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

The Meeting, The Message

SecDef (SecWar?) Hegseth has delivered his speech to the assembled leadership of the US military and it was one of the best speeches I’ve heard/read in a very long time.  As reported and summarized by Redstate website[1], here are some excerpts on various topics:
 

Leadership
 

For too long we've promoted too many uniformed leaders for the wrong reasons. Based on their race, based on gender quotas, based on historic, so-called firsts. We've pretended that combat arms and non-combat arms are the same thing. … Promoting risk-adverse, go-along-to-get-along conformists instead. …  Foolish and reckless political leaders set the wrong compass heading and we lost our way. We became, The Woke Department …

Ideology
 

No more identity months, DEI offices, dudes in dresses. No more climate change worship. No more division, distraction or gender delusions. No more debris. As I have said before, and will say again, we are done with that sh*t.

Fitness
 

… either you are disciplined, fit, and trained, or you are out.  … each service will ensure that every requirement for every combat MOS, for every designated combat arms position, returns to the highest Male Standard only.
 
… it's completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon and leading commands around the country and the world.
 
… if you do not meet the male level, physical standards for combat positions or cannot pass a PT test or don't want to shave and look professional, it's time for a new position. Or a new profession.

Appearance
 

… grooming standards. No more beards, long hair, superficial individual expression. We're going to cut our hair, shave our beards, and adhere to standards.

Toxic Leadership
 

Upholding and demanding high standards is not toxic. Enforcing high standards, [is] not toxic leadership. Leading war fighters toward the goals of high, gender neutral, and uncompromising standards in order to forge a cohesive, formidable, and lethal Deparatment of War is not toxic.  …  Real toxic leadership is endangering subordinates with low standards. Real toxic leadership is promoting people based on immutable characteristics, or quotas instead of based on merit. Real toxic leadership is promoting destructive ideologies.  …  The definition of toxic has been turned upside-down, and we're correcting that. That's why today, at my direction, we're undertaking a full review of the Department's definitions of so-called "toxic leadership," bullying, and hazing. To empower leaders to enforce standards without fear of retritibution or second-guessing.  …  words like "bullying" and "hazing" and "toxic" — they've been weaponized and bastardized inside our formations, undercutting commanders and NCOs.

Females
 

… when it comes to any job that requires physical power to perform in combat, those physical standards must be high and gender neutral. If women can make it, excellent. If not, it is what it is. If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it. That is not the intent, but it could be the result, so be it. It will also mean that weak men won't qualify, because we're not playing games.

Oversight and Legal Intimidation
 

We are overhauling an Inspector General process, the IG, that has been weaponized. Putting complainers, ideologues, and poor performers in the driver's seat. We're doing the same with the equal opportunity and military equal opportunity polices — the EO and MEO at our department. No more frivolous complaints. No more anonymous complaints, no more repeat complaintants, no more smearing reputations. No more endless waiting. No more legal limbo. No more sidetracking careers. No more walking on eggshells.

Firing
 

… if the words I'm speaking today are making your heart sink, then you should do the honorable thing and resign.  …  But, I suspect, I know, the overwhelming majority of you feel the opposite.

 
Discussion
 
There was only one thing in SecDef’s remarks that I disagree with and that is his rosy view of the viewpoints of those in attendance.  If he truly believes that the overwhelming majority of senior leadership really feels as he does then he is delusional.  We have seen for the last several years exactly how the majority of senior leadership feels and it is largely in line with the liberal agenda.  Those liberal leaning officers have been systematically selecting other liberal leaning officers for promotion resulting in a thoroughly infested officer corps.  They are not going to suddenly change their mindsets because of a single speech from an administration that is limited to a single term.  They may cover their tracks, now, but they’re going to resist at every opportunity.  Wholesale firing of the senior leadership is the only solution.
 
That aside, I agree with everything else.  However, this is only talk.  Hegseth has yet to demonstrate much in the way of concrete actions to back up the talk.  Indeed, his inactions have already repudiated much of what he says.  He has failed to engage in wholesale firings for all the infractions and failings he cites in his speech and which have been blatantly evident for years.  What is he waiting for?  He’s been in office for several months, now.  He’s had more than ample opportunity to actually implement the various points he discusses.  Talk but no walk.  At the end of this year will we still be waiting to see some evidence of action or will I be writing an apology post to SecDef?  I hope it’s the latter but color me skeptical.  We’ll see.
 
