Reaper Losses

ComNavOps has long stated that UAVs, especially the larger ones, are utterly ineffective, unsuited, and non-survivable over the battlefield and the Air Force has publicly agreed with that assessment.  Despite my statements, many (including the Navy) continue to believe that UAVs will provide omniscient awareness about our enemies.  Well, we’re finally starting to accumulate some real world data.  We know that Iran has downed multiple UAVs in the past [2] but now we have combat data from the Navy’s engagement with the Houthis in Yemen.  What does the data show?
 

Seven Reaper drones have been brought down by the Houthis since the beginning of March, with six of them occurring since March 15 and three of them over the past week, the official said. At least 15 Reapers have been brought down by the Houthis since October 2023 … [1]

Bing’s AI search engine reports (unsourced),
 

Houthi rebels in Yemen have downed seven US MQ-9 Reaper drones since March 31, 2025. Since November 2023, the Houthis have claimed responsibility for downing fourteen MQ-9 Reaper drones. Yemeni forces have shot down seven US MQ-9 Reaper drones this month and 22 since October 2023. Each MQ-9 is worth about $30 million, so that means the US has lost $660 million worth of drones over Yemen in about a year and a half.[1]

Other sources have similar or larger reported loss numbers.  The point is not the exact number of losses but the fact that this proves that larger UAVs are not survivable over the modern battlefield.  In this case, the conclusion is even more emphatic since the Houthis are far from a modern, top tier military force like the Chinese and because these losses are occurring in the face of supposed high intensity attacks on the Houthis – and yet they somehow manage to routinely shoot down our UAVs?  I guess our attacks aren’t very effective, are they?
 

MQ-9 Reaper

How is it possible that the Houthis can manage to operate radars and SAM launchers while supposedly being overwhelmed by US military attacks?  We can’t stop the Houthis from doing this but we think we’ll take on the Chinese?

 
I don’t have a target list for this anti-Houthi campaign but, clearly, we’re not hitting the right targets.  Our UAVs are being shot down and drones/missiles are getting close enough to our carrier to make it take evasive action.  Against a tenth tier military force with no air force, aren’t we supposed to own the air?  A mosquito shouldn’t be able to fly from Yemen without a missile heading up its backside.
 
All of this is screaming at us that we need to re-evaluate our ideas about how to fight China.
 
 
_____________________________

 
Fun fact:
 
The U.S. Air Force has about 280 Reapers in its inventory, each costing about $28 million, according to the Congressional Research Service.[1]
 
Cost aside, these losses are starting to cut into the military’s inventory of Reapers and we can be sure that we are not seeing all the operational losses from around the rest of the world.
 
 
 
_____________________________

 
[1]ABC News website, “Houthis shoot down growing number of US drones”, Luis Martinez, 23-Apr-2025,
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/houthis-shoot-growing-number-us-drones/story?id=121099082
 
[2]As one example, on 20-Jun-2019, Iran shot down an RQ-4A Global Hawk BAMS-D with a Khordad SAM. 

Where Did I Leave That Plane?

A F-18 Super Hornet being towed rolled off the deck of the carrier Truman and fell into the Red Sea.[1]  No, this is not an April Fool’s post.

I know the Navy has real problems with competency but this is bad even by Navy standards.
  

___________________________

 
[1]Redstate, “New: F-18 Rolls Off Side of USS Harry S. Truman, Sinks to Bottom of the Red Sea”, Ward Clark, 28-Apr-2025,
https://redstate.com/wardclark/2025/04/28/uss-harry-s-truman-loses-aircraft-tractor-overboard-n2188441

Small Potatoes

I’ve previously stated that I am, thus far, disappointed in SecDef Hegseth.  I had hoped he would come in and clean house and, while he has fired a handful of people, the vast majority of incompetent military leaders are still firmly in place.  Similarly, SecNav Phelan has disappointed me.  An example is his latest announcement that he is cancelling some $570M in various DEI, climate, and AI-logistics contracts.  While I applaud these cancellations, they are incredibly small potatoes.  They are the kind of thing that could have been done between bites of his sandwich at lunch on the first day.  How about going after some large, truly catastrophically wasteful programs?  Can’t think of any?  Well, how about cancelling the rest of the Constellation class?  How about terminating the Ford class in place?  How about retiring the entire remaining LCS class and saving billions in operating and maintenance costs?  How about terminating all unmanned contracts until someone comes up with a viable CONOPS that demonstrates that they have any combat value?  How about firing 90% of the flag officers and returning their hundreds of staffers to sea duty?  I could go on all day but you get the idea. 
 
