Here's Why the Navy's New Budget is Dangerously Low
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.ย. 2024
- Commander Bryan McGrath, USN (REt.) returns to the channel to explain why the U.S. Navy's latest budget submission is dangerous because of how it fails to either address current operational tasking or meet the threat posed by China in the coming years.
Subscribe to THE MOOCH REPORT (this channel's free weekly behind-the-scenes update) here: eepurl.com/hDfbsj
Support this channel by using the SUPER THANKS (heart icon above) or by becoming a Patron at / wardcarroll
Buy one or all three of the books in the PUNK'S TRILOGY, Ward's popular first three novels about life a Tomcat squadron, at www.usni.org/p....
Also available in KINDLE format here: www.amazon.com...
And as an audiobook here:
PUNK'S WAR: www.audible.co...
PUNK'S WING: www.amazon.com...
PUNK'S FIGHT: www.amazon.com...
Get official channel gear at my-store-b7f9c...
Subscribe to Bryan McGrath's "Conservative Wahoo" substack here: conservativewa...
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.6 (2/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GgeGQOP10RQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Nothing better on TH-cam for military matters from the big picture perspective.
pass there 1970's chicken 🐓hacks, Monroe is foundation doctrine usa 🇺🇸 doesn't need a french forever foreign leaguen or more airplanes/aircraft-carrier probably has to much as is for defending lower 48 but is definitely lacking BB62 and heavy gun-boats and armour/something that can take hits/fire
hello red-scare tactics 🤦🏻♂ definitely pass for me
While serving on Enterprise undergoing a yard period at Newport News, I was involved in the keel laying ceremony for Eisenhower in August of 1970.
USS Eisenhower was laid down in Aug. 1970, launched in Oct. 1975 & commissioned in Oct. 1977. Almost 461/2 years of service !
What worry about is. when these ships are sunk. Can they be replaced. I dont think America can build Carriers.
Man, 416 divided by 2 months.
Quite the history.
@@aaronwilkinson8963seeing as they’re currently building two I’m not sure I follow you.
@@aaronwilkinson8963 Your bot speaks English poorly.
@spartancrown They are already built but they keep breaking down. One of them is called HMS queen Elizabeth
“Managed decline” Perfect wording and goes for the entire country
Not the whole country. Our billionaires are richer than ever. Americans are cowards by allowing themselves to be robbed cold blooded by such mediocre people.
Sequestrations didn't help either.
Infiltration by Mexico...
Except the country is in an unmanaged decline.
Commander McGrath was an amazing XO on CG-59 USS Princeton. That was the best command team I served under.
Good reporting on the show
The Princeton that destroyed records of UAP activity?
@knoahbody69 That occurred, what I believe was 2 command teams after Commander McGrath left the ship. It was after I left the ship, but I know people who were involved in that situation. I can tell you this it was not ship's company that "destroyed" any records.
That sounds awesome. That means he must be a regular guy. Cares about his sailors
May God bless your family , thank you for your service and sacrifice. I made the sign of the Cross and said a prayer for your continued success and welfare. Thank you sir.
It isn’t just the Active Duty Navy that’s having recruitment and retention problems, but the one in five U.S. Navy ships that have the prefix USNS and are manned by Civil Service personnel (CIVMAR’s) are having trouble in that area as well. Without Logistics, the rest of the Navy won’t be able to function very well.
Outside of the super fantastic information provided. Wards dog looks to be the most relaxed individual in the room…
Lol, has got a nice manspread going. A phrase I hate, but we're talking about a dog here lol
I joined the Navy in 1974. As an organization we were undermanned, overworked, retention was in the toilet, it was hell. Sad that we are in this situation once again. (Read his substack, great stuff)
Ward, excellent discussion, I hope leadership sees what you and CDR McGrath so clearly laid out.
Checked into my first squadron as a newly winged ensign in late 1980. They had just returned from a nine month deployment on USS Constellation (CV-64) that had been mostly MODLOC’d on “Gonzo Station” in the North Arabian Sea as a result of the Iranian Hostage Crisis and “regional instability.” Few port calls, tales of powdered milk, powdered eggs and bug juice made with “JP-5 Water,” morale was low. Of the lieutenants in the squadron, one stayed on active duty, although he changed communities. The rest got out. You can flex and “suck it up” for a time, but there has to be relief in sight and there wasn’t. Antiquated aircraft and ships that couldn’t accomplish their missions, limits on flight hours and weapons expenditures, high OP/PERS tempo with no relief on the horizon all led to retention issues and a downward spiral that Secretary Lehman and leadership saw and set about fixing with the “600 Ship Navy.”
We’re no longer facing the Soviet threat, but I’d argue the challenge now is infinitely more complex. Who do you plan on fighting? China? Iran and its surrogates? ISIS? Russia? Not to make light of a serious discussion, but it’s like a global, high stakes version of Whack-a-Mole.
Thought provoking as always Mooch, thanks for taking the time!
I trust Ward and Commander McGrath's analysis and experience over ANYBODY in The Beltway or Washington. Thanks, guys for another timely and informative episode!!!