 
 
________________________________

 
[1] Redstate website, “Pete Hegseth Sets Directives and the New Direction for the Department of War”, Jennifer O’Connell, 30-Sep-2025,
https://redstate.com/jenniferoo/2025/09/30/war-secretary-pete-hegseth-sets-10-directives-and-a-new-direction-for-the-department-of-war-n2194564

SecDef Hegseth Failing?

ComNavOps has expressed both hope in SecDef Hegseth and an ominously growing sense of disappointment about the Secretary.  Hegseth talked the talk but has, thus far, failed to walk the walk.
 
He had the opportunity to come in and clean house throughout the services and, with a couple of welcome exceptions, has failed to do so.  The same service leadership is still, largely, in place.  All the incompetent and politically motivated flag officers are still there and still running things.
 
Who has he fired over the disastrous Afghan pull out?  No one.
 
Who has he fired over the Chinese spy balloons?  No one.
 
Who has he fired for the military’s multi-year failure to pass an audit?  No one.
 
Who has he fired for allowing the Navy’s fleet to look like a bunch of rusted out garbage scows?  No one.
 
Who has he fired over the lowering of physical fitness and qualification standards?  No one.
 
Who has he fired over the burning of the USS Bonhomme Richard?  No one.
 
Who has he fired over the decades long debacle of the USS Boise (SSN)?  No one.
 
I can pose these questions all night and the answer is the same for all of them:  no one!  Hegseth is holding no one accountable.
 
But ComNavOps, you whine say, we can’t afford to fire every flag officer.  That would cause insurmountable problems!  Bad as they might be, we need flag officer leadership.  Really?  You’re saying that we’d have problems if we fired all the people who have, over the last several years, hollowed our military, driven readiness into the toilet, allowed maintenance to become an afterthought, and wasted obscene amounts of money on failed programs?
 
It’s a shame.  Based on his pre-nomination public statements, I had high hopes for Mr. Hegseth.  Unfortunately, his actions to date, or lack thereof, suggest he’s yet another failed SecDef who lacks the courage to take sweeping and decisive action.  All talk, no walk.
 

F-35 Block 4 – Total Crap

As you know, the F-35 does not yet have its full combat capabilities.  Those were part of the incremental Block software upgrades and should have happened years ago.  Now, the Block 4 upgrade effort has been delayed yet again.
 

The Pentagon now anticipates the F-35’s Block 4 modernization won’t be complete until 2031 at the earliest, a five-year delay from its original timeline, even as the department rescopes the effort to include fewer capabilities than originally envisioned … [1]

Note the phrases,
 
“at the earliest”
 
“include fewer capabilities than originally envisioned”
 
You know, beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt, that the even the much delayed 2031 date will slip further still and the already downgraded capabilities of the Block 4 will be further downgraded.  Honestly, at the rate we’re going, Block 4 isn’t going to deliver much in the way of new capabilities, at all.  Many features have already been deferred to a nebulous, non-existent, unfunded, future upgrade instead of the Block 4.
 
In addition, the Block 4 program is being reorganized, yet again.  GAO reports,
 

According to program officials, the new Block 4 major subprogram will have fewer capabilities, will experience schedule delays, and will have unknown costs until the program office finishes developing its cost estimate.[1]

The cost for this pile of digital crap is stunning, even by Department of Defense standards.
 

An updated cost estimate for the Block 4 effort, which was $16.5 billion as of 2021, is expected “later in 2025,” according to the GAO.[1]

Well over $16B and counting (with at least five more years of costs still to come!) and with next to nothing to show for it.  I really don’t know how to apply any value-added analysis to that.  People should be rotting in jail for this.  Okay, I guess that was my value-added analysis.
 
On the off chance that you aren’t angry about this, yet, the following should correct that.
 

The F-35 program’s use of incentive fees has largely been ineffective at holding the contractors accountable to delivering engines and aircraft on time,” the GAO stated. “For lot 15 aircraft, where the program originally tied incentives to on-time delivery, the program gave the contractor a second chance to earn fees by redirecting those incentives to other aspects of the program when it was clear that Lockheed Martin would not deliver any aircraft on time.[1]

So, we set up a contract with incentives and then paid the manufacturer incentives even after they failed to deliver aircraft on time.  People should be rotting in jail for this.  See?  More value-added analysis.
 
This is exactly the kind of thing I had hoped that SecDef Hegseth would address but he is disappointing me.  Heads should be littering the halls of the F-35 program.  What is Hegseth doing with his time?
 
