MIke, I spent 20 years in the Navy, and retired as a STSC (Submarine Sonar). I saw many "new technologies (which were actually old by 10 years or so). I even had a Seawolf sonar dome pasted on the front of a Trident fall off when we went backwards after warning it would do just that, since we lacked the rest of the hull covering. The things outline here I was illustrating as issues was:
Worrying about restructuring to make it more "generic" is a bad thing at a time when they are still floundering with trying to make 75% of what they need go 100%.
Their record of "innovation" is not good, and their control of costs has been, and is getting worse. Throw more money at it, is the cry of the day. I have found military development to be long on promises, and very short on budgets.
The Gerald Ford is a prime example of this, several new technologies attempted to be melded at once. Bad idea. Perfect one, install it on a pilot ship, perfect it under real conditions, then proliferate.
I have no faith in the "college system" nor the military insistence that college grads are smart and sailors dumb. Had that issue when on active duty and several run ins with a Div O who thought trying to kill us to look good was a brilliant idea. The CO did not quite agree. Thank goodness.
Gerald Ford status:
http://kdvr.com/2016/07/25/us-navys-n...
Littoral ship issues: If you cannot design a carrier for 12-14 billion that works, don't also try to play magician with an idea that is suspect at the same time. The Littoral ship is a case of total breakdown of any useful, logical process. The idea sounds good, except they tried to make a jack of all trades out of it, and ended up short in many ways. Their "mission modules" have got some issues, and the thin skin design is subject to many frailties. The engineering was also an issue, with many engineering issues having happened. They also went with several designs and keep making more, with none of the optimum, and some barely workable, probably due to politics.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-...

Diesel submarines have always been an optimum, shallow water tool if built correctly and used wisely. Because of the nuclear "emphasis" maintained by the nuclear officer group, no diesel will ever see the light of day, despite the fact the same people you are defending against use them. Your acoustic issues in shallow water are the same for submarine or surface, but it is hard to attack a submarine in a dinghy, when submerged. Also, unmanned drones and other tools can allow the same force projection from a single well defended platform ( a whole new design) that might have been a better idea.

The Navy has the same issues that the Army does, there is a loss of competency in the middle grades, as politics takes over from competence, and I have spoken to several officers who got out who were Army, Navy and Marines who said the politics, especially in the mid grades is horrible. Failures are covered up, systems that don't work are proliferated, with contracts let to "fix them", and there is really bad morale.

I do not see a SecNav more worried about what sailors call each other, than ship and weapons systems to be a sign of competency and reassurance.

You are out of your depth, here, sailor. You should get your news from the US Navy itself, not second-hand from the NY Post.

You are conflating two different story threads in order to say "queers cannot fight", which denies the unit cohesion of those 300 Spartans. (In case you forgot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNa3C... )

First and foremost, the Littoral Combat Ships are not just new machines (which would still need field testing) but a new concept different from the "big seas / big ships" ideas of the previous 350 years. In some ways, we are now like the Romans facing the Carthaginians. They both inherited naval warfare as known for 300 years from the days of the Triremes. Rome changed the ramming contest naval encounter into a "land battle" by using grappling irons, boarding planks, and infantry-on-board ("marines"). So, too, now, is the US Navy ahead of the other fleets of the nations of the world in thinking of littoral combat, getting in close, going into bays, harbors, and rivers, by ship to deliver air cavalry and "land marines."

Foxtrots will happen. And it will take years to find even the basic ones.

Meanwhile, the Navy is forthright about the failures. They are called "engineering fatalities." When a power drive fails, it is as though a sailor has died. Make no mistake: they take it seriously. The ship goes back to port and the reverse engineering of the failure leads to an improvement. We do this. China cannot, Russia cannot.

Here' the thing. Little Big Horn has always been a study point. In the American military, you are allowed to fail, as long as you learn from your mistakes. You are not rewarded for failure, true enough, but the military history of the American Revolution is all about failures that resulted in an ultimate success. That's us. No one takes Americans seriously ... until we kick their ass.

As for gender, you may be one of the millions of traditionalist role-embracers who deny not just male-on-female rape, but also male-on-male rape. Rape is not about sex: it is about power.

The US military is in uncharted territory with gender. The entire society is. I believe that we are moving toward a time when gender is as irrelevant as "race" (so-called) and for the same reasons. (It was the case that blood was segregated by "race" lest some white guy be given "colored' blood and thereby be made in to a Negro (the end of life as he knew it...). We are past that, both by biology and by sociology. (Would you rather be Black or dead, even if that were an issue.) So, too, with gender.

Rifleperson... rifler... rifleist... who knows? Myself, I have no problem with "man" for all humans but only because we have no better common noun. I look to Star Trek where in all officers are called "sir" because with aliens, you never know the gender... and here we are today in the same place... But whatever is worked out (and it may take two or three iterations) will be better than what we have.

I am as sorry as you may be to see the ratings be dropped. Now, no longer are you an engineer's mate, but a petty officer or seaman. However, I point to two facts: This brings the Navy into alignment with the other services, wherein you are addressed by rank (grade), not by job title (MOS). Also, I point out that at least in the Ohio Naval Militia (if not New York), the ratings continue. The feds do their thing; the states do theirs. Funny, you know, that a seeming libertarian or conservative like you focusses on the federal and appears ignorant of the state militias. (Dated but relevant: http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20... )

Myself, my problem is more with the fact that officers are a better class of people, with more rights, than mere enlisteds. Invitations to social events go out to "officers and their ladies, sailors and their wives." Why not just say "sailors and their sluts" because that's what they mean, isn't it? We inherited that from the British. They are a class-based society. We are not. Colonel David Crockett came to Texas with the Tennessee volunteers under the command of a captain. Think about that.

So, I don't know where this all is leading, but I am not wringing my hands with Weltschmerz and Angst because the future might not be like the past.

Mike Marotta PO2 (TX)
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...
(To read others, enter "military" in the search box.)

Maybe a more "delicate" navy is a good thing in the short term (in theory at least), if it means they will be deployed only when its a genuine case of defending America instead of nation building nonsense. New technology is replacing the need for a traditional navy for the most part. The waste of scarce resources and potential loss of life are unforgiveable, however.
The PC issue is complete rubbish and Secnav should be ashamed.