Good stuff, old issue, as the decades go past they have different aircraft
o don't this mistake/mindset got the USA 🇺🇸 into nam and more than one gulf/Muslim-war including afaganistan, a place were national's go to die aka no-one have won a war with them ever, and now you're on team let's pick a fight with USSR/Russian's ethic groups 🤦🏻♂ how dumb are people in the western world? hopefully not napoleon or 3d-rike stupid or stubbornness, best the usa vs putan can get based off historical knowledge and figures is a draw/stalemate aka no-one win's but more likely outcome is bankrupt USA 🇺🇸 and losing like japan's ww2 happened
The future is impossible to predict. When I was in the Navy we were part of one of the first task forces sent to the Persian Gulf with the USS Kitty Hawk during the 1974 Arab oil embargo. Ironically one of our liberty ports of call was Bandar Abbas, Iran.
Agree, but regardless of the time it is super clear that the Navy needs a massive upgrading and ship building programs. After all we aren't fighting the Flintstones in the future like we did the last 30 years.
And this interview gives you deep dive, granted most of this is the same arguments of my entire life and I'm 41, but so many people just don't know. For example the navy hast been able to replace air craft fleet because the Airforce never bought enough aircraft, not only for the Airforce but the navy as a hole. Yesterday we were talking F-18 super hornets for the navy but even the Airforce never bought enough F-18 for the Airforce, so you can't even upgrade them and send them to the Navy. Today's argument is the same one, just a different aircraft. The Navy want X amount of F-35s once again to replace several 30 and 40 plus year old Aircraft and it doesn't look like it going to happen.
We're a professional military everyone along the chain makes a professional salary with full benefits, Then there is Maintenance cost which also includes spare parts cost. We also have boot camp. We have R&D, we have new Procurement the buying of missiles and bullets and so on, than you have a budget for ship building which is tiny.
All that to say with both current and recent events anyone should be able to see if since October in the Red Sea if the Navy and Airforce used 300 missiles/ bombs and we know some of that was Interceptors which we have the lease amount of that we aren't even replenishing our arsenal at used levels. This doesn't even cover Ukraine or our 30 years of playing around in the deserts.
America going back to the 1800s nickname was the Arsenal Of Democracy, we aren't anywhere near that today, but as a 5 year goal it would be nice to get back to that place, in the single most important category Defense of our nation.
True, but more that any other service, the Navy can adapt to changing troubles. A single U.S. carrier can transfer on of the largest air forces on the planet to any region on the planet at 30 mph.
@@Inkling777 There is ZERO picking favorites, they all need money to achieve the same future objectives of the future
The U.S. heavily supported Iran under the Shah. Shortly after 1979 the U.S. pivoted to support Iraq against Iran.... Then there's operation Ajax and the foreign meddling in Iran that in part led to the revolution of 1979... Talk about a cluster. The Navy can't even get existing projects finished because the prime contractors have no incentive to deliver on time or anywhere near on budget. LCS class debacle, SIOP cost overruns, Constellation class delays despite being based on existing ships... On and on. The American people are being robbed by prime contractors and the military brass are complicit.
@@sshumkaer 2 billion and I could secure the entire ocean with semi autonomous drones, with multi-decade lifespans.
USS Eisenhower is almost 50 years old, I can't believe it's already that old.
I made the maiden Med deployment aboard Ike in 79. It was six months long. We had 13 deployable carriers plus the Lexington for training.
Yeah time flies lol
@@robzilla60 great experience
I just love it when I get a notification that Ward has posted. Get in!!
Sounds like some action is required, thanks for the update WD. Read Baloo's story and am a bit soggy eyed, as well. very nice tribute to him from the commander. Great beasts are always difficult to say goodbye to and it reminded me of the times we had to make those decisions. Carry on.
Mooch....I can tell that your dog feels happy, safe and loved. Informative video as always. Kudos.
Want to add Ward how much I enjoy your channel and the information you continue to share.
When supervisors and commanders and admirals ignore the needs of their troops. When a potential career sailor wants a career enhancing position or promotion. When at twenty years service time they retire rather than staying in. When you return from deployment and get almost no time off and away from the ship. All these actions gut the skilled manning the navy needs. Then the newest shiniest equipment won’t get properly maintained or used as it should be.
So sad , but to True
Why would we want a bunch of 20+ year people outside of the admirals and generals? That would slow promotions all the way down the chain and make it harder to implement new technology and ideas.
@@adamyoung9132 … not my point. The navy is notorious for treating junior sailors like crap. Along with promoting the officers who are happy to continue the tradition of treating people like crap. The only believable part of the Top Gun Maverick is the douchebag LT in the first movie made it too Admiral
@@adamyoung9132 There is No substitute for Actual experience and knowlege
@@henrycarlson7514 it's called innovation
The real reason that it cost so much is that these private Companies are charging the DOD an arm and a leg for everything. The US Government needs to demand these Companies to lower the cost for the US. They can charge the regular price to overseas purchases
you're taking the fun outta the game. LOL. The goal is to get rich off the gov't taxpayer!
It also sounds like maybe we're building way too few of each item, especially the smaller ones like missiles. There is understandably enormous cost to design, develop, and build manufacturing capacity for the first unit of any model. What if instead of 25 Tomahawks we ordered 250, 2500, or 25,000, all under a program where govt manufacturing cost experts (not private profit corps) were overseeing the mass production buildout. Ordering in such small quantities is basically inviting the contractor to barely even consider optimizing for unit cost or production capacity, while in a real war that very much matters. (I also worry that in Ward's summary we didn't hear anything about mass offensive and defensive drone fleets, maybe/hopefully because that's classified, not because we're sleeping on it.)
