In a not entirely unexpected, and very welcome move, SecDef
Hegseth has fired CNO Franchetti. During
her tenure, she accomplished nothing, perpetuated the problems she inherited,
and solved no existing problems (see, "CNO Franchetti - Another Failed CNO in the Making"). She had
a notably undistinguished resume for the position and, I suspect, was a DEI
hire.
Good riddance.
Of course, it remains to be seen who the replacement will be
and whether they’ll be any better.
Still, this is a possible first step towards fixing the Navy. Well done, SecDef.
Trump's plan slashes budgets but protects submarines, nuclear weapons and missile defense. For the Navy only cutting two carriers is an option to save lots, and that would be good, and add the LPDs to these cuts, and slash the Marines by 40,000, HQ and other BS.
ReplyDeleteI came up with a list several years ago:
https://www.g2mil.com/rightsizingMarines.htm
I would also cut the new Marine Corps Space Command in Colorado, with a two-star General. Just leave a LtCol (0-5) there as a liaison with Navy Space.
G2mil
"For the Navy only cutting two carriers is an option to save lots"
DeleteThey don't even need to cut carriers. Simply reverting to the Nimitz design would save several BILLION dollars on each ship.
"...cutting two carriers is an option to save lots, and that would be good..."
DeleteHow's that?? While yes, the Fords are absurdly overpriced and still aren't performing to spec... its pretty premature to look at cutting carriers. Hopefully this isn't real, and isn't part of outside influences that don't understand naval warfare. I've got lots of respect for Elon, but I've heard him say some things that are pretty far off-base concerning the military and it's equipment- he's brilliant, but seemingly not well informed about DOD matters...
I may be wrong but I believe that G2mil was offering his own idea to cut two carriers. You'll recall he guest authored some posts on this. I have not heard Musk suggest cutting two carriers although perhaps I've missed something.
DeleteMy point is that if submarines, nuclear weapons and missile defense/destroyers are exempt, where else can you get huge savings? Trump recently cited the Ford as an example of waste.
Delete"...where else can you get huge savings?"
DeleteIve heard Elon hammering at the F-35, and while some of the comments sounded either uninformed, or the products of "lessons from Ukraine" that have been shot down as actual lessons here many times. Either way, I wouldnt be suprised to see it a target. I'd be fine with dropping the VTOL version production, as well as all the ones already in use. And the avaition-focused LHs...
But all that aside, a ton of money can be saved by cutting civilian employess... and bloated HQs and staffs... cuts don't have to be in procurement to be pretty big!!
"where else can you get huge savings?"
DeleteI did a post on exactly this and there are massive savings to be had with almost zero effort and without cutting into actual warfighting capabilities or capacity. See the following for an itemized list of savings: "Navy Needs $40B in Savings"
"wasn't qualified."
ReplyDeleteComment deleted. One thing I insist on in this blog is that people read what is actually posted. Nowhere have I made the claim that Francetti wasn't qualified. I stated that her resume was undistinguished and she appeared to be a DEI hire.
The CNO of the Navy should have the most spectacular and combat-relevant resume in the Navy.
If you choose to comment again, be sure that it's about something that was actually stated.
It’s interesting that you deleted the comment mentioning “unqualified,” because it seems like we’re splitting hairs here. Your original post strongly implied that Admiral Franchetti’s resume was “undistinguished” and that she was likely a “DEI hire.” Let’s be clear: labeling her resume as “undistinguished” and implying her promotion was based on identity rather than merit directly calls her qualifications into question—whether you say "unqualified" outright or not.
ReplyDeleteYou argue that the CNO should have the "most spectacular and combat-relevant resume in the Navy," but I think this is an overly narrow view of what makes a good leader. Admiral Franchetti’s career includes numerous operational and strategic leadership roles, including commanding Carrier Strike Group 9 and U.S. Naval Forces Korea, as well as overseeing key missions like the use of Tomahawk missiles in Syria. This is hardly a resume that should be dismissed lightly. Her leadership was not just about combat experience—it was also about the broader strategic and diplomatic roles the Navy plays on the world stage.
