bureaucracy and red tape; eliminate competing priorities among different NAVSEA components, which often result in delayed, cost-prohibitive, or overly complex vessels and systems; and prevent NAVSEA from imposing redesigns or iterative design changes upon original mature parent designs.[1]

This is saying what ComNavOps has been saying for some time – that NAVSEA is a failed organization of total incompetents.  Outstanding, outstanding, outstanding!
 
 
Discussion
 
This memo has lots of good stuff in it and the Navy would be far better off if they can be implemented.  The reality, however, is that any changes will be actively opposed and unless SecDef and SecNav are willing to engage in wholesale firings, most it will never occur. 
 
I’m also dismayed that SecDef Hegseth did not implement all of this on day one of his tenure.  This reinforces my belief that he is a failure, perhaps not as bad as some but certainly a major disappointment.  One could read this memo as a criticism by the President of Hegseth and interpret it as Hegseth failing to the point that the President felt he had to step in and take over.
 
The aspect of all this that the memo failed to address is that the root cause of the Navy’s failures is irredeemably incompetent leadership from the flag officers.  That is what the memo should have led with and the solution is easy – fire them all.  Since Hegseth refuses to engage in wholesale housecleaning, the actions called for in the memo will be vigorously opposed and Trump and Hegseth will have only themselves to blame for their disappointment when this fails to materialize.
 
Let’s hope for the best but the sad reality is that most of this is a fantasy because they won’t take the necessary first step of mass firings.
 
 
 
_________________________________

 
[1]USNI News website, “Presidential Memo: Rebuilding the United States Navy and America’s Shipbuilding Industrial Base”, staff, 13-Aug-2026,
https://news.usni.org/2026/08/13/presidential-memo-rebuilding-the-united-states-navy-and-americas-shipbuilding-industrial-base

Don’t Say Nothin’ At All

We were all taught the old saying,

 

“If you can’t say something nice about someone, don’t say anything at all.”

 

Well, given the military’s abysmal record when it comes to acquisition programs, program management, weapon performance, and audits, the Department of Defense has taken that age old saying to heart but modified it to,

 

“If someone can’t say something nice about us, we won’t let them say anything at all.”

 

To that end, the Defense Department has now restricted DOT&E reports, the only source of unbiased testing and reporting due to the endless series of negative findings, year after year.

 

The Department of War restricted public access to 25 years of unclassified weapons testing reports on July 30, moving them to a secure network reserved for personnel with military-issued access credentials.[1]

 

The reports, issued annually by the Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), have detailed unclassified effectiveness and maintenance shortcomings in major weapons programs … [1]

Unsatisfied with merely restricting access to the reports, SecDef Hegseth has moved to hugely reduce the DOT&E capabilities and responsibilities.

 

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has cut the test office's staffing to 30 employees from 126 and removed 90 programs from its oversight list this year, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).[1]

 

There is one problem with this and that is that the military’s move appears to be illegal.[2]

 

Williams [Greg Williams, defense policy director with the Project on Government Oversight ] said the 1983 law creating the test office required unclassified annual reports, and a 2011 law directs that such reports be posted online for public access.[1]

 

DOT&E’s own website confirms this [2] and the exact wording of the relevant law appears in the references below.[2]

 

 

Discussion

 

DOT&E has been the only organization forcing the military to test weapon systems and inform the public about the results in an unclassified report.  Without the efforts of DOT&E, the military would skip even more testing than they already do.  For example, the Navy attempted to indefinitely defer shock testing of the USS Ford.  DOT&E worked through Congress to pressure the Navy into performing the tests.

 

The annual DOT&E reports have been the only publicly available source of honest weapon system test result reports for the taxpayer to understand how effectively their money was being spent.

 

DOT&E’s downfall began with the retirement of Dir. Gilmore, who ComNavOps considers one of, if not the, most important and influential men in the military field in the last fifty plus years.  When he left, DOT&E’s new director began watering down the reports into uninformative, pointless pap.  Now, even that is being restricted and unavailable to the public. 

 

DOT&E no longer serves any useful purpose.

 

The military has been embarrassed and humiliated time and again by their own failures and they have finally found a way to prevent that.

 

“If someone can’t say something nice about us, we won’t let them say anything at all.”

 

 

 

_______________________________

 

[1]Newsmax website, “Pentagon Restricts Access to Weapons Test Reports”, Jim Mishler, 5-Aug-2026,

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/war-department-weapons-reports-restrict/2026/08/05/id/1265159/

 

[2]https://www.dote.osd.mil/

From the DOT&E website,

 

In 1983, Congress established the position of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The Director, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, is the principal official and adviser to the Secretary of War on all DoW matters related to operational (OT&E) and live fire test and evaluation (LFT&E) of DoW systems and services acquired via the Warfighting Acquisition System.

