Read on Twitter
By @DavidLarter on Congress cutting design $ for cruiser replacement. Tough, but I'm sympathetic to Congress's frustration, especially because Navy should have been able to make a compelling case for new ships by now. And I'm sympathetic to Navy, but... https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/12/23/congress-guts-funding-for-cruiser-replacements/#.X-O4SEQcVEU.twitter
2. Calling the cruiser replacement a "Large Surface Combatant" instead of a cruiser, is confusing. If I can't tell you how LSC is different than a cruiser no one in Congress can, which suggests (correctly, I think) the Navy's conceptualization is still too fuzzy - after 20 years!
3. It was pretty clear in 2017 there was no $, political appetite, yard capacity, or compelling articulated strategy to justify or build more than a ~300 ship fleet and nothing in the last 3-4 years has substantially changed that, yet we keep seeing 350, 400, now 500 ship plans!
4. Between LCS (not to be confused with the subject LSC - showing again how bad this new-cruiser branding is) FORD cost/delays, the FITZ & MCCAIN collisions, and years of unachievable shipbuilding plans, the Navy doesn't have a lot of congressional benefit of the doubt left.
5. The new Advantage at Sea strategy has some good stuff but also makes big assumptions, exceeds Navy's Title 10 brief in places, and was released *weeks* before the Biden administration comes in and maybe has different ideas, and so doesn't allay #4 much. https://news.usni.org/2020/12/17/u-s-maritime-strategy-advantage-at-sea
6. I think Navy should develop a compelling strategy showing what it can and can't do with what it will probably have, a 300-ship fleet, but also lots of good, innovative new weapons, capabilities and concepts! Realism isn't defeatist bc fantasy doesn't make effective deterrence.
