The points made about foreign building of US Warships to surge our ability to grow the Navy are valid and have been made repeatedly. We simply must stop procrastinating.
No need to beat the dead horse of an irrelevant Marine Corps.
Next I ask about Allies building better Amphibious Ships quicker:Yes, shipyards in the Republic of Korea (ROK), Japan, and other allies could potentially build amphibious ships faster and, in some cases, better than current U.S. capabilities, due to their advanced industrial bases, efficiency, and cost advantages. Here’s why:
ROK shipyards, like HD Hyundai Heavy Industries and Hanwha Ocean, dominate global shipbuilding, producing 30% of the world’s ships. They excel in rapid, high-quality construction—Ulsan’s yard churns out 40-50 vessels annually, including warships, using modular techniques that cut build times. Japan, with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, follows at 17%, building advanced Aegis-equipped destroyers like the Maya-class in about 3-4 years, compared to 6-7 years for similar U.S. ships like the Arleigh Burke-class. Both nations leverage modern automation, skilled labor, and integrated steel production, keeping costs low—ROK builds frigates for $500 million versus $2.5 billion for U.S. equivalents.
U.S. shipyards, like Ingalls and Bath Iron Works, face delays from aging infrastructure, labor shortages, and less efficient processes. The Constellation-class frigate, for example, is already over budget at $1.2 billion per ship and years behind schedule. ROK and Japan’s yards, by contrast, have order books full through 2029, reflecting reliability and speed.
Other allies, like Italy’s Fincantieri (building U.S. frigates) or Australia’s Austal, also show promise. Italy delivered FREMM frigates in 5 years, faster than U.S. timelines. However, ROK and Japan stand out for scale and naval expertise. Their ships often match or exceed U.S. quality—ROK’s Sejong-class destroyers and Japan’s Izumo-class carriers boast cutting-edge tech.
The catch? U.S. laws like the Jones Act and security concerns limit outsourcing. Still, allies could fill gaps, especially for amphibious ships, if legal and political hurdles are cleared. Their track record suggests faster, cheaper, and at least as good.
I ask Grok a couple of questions about the USN’s inability to provide sufficient amphibious expeditionary lift for USMC:The U.S. Navy (USN) lacks sufficient amphibious lift for the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) due to aging ships, maintenance issues, and strategic misalignments. Many amphibious vessels, like the Wasp- and Whidbey Island-class ships, are old, with obsolete systems and deferred repairs, reducing operational readiness. For instance, USS Boxer has faced repeated delays and breakdowns. The fleet’s 32 ships fall short of the USMC’s 31-ship minimum for three Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs), with only about 50% deployable versus the desired 80%. This has limited responses to crises like the 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake.
The Navy and USMC have clashing priorities: the Navy eyes great-power competition, favoring submarines over amphibious ships, while the Marines need them for presence and rapid response. Congress has blocked some retirements, but maintenance costs soar for aging hulls. Meanwhile, Force Design 2030 shifts the USMC toward smaller, dispersed units, yet the current fleet struggles even with Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) lifts. New Landing Ship Mediums (LSMs) are years away, leaving a gap.
In essence, an aging, under-maintained fleet, below-target size, and differing service goals hobble amphibious lift capacity. New ships are coming, but delays persist.
One need only look at the US Navy and their abysmal efforts with the Constellation Class of frigates due to replace the Oliver Hazard Perry vessels. After years of nit picking and other slow downs an Italian design was agreed upon and the (Fregata Multi Missione) was meant to go into production and Congress approved $554M to begin building the USS Congress (FFG-63) in 2021. The USA subsidiary of Fincantieri Marinette Marine is charged with buildout and delivery. Sighting shipyard backlogs and a lack of skilled labor, the usual nonsense for failing to perform has been accepted and the money continues to flow. It is years behind schedule, now heading toward $1.3B and what was supposed to an 85% representation of the Italian designed has been so worked over with change orders that only 15% of the original design remains. CDR Salamander on his posts has a long review of this debacle. So. Even if we do find other foreign shipyards and get competitive contracts and an accelerated production schedule our wonderful DOD and Navy Department or maybe Department of the Navy will screw things up. FUBAR. If we manage to get the new SecNav to focus on the Corps and the amphibious lift it will be a miracle and even if we do, the ability to technically proficiently and cost effectively build ships seems a great task and apparently one too difficult to be handled by the current leadership wearing the stars on their collars. People need to be fired, civilians and military alike, and a search for the best and brightest needs be made and an all hands effort needs to be made to correct the mess the “Fat Leonards” who are stealing and sabotaging our nations readiness at sea have created and profited from as our Navy fails and falls further and further behind. In the meantime, the oldest standing structure in Washington DC remains occupied by one of the proponents and adherents to FD what do ya call it. One despairs at the ineptitude. All we need is just one Houthi drone to break through and not be destroyed by the CIWS on a DDG and there will be ample evidence that we ARE NOT READY. When Americans wake up to the TV news that the grease and oil spot on waters of the Red Sea and a US ship of war is lost or sinking, they will be right to ask how could this happen. We here at CP can provide an answer from the stand point of Corps, because of poor leadership and as General Van Ripper has commented, “no one is watching the store.”