Exactly! I’m just a lowly taxpayer and I’m over here listening to this going “ok, I get it, we need more ships and all that. Where did the $68 Billion a year for the last twenty fiscal years go then? Why do we need to keep throwing more $$$ at the problem and why are we criticizing the folks who are saying wait a minute, maybe we already have the budget we need and we can reallocate some of the $$ we already give them.” I understand it costs money to be the top military in the world. But we are how many multiples of the annual spending of all our adversaries combined and somehow we are still worried they will beat us in a peer conflict? How is that possible if not for immense waste, and why can’t we fix THAT problem? I’m just not understanding it.
The requirement to underbid competitors has been driving real costs up for 150 years. For some reason we just refuse to learn.
We should threaten these companies with nationalization. Then the country becomes the most important shareholder....
What's crazy is the budget is nowhere near how much the us spent during the cold war. It was closed to 1.3 trillion with today's money/inflation.
There was ZERO increase in this budget
Too many corporations paying next to zero tax. The coffers are empty unless they keep extending the debt books upwards and upwards. Any decent president would be looking to increase tax receipts from the corporations and the super rich to make up the difference.
@@TheChodax they could but they don't want to lose their pocket money and upset them.
Inflation-adjusted, the FY2024 defense budget is slightly higher than the FY1987 budget, which was the peak of the Reagan buildup ($850B for 2024, versus $304B 1987 which inflation-adjusts to $830B in 2024 dollars) .
You're thinking of defense spending as a percentage of GDP, a measure by which the FY2024 budget is substantially lower than the FY1987 budget (about 3% versus about 6%).
Now the question becomes, how much of this gulf (and the gulf between capabilities then versus capabilities now given we're still spending enormous sums) is due to truly awful procurement and maintenance and manning decisions made by the brass, versus awful decisions made by politicians, versus industry consolidation (which naturally reduces bang-for-the-buck since there is less competition), versus industry graft.
@@kaeseesa very significant portion of it is spent on boondonggles and keep senators happy. That money could go much further if spent properly.
Dude, your videos are awesome, keep it real
This is one of those cases where every direction you look mistakes are the rule, not the exception. One cannot continue to deal with the "right now" and not fund the future for long, because the future becomes the right now...sooner than ya think. I spent a lot of my career figuring out how to do a heck of a lot more with a heck of a lot less...less gear, less people, less time, less training, less of everything but missions. We got more of those. This doesn't end well. We know that because we can look at history and see where we have made these mistakes before...a frustrating and downright dangerous path.
it can only make sense if you are expecting a hot war in the very immediate future
Is that a horse on your couch? Ha ha, ha. Nice touch, love it.
Saw that I was immediately at ease.
Shout out to the fuzzy buddy maxin and relaxin ❤
I don't think he moved an inch 😂
First, thank you for your service. I served on a 'CV' in the mid '70's, we had the Tomcats on board. In the '80's I also worked for a defense contractor. I'm no expert, but your assessment of our defense spending sounds right on. Scary times.
McGrath is clearly a very intelligent and diligent fellow but he doesn't seem to acknowledge that the US has over spent to the point where there are only bad budget options.
McGrath might believe that if it were true.
@@bryanmcgrath3887 I really appreciate that you spent the time to monitor this conversation about your talk. I hope you are right about the fiscal state of the country.Thank you.
The height of dissonance leading to tragedy: hear an adversary proclaim publicly they are preparing for war, observe the adversary prepare for war, watch them advance their relative combat capabilities, yet soothe ourselves that everything is okay, we can wait.
Russia invaded crimea and started a civil war in eastern ukraine in 2014 and the Ukrainians were still caught with their pants down in 2022. I can only hope we aren't betting on the chinese being a paper tiger when the end of the decade gets closer.
If they create amphibious capabilities at scale they will be read the riot act, but the outcome will not be in doubt. You're right though budget constraints unrelated to requirements is bad news for the country, especially since they are related to out of control entitlements spending
@@jyy9624 the problem is that china already has the amphibious lift capacity for a Taiwanese invasion. They build their civilian ferry's to fit military roll on roll off and have high enough ramps to be used at any conventional harbor. Not including the military vessels.
@@jonahhekmatyar yes that is worrisome if they continue and even with current capabilities. They are close to having the full range of capabilities for an amphibious assault of Taiwan. They will still lose, but no complacency
The Navy is only able to spend the budget that Congress gives them. If you think we’re not spending enough, don’t vote for politicians who passed a “Defense Fiscal Responsibility” Act last year, and especially don’t vote for clowns who think holding the FY2024 defense budget hostage 6 months over a partisan cat fight is a smart idea.
Thank you both. Very important viewpoints.
The problem is we are facing a financial cliff in this country, because our national debt is 35 trillion and our payment on that debt is almost a trillion dollars a year. Second, the cost of military hardware is so super expensive, it unreal. The Chinese can spend the same as we do and ger twice as much because of the cost of doing business in this country is the highest in the world. So were facing a loosing proposition anyway we look at it. I'm pro military but we waste too much money on projects that never get anywhere and the defenceman Industry knows it won't go anywhere and they take the money anyway. Also we left billions of dollars of equipment in Afghanistan that we could have sent part of that to Ukraine. Our goverment waste too damn much taxpayers money year after year, decade after decade.
Glad you recognize that one can only rule by projecting force through debt and waste 😞
@runswithraptors at some point in the near future, we will be unable to make the loan payments, and then we will be in default and of coarse bankrupt. At that point your government will no longer be able to provide social services such as Medicare and, for that matter, anything else. And of course, how do we pay the military? Remember what happened in Russia after the Russian government fell in the 90's.