There are unimaginable savings to be had but SecNav Phelan is, so far, focused on the nearly trivial and almost free items (on a relative basis).  Come on, Phelan, do something significant.  It doesn’t require years of study groups.  If you can’t come up with tens and hundreds of billions of dollars of savings off the top of your head, you have no business being Secretary of the Navy.  On the other hand, if you can come up with the list … START CUTTING !!!

Joke of an Amphibious Exercise

Japan and the US just recently conducted an amphibious assault exercise, Iron Fist 2025. 
 
“Iron Fist” !!!  Yeah!  Visions of crushing, overwhelming, amphibious firepower swarming ashore from dozens of amphibious ships loaded with troops and equipment.  Aircraft carpet bombing the assault site.  Naval guns roaring.  Stunned defenders, shell-shocked, cowering and watching in disbelief.  Explosions, devastation, domination!  “Iron Fist” !!!
 
The exercise lasted one hour. 

… hourlong amphibious landing exercise carried out by the Marines and Japan’s Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade … [1]

One hour … to master amphibious assault.  Wow.  That’s some serious dedication to training, isn’t it?
 
What did the exercise consist of? 

200 U.S. Marines and sailors along with 200 Japanese soldiers executed four waves of beach assaults. Equipment utilized therein included: combat rubber reconnaissance craft in the first wave; six Japanese amphibious assault vehicles (presumably the AAV7A1) in the second wave; followed by a Japanese air-cushioned landing craft (presumably the Landing Craft, Air Cushion built by Textron Systems) in the third wave. Meanwhile, two USMC AH-1Z Viper helicopter gunships (the successor to the legendary AH-1W Whiskey Cobra chopper) provided aerial reconnaissance and firepower.[1]

Let’s total up the immense amounts of amphibious equipment used in this exercise:
 

• Some rubber boats
• 6x Japanese AAV
• 1x Japanese LCAC
• 2x US helos

 
If that didn’t prepare the US Marines for amphibious operations, I don’t know what could.  The ground must have shaken under the weight of that kind of force.  The Chinese had to be quaking in their boots (or peeing their pants laughing), witnessing that exercise.  Seriously, is this the best we can do with our training time?
 

Amphibious Assault Force

This is an April Fool’s post, right?  Sadly, no.  This is what passes for a major exercise today.
 
 
 
_____________________________

 
[1]The National Interest website, “Iron Fist 2025: USMC and JSDF Troops Train for Amphibious Warfare”, Christian D. Orr, 9-Mar-2025,
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/iron-fist-2025-usmc-and-jsdf-troops-train-for-amphibious-warfare

Northrop B-21 Financial Loss

Northrop has, so far, totaled more than $2B in losses on the B-21 program.[1]
 
Can no one estimate a program anymore?  Are the people running industry and the military really as stupid as the evidence demonstrates?  It would appear so.
 

 
_____________________________

 
[1]Breaking Defense, “Northrop logs new $477M loss on B-21 bomber due to higher manufacturing costs”, Valerie Insinna, 22-Apr-2025,
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/04/northrop-logs-new-477m-loss-on-b-21-bomber-due-to-higher-manufacturing-costs/

USS Massachusetts vs. Jean Bart

One of the lesser known engagements of WWII involved the gun duel between the US battleship USS Massachusetts and the French battleship Jean Bart.  The allies wanted to deny the use of the French battleship to the enemy and executed an attack by a small naval force.  Here’s a brief summary of the engagement.
 