 
 
_____________________________________

 
[1]Breaking Defense, “F-35 Block 4 upgrade delayed until at least 2031: GAO”, Valerie Insinna, 3-Sep-2025,
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/09/f-35-block-4-upgrade-delayed-until-at-least-2031-gao/

DOT&E Reductions and a New Director

As you know, ComNavOps is not yet an enthusiastic supporter of SecDef Hegseth.  He says the right things but his actions, thus far, have been lacking and only sporadically beneficial.  He hasn’t done anything horribly wrong but he’s also not implemented the kind of wholesale changes needed.  Changes around the periphery are not going to improve the Department of Defense.
 
We now get notice of what is possibly his first blatant mistake:  cutting the Director, Operation Test & Evaluation (DOT&E).  If you’ve followed the blog for any length of time, you know that ComNavOps has been a big fan of DOT&E’s work, believing that they are the only force keeping the Navy (and military, in general) from committing wholesale, blatant fraud when it comes to weapon system testing.  Indeed, the Navy (and military, in general) has been highly critical of DOT&E which tells me that DOT&E is on the right path.
 
Now, SecDef Hegseth is proposing cuts to DOT&E.
 

In a bid to save what he estimated as $300 million per year, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has laid out a plan to reshape the Office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation by eliminating positions and layoff contractors supporting the team.[1]

Is saving $300M per year – and almost free sum of money by Pentagon standards – really worth possibly impeding the only Pentagon related organization that seems to function well?
 
A memo from Hegseth stated,
 

“A comprehensive internal review has identified redundant, non-essential, non-statutory functions within ODOT&E that do not support operational agility or resource efficiency, affecting our ability to rapidly and effectively deploy the best systems to the warfighter.”[1]

This sounds suspiciously like buzzword bingo, the affliction of the Pentagon.  I hope this is not happening to SecDef Hegseth.
 
In a fairly major change included with the manning cuts announcement, SecDef is also assigning a new acting Director.
 

Hegseth said he has appointed Carroll Quade to perform the duties of the Director of DOT&E. Quade is currently serving as the Navy’s deputy for Test and Evaluation for the Navy.[1]

I have no problem with this as the last few Directors were significant steps back from Dr. J. Michael Gilmore, who set the standard for DOT&E.  Recent Directors have virtually eliminated public oversight and information under the excuse of secrecy.  While truly classified information should not be made public, if you expect public support – in the form of taxes – you must provide some degree of feedback and information to the public.
 
To be fair, I have no knowledge about the inner workings of DOT&E.  Perhaps the group had become bureaucratically bloated and needs trimming.  However, note that the group only has 94 people (82 civilians, 12 military members).  SecDef proposes reducing that staffing to 30 civilians, 15 military personnel, and one senior leader.  Given that the group is responsible for testing every US military weapon, sensor, and system, this seems like a foolhardy reduction.
 
I fear that SecDef Hegseth is in over his head and is making changes almost randomly.  Time will tell.
 
 
 
_______________________________

 
[1]Breaking Defense, “Hegseth reshaping Pentagon’s weapons testing oversight office, cutting staff positions”, Ashley Roque, 28-May-2025,
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/05/hegseth-reshaping-pentagons-weapons-testing-oversight-office-cutting-staff-positions/

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

Stop Talking, Start Doing

 
This from SecDef Pete Hegseth during an interview with Shannon Bream,
 

“We won World War II with seven four star generals, Shannon. We have 44 today … Has it created better outcomes or not? We’re challenging a lot of assumptions at the Pentagon to streamline what we do so that we get as many resources as possible to the warfighter.”[1]

So, stop talking, Pete, and start firing people.  Arithmetic says, 44-7 = 37.  I’m waiting to see 37 generals fired.  Otherwise, it’s all just talk and you’re no different from your predecessors. 
 
Stop talking and start doing.  What are you waiting for?  Don’t disappoint me.
 
 
 
… and then do the Navy.
 
 
___________________________

 
[1]Daily Caller website, “‘The Status Quo Hasn’t Worked’: Hegseth Breaks Down Why Pentagon Needs Major Shake Up”, Hailey Gomez, 23-Feb-2025,
https://dailycaller.com/2025/02/23/pete-hegseth-pentagon-trump-administration/
 

CNO Franchetti Fired

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.