To bad we don’t have a MAGTF available for a bit of ground rapid debuilding work. I believe that this lack of support for the MAGTF due to FD 2030 has been discussed before. Now we are basically at war with Yemen and no Marines to put on the ground
Totally off topic. Oshkosh Defense has now come out with a mini HIMARS pod on a JLTV chassis. I don't understand why it is remote controlled, but I say bring back the operators position. This system could probably be air lifted by a CH-53. This would be perfect for a return to pre FD MAGTF.
Sadly the Corps is now relegated to being an island-based missile battery asset on remote Pacific islands in hopes of deterring and stopping any CHICOM naval aggression, thanks to the catastrophic and colossal failure FD2030 that Berger and now Smith and his criminal cohorts continue to push forward with... and the even more shameful aspect is that not a single missile battery has been stood up to be ready in that AO...
VISION2035 must be immediately implemented to restore our Corps' MAGTF lethality, viability, and capability!
It good that no major world crisis has occurred requiring a MEU/ARG. It's also good that no major incident has occurred in the Pacific requiring an expeditionary missile force, because after 4-5 years we still don't have one.
The points made about foreign building of US Warships to surge our ability to grow the Navy are valid and have been made repeatedly. We simply must stop procrastinating.
No need to beat the dead horse of an irrelevant Marine Corps.
Next I ask about Allies building better Amphibious Ships quicker:Yes, shipyards in the Republic of Korea (ROK), Japan, and other allies could potentially build amphibious ships faster and, in some cases, better than current U.S. capabilities, due to their advanced industrial bases, efficiency, and cost advantages. Here’s why:
ROK shipyards, like HD Hyundai Heavy Industries and Hanwha Ocean, dominate global shipbuilding, producing 30% of the world’s ships. They excel in rapid, high-quality construction—Ulsan’s yard churns out 40-50 vessels annually, including warships, using modular techniques that cut build times. Japan, with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, follows at 17%, building advanced Aegis-equipped destroyers like the Maya-class in about 3-4 years, compared to 6-7 years for similar U.S. ships like the Arleigh Burke-class. Both nations leverage modern automation, skilled labor, and integrated steel production, keeping costs low—ROK builds frigates for $500 million versus $2.5 billion for U.S. equivalents.
U.S. shipyards, like Ingalls and Bath Iron Works, face delays from aging infrastructure, labor shortages, and less efficient processes. The Constellation-class frigate, for example, is already over budget at $1.2 billion per ship and years behind schedule. ROK and Japan’s yards, by contrast, have order books full through 2029, reflecting reliability and speed.
Other allies, like Italy’s Fincantieri (building U.S. frigates) or Australia’s Austal, also show promise. Italy delivered FREMM frigates in 5 years, faster than U.S. timelines. However, ROK and Japan stand out for scale and naval expertise. Their ships often match or exceed U.S. quality—ROK’s Sejong-class destroyers and Japan’s Izumo-class carriers boast cutting-edge tech.
The catch? U.S. laws like the Jones Act and security concerns limit outsourcing. Still, allies could fill gaps, especially for amphibious ships, if legal and political hurdles are cleared. Their track record suggests faster, cheaper, and at least as good.
The question to ask is: how/why did we allow this to happen??
Exactly!
