Just Make a Decision

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

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

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

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

What is the US reaction/response?
 

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

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

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

SecNav Phelan

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

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

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

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

USS Constellation to be Retired Early

In a move eerily reminiscent of the LCS, the Navy today announced the retirement of the not yet completed USS Constellation, first in its class of a new frigate.  Apparently, the Navy’s concurrency construction approach has resulted in so many unique modifications that the lead ship of the class has lost sufficient commonality with the subsequent class members to justify its retention. 

“Constellation has become such a unique, one-of-a-kind vessel that it would be cost prohibitive to operate and maintain the ship compared to its forthcoming sister ships”, explained Adm. Pete ‘Ketchum’ Inalie.  “In hindsight, we allowed too many change orders and had to make too many one-off modifications to accommodate the change requirements”, he went on to say.  “We now estimate that Constellation has only a 27% commonality with the subsequent ships of the class and that makes the ship unsustainable logistically.”
 
“We’ll complete Constellation’s construction as a means of finalizing the design and trying out new construction techniques but, ultimately, the only economically viable option is immediate retirement of the ship”, Inalie said.
 
“There is ample precedent for this move”, the Admiral stated.  “This is essentially what happened with the first LCS-1 and LCS-2 vessels.”

So much for the parent design eliminating problems, huh?  Another multi-billion dollar failure by the Navy.

 
____________________________

 
[1]Naval Industry News website, “Constellation to Retire Early”, Jacob S. Latter, 1-Apr-2025
https://navalindustryfakenews.com/constellation-pretend-retirement.com

Hypersonic Intercept … Well, Not Really

ComNavOps never ceases to be amazed at the deceptive spin (I’ll refrain from using the word fraud, in this case) put out by manufacturers, the Navy, and complicit ‘news’ sources.  As you know, the ability of defensive systems to intercept hypersonic attacking missiles is questionable.  Well here’s a headline from a Naval News website article that sounds like a piece of great news:
 
Aegis Combat System Demonstrates System’s Capability to Counter Hypersonic Threats[1]
 
A Burke class destroyer, USS Pinckney (DDG-91) conducted a successful intercept of a hypersonic missile.  Well, that certainly sounds like good news.  Aegis performed a successful intercept of a hypersonic missile.  Great!
 
However, as we read a bit further into the article, we note the following: 

The USS Pinckney (DDG 91) successfully completed Flight Test Other 40 (FTX-40), also known as Stellar Banshee, using Lockheed Martin’s Aegis Combat System to detect, track and perform an engagement against a live advanced hypersonic Medium Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM) target using a simulated SM-6 Block IAU.[1][emphasis added]

Wait, what now?  The intercept used a simulated SM-6 defensive missile????  So, in reality, all the destroyer’s Aegis system did was track the hypersonic target.  It didn’t engage.  No actual intercept occurred.
 
Well, that changes the tone of the article and essentially refutes the headline, doesn’t it?
 
So, what did the test actually accomplish?  I don’t know the test objectives but it certainly didn’t demonstrate a successful intercept.  At best, it demonstrated the ability to track a hypersonic target which we already knew we could do.  At worst, it was a purely theoretical, software exercise that proved nothing.
 
The main thing all of this demonstrates is the need for us to be very careful and diligent in our reading of articles.  Take nothing for granted.  Assume whatever you’re reading is deceptive and make sure you really understand what you’re reading.
 
Congratulations Lockheed and Navy.  You theoretically shot down a target drone with a theoretical missile.  Theoretically … good job.
 
Congratulations Naval News website.  You managed to parrot a Lockheed press release without adding any analysis or value whatsoever.  You’re a credit to news reporters everywhere.
 
 
 
_________________________________

 
[1]Naval News website, “Aegis Combat System Demonstrates System’s Capability to Counter Hypersonic Threats”, Carter Johnston, 25-Mar-2025, Lockheed Martin Press Release
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/03/u-s-navy-downs-maneuvering-hypersonic-missile-in-sm-6-block-iau-test/

Visby As The Model

ComNavOps has frequently cited the Swedish corvette Visby as the model for future WARship designs based on the extreme (compared to current standards) radar stealth of the ship.  Radar stealth, while not the be all and end all of WARship design, is, without a doubt, the minimum price of admission to the modern naval battlefield.  Stealth, alone, won’t guarantee success or survival but the absence of stealth will guarantee failure and destruction.  Visby is the only existing, functional high stealth WARship that I’m aware of.  Yes, there are other experimental prototypes that claim high stealth (Sea Shadow, for example) but they aren’t functional WARships – they’re experiments that emphasize one attribute not the entire WARship package.
 