The Next Secretary of Defense

Fox’s TV commentary show, ‘Outnumbered’, had a discussion about President-elect Trump’s cabinet picks and had a brief discussion about the Secretary of Defense position and the type of person needed to fill the role.  Fox News contributor, Steve Hilton, offered some very interesting perspective, saying,
 

… at the Defense Department, you need a really good manager there who will sort out the corrupt mess of our defense procurement.  I think Elon Musk would be brilliant in that role, actually.[1]

 
Asked for more specifics about the type of person needed, Mr. Hilton offered this:
 

Someone who knows how to run things.  I mean, it’s no good putting in some General, right?  That place is a absolute cesspit of corruption.  You’ve got to have someone who can deal with that and get the modernization of our defense forces going.  It’s a management role we need there.[1]

Mr. Hilton could not be more correct.  We have a badly broken defense department that appears to be irredeemably corrupt.  The procurement process, in particular, stands out as an example of fraud, corruption, and incompetence.  Hilton’s suggestion that a strong businessman is required, as opposed to a former military officer, is worth serious consideration.
 
Without offering an opinion one way or the other, the suggestion that Elon Musk would make a good Secretary of Defense merits serious contemplation not so much for the idea of Musk, personally, but for the idea of a strong, successful businessman.
 
President-elect Trump has an opportunity to make a good start at reforming the Defense Department.  No one can completely fix it in just four years but a good start could be made by selecting the right SecDef and, if I might add a personal suggestion, firing every flag officer and starting over with the uniformed leadership.  Trump had an opportunity to do this his first term and failed by failing to recognize the depth of corruption and taking ruthless action.  Hopefully, he’s learned lessons and will do better this time around.
 
 
Update:
 
As of this moment, it’s being reported that Trump has selected Pete Hegseth as his nominee for Secretary of Defense.  If so, and if confirmed, Mr. Hegseth would be the polar opposite of the type of person described by Mr. Hilton.  Hegseth is a former National Guard officer who has served in Guantanamo, Iraq, and Afghanistan while rising to the rank of Major.  He has been heavily involved in politics and veteran’s affairs.
 
He has demonstrated a dedication to the welfare of veterans and the good of the service.  What he lacks is any experience running a massive organization like the DoD.  The key will be whether he recognizes this and can surround himself with people who can run an organization.  If so, his job will be to steer them in the right direction.
 
I have to be honest, this is a disappointing pick although the potential for success is certainly present.  Firing every flag officer would be a good start for him!
 
 
 
Note:  This is a military leadership discussion.  I will not allow political comments.  Fair warning.


 
________________________________

 
[1]Steve Hilton speaking on Fox Outnumbered, 12-Nov-2024, transcribed by ComNavOps

Dumbing Down ... and down ... and down

The dumbing down continues.

 

 

The Army is tossing its mandate for potential recruits to have a high school diploma or GED certificate to enlist in the service … [1]

 

 

Nothing else to say.

 

 

 

 

 

_____________________________________

 

[1]Military.com website, “Army Drops Requirement for High School Diploma Amid Recruiting Crisis”, Steve Beynon, 24-Jun-2022,

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/06/24/army-drops-requirement-high-school-diploma-amid-recruiting-crisis.html

Speak And Remove All Doubt

There’s an old and very wise proverb that goes,

 

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool then to speak and remove all doubt.

 

After reading the latest memo from SecDef Austin, it is clear that he is in the process of removing all doubt.

 

Austin issued a memo to the Department of Defense in which he outlined his priorities.  The memo has no redeeming value, whatsoever, and removes all doubt about the SecDef.  He lists three top level priorities (1):

 

• Defending the Nation
• Take Care of Our People
• Succeed through Teamwork

 

Well, that pretty much says nothing but let’s see what Austin's more detailed priorities reveal:

 

 

Defending the Nation

 

Defeat Covid-19 – Austin has this to say about the virus,

 

The greatest proximate challenge to our Nation’s security is the threat of COVID-19.

 

I’m sorry but that’s garbage and patently false.  The virus has certainly disrupted our economy [well, the virus hasn’t, it was the media driven panic frenzy that led to the draconian measures which disrupted our economy – none of which had any positive impact on the virus] but it is not a threat to national security.  That’s not even remotely true.  For 99% of infected people, the virus is just a nuisance and for a very large percentage, it is asymptomatic.  This virus is barely worse than the common flu.