At about 0700, as the Massachusetts, Wichita, and Tuscaloosa were preparing to engage French shore batteries, Tuscaloosa approached the entrance to Casablanca Harbor and reported that her scout plane was being fired upon, two French aircraft were closing, and two submarines were standing out from the harbor.
 
The cruiser subsequently shot down one of the French aircraft. The formidable French shore battery known as El Hank (four 8-inch guns) opened fire and straddled Massachusetts with its first salvo.
 
The unfinished and immobile French battleship Jean Bart opened fire with her operable forward quad 15-inch turret from pierside in Casablanca Harbor and hit a couple hundred yards from Massachusetts. Massachusetts received the “play ball” code at 0704, and she and Tuscaloosa concentrated their fire on Jean Bart. Massachusetts fired nine full 16-inch gun salvos (9 x 9 = 81 rounds) and hit Jean Bart five times within 16 minutes. The first shell hit in an empty magazine.
 
The last shell to hit glanced off the number 1 turret’s armor and bounced into the city, apparently without exploding, as it later became a souvenir at French navy headquarters. The hit, however, jammed the drive train of the turret and put Jean Bart’s main battery out of action for eight hours. Jean Bart’s 15-inch guns had sufficient range to reach the landing area at Fedala, but Massachusetts’s quick action eliminated that threat. El Hank, however, was not easily silenced and would dog U.S. ships all day, despite hundreds of rounds fired its way.[1]
 
The French warship able to fire just seven rounds at the U.S. battlewagon before the turret rotating mechanism jammed. USS Massachusetts‘ heavy 16-inch projectiles caused significant damage to the Jean Bart, although few actually exploded because they had been fitted with fuses manufactured a generation earlier. Had they had exploded; it is likely Jean Bart would have been crippled.[2]

This action again demonstrates multiple lessons such as the value of concentrated firepower, armor, etc.  I won’t belabor those as we’ve covered them many times.  Instead, I’d like to focus on one aspect of this action that jumps out and that is the concept of risk and reward.
 

USS Massachusetts

Jean Bart post WWII - note the unique 4-gun turrets

 
Risk/Reward – There is no avoiding the fact that risk and reward go hand-in-hand in combat.  People and equipment must be exposed to risk in order to accomplish anything worthwhile.  We’ve forgotten this and have come to believe that we can conduct wars without risking anything. 
 
For example, the idea of sending a ship to conduct a one-on-one duel with another ship that is supported by land batteries, is highly risky and not something we’d even consider today.
 
The corollary to risk/reward this is that losses will occur and we have to be willing to accept them and be able to absorb them.  This is the polar opposite of today’s military philosophy.  Today, we’re building staggeringly expensive ships and aircraft that we are loathe to risk because we can’t absorb their loss and can’t replace them in any useful time frame.  This risk aversion means we can’t accomplish anything worthwhile.  We have expensed ourselves into an almost unwinnable position.
 
We need to stop building ‘unriskable’, irreplaceable assets and return to simpler, single function assets that can be produced quickly and in quantity and that we’re willing to send in harm’s way.
 
 
 
_____________________________

 
[1]Rebellion Research website, “Operation Torch : The Naval Battle Of Casablanca, 8–10 November 1942”, Admiral Samuel J. Cox, USN, 17-Oct-2021,
https://www.rebellionresearch.com/operation-torch
 
[2]The National Interest website, “Navy Battleship Massachusetts vs. France’s Battleship Jean Bart: Who Won?”, Peter Suciu, 15-Jan-2024,
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/navy-battleship-massachusetts-vs-frances-battleship-jean-bart-who-won-208607

Riddle Me This ...

Question:  What has 5000 thumbs, no tanks, and 4 howitzers?
 
Answer:  A MEU.
 
 
 
This highlights the problem with the current Marine MEU: it’s not capable of anything but very light, low end combat.  It just doesn’t have the firepower.  No tanks.  No heavy mortars.  Very few artillery and what there is, is towed which is not considered survivable on the modern battlefield.
 
