Follow the Data

I’m seeing far too much unsupported or contraindicated opinions in comments lately.  People are expressing their biases and wishful thinking as “opinions” while ignoring facts, data, history, and logic.  Yes, it’s a human tendency to form a viewpoint while ignoring actual data but, on this blog, we make every attempt to follow the data wherever it leads.  Do not form a viewpoint and then look for data.  Instead, look for data and then follow it to whatever logical conclusion results.
 
I have no problem with allowing comments expressing alternative viewpoints, if they’re supported by data and logic.  Of course, if they are, then they’re unlikely to be alternative viewpoints and, instead, will agree with ComNavOps.  Honestly, the number of subjects that have legitimate alternative viewpoints from the same set of data are few and far between and, generally, legitimate differing opinions arise from a lack of data.
 
Pick up the quality of comments or remain silent.

Mistakes and Experience

ComNavOps doesn’t report or repeat news, he analyzes it.  However, every once in a while something comes along that is just so good that all I can do is repeat it.  Following is a comment from a USNI News website post about the Navy relieving the CO of the USS Truxton for the recent collision with the oiler.  The author of the comment is listed as “Guest” so I am unable to give any further credit.
 

You learn from your mistakes. Mistakes come from bad judgement [sic]. Experience, comes from mistakes. Good judgement [sic] comes from experience.
 
If a mistake is more or less a automatic career ender, what do our officers learn? Answer; don't make mistakes. So are they learning anything other than to avoid risk?
 
Early WW2, we were relieving officers left and right, for not being aggressive enough. Why would we expect them to be aggressive, when we spent all the interwar years training them to avoid risk? That's where we're at now.
 
Who are our senior naval officers today? Survivors of command. The guys who took no risks. Who didn't make a career ending mistake.
 
Then we wonder why they're political animals to a man, going with the flow. Not taking risks. Avoiding responsibility aka "blame". Because that's exactly the type of naval officers our system spits out.
 
"Responsibility" shouldn't be an automatic death sentence.[1]

I have nothing to add to this.
 
 
_______________________________

 
[1]USNI News website, “CO of USS Truxtun Removed from Command after Oiler Collision”, Sam LaGrone, 22-Feb-2026,
https://news.usni.org/2026/02/22/co-of-uss-truxtun-removed-from-command-after-oiler-collision

This Is Why You Don’t Depend On Allies

ComNavOps has repeatedly criticized our cross training efforts with allies as being pointless and because allies cannot be counted on when need arises.  Why train with someone you can’t count on?  Here’s the latest examples from the US strikes against Iran.
 
First up is Spain.  You’ll recall that it was Spain that abandoned the US by pulling an escort ship from the USS Lincoln carrier task force in 2019 during a threat from Iran (see, “This Is Why You Don’t Train WithAllies”).  This followed several months of training so that the Spanish ship would be qualified to join the task force for a deployment.
 

Spanish authorities have confirmed that they are not allowing U.S. forces to use bases in the country to support continuing strikes on Iran.[1]
 
Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares said Spain would not allow its military bases, which are jointly operated by the U.S. and Spain but under Spanish sovereignty, to be used for attacks on Iran, which Spain has condemned.[1]
 
What started as possible move of around half a dozen [Air Force] tankers from Spain to Ramstein Airbase in Germany, now appears to be a full-on withdrawal of the entire tanker fleet from Moron Airbase (LEMO) and Naval Air Station Rota (LERT) … [1]

Hey, Spain, I assume the refund for the US’ portion of the joint operating costs is in the mail?
 
 
Even America’s stalwart ally, the UK, got in on the ‘abandon your allies’ act by denying the US operating rights from bases.
 

The United Kingdom has reportedly refused U.S. requests to utilize key military facilities—RAF Fairford in England and the joint U.S.-U.K. base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean—for any potential strikes against Iran.[2]
 
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has withheld permission for American forces to operate from these bases in support of preemptive or offensive actions against Iran.[2]

I wonder what other countries denied us assistance?
 