@@runswithraptors Except what he described wasn't projecting force. It was projecting poor policy choice paired with poor execution.
@@wisenber the problems exist in the context of the US maintaining military bases across the entire globe (that's every continent my guy.) Is that not projecting force? What role do you think a global navy plays😂 Sorry I'm not military I know you guys have trouble seeing the big picture, you can get there read some more history
@@runswithraptors The problem with that assertion is ignoring that the US managed said locations (and more) for decades while also ignoring the explosion of domestic spending that did not exist during those decades.
The groundwork for the debt bomb wasn't laid until the 2008 crash fell into the "never let a disaster go to waste" category. Then the US doubled down with piling on unneeded COVID spending (after a year of ridiculously high COVID spending) paired with "green" spending to the moon.
The next decade looks to revisit the stagflation of the 1970s, except the US national debt was under 50% of GDP in the 1970s.
Talking about the age of the Ike gave me a flashback. When I was the Boilers Officer on USS Tattnall (DDG 19), in January 1978 we in Christmas leave period with half the crew gone. One Friday afternoon the Chief Engineer was called to the CO's stateroom. When he got back he told me we had orders to get underway as soon as possible and rendezvous with the Ike down in the Caribbean which was on its shakedown cruise. The story that we heard was that during an Atlantic Fleet briefing, Admiral Ike Kidd asked what destroyer was escorting Ike. The answer was that she didn't need one because she didn't have an air wing aboard. WRONG ANSWER! We recalled the crew in the local Mayport area and got underway with about 2/3 of our normal crew. I'm not sure about the other departments but in engineering we stood port and starboard watches (and didn't worry about paperwork). Our biggest shortage was mess cooks. We were also scheduled for CARRIBEX in February so when we left we didn't know if we would be back before that (as it turned out we did get back briefly). The rest of the crew was flown down to Roosevelt Roads and joined us there. Doing the math then, Ike is at least 47 years old.
Sounds like a great experience
“Managed Decline” is the perfect term. Reminds me of the British Empire after WW2.
Once again the observation is too few assets trying to cover too many tasks. Our good Cdr makes an excellent argument for "Lightning Carriers" that can fill CSG slots in areas where a full CSG capability is not needed.
TORCH OUT
Not exactly a new idea. Zumwalt proposed lower cost carriers to provide numbers and basing forward where the full carriers not needed, even using them for the routine operations and keeping the proper carriers nearer to home where would be harder to pre-emotive attack them, then surging the proper carriers out to the hotspots as required.
And that was back on 70s
One of the best arguments for the naval version of the F-35 is just that. It can operate off smaller carriers.
@@Inkling777 USAF=F-35A CTOL(conventional take off/landing, USMC=F-35B STOVL(Short Take Off Vertical Landing, USN/USMC=F-35C CATOBAR(Conventional Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery.
The problem is you can only embark a handful of -35s and/or Harriers from an amphib. And they’re not really ideal aircraft for a conflict of this magnitude.
@@Inkling777But not in useful numbers.
Thank you Ward and Bryan for this eye opening episode, it was very interesting and informative.
Maybe the low out year budget number are due the $35 Trillion debt. Also, excellent point on recruiting and retention!
As long as the Navy can waste taxpayers money on building new littoral combat ships just for the junk yard, the budget is still way too high and/or plain out way too stupid.
If they had used that money to build destroyers and back the Iowas China would become wetting themselves right now.
That was a program trying out new technology which didn't pan out. One has to do such things occasionally to advance technology. Not every program will succeed. They are killing that program as quickly as possible while making some use of the existing hulls where it makes sense to do so.
yep, we need that constelation class asap instead of more Littoral Crap Ships
@@therealuncleowen2588 Doesn't matter if it's new tech or not. It's still nonsense to buy more just to directly send em to the junk yard.
@@therealuncleowen2588 from day 1 that sold that ship as all things to all missions and anyone with half a brain could see it would never be that. Billions of dollars and years wasted. DoD has done this over and over again and throwing more money at them has never changed the behavior, only made it worse so they can now saw oh, look how bad off we are, give us a LOT more money to fill our bucket that we already acknowledge is leaking h from the bottom. Insane
I worked warfare requirements for 6 years at Lantflt. I don’t see procurement lines increasing short of a major conflict. DoD budgets are competing with servicing our expanding debt.
It was 50 years ago that I was in the Navy. I feel for my shipmates deployed. But I swell with Pride when you show us steaming.
We are the Under Cannons Generation.
More great insight as always. Thank you!
Another great interview Ward and Bryan, many thanks. The increasing use of deployment extensions are reminiscent of the Viet Nam war days with ever longer deployments and shorter turnarounds. The eventual and accumulated effects on the Navy were devastating; low retention, low morale, increased drug use, lower readiness, higher aviation mishap rates, sabotage incidents, racial turmoil, etc. It took many years to recover. Granted, those were pre- All volunteer Force days, but that won't prevent similar problems from surfacing again. Break, break, we are not really deterring the PRC in any meaningful way right now. They are getting ready to move on Taiwan when they are ready. In fact, our so called strategy is actually "don't trigger a war with the PRC" in some way. That's not deterrence.
$35T debt and growing by $1T every 100 days. Don’t disagree more assets are probably needed but the entire federal budget is bankrupting us. Fact. And, DoD Absolutley sucks at spending money wisely and efficiently, and we all know that. Easier just to ask for more
Perhaps true; however, I’d rather see the economy driven off the DoD than the $ go to China and unbalanced trade and green climate fever dream.