Tell me again, why do we have MEUs?

China Halts Rare Earths Export

As part of the ongoing trade war between the US and China, China has halted exports of rare earths, those raw materials that are such a vital component of so many US military weapons and sensors.  If the halt is protracted, this could cripple US military manufacturing.
 
I love it!
 
This is exactly what the US needs to get us off our complacent, vulnerable, regulatory-constrained asses and start producing our own rare earths.  We have them.  We’ve just bound ourselves in so much regulatory constraints that it’s not economical or feasible to produce them.  We need to unbind ourselves, reduce our regulations to a more reasonable level, and recognize that certain strategic materials need to be not only exempt from some regulations but actively supported and encouraged.  Congress should put a such a bill on the President’s desk today.
 
Yes, I know, we’ve previously begun to build a rare earth mining/refining facility but it’s nowhere near enough.
 
This is a losing proposition for China.  They’re depriving themselves of a market, hurting their own industries, and forcing the US to become more self-reliant.  It’s the very definition of stupidity.  This is what happens when your geopolitical goal is global conquest instead of peaceful coexistence.  Evil invariably defeats itself.  We just need to help it along when the opportunity presents itself..
 
If exploited properly, this is a winning proposition for the US.  We could develop a new industry, create jobs, keep monies ‘in-house’, weaken China, and reduce one of our major strategic vulnerabilities.  We should send China a thank-you note.  Trump should be on TV explaining this to the American people.
 
I love it!

UK Airborne Early Warning

Despite glowing claims by some UK carrier fanboys, the UK’s carriers are not, and have never been, capable of meaningful roles in high end combat scenarios due to the lack of Airborne Early Warning (AEW), tankers, and electronic warfare (EW) aircraft.  The small size of the air wings (even after surging – a dubious concept) and the fact that the aircraft are the ‘B’ models of the F-35 further diminish the combat capabilities.
 
Now, though, the UK is beginning to explore the possibility of enhancing their carrier AEW capabilities.
 

The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has issued a Request for Information (RFI) notice seeking feedback on the solutions offered by the manufacturers to replace the airborne early warning (AEW) systems currently operated by the Royal Navy to protect its carrier strike groups (CSG).
 
The new systems would replace those currently operating from the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers, and would have significantly enhanced capabilities. Indeed, the MoD is looking for a system capable of operating from the carriers and providing “persistent 24 hours surveillance” with significant detection capabilities to spot both surface and airborne threats, including anti-ship missiles.
 
Currently, the Royal Navy operates Merlin helicopters fitted with the Crowsnest radar as an airborne surveillance system. However, this system should be decommissioned at the end of the decade, despite entering service in 2021.[1]

Merlin AEW Helicopter

While this is a nice step in the right general direction, no one should be under the impression that this will solve the UK’s AEW problem.  There will still remain two severe, unsolvable problems:
 
1. Lacking catapults and arresting gear, the UK’s carriers are constrained to operating helos in the AEW role which means that the size of any radar and operator station is severely limited.  Further, helos have significant altitude limits.  The Merlin, for example, has a service ceiling of 15,000 ft as opposed to the US E-2 Hawkeye which has a ceiling of 35,000 ft.
 
2. AEW, as practiced by the UK, is only half of what is needed.  US AEW E-2 aircraft are not just early warning aircraft, they are battle management assets.  The operators direct the air battle and it is this function that is as important or more so than the early warning function.
 

US Navy E-2 Hawkeye

E-2 cabin for a crew of five

 

 
Conclusion
 
The UK’s decision to go with a ski jump carrier instead of a conventional cat/trap approach consigned its carriers to lower end combat roles due to the inability to operate the crucial AEW, EW, and tanker support aircraft.  A new, better AEW helo radar system would be nice but won’t significantly alter the limited reality of the UK’s carrier capabilities.  Those who would advocate using the UK carriers as models for the US Navy are failing to recognize the requirements for high end aerial combat.