What does it mean to call for Visby as the model for future US Navy WARship design?  Well, it doesn’t mean to make an exact copy and just add a hundred feet of length – though that would likely produce a much better ship than what we have now!  What it means is to take the conceptual attributes of the Visby and incorporate them into a clean sheet design.  However, even that is not the end of it.  Visby, while decently (not great) equipped and armed for a corvette, lacks many attributes that a high end WARship will need for the future naval battlefield.  So, what should we take from Visby and what do we need to add? 

 

Visby

Stealth – Visby’s radar stealth is due in large measure to its angular, uninterrupted shape with very few protuberances.  Compare Visby’s look to our latest Burkes and the Constellation and you’ll instantly see just how obsolete the Burkes and Constellations are in this regard.  They’re jokes and will stand out on the battlefield like the radar beacons they are.  Several decades ago, the Burke was notable for its stealth but that time is long since passed.
 
Electromagnetic Stealth – Radar stealth is not enough, by itself.  We need extreme emissions control across the entire spectrum.  Not a single stray electron can be emitted if a ship hopes to survive.  Visby may or may not have this – I suspect not.
 
Acoustic Stealth – This is how you gain a degree of immunity from submarines.  A ship cannot allow any avoidable noise to escape.  Note that this likely means downgrading other attributes such as speed (no giant waterjet trumpets – looking at you, LCS).  I have no idea to what extent, if any, Visby has this.
 
Visual Stealth – This is an ignored aspect and we need to incorporate modern coatings and processes (electrochemically reactive coatings, for example).  Old fashioned camouflage, adapted to disrupt optical seekers, is necessary and we’re not talking about the idiotic, crew-designed camo schemes on the LCS.  Visby does not have this, at all.
 
Infrared Stealth – Modern ships cannot emit a significant infrared signature.  Active cooling systems are mandatory and engine exhaust must be significantly cooled even is this means downgrading performance (underwater exhaust, for example, which creates backpressure and decreases engine performance).  The current nuclear washdown systems, adapted to infrared cooling, would be a good start towards heat signature management.  Non-heat absorbing coatings and materials should be developed.  Visby does not have this.
 
Weapons Density – We’ve talked at length about the extremely sparse weapons density on modern ships and Visby is as guilty of this as anyone.  We need to load the new ship with weapons appropriate for its size and purpose.  To offer one ballpark example, no major WARship should sail without a minimum of 8 close in weapon system (the Burkes have 1 – what a joke).
 
UAV – We’ve talked at length about ships needing to be able to operate many dozens of small, stealthy UAVs for situational awareness.  This means the ship needs a small catapult/launcher of some sort, a recovery mechanism, and storage for many dozens of UAVs.  Visby has no such capacity.
 
Electronic Warfare – Todays EW is a joke.  We need ten times the capacity, antennae, power, and sensitivity of existing SLQ-32/SEWIP systems.  We also need to emphasize offensive/active EW, not just detection and defensive.  Again, this means output power.  Visby does not have this.
 
Optical/Passive Sensors – To emit is to die.  The modern WARship’s sensors must be optical/passive and incorporate automated search/tracking and fire control … in other words, an optical/passive Aegis system.  Visby does not have this.
 
Range of Weapons – The modern trend towards nothing but VLS missiles is idiotic.  Naval warfare demands flexibility which demands a wide range of weapons.  The modern ship needs missiles, of course, but it also needs large caliber guns (appropriate for its size and role), medium caliber guns, and small caliber guns, heavy torpedoes, ASW RBUs, small anti-drone weapons, lasers (because, they’re just around the corner of being ready, right??), etc.  Visby does not have this to an effective degree.
 
 
Conclusion
 
It is obvious from the preceding discussion that Visby is the only logical starting point for modern WARship design but it is not the end point.  It lacks many of the required attributes for a survivable, effective WARship.  Think of the Visby as the USS Monitor - it’s a great first step towards a truly modern WARship but nowhere near the end product of the required development.