 

Prioritize China as the Pacing Threat – I’m on board with this although Austin reduces the topic to a PowerPoint cavalcade of nearly incomprehensible buzzwords,

 

We will ensure that our approach toward China is coordinated and synchronized across the enterprise to advance our priorities, integrated into domestic and foreign policy in a whole-of-government strategy, strengthened by our alliances and partnerships, and supported on a bipartisan basis in Congress. (1)

 

Address Advanced and Persistent Threats – This appears to be addressing the remaining threats of Russia, Iran, NKorea, and terrorism.  That’s great but, unfortunately, the method of addressing those threats would appear to be appeasement,

 

… using all of our tools to lower the risk of escalation with our adversaries … (1)

 

You don’t address enemies by doing everything you can to ‘lower the risk of escalation’.  That’s the definition of appeasement.  You address enemies by demonstrating that you have the courage, will, and capability to crush them and then you put that determination and capability into action from time to time so as to impart a bone-deep lesson.

 

Innovate and Modernize – The scary part of this priority is,

 

Where necessary, we will divest of legacy systems and programs that no longer meet our security needs, while investing smartly for the future. (1)

 

This is the same failed policy we’ve been pursuing of abandoning firepower in pursuit of some magical offset that will grant us victory through technology and ignores our enemy’s plans and capabilities.  For example, the Marines have dropped legacy tanks in pursuit of some kind of magic hidden outpost where they will perform anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare in some unexplained, invisible manner.

 

Tackle the Climate Crisis – Setting aside the utter lack of proof that there is such a thing as climate crisis (go study historical climate cycles dating back millions of years and you’ll see that we’re not experiencing anything noteworthy), it is not the job of the military to solve a climate issue.  This is a betrayal of the military’s responsibility to the nation.

 

 

Take Care of Our People

 

Grow Our Talent – This is just PowerPoint garbage.

 

Build Resilience and Readiness – This would be a great priority except that it doesn’t mean what it says.  Here’s what it really means,

 

We maintain and enhance force readiness and develop the capabilities we need to protect America when we fully embrace a diversity of backgrounds, experiences, and thought. (1)

 

This is diversity and social engineering masquerading as a military goal.  Readiness is a function of repair depots, maintenance, training, etc., not diversity. 

 

Ensure Accountable Leadership – Well this one is already out the window.  If there was any accountability, Austin would be gone after penning this piece of garbage.  Instead, this is all about political removal of conservative beliefs.

 

… working to stamp out extremism … (1)

 

 

Succeed Through Teamwork

 

Join Forces with Allies and Partners – This is the completely discredited concept of sharing the military responsibility so that we don’t have to maintain as strong a military and can redirect our funding to social programs.  The Thousand Ship Navy was a failed example of this.

 

Partnership with Our Nation - ?????  Partner?????  Would the military 'partner' with someone else?  Are they taking bids from various countries?  This is some kind of garbage about … well … I really don’t know what this is other than it’s a waste of the paper it was written on.

 

Unity Within DoD – More compete meaningless gibberish.

 

 

 

Conclusion

Well, there you have it … the defining tome from your top military figure.  Impressive, huh?  I would have a hard time intentionally writing a more worthless piece of garbage and Austin meant this to be serious.  I had to check to see if it was April Fool's Day but, sadly, it wasn't.  Almost none of the memo addressed warfighting, the DoD’s main responsibility, and what little touched on it was so corrupted by social engineering and utter gibberish as to be incomprehensible and worthless.  As worthless a document as I’ve seen. 

 

SecDef Austin has spoken and removed all doubt.

 

 

 

_________________________________

 

(1)USNI News website, “SECDEF Lloyd Austin’s Message to the Force”, 4-Mar-2021,

https://news.usni.org/2021/03/04/secdef-lloyd-austins-message-to-the-force

The Real Aircraft Readiness Rates

I’m sure you all recall the memo issued by then Secretary of Defense Mattis in Sep 2018 that mandated that F-35 and F-18 aircraft would achieve readiness rates of 80% or greater by the end of 2019 (see, “You Will Comply”)?  How did that work out?  Well, in a miracle for the ages, less than 6 months after that memo was issued the Navy reported that Super Hornet readiness had jumped from the 50% mark, where it had been mired for several years due to parts shortages, personnel shortages, and other systemic problems, to as high as 76% despite all the same problems still existing.  Did that seem plausible?  Of course not.  Systemic problems don’t disappear in less than 6 months and huge backlogs of idled aircraft don’t suddenly become ready.  It was obvious that someone was playing reporting games and manipulating the data.