 
 
________________________________

 
[1]Naval News website, “Royal Navy seeks new airborne early warning capability for its carrier strike groups”, Martin Manaranche, 12-Apr-2025,
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/04/royal-navy-seeks-new-airborne-early-warning-capability-for-its-carrier-strike-groups/

One Standard, High Standard?

Since Pete Hegseth was confirmed as Secretary of Defense, I’ve been waiting for him to do something meaningful.  In my mind, that would be firing large swaths of flag officers.  He hasn’t done that and I’m disappointed.  However, he’s just announced something that may be significant … if he implements it correctly and ruthlessly.  He’s announced that all personnel in combat specialties will have to meet a single physical fitness standard. 
 

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered the military services to require everyone who serves in a combat specialty to meet the same physical fitness standard.[1]

The obvious potential flaw in this is that, yes, the military will establish a single standard but that it will be  watered down so that women can pass it which is what has happened in the past.  Here’s exactly what he had to say,
 

I'm signing this memorandum today. The services will review and see that we have nothing but the highest and equal standards for men and women in combat.[1]

A single standard is useless unless it’s a high standard.  Will he hold the military to a high standard?  I doubt it but I’m willing to be pleasantly surprised.
 
As the article notes,
 

Every time a gender-neutral physical fitness test is rolled out, it has two results: Most men aren't challenged, and most women can't pass.[1]

If Hegseth establishes a single, high standard, it will have the effect of virtually eliminating women from combat roles – as I’ve been calling for all along.  Will Hegseth have the courage and fortitude to stand up to the inevitable outcry from the Democrats in Congress?  Again, I doubt it but I’m willing to be pleasantly surprised.
 
 
Fair warning:  we’re not going to address the political or social aspects of this – only the impact on military effectiveness.  Comment accordingly.
 
 
 
____________________________

 
[1]Redstate website, “Pete Hegseth Requires Everyone in Combat Units to Meet the Same Physical Fitness Standards”, streiff, 31-Mar-2025,
https://redstate.com/streiff/2025/03/31/pete-hegseth-requires-everyone-in-combat-units-to-meet-the-same-physical-fitness-standards-n2187346

A Stealthy Carrier

Reader ‘SRB’ recently wondered about how to make a carrier stealthy.  What a great thought exercise!  Let’s have some fun and explore the idea a bit.
 
At first glance, it would seem difficult or impossible to make a carrier stealthy and still retain its full functionality.  The sheer size, alone, makes it a challenging task.  In addition, the sponsons add all kinds of non-stealthy protuberances.  Sprinkle on the multitude of weapons, masts, radars, domes, etc. and the task seems impossible.  Well, that means we’ll need to think outside the box to design a stealthy carrier.  In no particular order, here are some design characteristics of a stealthy carrier.
 
Aircraft Elevators – Conventional external, side opening elevators would be eliminated in favor of internal elevators that momentarily open at flight deck level to load/unload aircraft.  This eliminates the non-stealthy openings and external elevator gear and allows a smooth, uninterrupted hull whose shape can be maximized for stealth.
 
Sponsons – Sponsons, whose purpose is to mount weapons out of the way of the flight deck, would be eliminated and the weapons converted to forms that are embedded in the hull (side angled VLS cells, for example) or retractable (under the flight deck, for example, as flight ops would not be conducted while firing weapons).  A carrier is mammoth and it’s not as if a carrier has lots of weapons.  We should be able to find plenty of room.
 
Island – The island, if it is still needed, would take the form of a typical slanted superstructure of a surface ship like the LCS or Visby.  In fact, the Ford class has a slightly stealthy island with a couple of slanted faces.  Of course, it then totally negates any benefit by festooning the island with protruding bridges, catwalks, masts, domes, etc.
 
Even better than a stealthy, slanted superstructure would be no superstructure, at all.  Why not have the functions buried inside the ship?  The only possible legitimate need for an island is to provide an elevated overwatch from which to direct flight deck activities and movements.  However, I’m thinking that we could function without this by using extensive camera views from many dozens of angles with the views being assembled into an ‘overhead’ view via software manipulations. 
 