USS Constellation Update

The Navy’s new frigate, the USS Constellation, is now expected to deliver 3 years late, or more (spoiler alert!  It will be more!).  What’s going wrong?  Let’s get an update.
 
 
Design
 
The Constellation contract was awarded in April 2020 which means the design work began more than 5 years ago and is still nowhere near complete.  That’s astounding.  Over 5 years to generate a design and it still isn’t complete.
 

… the U.S. Navy had to significantly modify the design to meet U.S. survivability and growth margin standards.
 
Speaking at the Naval Institute’s Defense Forum Washington event, Fincantieri Marinette Marine CEO Mark Vandroff said the Navy and the shipyard underestimated the complexity of altering the design.[2]

The entire point of the so-called parent design approach was exactly to avoid significant design changes and yet the Navy ignored that philosophy and instituted extensive changes.
 
Concurrency and Schedule
 
As we’ve seen with every acquisition program in recent years, concurrency (simultaneous design and construction) always causes cost and schedule havoc.  Despite this repeated, soul-deep lesson, the Navy opted for concurrency, yet again, beginning construction with only partial design plans.  Predictably (well … predictable by everyone except the Navy), this has caused schedule problems among other issues, with the ship now scheduled to deliver more than three years late.
 

The Navy’s decision to commence construction before completing the design has led to significant schedule slippages.[1]

Cost
 
As always, the Navy’s cost estimates have proven fraudulently underestimated.
 

Initially, the estimated cost for the first ship was around $1.28 billion, with subsequent ships expected to cost approximately $1.05 billion each. However, these estimates have proven to be overly optimistic. The actual costs have increased significantly, with some estimates suggesting that the final cost per ship could be as high as $1.6 billion. This 40% increase in costs has raised concerns about the program’s affordability and sustainability.[1]

Actually, those costs aren’t even true.  The Congressional Research Service Feb 2021 report notes,
 

The Navy’s FY2021 budget submission estimated that subsequent ships in the class will cost roughly $940 million each in then-year dollars.[emphasis added][2]

Weight
 

The weight of the ships has increased by over 10% from the initial estimates. This weight growth is attributed to design decisions and the challenges of adapting a foreign design to meet U.S. Navy requirements.[1]

Unfortunately, the Navy is now looking at reducing or eliminating other capabilities in order to compensate for the weight increase.  It is almost certain that the range and speed requirements will be downgraded among other detrimental changes.
 
Workforce
 

The shipyard is reportedly a “few hundred” workers short, which has contributed to delays in the construction schedule.[1]

Come on, now.  It’s not as if the builder didn’t know how many workers they had when the bid the project.  If they’re short of workers now, they certainly knew they were short of workers when they bid.  This is, again, fraud on the part of the builder and willful complicity on the part of the Navy who also knew the builder’s workforce compared to the project requirements.
 
Risks
 

The Navy has yet to demonstrate the full capabilities of the propulsion and machinery control systems … [1]
 
The Navy is considering additional land-based testing to mitigate these risks and ensure the reliability of the systems before the ships are deployed.[1]

When have we ever seen ‘risks’ not become problems?  The point of land based testing is to find problems and solutions before beginning construction.
 
Second Yard
 
Given the inability of Fincantieri to meet the contracted schedule, the Navy has begun looking at a second source shipyard.  Possibilities include:
 

… specifically mentioned Austal USA, Bollinger, HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works as potential second yards.[2]

 
Conclusion
 
The Navy’s absolute refusal to design and build a ship the proper way (complete the design and then begin construction) is, after so many demonstrated failures using this approach, a near criminal act of fraud and negligence perpetrated against the American taxpayer.
 
As we all knew, with 100% certainty, concurrency has, once again, caused schedule slippage and cost overruns.
 
The Constellation class is now in the process of having its requirements downgraded to compensate for weight increases.  So much for the supposed benefits of a parent design.  The Navy never had any intention of building the parent design.  That was just a ploy to evade additional Congressional oversight.
 
It bears noting that the yard’s manpower shortages are not exactly a new problem that suddenly reared its head.  Both the yard and the Navy knew they couldn’t build the ship in the required time frame with the workforce they had.  Essentially, the yard and the Navy conspired to hide the inability to meet the contract.
 