Like them wanting a train on the moon?
TAX all wealth, all income, go to war footing, quadruple all shipyards, weapon supply chains, implement 2 months on one off, for NATO and America.
The republic has already failed. The voters have proven incapable of balancing income and spending.
as a former DOD contracting officer, it's not that the government sucks at procurement.....the issue is the Defense Industry is an oligopoly. They set the price....little to no competition for the bigger ticket systems.
I don't want to worry you Ward but there's a very large dog mooching behind you. 😉
Always appreciate the analysis!
Given the lack of ability to fold up like its older brother, the Osprey, the Valor’s opponent, the SB-1 Defiant, could well be worth looking into by the Navy.
The interest payment on the government debt is now close to the military budget.
Ward, I love your dog photobombing this episode. It brought the biggest smile to my face today. Always welcome!
I was on IKE in the early 80s...so 40+ years ago
Must have been well built to last so long.
I was on Ike from '83-'86 as part of VF-142. Nice to come across a shipmate from those days.
@@aaronwilkinson8963 ...and insanely well maintained by well trained people
@@oldgoat142 I want to thank you for your service and sacrifice to our beautiful country. There are still millions of us out there that love our sailors. Godspeed and God bless yourself and your family.
@@xprettylightsx Thank you. I really appreciate that. May God bless you and your family as well.
When you stop building ships, you lose shipbuilding skills...ramping back up becomes extremely difficult. Those skills take years if not decades to develop.
They have shipped the industrial base to China , they have 300% more ship building capacity , we will never be able to win a major war with a peer combatant , its going to be a one shot deal , then nothing, it’s time to exit nato and any Asian defense agreements we have , trying to be the cop of the world will lead to the destruction of our Republic
Eisenhower was laid down 54 years ago and commissioned 47 years ago.
Was it the first hull of its class
@@aaronwilkinson8963 No, the Nimitz was.
@@aaronwilkinson8963 Nimitz will turn 50 next year (going by the commissioning date).
@psychohist Ofcourse they are the Nimitz class. Thanks. I think it's a testament to the people who designed and built these carriers to make them last so long. They are still the corner stone of the US military and the US strategy.
My biggest concern is that these ships can still be lost. And they can't really be replaced
@@aaronwilkinson8963 Thanks, as I was responsible for Nimitz reactor engineering for a time - though this was in the Operating Plants group, so it was more maintenance, including life extension.
We really need to keep ordering two Fords at a time to build on the Nimitzes.
Man sorry about your dog !❤ great show mooch.
Can u imagine the navy we could have if we didn’t piss away the tax payers money? And actually cracked down on contracts? Insane!
Somewhere in America, a vo-tech school is celebrating the donation of a used lawnmower engine...that was made in China with Russian steel...😑.
That could be true
And that happens from a corporate decision to increase profits since they can’t sell the products unless they can make them cheap.
When I was on Votech not too long ago we had lots of engines donated from GM and other domestic manufacturers
@@chickenfishhybrid44 praise the lord
@@chickenfishhybrid44my vo-tech got a new 69 Fairlane, that Ford turned into a "cutaway" after it had fallen off a railcar. Mechanically fine, body "kinda" damaged, mostly, cutaway.
Ward.... Consolidating prime contractors are a large part of the problem..... SIOP projected costs are billions higher per drydock site year over year based on GAO reports plus the Navy didn't even require a full cost projection.
Every major ship under construction is far behind schedule and far more expensive. How many billions are literally wasted on the LCS class debacle? The USS enterprise CVN80 is delayed 18 months. It's going to take 10 years to build. The Constellation frigates are 3 years behind despite being based on existing ships... More money isnt the solution for a cost plus procurement system when prime contactors have zero incentive to deliver on time and on budget.....
@christopho3255 *Thus the delays refueling the U. S. Navy CVAN-68 Class.* And constructing the CVBN-78 Class.
The particularities of the next conflict may be unpredictable. The outcome of failing to fund readiness...not so much.
True and all 4 branches including cost guard are short money
Sorry for your loss, Commander. 🥲
Cdmr. McGrath brilliant presentation excellent video a 4.0 Gypsy Roll.
Equipment: When was the last time the other side advertised it’s capabilities/stores/inventory!
Re Manning: Retention is as or more important than recruitment!
Am a Retired Herc driver who left the service because I was underpaid and there was no time left for a family life!
We Needed more “drivers” with enough experience to command and you don’t learn airmanship on a two month course! Takes years wearing a flying suit to accomplish!
Si vis pacem para bellum!
Our shipbuilding and repair industrial capacity is woefully inadequate to maintain parity with our "pacing threat". Our current readiness is inadequate, and our capacity to ramp it up isn't there. We need more shipyards doing construction, maintenance, and repair.
China has 300% more ship building capacity , and growing
And the new builds are seriously behind schedule.
Who can build these ships anyway.
@@aaronwilkinson8963 We have only a handful of shipbuilders in this country able to build frigate sized or larger surface combatants and submarines. These have become so specialized that asking them to build anything else only earns you a stony glare. We really don't build much of anything other than warships in this country and not enough of those to keep those yards busy enough to keep them efficient.
@robertf3479 I'm British and we managed to build a couple of futuristic aircraft carriers. Only if they worked mind you. I hear one will be mothballed and used for spare parts. Scrapped in effect. We don't have any jets to put on them any way. We sold off all our Harriers to the US marines. The truth is if we did go to war with the Russians and the Chinese and we came into range of those hypersonic missiles they have. Those carriers would be at the bottom of the ocean within a flash.