 

Pursuant to Sections 139, 4171, 4172, and 4231 of Title 10, U.S.C., Section 223 of Public Law 117-81, DoDD 5141.02, and DoDI 5000.98, the DOT&E:

• Develops and updates policies and guidance for OT&E and LFT&E.
• Designates select DoW programs for OT&E and LFT&E oversight and publishes and manages the T&E Oversight List.
• Oversees, reviews, and independently reports on all OT&E and LFT&E activities and resources for programs on the T&E Oversight List.
• Assesses the adequacy of and approves OT&E and LFT&E strategies and plans in support of all acquisition decisions. This includes the alternative LFT&E strategies required in support of waivers from full-up system-level (FUSL) testing.
• Approves the adequacy of the multi-domain operational environment, threats, and targets used in LFT&E and OT&E.
• Observes OT&E and LFT&E to evaluate compliance with approved strategies and plans.
• Conducts an independent analysis of test data from across the acquisition life cycle and M&S results and in support of acquisition decisions; submits, as applicable, reports on the adequacy of LFT&E and OT&E and evaluations of operational effectiveness, suitability, survivability, and lethality to the: OSW, Joint Staff, DoW Components, and Congressional defense committees.
• Submits a publicly releasable Annual Report to Congress summarizing key OT&E and LFT&E activities planned, executed, or reported on within the fiscal year, and related challenges.
• In coordination with the DoW Component heads, defines strategic initiatives needed to update policy and meet future OT&E and LFT&E requirements.

 

Following is an exact recording of the relevant law:

 

10 U.S. Code § 139, Section (h)

 

(1)The Director shall prepare an annual report summarizing the operational test and evaluation activities (including live fire testing activities) of the Department of Defense during the preceding fiscal year.

(2)Each such report shall be submitted concurrently to the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, the Secretaries of the military departments, and the Congress not later than January 31 of each year.

(3)If the Director submits the report to Congress in a classified or controlled unclassified form, the Director shall concurrently submit to Congress a version of the report that is unclassified and does not require safeguarding or dissemination controls.

Failure on a Grand Scale

The Navy has announced the retirement of VAdm. Jim Downey.  Consider this excerpt, reported by USNI News website.
 

The dual-hatted Naval Sea Systems Command [ed. 2023-present] and Portfolio Acquisition Executive Industrial Operations Vice Adm. Jim Downey retired last week, the Navy announced.
 
Downey commissioned into the Navy in 1987 after graduating from the State University of New York. He’s a career surface warfare officer and prior to Naval Sea Systems Command, he served as the PEO Aircraft Carriers [ed. 2019-2023] led the Navy Regional Maintenance Center [ed. 2016-2019] and was the program manager for the Zumwalt guided-missile destroyer program.[1][emphasis added]

Can you think of any bigger failures than the pathetic performance of NavSea, the Navy’s toxic relations with industry, the sad state of our carriers and the abortion that is the Ford class, the Navy’s horrific maintenance performance, or the abysmal failure that is the Zumwalt program?
 
Downey not only failed spectacularly but was spectacularly rewarded for doing so with one prominent position after another!
 
What’s wrong with the Navy?  Well, this man and his career would be the poster child for it.
 
 
 
_______________________________

 
[1]USNI News website, “NAVSEA Commander Downey Retires, 2 Admirals Take Over Roles in Interim”, Sam LaGrone, 10-Aug-2026,
https://news.usni.org/2026/08/10/navsea-commander-downey-retires-2-admirals-take-over-roles-in-interim

Who Needs a Navy When You’ve Got a P-8 Poseidon?

The Navy (and the US military) have received yet another miracle of technology from industry.  Boeing and Northrop Grumman have now simulated (they didn’t actually do anything but simulation is good enough – reality is never an issue) teaming between a manned P-8A Poseidon and unmanned MQ-4C Triton.[1]
 

Boeing and Northrop Grumman successfully simulated teaming between a manned P-8A Poseidon and unmanned MQ-4C Triton … [1]
 
The P-8A cued the Triton transit to a specific area. After receiving the request, the Triton autonomously planned and executed a transit to the area, employed sensors per the tasking, processed findings onboard, and reported results back to the P-8A Poseidon.[1]

So, the unmanned Triton flew to a waypoint and sent telemetry back?  Truly, the stuff of miracle and legend.  I’ve never even heard of “waypoints” … well, except for back in the 1970’s when that was just a routine capability … but to do that in a simulation instead of for real like we’ve done for decades is just a stunning achievement.  How do they come up with this stuff?
 
What does this miraculous development mean for the US?
 

Jane Bishop, vice president and general manager, global surveillance division, Northrop Grumman: “MQ-4C Triton and P-8A are the backbone of the U.S. Navy’s maritime patrol and reconnaissance force, delivering complementary capabilities unmatched by any other platforms. … Our commitment to pushing the boundaries of advanced technology ensures that the U.S. and allied nations operators maintain an unparalleled edge against evolving maritime threats.”[1]

“Unparalleled edge” !!!!  No other country in the world has the ability to fly waypoints and transmit data.  We are light years more advanced than anyone else.
 
This highlights the wonders of the P-8 Poseidon. 

The P-8A Poseidon is the world’s most advanced multi-mission maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft that provides anti-submarine warfare (ASW), anti-surface warfare (ASuW), intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), and search and rescue mission capabilities.[1]

So, …
 

• ASW
• ASuW
• ISR
• S&R

 

Why do we even need a Navy?  Half a dozen P-8s should suffice to win any war.

 
 

____________________________________

Just out of idle curiosity, is anyone getting tired of these constant announcements about miraculous technologies that have actually existed for decades?  To paraphrase:  Those that can, do. Those that can’t take old technologies and pretend they’re new.
 
I wonder how much we paid to simulate waypoints and data transmission?

____________________________________

 
[1]Naval News website, “Boeing and Northrop Grumman Successfully Simulate P-8A Poseidon and MQ-4C Triton Teaming”, Staff, 6-Aug-2026,
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2026/08/boeing-and-northrop-grumman-successfully-simulate-p-8a-poseidon-and-mq-4c-triton-teaming/