An armed Command & Control mega-ship (BBGN) is a good idea but the lead time to one hitting the ways is too long. We need something NOW, akin to bombing the Iranian nuke sites, but that would target and take out the Terrorist Cells. Perhaps we will just us SOF and Drones for the short-haul while Congress and NavSea and OpNav dance the FYDP 2-step of annual changes and fiddle / fondle with the likewly ishipyards. 

I feel like all the pundits are just talking about the needs and offering many distracting ideas, so much so in the latter sense that we will be talking and balking over next steps for years.

Lou



On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 11:23 AM <douglasburnett1972@gmail.com> wrote:

There were some worthwhile observations in the debate.  First, merchant ships will be sailing on their own without escorts and rely on deception and other ships to mask their presence.  This tactic may work in open ocean transits.  The choke points are going to be critical because a merchant ship cannot hide well in a narrow band of water with intense sensors and aerial coverage, not to mention SSNs around them.  The US is very sensitive to personal casualties .  Risking a destroyer in the straits is high risk.  Look at what was involved in the 36-hour enduring freedom effort in Hormuz earlier this month.  The 2 destroyers were shielded by A10, helos (army and navy), drones, F35 and other platforms and electronic warfare to the extent they operated in a protective cocoon that moved with them.  This is hard to replicate in other straits and in other potential conflicts.  Currently the USN blockade and the navy ships involved are usually well beyond effective range of Iranian weapons.   So in future combat, how will the US secure straits and choke points?

 

The BBGN, according to other sources, is to be a command-and-control flagship, taking the place of the Blue Ridge and Mt. Whitney, in addition to carrying weapons.  If so, it may be that only 2-3 such ships will be built, and they will be high value targets by any standard. They will be unlikely to escort merchant ships, but they may have a role in keeping choke point open as suggested by Captain Konrad.

 

Building the BBGN will require a very different approach than building a CVN and new facilities.  I like the idea of using merchant ship construction techniques.  I think Hanwha in Philly could be a could choice and this would let our existing naval shipyards concentrate on their much-delayed CVN commitments.  Hanwha is also hungry for new Navy work and knows the best civilian shipbuilding techniques as well as how to build Aegis destroyers which it does for the SK Navy.

 

The issues of sea denial vs sea control are important issues for INDOPACOM.  I think we are likely to be more in the sea denial approach as far as Tawain goes, but with sea control  on certain choke points and channels with access to the east and south China seas.

 

 

From: Lou Fifer <louisfifer@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 11:20 AM
To: Bruce Engelhardt <engelharbb@hotmail.com>
Cc: Dan <gator41@allmail.net>; douglasburnett1972@gmail.com; bruce valley <brucevalley@earthlink.net>; Steven K. Berg <skb1943@gmail.com>; Al Shively <mooseshively@earthlink.net>; Brian Dennard <bgdennard@gmail.com>; Marc Liebman <marc@marcliebman.com>; Rich-Diana Goldsby <regoldsby@msn.com>; Helobubbas <helobubbas@helobubbas.com>
Subject: Re: The Great Battleship Debate

 

So long as we can protect our CVs (SSNs I suspect), my vote is to keep and build replacements as the inventory ages because nothing says mobile, widely distributed, and necessarily diverse Power Project like a CV and its CAG.

 

As to occupation of taken territory, that is exactly the USArmy core premise yet we need to pave the way and Marines need to build the beachhead for the grunts to set up shop. Again we must focus USN & USAF assets on protecting the "boots on the ground" throughout their occupation. Unlike the new and sexier Drone Warfare & Laser Weapons the USArmy occupation forces are forced to fight to keep and organize ashore to maintain consistent discipline once ashore much like our fathers did in WWII. The USArmy has some new tools, weapons, and tactics but basically their mission has not morphed from their original concepts of "hold what you've got". There is a reason most MoHs have gone to USArmy heroes.

Lou

 

 

On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 6:00 AM Bruce Engelhardt <engelharbb@hotmail.com> wrote:

Dan I AGREE WITH YOU THE LOGISTICS SHIP DEFENSE ROLE is pretty lame. I don't think CVNs are obsolete yet but agree that they are increasingly vulnerable. Individual soldiers and their vehicles are also increasingly vulnerable but we still need them to go in and occupy and control the environment. In navy terms, our SSGNs provide a much stealthier and less vulnerable presence than CVNs - but sometimes you might need sustained firepower that SSGN can't provide and presence that USAF does not provide. I would buy submerged strike SSGN over BBGN because you can use the ocean itself for self defense and make all of its weapons offensive. But I'm not ready to say BBGN is not a useful platform for our navy - I do agree that like CVN AND CV before that BBGN has the problem that they can be tracked attacked and sunk. Dispersed  forces are needed to make it harder.