But the real truth is that they are so valuable and irreplaceable we probably wouldn't ever commit them.
@@aaronwilkinson8963 Where did you hear we are mothballing one of the carriers ? The fact you repeat the tabloid BS about having no jets to put on them causes me considerable scepticism as to your knowledge of the subject.
@Belisarius1967 Just done a Google search. There is talk of mothballing one of the carriers but the MOD Denies it. That's where I have heard it. Just because the MOD Denies something doesn't mean you should believe them. Like they need to tell us the truth.
That’s very interesting. I don’t have a naval background but understand as a retiree in public safety how this impacts the US
A multi legged creature upstaged you shortly after the opening. Dysfunctional Congress makes regular order budgeting and strategic planning impossible. Neither party has the deep subject matter expertise that the post WWII era congresses had. Committee processes have atrophied relative to the Cold War era.
Hey, at least we have a few of new, functioning (assuming the hulls have not cracked or been weakened by galvanic corrosion) LCS to use in the upcoming and current conflicts! It is nuts there are still more being built right now.
Even though it sucks big time, it's nice to see my old ship, the Eisenhower, doing what she was built to do. She's only 11 years younger than I am, (I'm 61). She was built to last. I'm proud to have once been a part of her crew.
Lol great experience I'm sure
@@sshumkaer Yes it was.
@@oldgoat142 That would have been exciting for me personally
@@sshumkaer It was for me. I was assigned to an F-14 Tomcat squadron, VF-142, which was part of carrier air wing 7 assigned to the Eisenhower. Working on a top fighter jet while on a great ship is the highlight of my younger years. It's also one of the highlights of my professional life.
@@oldgoat142 For sure, the ship is a legend and so is the Jets envoled. Totally amazing
Sir. I will be visiting the DC area at the end of April. I would relish the opportunity to buy you a coffee (or frosty beverage). I'm a 20 year retired HM1(FMF) and greatly value your frequent updates on our BELOVED Navy. I'm happy to share contact details at your leisure. Thank you sir.
Moral in all branches is the missing link. No need for new equipment if we have NO ONE competent or willing to use any equipment.
How long before the "draft?" may be the real pink elephant in the corner? or correct question at this time with three wars! or three? fronts?
It’s hard to play sandbag when you know how fast at this point technology is going forward
9+ months?? Limited port calls = I wouldn’t want my married spouse on that cruise!!
When I enlisted in '73 a 9 mo tour was standard.
And THAT is why recruitment & retention will get harder & harder
If the Navy wanted you to have a wife or husband………….
something, something about a seabag?
I met with one of the first female enlisted to serve in an aircraft carrier while going to a school near Quantico Virginia. Discovered this in our conversation about our experience in the Navy. I told her I was against this policy. She was shocked, so I went on to explain why. After discussing the advantages and disadvantages she actually agreed with me. I served at sea on six carriers. One active duty CVN65 77-81. And five east coast carriers 1985-1992as a F14 civilian radar tech rep. Times be uh changing I guess. 👍👍🥃🥃🍺🍺😎
This issue seems to have begun back in the 1990s when the USAF began to demand that married men spend duty time in Minutemen silos with a woman-two being required to launch the missiles. No opting out, even for men wanting to save already shaky marriage. And when you're talking about long carrier assignments, the problem doubles. It also becomes, "Is he/she cheating back home because he/she thinks he/she is cheating on that carrier?"
Long ago I talked to someone who'd been given 45-minutes notice to go on a six-month carrier cruise with a wife eight-months pregnant. As he told me, "I went, but from that moment on I was out of the Navy."
*Some of those who provide our military with the best service are precisely those who made deep commitments. They will leave the military rather than put their marriages and children at risk.*
Great information, thank you! I shudder to think how things might come about with such budgetary shortsightedness. Not good.
great topic and broadcast. couple of thoughts. our adversaries probably read our budget more than our congressmen/women. this emboldens the bad player. they are planning based on our posture and capability in the future. we, at least at the political level, do no planning. dod procurement is a slow slogging process. not too different from turning a large ship. things change, sometimes significantly, during the acquisition process. this adds to the complexity and cost. if you want red china controlling the supply of iphone chip production, we are headed in the right direction. most people don't understand that dod's budget affects our whole society. disclosure: worked at china lake for 39 years. r&d administration/execution for most of that time. followed the fydp page by page, not must for china lake programs, but programs that were relative/competitive to those programs. not only do we need to resupply operational inventory, but if we don't invest in r&d, the inventory does not keep up with adversarial capability. the world is a dangerous place and getting more dangerous by the day. we ignore that at our own peril.
Smaller investment often leads to higher TCO. Required underbidding to actually secure contracts always leads to cost overruns-and as underbidding gets more aggressive so do cost overruns, but as an increasing percentage of TCO. Cutting programs (like the F-22) short always increases cost-smaller economies of scale, fewer sales to allies, and longer lifetimes of legacy platforms & equipment. These are universal principles, even outside of the military.
Saw a disturbing (but limited) simulation compaison of a 140 anti-ship missile barrage from flights of Backfires against a single carrier group with full escorts.
In the 2000s version the fleet slaughters the decoys, the missiles and the Backfires without a scratch.
But in the 2025 version with hypersonic mach 5 + Kinzahlls at 100 mi, over a hundred penetrated the screen. They were just too fast to get 100% intercept even with 300 + sm5 type missiles launched in15-20 seconds.