To now dismiss her as a DEI hire is to reduce the conversation to an identity-politics talking point rather than an honest assessment of her accomplishments. It's frustrating to see this tactic used to discredit leaders who’ve earned their place through experience, not just a set of demographic characteristics.
If the point is that Franchetti's tenure didn’t meet expectations, fine—let's discuss that. But questioning her qualifications based on a superficial reading of her resume and leaning into DEI-driven critiques feels lazy and misses the nuance that the role of CNO demands.
So, let’s address the real issue here: Does her leadership reflect the Navy’s needs, and is her strategic vision working? If you want to criticize her tenure, then let’s talk specifics rather than resorting to hollow, divisive arguments.
You appear to fail to understand what the word 'qualified' means as opposed to 'undistinguished'. Qualified means a person meets the bare minimum requirements for a position. In this case, the ONLY absolute requirement to be CNO is to be of flag rank (see, 10 U.S. Code § 8033). There are two secondary requirements related to joint experience but those are not absolute and can be waived by the President.
Delete'Undistinguished', in this case, means qualified but unremarkable.
For example, many, many sailors are qualified to attempt SEAL training and, in fact, do. Only a very few distinguish themselves enough to make the cut.
'Distinguished' means to stand out from the group, to be noteworthy and special. 'Undistinguished', of course, means the opposite.
Franchetti was qualified under the law. She was also undistinguished and did nothing to stand out, to rise above, to be noteworthy, to be special. A careful reading of her resume and an understanding of what Navy assignments mean reveals a pedestrian career ... undistinguished. For example, the Tomahawk test that you mention was a test conducted by scientists and technicians. She had nothing to do with it and contributed nothing. She just happened to be in administrative charge.
The position of CNO is limited to ONE person. As such, one would expect that position to be filled by the absolute best person the Navy has. Did Francetti have the best resume in the entire Navy? Not even close! I've seen much better.
As far as being a DEI hire, I don't know that for sure - and so stated - but the circumstantial evidence suggests it is quite likely. She was appointed by President Biden who was notorious for making appointments and selections based on DEI criteria and so publicly stated (Vice President and Supreme Court, as a couple of noteworthy examples). During that time period, the military and Navy were actively pursuing DEI goals and, again, so stated publicly. For example, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs authored a memo calling for a decrease in the number of white pilots. It is a more than reasonable assumption that an undistinguished woman as CNO was likely a DEI selection.
As far as job performance, Francetti did nothing to improve the state of the Navy, she solved none of the Navy's existing problems, nor did she create any new, serious problems that I'm aware of. Her performance, like her resume, was undistinguished.
"It's frustrating to see this tactic used to discredit leaders who’ve earned their place"
There is no evidence that she earned her place nor is there any evidence that she did not. This is the true failing of affirmative action (or DEI or quotas or whatever you choose to call it): it casts doubt on what MIGHT be actual accomplishments. For example, did the women who first passed Ranger school earn it or were they pencil-whipped through? A great deal of evidence suggests the later and that casts doubt on any woman who will claim to have passed Ranger school.
What is frustrating is to see someone, such as yourself, blindly accept that anyone who is given a position has earned it. We've seen throughout the military that women are held to lower standards. They do NOT earn their positions. Their positions are given to them. THAT'S the reality.
Women have no place on the front line. Their purpose is to breed replacements for our losses and the next generation of warfighters.
Delete"The position of CNO is limited to ONE person. As such, one would expect that position to be filled by the absolute best person the Navy has....I've seen much better."
DeleteYou obviously feel confident in evaluating candidates, so who is out there now who would suggest be considered for the job? Who's on your shortlist of candidates?
Feel free to comment again when you have something productive to contribute.
Delete"Admiral Franchetti’s career includes numerous operational and strategic leadership roles..."
DeleteThank you for posting, Ms. Franchetti.
Welcome to the blog!!!
Lutefisk
I've talked with a retired officer who served with her. He said she was nice. She was kind. And she cared about her sailors.