 

From: Dan <gator41@allmail.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 10:27 PM
To: Bruce Engelhardt <engelharbb@hotmail.com>; douglasburnett1972@gmail.com <douglasburnett1972@gmail.com>; 'Lou Fifer' <louisfifer@gmail.com>; 'bruce valley' <brucevalley@earthlink.net>; 'Steven K. Berg' <skb1943@gmail.com>; 'Al Shively' <mooseshively@earthlink.net>; 'Brian Dennard' <bgdennard@gmail.com>; 'Marc Liebman' <marc@marcliebman.com>; 'Rich-Diana Goldsby' <regoldsby@msn.com>; 'Helobubbas' <helobubbas@helobubbas.com>
Subject: Re: The Great Battleship Debate

 

Thanks for sending, Doug.  It really gets my synapses snapping.  Not that anyone cares what a ASW guy past his use-by date thinks...

 

I think it is a great discussion but I wonder if anyone is listening to these guys.  They hit most of the top issues but I think that Capt Konrad is mostly wrong except for his endorsement of nuclear power should the BB ever be built.  He is right about not being able to build one for $17MM... even if a modular design is adopted. Too many rent seekers in line.

The BB's will protect the logistics ships?  How many does he want?  One per VLCC?  Merchant ships need protection close in but not far out to sea?  Has he heard of the Russian and Chinese submarine forces?  They don't have to predict the routes of the logistics ships, they can watch them from above from the time they "single up."

Cooper has it right in my view.  CVN's and BB's are obsolete in today's world.  I don't believe that the CVN's are invulnerable even at great distances from the area of contention.  Not in an era of ICBM's, which even a two bit regime like North Korea has, and there is not defense against them as yet.

I think it is a debate that needs to  be held, but for my money the Trump class is just a vanity project that puts all our chips on red.  If there is a debate, it should include drones of every variety and systems that can defend against all types drones and hypersonic missiles.

When, if, the Democrats take over, all those cha-cha projects will be shut down and the White House ballroom will be razed.  Just for starters.

The lead in on logistics is right on.  The problem is that logistics is not sexy but it is the sine qua non of warfare in any age.  Ask Admiral Nimitz (father of underway replenishment) or General Eisenhower.  Many others going back centuries have demonstrated that, and the negative examples of Hitler and Napoleon in Russia reinforce the principle.  A recent reminder:

“Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics.”

General Robert H. Barrow, USMC (27th Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps).

One more:

"Quantity has a quality of its own."  Erroneously attributed to Joseph Stalin, but he would approve.  It worked for him.

 

Captain Konrad is right about one thing:  He bewails the fact that so much American know-how is operational in Korean and Chinese shipyards.

 

After all my time on CV's maybe I should wash my mouth out with soap.  I will go do that now.

Dan

 

On 5/20/2026 6:52 PM, Bruce Engelhardt wrote:

Doug thanks for forwarding - after perusing this - I think nuc power the right decision - they will use FORD CLASS propulsion - no r&d. Pragmatically- if the administration can get it funded why not? It may be that it's not either BBGN or more or other warships. It might be a choice between BBGN or nothing. If we build it we need to make it lethal. I don't know about rail gun but lots and lots of missiles/drones/helos and UUVs would be great. Bruce

From: douglasburnett1972@gmail.com <douglasburnett1972@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 3:33 PM
To: 'Lou Fifer' <louisfifer@gmail.com>; 'Bruce Engelhardt' <engelharbb@hotmail.com>; 'Dan' <gator41@allmail.net>; 'bruce valley' <brucevalley@earthlink.net>; 'Steven K. Berg' <skb1943@gmail.com>; 'Al Shively' <mooseshively@earthlink.net>; 'Brian Dennard' <bgdennard@gmail.com>; 'Marc Liebman' <marc@marcliebman.com>; 'Rich-Diana Goldsby' <regoldsby@msn.com>; 'Helobubbas' <helobubbas@helobubbas.com>
Subject: The Great Battleship Debate

 

The Great Battleship Debate: gCaptain’s Konrad Takes On AEI’s Zack Cooper

 

The Defiant Class battleship proposed by the administration is now proposed to be nuclear powered.  The cost is $17B before added nuclear power costs are considered. There are pros and cons about this new class of ship which may be multiple vessels.  The Navy has been petty reserved in its comments other than artist conceptions of what it looks like.

 

If you open the link you will see an article but more important there is a video to a hourlong debate by a proponent for the battleship and by a critic of the battleship.  I recommend that you listen to it because it brings out a lot of interesting points in terms of choke points, merchant ships, distributive fires, submarines, aircraft carriers and damage control.  I have not seen anything like this debate and it is fun to watch.  The moderator is one of the nation’s top merchant marine experts.  Enjoy.

 

Doug