Antennae – All antennae (Satcoms and the like) would have to be flush mounted into the superstructure just as radar panels are now.
 
Aircraft Spotting – Assuming a stealthy carrier would only operate stealthy aircraft, deck spotting should not be a major problem as far as impacting radar signature since the aircraft are, inherently, stealthy. 
 
Overhangs – I don’t know whether deck overhangs negatively impact stealth but I suspect they do.  A stealthy carrier would need a smooth hull that joins the deck all around – no overhanging decks.
 

An artist's concept of a stealth carrier

Discussion
 
One obvious implication from the preceding is that we’ll need a lot more internal ship’s volume to contain the many external functions that need to be internalized.  Just as it is a challenge to find room for internal weapon bays on stealth aircraft, so too, will it be a challenge to find room for the carriers external functions that now need to be moved internally.  This dictates that we ruthlessly eliminate any current function that is not directly combat related.  That means eliminating crew comforts, non-essential functions such as the extensive and powerful radar fits (carriers don’t radiate in combat), one or two aircraft elevators, and so forth.
 
Clearly, any attempt at a serious stealth carrier would result in a design well outside the conventional box but, why not?  There’s nothing inherently impossible in the task.  The basic carrier design hasn’t changed since pre-WWII.  Perhaps it’s time.  What do you think?  Could we build a stealthy carrier with enough stealth to be worth the effort?

This is Why I Provide References

I wouldn’t believe this stuff if I didn’t read it myself.  This is a bit of news I pulled from my own research archives and, no, it’s not an April Fool’s joke.  It’s real.
 
The Marine’s 3^rd Littoral Regiment [MLR] conducted a major exercise in late 2021 and early 2022 called Spartan Trident.  Okay, that sounds mildly aggressive and slightly belligerent.  Might be interesting.  Ought to involve some combat skills.  Let’s see what they did.
 
From the official Marine website, Spartan Trident was a three part exercise.[1]
 
Part 1
 

The first part of Spartan Trident consisted of a series of interactive discussions … This portion of the exercise took place from Dec. 6 to Dec. 10, 2021[1] [emphasis added]

Yes, you read that right.  Part 1 of the exercise consisted of discussions.  That’s not really an exercise, is it?
 
 
Part 2
 

The second part of the Spartan Trident Continuum took place from Jan. 11 to Feb. 11, 2022 and consisted of one week of planning … [1] [emphasis added]

Yes, you read that right.  Part 2 of the exercise consisted of planning.  Again, that’s not really an exercise, is it?
 
 
Part 3
 

The third and final part of the Spartan Trident Continuum took place from Sept. 12 to Sept. 30, 2022. This phase was focused on refining standard operating procedures … [1] [emphasis added]
 
During the scenario, the 3rd MLR organized into three command and control elements displaced across Marine Corps Base Hawaii to rehearse sustaining expeditionary sites, enabling fires, supporting maritime domain awareness, and supporting the joint campaign across the competition continuum.[1]

Apparently, some people ‘rehearsed’ procedures that supported the “joint campaign across the competition continuum”.  Seriously?  The ‘competition continuum’?  What is this, the rhythmic gymnastics event in the Olympics?
 
Did you also note that the activities were confined to the Marine base in Hawaii as opposed to out in the field?
 
I have no further details but this sounds suspiciously like a nine to five working day with some table top work to ‘rehearse’ procedures.  Don’t you ‘rehearse’ procedures out in the field, under enemy attack, for days on end as if you were … you know … in combat?

Conclusion
 
There you have it.  A major, 3-part exercise that consisted of talking and, apparently, some paperwork about standards.  You probably thought a major exercise required some degree of field work and combat simulations but you’d be wrong.  A little talking and a little paperwork is all we need.
 
How valuable was the exercise?  Incredibly so … according to the Marines.
 