ReplyDeleteAll good. But as CNO said, she really didn't DO anything that I can see. Kind of sad for her, but I'm also sad for the hard charging Admiral that was denied the job because they wanted to hire a woman.
"she was nice. She was kind. And she cared about her sailors."
DeleteShe sounds like an excellent candidate for Mayor of Sesame Street but not CNO. The job of the Navy is combat not engaging in group hugs around the campfire and handing out participation trophies.
We need Rickovers and Halseys and the like, not a lovable Golden Retriever.
This may not DEI. Hegseth probably asked them for ideas where big cuts can be made, and they pushed back with the standard BS that nothing can be cut, and they need lots more money.
ReplyDeleteHe's Air Force, not Navy, but do you consider Lt Get Dan « Razin » Caine as having a distinguished resume and significant accomplishments ? By the way it's a honest question.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea. I've never heard of him until just now, I haven't read his resume, and I have no idea what anything on his resume means in real terms like I do with the Navy. So ... no idea, no opinion. Sorry.
DeleteWith the benefit of hindsight, without undertaking any sort of rigorous academic analysis, my sense is that the Navy started to lose its way in the late 90s/early 2000s. Here's the CNOs in that period:
ReplyDeleteAdmiral Jay L. Johnson (1996-2000)
Admiral Vern Clark (2000-2005)
Admiral Michael Mullen (2005-2007)
Admiral Gary Roughead (2007-2011)
Admiral Johnathan W. Greenert (2011-2015)
Admiral John M. Richardson (2015-2019)
Admiral Michael Gilday (2019-2023)
Admiral Lisa Franchetti (2023-2025)
Probably the subject of an entirely different thread, but I don't know how may of these embodied a warrior culture, were the very best of the Navy, had distinguished resumes, or were Rickovers or Halseys.
What is inarguable is that they cumulatively oversaw the decline of what was once the world's greatest Naval power. (If we are still that, it must come with a question mark.) As has suggested in the blog several times, they should be recalled, court-martialed, or worse.
The question I'm left with is: how much does this position even matter anymore? If you put the world's best candidate there, is our current system such that even the best qualified CNO will be limited as to how much change they can affect? And maybe the CNO really just needs to be someone that can work Congress, budgets, and navigate the snake's nest which is the defense contracting establishment? That's a specialist skill set. It's not necessarily your best warfighter. The blog name checks Rickover and Halsey - but (thankfully!) neither were CNOs.
"is our current system such that even the best qualified CNO will be limited as to how much change they can affect?"
DeleteOf course not! A properly motivated and directed (meaning focused on the proper priorities) CNO could turn the Navy around in a heartbeat. Here's a few day one items that could be implemented with no input from Congress or anyone else:
1. Eliminate the use of waivers. Period. No exceptions. That, alone, would immensely improve training, safety, and readiness by forcing actions to be completed instead of waived.
2. Mandate the elimination of rust on ships.
3. Move sailors from shore billets to sea to fill the at sea gaps.
4. Mandate that dry dock work be COMPLETED prior to leaving dock regardless of the consequences to subsequent scheduling.
5. Eliminate minimal manning and bring crews back up to full strength.
6. Reinstitute onboard maintenance capabilities.
7. Eliminate most crew comforts.
8. Enforce training standards and demand that individuals and ships fail when warranted.
9. Refuse delivery of incomplete, non-functional from industry.
10. Mandate physical fitness standards and separate all non-complying sailors.
11. Set ONE, identical standard of physical fitness for males and females.
12. Eliminate 80% of ship's paperwork and return the focus to combat training.
13. Stop building Fords.
14. End the obsession with unmanned.
15. Eliminate the zero-defect mentality.
16. Reinstitute old fashioned liberty.
Day two items that might require some input from others:
1. Fire 80% of flag officers
2. End deployments and say no to CoComs.
3. Obtain legislative waiver on "non-green" corrosion prevention coatings.
I could go on endlessly but you get the idea. All it takes is a Trump-like CNO who has a clear, combat-focused mentality and is willing to act.