Don’t get me wrong.  I fully acknowledge that every country has their own agendas and the right to independently pursue those agendas but this emphatically emphasizes why you don’t waste time cross training with supposed allies and you damn sure don’t contribute money to their bases or assets.  If some country wants to cross train with us or wants us to base forces in their country then they can pay the entire cost.
 
To paraphrase … With Allies like these, who needs enemies?
 
 
 
_______________________________

 
[1]The War Zone website, “War With Iran Now In Its Third Day”, Joseph Trevithick, Thomas Newdick, Howard Altman, 2-Mar-2026,
https://www.twz.com/news-features/war-with-iran-now-in-its-third-day
 
[2]Armed Forces Press website, “UK Denies American Use Of Diego Garcia And RAF Fairford For Iran Attacks”, L Todd Wood, 20-Feb-2026,
https://armedforces.press/foreign-policy/2026/02/20/uk-denies-american-use-of-diego-garcia-and-raf-fairford-for-iran-attacks/ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

US Uses One-Way Attack Drones Against Iran

Among military websites, the headlines are all atwitter about the US’ use of the one-way, LUCAS, attack drone in the strikes against Iran. 
 
Here’s a Military Times website headline[1]:
 
US Confirms First Combat Use of LUCAS One-Way Attack Drone in Iran Strikes
 
This is a simply stunning development and marks a new chapter in strike warfare.  From the LUCAS performance specs, never before has any country had the ability to deliver a maximum 40 lb payload to a distance of 500 miles at a cruise speed of 85 mph (74 kts).  The closest the US has come to this in the past is the one-way Tomahawk attack drone (sometimes referred to as a cruise missile) with a 1000 lb warhead and a range of 1000 miles at a speed of Mach 0.74. (570 mph).
 
It’s embarrassing the way we’ve made a habit of proudly trumpeting “new” technologies that have actually existed for many decades.  That’s not to say that there isn’t a use for a small, very slow missile (which is what a one-way drone is) with very low end lethality but to brag that we’ve accomplished something remarkable is humiliating and deceptive (or ignorant).
 
Here’s an example of an embarrassing attempt at praise from Army Recognition website.
 

U.S. Central Command has moved Task Force Scorpion Strike into an operational posture, giving deployed forces a low-cost one-way attack drone capability designed to multiply strike capacity, absorb attrition, and overwhelm defenses through massed, distributed effects. Beyond adding another munition to the inventory, it effectively creates a new layer of “magazine depth” that can be launched quickly from dispersed sites, complicating enemy targeting and imposing unfavorable cost trades on air defenses. The shift matters less for a single drone’s performance than for what it signals: the U.S. military is now treating expendable systems as a scalable combat arm, not a niche experiment … [2]

“overwhelm defenses” ?  Isn’t that what we’ve done repeatedly when we’ve launched dozens of cruise missiles at targets over the years?
 
“massed, distributed effects” ?  Isn’t that a contradiction?
 
“expendable systems” ?  Haven’t missiles always been expendable?
 
“scalable” ?  Haven’t we always scaled operations as needed?
 
Well, sure, we’ve done all that for many decades but never before have assembled all the accolades into a single press release.  Now that’s an accomplishment!
 
Again, at $35,000 per unit, there may be a use for such a weapon but to believe it is something new is just ignorant and embarrassing.
 
 
Warning:  As usual, we are not going to discuss the politics of the US decision to strike Iran, only the military aspects. 

 

_____________________________

 
[1]Military Times website, “US Confirms First Combat Use of LUCAS One-Way Attack Drone in Iran Strikes”, JD Simkins, 28-Feb-2026,
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2026/02/28/us-confirms-first-combat-use-of-lucas-one-way-attack-drone-in-iran-strikes/
 
[2]Army Recognition website, “U.S. Central Command Deploys First Operational LUCAS Drone Unit for Potential Iran Strikes”, 28-Feb-2026,
https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/aerospace-news/2026/u-s-central-command-deploys-first-operational-lucas-drone-unit-for-potential-iran-strikes#google_vignette

Air Superiority Fighter Range

ComNavOps has long proposed a very long range fighter aircraft for the Navy.  One of the persistent objections has been that it is physically impossible to achieve the desired 1000+ nm combat radius (see, "Long Range Carrier Fighter") despite the overwhelming evidence that it is eminently possible.  Well, now it appears that the military agrees with me as evidenced by the requirements for the new F-47 under development.  Amazingly, for modern times, at least, the prototype is due for first flight in 2028.
 