I ask Grok a couple of questions about the USN’s inability to provide sufficient amphibious expeditionary lift for USMC:The U.S. Navy (USN) lacks sufficient amphibious lift for the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) due to aging ships, maintenance issues, and strategic misalignments. Many amphibious vessels, like the Wasp- and Whidbey Island-class ships, are old, with obsolete systems and deferred repairs, reducing operational readiness. For instance, USS Boxer has faced repeated delays and breakdowns. The fleet’s 32 ships fall short of the USMC’s 31-ship minimum for three Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs), with only about 50% deployable versus the desired 80%. This has limited responses to crises like the 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake.
The Navy and USMC have clashing priorities: the Navy eyes great-power competition, favoring submarines over amphibious ships, while the Marines need them for presence and rapid response. Congress has blocked some retirements, but maintenance costs soar for aging hulls. Meanwhile, Force Design 2030 shifts the USMC toward smaller, dispersed units, yet the current fleet struggles even with Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) lifts. New Landing Ship Mediums (LSMs) are years away, leaving a gap.
In essence, an aging, under-maintained fleet, below-target size, and differing service goals hobble amphibious lift capacity. New ships are coming, but delays persist.
(Word count: 198)
One need only look at the US Navy and their abysmal efforts with the Constellation Class of frigates due to replace the Oliver Hazard Perry vessels. After years of nit picking and other slow downs an Italian design was agreed upon and the (Fregata Multi Missione) was meant to go into production and Congress approved $554M to begin building the USS Congress (FFG-63) in 2021. The USA subsidiary of Fincantieri Marinette Marine is charged with buildout and delivery. Sighting shipyard backlogs and a lack of skilled labor, the usual nonsense for failing to perform has been accepted and the money continues to flow. It is years behind schedule, now heading toward $1.3B and what was supposed to an 85% representation of the Italian designed has been so worked over with change orders that only 15% of the original design remains. CDR Salamander on his posts has a long review of this debacle. So. Even if we do find other foreign shipyards and get competitive contracts and an accelerated production schedule our wonderful DOD and Navy Department or maybe Department of the Navy will screw things up. FUBAR. If we manage to get the new SecNav to focus on the Corps and the amphibious lift it will be a miracle and even if we do, the ability to technically proficiently and cost effectively build ships seems a great task and apparently one too difficult to be handled by the current leadership wearing the stars on their collars. People need to be fired, civilians and military alike, and a search for the best and brightest needs be made and an all hands effort needs to be made to correct the mess the “Fat Leonards” who are stealing and sabotaging our nations readiness at sea have created and profited from as our Navy fails and falls further and further behind. In the meantime, the oldest standing structure in Washington DC remains occupied by one of the proponents and adherents to FD what do ya call it. One despairs at the ineptitude. All we need is just one Houthi drone to break through and not be destroyed by the CIWS on a DDG and there will be ample evidence that we ARE NOT READY. When Americans wake up to the TV news that the grease and oil spot on waters of the Red Sea and a US ship of war is lost or sinking, they will be right to ask how could this happen. We here at CP can provide an answer from the stand point of Corps, because of poor leadership and as General Van Ripper has commented, “no one is watching the store.”
To bad we don’t have a MAGTF available for a bit of ground rapid debuilding work. I believe that this lack of support for the MAGTF due to FD 2030 has been discussed before. Now we are basically at war with Yemen and no Marines to put on the ground
Totally off topic. Oshkosh Defense has now come out with a mini HIMARS pod on a JLTV chassis. I don't understand why it is remote controlled, but I say bring back the operators position. This system could probably be air lifted by a CH-53. This would be perfect for a return to pre FD MAGTF.
We shall overcome.
Sadly the Corps is now relegated to being an island-based missile battery asset on remote Pacific islands in hopes of deterring and stopping any CHICOM naval aggression, thanks to the catastrophic and colossal failure FD2030 that Berger and now Smith and his criminal cohorts continue to push forward with... and the even more shameful aspect is that not a single missile battery has been stood up to be ready in that AO...
VISION2035 must be immediately implemented to restore our Corps' MAGTF lethality, viability, and capability!
It good that no major world crisis has occurred requiring a MEU/ARG. It's also good that no major incident has occurred in the Pacific requiring an expeditionary missile force, because after 4-5 years we still don't have one.