Worse than all the listed problems is the fact that even if there were no problems, it would only produce an obsolete design unsuited for modern combat.
 
There is no other way to describe this program than as a massive fraud and failure. 
 
 
 
____________________________

[1]1945 website, “The U.S. Navy’s New Constellation-Class Frigate Is In Big Trouble”, Isaac Seitz, 25-Feb-2025,
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/02/the-u-s-navys-new-constellation-class-frigate-is-in-big-trouble/
 
[2]USNI News website, “Navy: Constellation Frigate Design Will be Ready in May, Second Yard Could Come in FY 2027”, Mallory Shelbourne & Sam LaGrone, 13-Dec-2024,
https://news.usni.org/2024/12/13/navy-constellation-frigate-design-will-be-ready-in-may-second-yard-could-come-in-fy-2027

USNS Wally Schirra Maintenance

Here’s an interesting piece of potential good news.  According to a press release, the Lewis and Clark class dry cargo ship, USNS Wally Schirra, T-AKE-8, completed a several month maintenance overhaul in Korea at the Hanwha Ocean Co. (previously Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering) facility.[1]  If this turns out to be a viable option, the flexibility to obtain maintenance at a foreign yard increases our maintenance capacity and improves fleet availability.
 
What wasn’t spelled out in the press release was the actual cost compared to budget or the adherence to the planned schedule.  The work was originally supposed to be completed in Dec 2024 but ran into March 2025 when the scope of the work was increased due to additional maintenance requirements discovered during the course of the project.  Thus, it appears that the schedule overrun was an add-on approved by the Navy rather than an inability to meet the original schedule.  It was also not revealed whether all of the maintenance items were addressed within the allotted time frame – typically, US ships in US yards leave their maintenance periods with significant work unaddressed due to time pressures – a practice that simply kicks the maintenance can down the road and causes worse problems in the future.  For example, the USS Port Royal grounding was, in part, directly attributable to the failure to complete work on a faulty navigation system.
 

USNS Wally Schirra Entering Hanwha - that is
one beat up looking ship!

 
A Navy press release gives a hint of the scope of the work: 

ROH [Regular OverHaul] conducted aboard Wally Schirra in the Republic of Korea included dry docking, and more than 300 work items that addressed hull corrosion and a full rudder replacement.
 
“Hanwha addressed extensive deterioration and damage to the hull, propeller, rudder, and rudder post/steering gear,” said Cmdr. Patrick J. Moore, commanding officer, MSC [Military Sealift Command] Office-Korea. “Notably, Hanwha engineers reverse-engineered the damaged rudder, completely replacing the unit when blueprint were not available.[2]

A concerning item is the replacement of the rudder and the lack of a blueprint to do so.  How is it possible for the Navy to not have a blueprint for the ship’s rudder?  That’s mind-boggling.
 
That aside, if the work was completed on time and on budget, that’s a tremendous accomplishment both for the Korean company and for the general Navy maintenance effort.
 

USNS Wally Schirra Leaving Hanwha - that's what
a ship should look like!

 

Hanwha Ocean is currently executing an overhaul on USNS Yukon.
 
If obtaining maintenance from a foreign company turns out to be a viable and effective option, the beneficial impact on Navy readiness cannot be overstated.  This would increase our maintenance capacity, increase ship availability, increase readiness, and improve overall ship quality. 
 
Of course, there is always the issue of sensitive/secret equipment and how to ensure the security of that equipment while in a foreign yard.  It’s probably not that significant an issue for logistics ships but warships are crammed with sensitive/secret equipment.  Still, even being able to obtain additional maintenance on the logistics fleet would be a tremendous help.  I love to be able to say this:  well done, Navy!
 
If nothing else, maybe we can pull into a foreign dock and get the rust removed from our rotting ships!
 
 
 
 
__________________________________

 
[1]Naval News website, “Hanwha Ocean completed its first MRO on US Navy ship”, staff, 13-Mar-2025,
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/03/hanwha-ocean-completed-its-first-mro-on-us-navy-ship/
 
[2]Navy website, “USNS Wally Schirra Completes Major Maintenance at South Korean Shipyard”, Grady Fontana, 13-Mar-2025,
https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/4118860/usns-wally-schirra-completes-major-maintenance-at-south-korean-shipyard/