The Air Force has said the F-47 will have a combat radius of more than 1,000 nautical miles and be capable of flying at speeds greater than Mach 2. That would make the aircraft’s combat radius nearly double that of the F-22.[1]

AF wouldn’t be making the claim if they (and industry) didn’t think they could do it.  Of course, claims are just that and nothing is proven until demonstrated.  However, we have sufficient examples of very long range aircraft from decades ago to expect that today’s more efficient engines and better aerodynamics should deliver the range we want.
 
We also need to ensure that firepower, speed, stealth, and maneuverability also join with range to make a truly formidable fighter.  Range, alone, will not make an air superiority fighter … but it’s a good start!
 
Let’s hope the military doesn’t try to turn the F-47 into a do-everything, nothing well abomination.  Make it a fighter and leave it alone.
 
This is encouraging if yet premature.
 
 
__________________________________

 
[1]Redstate website, “Air Force's New F-47 Fighter Hits Stride for 2028 Takeoff”, Ward Clark, 26-Feb-2026,
https://redstate.com/wardclark/2026/02/26/air-forces-new-f-47-fighter-hits-stride-for-2028-takeoff-n2199600

Where Did It All Go Wrong?

Clearly, today’s Navy is badly broken in almost every respect but that wasn’t always the case.  In WWII, the Navy was an efficient, deadly, fighting force that knew how to produce warriors and ships on a routine basis.  What changed between then and now?  Where did it all go wrong?
 
Let’s start with the “what changed”.
 
What changed is the focus. From the early 1900's (pre-WWI) on, the Navy had an intense focus on combat effectiveness (with a few notable exceptions such as the WWII faulty torpedo fiasco).  After the late 1950's and early 1960's, the war veterans (those who understood combat and designed ships to meet that requirement) retired leaving people whose focus shifted from combat to career. The focus became empire building, budget pursuit, and career enhancement rather than combat-effective ship and fleet design and procurement.  Without the crucible and filter of combat to weed out the incompetent, idiots who were politically adroit took over and foolish policies became the norm.
 
Okay, that’s clear enough.  Now, when did it happen?  What event triggered the shift?  Let’s check some noteworthy events in history that lead to our current state of affairs.  Some of the events were even hailed at the time as great achievements.  Here’s a chronology (nowhere near all-inclusive!) of events that clearly traces the rise of incompetence:
 
 
General Board (1951) – The Board was dissolved by CNO Forrest Sherman in a move to consolidate his power.  This began the shift in focus from combat to bureaucracy and career.
 
Spruance (1970) – This was the point at which the Navy abdicated its design responsibility and relinquished it to industry as a result of the Total Package Procurement concept originated by the Whiz Kids of SecDef Robert McNamara.  There has been a steady downhill erosion of technical capability and competence by the Navy ever since.
 
Adm. Zumwalt’s Hi/Lo Policy (1970’s) – instead of building the fleet we needed, he settled for the fleet he could get; he compromised the nation’s security and naval strength and institutionalized mediocrity and acceptance of inferiority.
 
Note that my rejection of hi/lo does not mean that we want a fleet of all battleships and carriers.  We need smaller combatants because there are some functions they can fill better than larger ships.  A mix of large and small combatants is not an example of a hi/lo mix, it is an example of a balanced fleet whose needs are all met.  Hi/lo, on the other hand, is an example of an unbalanced fleet that lacks vital levels of warships and attempts to compensate by substituting larger numbers of smaller ships.
 
Offsets (1980’s) – This introduced the pursuit of technological leaps instead of consistent, steady, evolutionary development.  Unfortunately, it has failed every time.
 
Fall of the Soviet Union (1991) – This eliminated all the remaining intense focus on combat that the Navy had.
 
2-1/2 War Abandonment (1993) – Being able to fight and win 2-1/2 wars was the long time standard requirement by which we sized and composed our military.  When that proved expensive (duh!), instead of making the case for it to Congress, the military began adopting a series of ever-shrinking requirements leading to the current “1 regional conflict (not even a war) plus holding against another.  The threat level did not change and yet the requirement shrank, justified by budget rather than threat.
 