Close in deception and ecm and towed decoy effects were NOT included, but it seems that the saturation is overwhelming. The fleet is decimated.
The fleet doctrine probably needs a complete modernization or it may not be able to perform it's mission against massive, well armed modernized land based peer adversaries.
You both touched on Very Important Mastery!!!!! We have our pants down again.... We are going to have to dig in the bank again..
Understand we are printing money we don't have.
I hope there is a solution that appears real fast.
I was fortunate when I was in the Navy back in the Eighties we went out for six months...But I am a peace time sailor.
My heart goes out to those Navy & Marine Corps who are enduring such long stretches!!!!! THANK. YOU!!!!!
NAVSEA needs to be held accountable for the FFG(x) debacle THEN talk about tossing more money at "Big Navy".
More like the LCS & DDG-1000 debacle, which forced the hand to rush-source FFG-62, which will now be THREE YEARS late because the country doesn't have a maritime strategy ergo the rapid shrinking of the shipbuilding industry, hence FFG-62 and its own problems.
@@corsair6 Those people are long retired and working for contractors. FFG(x)/FFG-62 is unfolding before our eyes.
A cousin by marriage served on Port Royal in Pearl Harbor, I was able to visit sister Chosen CG-65 in a November 1995 visit to Oahu, first time there.
The Military Industrial Complex. Always saying it’s broke.
Also the Black OPS budget. No one really knows how much money is spent in this area.
If by no one knows how much goes into BOB, it means our adversaries don't either then Bravo.
When anyone says, “military industrial complex” unironically 👀
I have a problem with Navy saying their budget too low. Everybody has the same complaint, it seems to me the military has endless supplies of money so if they're going broke... but wait there are companies that have hundreds of billions of cash sitting in their basements. Well not really but Apple, Facebook, and Google have enough surplus to fund any shortcomings with carrier groups. After all, they benefit with the Navy keeping maritime traffic open on the oceans.
I'M FOCUSED ON THE DOG, SOOOO COMFORTABLE, HE HAS HIS PRIORITIES CORRECT....
WHATS HIS NAME? SHERLOCK?
GREAT TRAIN OF THOUGHT.
GREAT SHOW.
WOULD YOU CONSIDER A VISIT TO THE USS NEW JERSY, AFTER HER CURRENT RE-FITTING IN DRY DOCK.
CURRENTLY IN DRY DOCK.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO RE CHRISTEN A US NAVY SHIIP?
A CONVENTIONAL LITTORAL CLASS OF SILENT STEALTH UNDERWATER BOAT WOULD BE ADVISABLE IF
WE LEARNED FROM LAST MEDITERRANEAN SEA GAMES AIR CRAFT CARRIERS ARE VULNERABLE TO THIS TYPE
OF SUBMARINE WITH AN ELECTRICAL DRIVE WITH CLASSIFIED "STEAM" ENGINE TO RECHARGE LI=ION
BATTERIES?
Her.
Her name is Ingrid.
I agree that a balance must be struck between mission and cost. I strongly suggest we work to adjust the mission. Realistic limitation seem to be lost on our politicians.
Only in America could a trillion dollar budget be described as defence on the cheap. Ridiculous.
@DonWan47
"Only in America could a trillion dollar budget be described as defence on the cheap. Ridiculous."
Ever look at Entitlements? THAT is 1. Where The Real Money is, 2. Talk about waste!
@@stevenwiederholt7000 Have a look at corporate welfare and tax breaks for corporations and billionaires, there’s you’re problem.
Every civilised nation has universal healthcare but you prefers people to die in poverty.
The federal govt. spent 6.1 trillion in 2023. Less than a trillion on defense. So what can we defund to shift to defense, and who is going to scream like a stuck pig when we do it. And that’s with spending a couple trillion more than revenue as it is.
@@richdurbin6146Stop giving g tax cuts to the ultra rich. For starters! That alone put y’all a trillion more in debt. You could provide everyone with decent universal health care if you actually taxed people proportionally…🙄🤦🏼♂️
@@stevenwiederholt7000 I have healthcare funded through my taxes, my country has no mass shootings, I have six weeks paid vacation, my wife has maternity leave and maternity pay, my kids go to great schools, and the police answer to the people. What do you have?
Have we explored to concept of Blue and Gold crews for our forward deployed systems?
Yes, with LCS. Didn’t work.
What use is a military in a country without borders?
I don’t know if it would make any sense economically or practically. But I always thought that the A-10 warthog would make a perfect anti-pirate platform. So I’ve always wondered why there’s not a naval version of the A-10. Just thinking out loud.
There was naval version of A-10, A-12 Avenger a plan that never went through.
This is where light carriers were so important to the Navy in the middle of the last century. They were so much cheaper to operate and could be interchanged much easier than just having Mega Carriers like we only have now. Having a more mobile force with more Task Forces available to interchange seems like it would be the way to go in today's revolving threats. Asking a dozen-ish carriers to provide security abroad, and for general upkeep, and training is starting to really show it's worse for wear on our Navy.
You're an analyst for...whom?
@@DennisTedder-wj5ln Didn't know you need to be an analyst to see obvious glaring holes in your countries military. Hence, you know, what these two Military professionals are discussing.
One of the issues with the smaller carriers is without catapult and arresting gear, the aircraft on board will have limited range. Additionally the would require the same amount of protect as a "Mega Carrier" in a hot zone, so the Navy would be using the same amount of assets defending a significantly less capable one. - However sail the smaller carrier to less hostile areas is a way to minimize reduce the burden on the larger fleet. LHA 6 and 7 can fill that role if needed.