 

Still, the Navy continued to report high readiness rates, claiming to have exceeded the 80% mark.(2)

 

Here’s what I posted when the Navy announced their miraculous improvement:

 

Years of maintenance manpower shortages, higher than expected corrosion and problems, chronic spare parts shortages, depot backlogs, funding shortages, etc., all cured in less than 6 months by a single memo. 

 

Do you think readiness is unchanged and we’re just pencil-whipping and gun-decking the readiness reports?  Before you answer, consider all the Navy fraudulent statements and practices (lapsed certifications, acceptance trial waivers, fraudulent shock trial success claims, and hundreds of other examples) that we’ve exposed on this blog alone.  Now, let me repeat the question … Do you really think readiness surged that much in 5 months or less or is it unchanged and the Navy is just pencil-whipping the readiness reports? (1)

 

 

The GAO has now come out with a report on military aircraft readiness and it confirms what ComNavOps knew to be true – that the Navy was falsifying readiness reports.

 

The table below shows the GAO’s data for readiness of Navy aircraft during the 9 year period FY2011 - FY2019, inclusive.  GAO assessed readiness by comparing the aircraft’s mission capable rate (MCR) to the MCR goal established by the Navy.  Unfortunately, the MCR goals for each aircraft have been withheld from the GAO report as the information is considered sensitive.  Typically, MCR goals are on the order of 70%.

 

Note:  Mission Capable is the ability to perform any one of the aircraft’s notional missions.  This is the lowest possible form of readiness.  Fully Mission Capable is the highest level of readiness and the only one that we should be using – an aircraft is either ready to fly any mission or it is not ready.  MCR is often little more than the ability to take off and is of no use in assessing true combat readiness.

 

 

Aircraft	Number of Years Readiness Goal Was Met
F/A-18A-D (Navy)	1 of 9
F/A-18E-F (Navy)	0 of 9
F-35C (Navy)	2 of 7
F-35B (Marine)	1 of 7
F/A-18A-D (Marine)	0 of 9

 

 

 

 

Note that the Navy claimed that the Super Hornet readiness had exceeded 80% for the Super Hornet which would have likely easily surpassed whatever its readiness goal is.  Despite this, GAO, with access to real data, found that the Super Hornet never exceeded its goal. 

 

From the GAO report which addressed the SecDef Mattis memo and the Super Hornet and F-35 readiness,

 

We found that none of these aircraft had achieved the 80 percent mission capable  goal … (3, p.11)

 

The Navy publicly reported in late September 2019 that it had met the Secretary’s 80 percent mission capable goal for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler. Our analysis showed that mission capable rates generally did improve for these Navy systems over the course of fiscal year 2019, including meeting the 80 percent mission capable rate at particular points of time in fiscal year 2019. However, we found that none

of these aircraft achieved the mission capable goal when mission capable rate data were averaged for each day in fiscal year 2019. (3, p.12)

 

 

There you have it, the real readiness rates and they’re the same as they’ve always been – not ready!

 

 

 

_________________________________

 

(1)Navy Matters blog, “You Will Comply”, 10-Apr-2020

 

(2)USNI News website, “Navy Surpasses 80% Aircraft Readiness Goal, Reaches Stretch Goal of 341 Up Fighters”, Megan Eckstein, 25-Sep-2019,

https://news.usni.org/2019/09/25/navy-surpasses-80-aircraft-readiness-goal-reaches-stretch-goal-of-341-up-fighters

(3)Government Accountability Office, “Weapon System Sustainment”, GAO-21-101SP, Nov 2020

Esper and Rumsfeld

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld  (1975-1977 and 2001-2006) single-handedly instituted the policy of transformationalism whereby he forced the military to attempt to skip ahead a generation of technology development and to reject any weapon programs, developments, or upgrades that he didn’t deem sufficiently transformational.  This was, arguably, the beginning of the US shift from a focus on strategy to a focus on technology.  In the event, history has passed its judgment and found transformationalism to be a failure – one whose reach has negatively impacted even weapon systems being brought on line today. 

 

The purpose of this post is not to examine Rumsfeld or his failed philosophy but, instead, to examine the current Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, in light of the Rumsfeld experience.  Huh?  How are the two related?  Let’s see.