… the unit has redesignated as an MLR and has proven its value as a joint force enabler. The progress is incredible.[1]

That’s all it takes to prove a unit’s value as a ‘joint force enabler’:  some discussions, some planning, and some standard operating procedures!  Do that and you’ll be incredible!
 
If I didn’t provide references for this stuff, you wouldn’t believe me, would you?
 
 
 
______________________________

 
[1]https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/Article/3180415/3rd-marine-littoral-regiment-concludes-spartan-trident/

Just Make a Decision

Naval News website reports that Japan is interested in co-producing SM-6 Standard missiles. 
 

Japanese Defense Minister Gen Nakatani has announced that Tokyo proposed joint production of the Standard Missile 6 (SM-6) ship-to-air missile during his meeting with U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on March 30.[1]

Japan has previously agreed, to some nebulous extent, to co-produce AMRAAM and PAC-3 missiles although no action appears to have come of that, yet.
 

… the U.S. and Japan in Tokyo in July 2024, both governments had already agreed to “pursue mutually beneficial co-production opportunities to expand production capacity of AMRAAM and Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (PAC-3 MSE).
 
Nakatani’s [Japanese Defense Minister Gen Nakatani] proposal this time will not only include joint production of AMRAAM and PAC-3 MSE missiles, which have been under consideration since the previous Joe Biden administration, but also include the long-range ship-to-air missile SM-6 … [1]

What is the US reaction/response?
 

… the U.S. side responded, by saying “We would like to continue to discuss the joint production of missiles that are mutually beneficial for both Japan and the United States, including the SM-6, as well as AMRAAM, and PAC3 that we have discussed so far, even at an administrative level. We understand the importance, so we would like to deepen the discussion at the administrative level in the future.”[1]

Good grief.  What a bunch of wishy washy nonsense.  Make a decision, already.  Endless studies and discussions benefit no one.  This is what’s wrong with modern government.  They’re incapable of acting, instead defaulting to never ending commissions, studies, reports, and discussions.  A major reason China is outproducing us their ability to make a rapid decision and then get about implementing it.  We, in the meantime, continue to study the issues to death.
 
I don’t have all the details on this particular issue but it certainly seems like a win-win proposition.  As the Ukraine war has demonstrated, we lack the weapon production capacity to meet our needs.  If Japan can help fill that need, where’s the downside?
 
Do it or don’t do it but make a damn decision!
 
 
 
_________________________________

 
[1]Naval News website, “Japan proposes co-production of SM-6 missiles to the U.S.”, Kosuke Takahashi, 3-Apr-2025,
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/04/japan-proposes-co-production-of-sm-6-missiles-to-the-u-s/

SecNav Phelan

Businessman John Phelan has been confirmed as Secretary of the Navy and I have severe anxiety about this pick.
 
Phelan has no military experience or even exposure, as far as I can ascertain.  While I firmly believe that a non-military person can succeed in the position by leaning on the subject matter experts that are available to him, I have grave misgivings in this situation.  Who will Phelan look to for honest assessments of the Navy’s problems, needs, and possible solutions?  Will it be the admirals who created and continue all the current problems?  Will it be Congress who has abetted the current situation and refused to exercise effective oversight?  I’m concerned that Phelan has no subject expertise and, far worse, no one to turn to for guidance in the areas he is not knowledgeable about.
 
Beyond that, some of his public statements do not inspire confidence.  For example, here’s something he told the Senate Armed Services Committee about his plans: 

The Navy and the Marine Corps already possess extraordinary operational expertise within their ranks. My role is to utilize that expertise and strengthen it to step outside the status quo and take decisive action with a results-oriented approach.[1]

That’s just buzzword bingo gibberish.  That does not sound like a decisive, focused, knowledgeable Secretary of the Navy.  I hope I’m wrong but what’s the odds of that? 
 
 
_____________________________

 
[1]Newsmax website, “Senate Confirms Phelan as Navy Secretary, Landau at State”, Mark Swanson, 24-Mar-2025,
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/senate-phelan-navy/2025/03/24/id/1204177/