Light Carriers don't have catapults. Without those you don't have E-2 radar planes.
Each Carrier Air Wing has 4 of them in order to provide 24hr coverage.
The problem with the mini-carriers is they're unable to launch a sizable strike package given their inherent space limitations and number of catapults. Remember USS Midway upon her retirement, only had TWO catapults, France's similarly sized but nuclear powered CdG only has two catapults. The magazine and fuel capacity of a mini-carrier, is limited requiring replenishment every 3-4 days. A mini-carrier would be conventionally powered requiring much more internal space devoted to machinery and internal duct-work, further limiting magazine depth and fuel capacity. IN short, the study to produce Ford, found that the mini-carrier has A LOT of limitations, which would require a complete rework to NAVAIR doctrine; 25-30 of these mini-carriers would be needed, in order to duplicate the current number of super carriers along with a comparable increase in auxiliaries.
Agreed with everything in this visit. Always love seeing your dog on the coach behind you!
Looks like Xi and the big guy are in tune together . And not just 10% .
We desperately need a militia of volunteers, not a restricted national guard, in the exact meaning on the constitution
the problem is the US Navy in the past 20 years got Zumwalt, LCS and Osprey while China went from 200VLS to 3000 and 0 to 3 aircraft carriers
I want a new car, but it is either that or no groceries for 3 years. I chose food, and to keep my current car in well maintained condition. There is only so much money to go around..........
Our elected officials just keep spending money and expect our Grandkids to pay it off.
@@kCI251Because most of them are there for benefits and opportunities. They don't care about your family or your culture.
It's not the same thing. There is modernization needed, that happens to platforms that can be modernized, than there are the thing's that have no use any longer, than there are the big ticket generational builds best off generational technology discovery.
You can maintain your car, but the military can't role the ball down the road like that. It's all the branches. The only thing that keeps a solider alive in the modern battfiled is expensive technology that protects them. We don't even say the Coast Guard they need new ships as well.
@kCI251 incorrect, the military has nothing to do do with your nation financial issue, it literally only makes up 16% of the nation budget.
However those 3 things that no one want to fix are bankrupting your country Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare in 2018 made up 60% of the entire national budget, it's higher today
@wayne9287 and none of thar matters, either way they have become soldiers and they are entitled to those benefits, less than 3% of the nation is military none of this is hurting the country.
These down to earth chats by ex military guys who know what's going on must be very informative to China, Russia and Iranian think tankers.
Hi Ward, is there anyway to fix a problem without throwing money at it?
Not any national security problems.
Rarely.
Depends on the problem. Shipbuilding requires money.
@@psychohist But why does the navy require the building of new LCSes that will directly go to the junk yard?
No, putting badges over deep cut doesn't heal the wond.
As mentioned in the video you can't decommissioned 29 ship and build less when the stated goal is to increase the size.
China building 4 to 6 big ticket ships per year. We can't even build 2 per year big problem
I think we're still suffering from the insane spending during the pandemic, which drove terrible inflation, which then pressured the politicians to cut back future spending. It seems that the future is in many ways asymmetric, requiring low cost options for protecting shipping lanes - a-la the Red Sea strategy. Then on top of that, you need cyber and forward naval presence to form the bulk of your deterrent. Ideally, the Europeans would take over their theater so that we could focus on these things.
In the navy there are two kinds of ships. Submarines and targets.
I see your cutie dog on the couch
Yeah - it looks a really neat dog
Is it a Setter or a big Spinnone maybe?
Smart dog, slept thru interview and got up at the end. Wonder if he heard the music due at the end of program.
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) was commissioned in 1977.
NATO countries should be ramping up weapons production, not cutting down.
They are, haven't you been following the Uk/Ru war?
@@randogame4438 I have, they are still failling to meet the target number of artillery rounds to give to Ukraine.
They are still rellying on existing artillery stocks.
@@andresilvasophisma It's almost like ramping up production takes a considerable amount of time when your country isn't on a war footing.
They are.
@@proy3 All signs point to war coming to NATO countries in the near future.
I'm disgusted, especially given all the Navy is currently doing, most especially in the Middle East while also constantly keeping the Chinese at bay AND service men and women being under so much pressure and stress that they are committing suicide at an unprecedented rate! WTF?!
That’s what happens to any budget when you decide to let inflation run wild and now all your budget goes to paying interests.
inflation was caused because of supply chain issues and shitty right wing fiscal policy.
I am extremely concerned about 11 aircraft carriers being on the bottom of the ocean ...when Sweden can produce an electric submarine that can kill a carrier and make life difficult for the rest of the group...what say you?
"More money, more money, more money ..." Ain't gonna happen gentlemen, not with this bunch we are stuck with in DC. In fact I'm looking for them to "cancel" the law Congress pushed through REQUIRING the Navy to have 11/12 carriers in the inventory and cut the number IN HALF with the rest of the fleet being cut in proportion.
It makes me feel sick.
They're doing it on purpose. Nothing that's going on is an accident. We've been sold out.
Thank you, Ward. I hope that someone of influence in the DoD is watching and learning!
Corruption
Amen brother
My son is part of Ike’s strike group. Even though I knew they’d get an extension, it still sucks to hear.
Open borders are not cheap.
Actually, they are. For employers. I also think we should close borders, but this isn't the root of the US's budget issues.