Minimal Manning (1990’s) – This began the physical decline of the fleet as maintenance was deferred and ships were allowed to, literally, rot.  This also instituted and formalized the Navy’s acceptance of cripplingly lowered standards of readiness.
 
Concurrency (2000’s) – This god forsaken practice has cost the Navy dearly and has failed miserably every time it’s been attempted and yet the Navy continues to practice it.
 
Unmanned (2000’s) – This marks the Navy’s public and formal acceptance of insufficient combat power in the pursuit of technological fads.  Instead of doing the hard work of evolutionary development, the Navy institutionalized the pursuit of magic beans and the delusional, lazy, easy way forward.
 
Diversity (2010’s) – This marked the Navy’s formal recognition of priorities other than combat effectiveness.
 
 
 
And here we are, today.  It’s clear that there was no single event that crippled the Navy but, rather, a creeping rot evidenced by a series of misguided (to be polite) actions over the years.
 
Ironically, many of the flawed actions were praised at the time they were implemented but only by people who did not have a combat focus.  Looking back, it is easy to see the actions for the mistakes they were.  Our current failure is our inability to see the failings and course correct.

New Swedish Frigate

ComNavOps has long considered the Swedish Visby class corvette as the gold standard of modern, total stealth warship design (not perfect ... just the best out there).  That makes the conceptual design for the next Swedish frigate, a larger vessel than the Visby, seemingly obvious:  simply upsize the Visby and add a few more weapons.  However, that seems not to be the case.  The candidates for the next Swedish frigate appear to be the existing (parent??) designs listed below:
 

• Saab/Babcock - Arrowhead 120 (variant of the Arrowhead 140)
• Naval Group (France) - FDI frigate
• Navantia (Spain) - Alfa 4000 light frigate

 
As a quick reminder, Visby is 238 ft and 840 tons.  For comparison, the Arrowhead 120 is 406 ft and 4,650 tons.
 
None of the candidates exhibit anything approaching the maximum stealth and total signature reduction the modern naval battlefield requires and all would seem to be a significant step back from the Visby in that regard.  Honestly, the parallels between this and the US Navy’s failed Constellation program which attempted to build a “new”, 20+ year old, already obsolete frigate from a parent design, are eerie.
 
Sweden is looking to acquire four frigates from one of the companies listed above.  The contract for four ships is estimated to be between $4.5B -$6.7B(USD) which would be $1.1B - $1.7B(USD) per ship and, of course, no estimate ever comes in on budget so the real cost would likely be pushing $2B or more which seems excessive for relatively simple, dated frigates.
 
I assumed Sweden would simply scale up the Visby design for frigtes/destroyers.  That would be eminently logical and, indeed, that was the original idea for the Visby Generation 2 design.
 

Initially in 2021, FMV [Swedish Defence Materiel Administration] awarded Saab Kockums a contract for the product definition phase of the Visby Generation 2 corvettes, a new class based on the existing Visby-class stealth vessels … [1]
 
However, the program was canceled in 2023 amid Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine and Sweden’s push toward NATO membership (finalized in 2024), leading to Saab teaming up with Babcock for a new, larger design.[1]

Somehow, in moving from the world’s stealthiest corvette to a “new” dated frigate, Sweden lost sight of what’s important for survival and combat-effectiveness on the modern naval battlefield.  Did some US admirals join the Swedish navy?
 

Arrowhead 120

I fully support the idea of a larger ship than the Visby but why go for a less capable and less survivable one?  Surely, the Visby could be scaled up from a corvette to a frigate without violating any “laws” of shipbuilding.
 
I guess it’s not just the US Navy that engages in perplexing behavior.
 
 
 
______________________________

 
[1]Breaking Defense website, “Saab, Babcock bank on Arrowhead 120 design for Sweden’s next frigate”, Jonas Olsson, 13-Feb-2026,
https://breakingdefense.com/2026/02/saab-babcock-bank-on-arrowhead-120-design-for-swedens-next-frigate/