"Rickover and Halsey - but (thankfully!) neither were CNOs."
DeleteI noted those two as examples of people who were focused on combat, were not politically motivated or swayed, demanded excellence from those around them, and had the determination to get the job done regardless of obstacles. That you fail to recognize those qualities in them suggests you need to study their careers more. They, and many others like them, exhibited the qualities that we need from leadership/CNO.
"Rickover and Halsey"
DeleteYou misunderstood the intent of that part of the comment. I'm well aware of their accomplishments, and it's specifically because of those accomplishments that I think we should be thankful that the Navy never "promoted" them to CNO. Both were in positions in which they excelled and we needed them to excel. There were other well-qualified admirals that could (and did) handle the CNO job. We needed Halsey and Rickover to keep doing what they were doing. I'm glad they never moved up.
I have to point this out more than I think I need to (I've working my whole life for large organizations), but just because someone can do one job really well doesn't mean they are also the best fit for a higher job, which might require different skills. You need to play to strengths and get everyone in the right place, for both them and the organization. Re: the Navy, our best warfighters and strategists should perhaps lead fleets. Our best administrators and project managers should lead maintenance commands. You get the point.
The Navy, btw, is terrible at this. It constantly moves people around and makes them joint and generalists. One reason Rickover was so successful is that he basically held one job for what, 30 years? How often does that happen, and why no consider doing that more often?
As this relates to the CNO position, I won't be moved that the person most qualified to hold that position should be the one with the best skills to be successful in the unique requirements of that position. That may, or may not, be someone who is excelling at some other level of command.
Re: your list of actions the next CNO can take, thank you for that, I agree there are certainly a lot of things along those lines that can and should be undertaken. Some easier that others and some will take years to implement. But you can't undo decades of bad decisions overnight. Things like changing the philosophy on waivers, however, can be implemented immediately. We shall see what happens.
Delete"the person most qualified to hold that position should be the one with the best skills to be successful in the unique requirements of that position."
DeleteWell, that's just a generic, feel-good statement fit for a public relations brochure but useless in identifying good candidates. There is no one way to execute a position. Consider football coaches. Some are friendly, some are gruff, some are downright mean, some are brilliant X's and O's, some are "people" persons, some like to be hands on, some like to be hands off and delegate. The successful ones have two things in common: one, a clear concept of what they want and the determination to achieve it and, two, the ability to recognize what the skills they lack in themselves and surround themselves with assistants who have those missing skills.
When Ernest King was appointed CNO at the start of WW2, he was quoted as saying "When they get in trouble, they send for the sons of bitches."
DeleteHis own daughter said of him, "He is the most even tempered man in the US Navy. He is always in a rage."
I'm not saying one needs to be an ass to be a good flag officer (Nimitz had a reputation for both decency and competence), but it is an example of the Navy recognizing the need to change from polish and politics to a focus on combat (and just combat) due to a crisis. The history lesson here is that a peace time officer corp can become complacent, more interested in checking the right boxes than winning wars, and we should be vigilant in avoiding this. Let's not wait until the next war to refocus the Navy on fighting and winning. That starts with the top.
A couple of questions from the outside:
ReplyDeletea. If she was "undistinguished" were there any candidates that were better?
b. How big is the "pool" of personnel the CNO is picked from.
Clive F
The pool is all flag officers which is around 280 or so.
DeleteI wonder how many flag officers were responsible for the mess that the Navy is in. ( Everything you reported on such as aquisition failures with no CONOPS & lack of testing etc .)
ReplyDeletePB
They've all played a part in it.
DeleteWish new leadership can address troop readiness and help solve problems as Elon Musk said - spend more and more money buying less and less weapons. Get rid of wastes in military. Since you have your people now, there is no excuse if things don't improve.
ReplyDeleteThe rot runs far deeper than just the fired CNO. The entire current flag corps should be fired. Not a single one is worth saving. If they were worth saving, by definition, they wouldn't be a flag officer.
Delete