 

Let’s start by examining a speech SecDef Esper gave on 16-Sep-2020 at the RAND corporation.(1)

 

What is Esper’s main focus?  He states it, clearly, himself:

 

I made clear that my highest priority would be the irreversible implementation of the NDS [ed. National Defense Strategy].

 

This strategy tells us that to be successful, we must follow three lines of effort: first, enhance our lethality and readiness across the force; second, strengthen our alliances and build partnerships; and third, reform the department to align our highest -- our resources with our highest priorities. (1)

 

Okay, that’s pretty generic but not terribly objectionable.  What are his somewhat more specific goals?  Esper cites a few goals he refers to as ‘lines of effort’.

 

Our first line of effort aims to maintain our warfighting advantages and continue outpacing the competition when it comes to lethality and readiness. To modernize our capabilities, we have successfully secured funding for game-changing technologies such as artificial intelligence, hypersonics, directed energy, and 5G networks. We have also made significant progress recapitalizing our strategic nuclear triad.

 

Our second line of effort builds on our relationships with other Nations, an asymmetric strategic advantage that no rivals can match.

 

Our third line of effort drives us to reform the department for greater performance and effectively manage our Fourth estate, which includes organizations such as the Defense Logistics Agency. (1)

 

Um … so … Esper believes we’ll be successful because of AI, networks, relationships, and the Fourth Estate (whatever he means by that since he lumps a non-media group in with it).  Where was any mention of combat firepower?

 

Esper might be just a little overconfident.  He says,

 

 I want to make clear that China cannot match the United States when it comes to naval power. Even if we stopped building new ships, it would take the PRC years to close the gap when it comes to our capability on the high seas.

 

Ship numbers are important, but they don’t tell the whole story.

 

They do not address the types of ships and the capabilities of the vessels being counted; the skill of the crews that operate them; the prowess of the officers that lead them; or the ways in which we fight and sustain them…just to name a few. (1)

 

Given the demonstrated collisions, groundings, surrenders, etc. one has to realistically assess the ‘prowess of the officers’ and the ‘skill of the crews’ as being decidedly lacking.  That being the case, it calls into question his assessment that ‘China cannot match the United States’ but let’s set that aside and move on.

 

What does Esper have to say about the Navy and its fleet structure?

 

That said, to compete in a 21st century high-end fight, we will need a future fleet that optimizes the following operational attributes: first, distributed lethality and awareness; second, survivability in a high intensity conflict; third, adaptability for a complex world; fourth, ability to project power, control the seas and demonstrate presence; and fifth, capability to deliver precision effects at very long ranges. (1)

 

Again, note that of his five operational attributes, none are directly related to firepower and only one or two are even indirectly related to firepower.

 

Now, the million dollar question and the heart of this post … how will Esper implement his vision?

 

This fleet will be made up of more and smaller surface combatants; optionally-manned, unmanned, and autonomous surface and subsurface vehicles; unmanned carrier-based aircraft of all types; a larger and more capable submarine force; and a modern strategic deterrent. (1)

 

We already knew this but there it is in plain English.  He wants to convert the Navy from traditional firepower to small, weak, unmanned vessels and unmanned aircraft.  He also mentions a larger submarine force, which is commendable, but I suspect he’s referring to the large displacement unmanned undersea vehicle (LDUUV), which the Navy has already begun the acquisition process for, rather than conventional submarines.

 

Taking all of the above statements from Esper, we see that he wants to move the Navy towards networks, AI, directed energy, hypersonics, unmanned ships and aircraft, and distributed operations.  What’s utterly lacking is firepower!

 

This is what I want to consider, today.  SecDef Esper is pushing the military and the Navy down a path of networks, unmanned, and data as a substitute for firepower.  SecDef Rumsfeld pushed the military and the Navy down a path of technological leaps that were simply not reasonable or feasible.  Do you get an eerie sense of similarity?  Both ignore(d) routine firepower in an attempt to ‘leap ahead’ on the technology development curve to gain an illusory advantage.  History has passed judgment on Rumsfeld and transformationalism.  Are we seeing the same judgment in the process of being passed on Esper?  A decade or so from now, will we look back and deem networks to be a failed effort and rue our lack of firepower due to the focus on data instead of explosives?  Is Esper the next Rumsfeld?  History will decide but it’s not looking good, at the moment.

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________________

 

(1)US Department of Defense website, transcript of speech at RAND Corporation, 16-Sep-2020,

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Speeches/Speech/Article/2350362/secretary-of-defense-speech-at-rand-as-delivered/