Not the whole country. Our billionaires are richer than ever. Americans are cowards by allowing themselves to be robbed cold blooded by such mediocre people.

Sequestrations didn't help either.

Infiltration by Mexico...

pass there 1970's chicken 🐓hacks, Monroe is foundation doctrine usa 🇺🇸 doesn't need a french forever foreign leaguen or more airplanes/aircraft-carrier probably has to much as is for defending lower 48 but is definitely lacking BB62 and heavy gun-boats and armour/something that can take hits/fire hello red-scare tactics 🤦🏻‍♂ definitely pass for me

Good reporting on the show

The Princeton that destroyed records of UAP activity?

​@knoahbody69 That occurred, what I believe was 2 command teams after Commander McGrath left the ship. It was after I left the ship, but I know people who were involved in that situation. I can tell you this it was not ship's company that "destroyed" any records.

That sounds awesome. That means he must be a regular guy. Cares about his sailors

May God bless your family , thank you for your service and sacrifice. I made the sign of the Cross and said a prayer for your continued success and welfare. Thank you sir.

Lol, has got a nice manspread going. A phrase I hate, but we're talking about a dog here lol

What worry about is. when these ships are sunk. Can they be replaced. I dont think America can build Carriers.

Man, 416 divided by 2 months. Quite the history.

@@aaronwilkinson8963seeing as they’re currently building two I’m not sure I follow you.

@@aaronwilkinson8963 Your bot speaks English poorly.

@spartancrown They are already built but they keep breaking down. One of them is called HMS queen Elizabeth

Agree, but regardless of the time it is super clear that the Navy needs a massive upgrading and ship building programs. After all we aren't fighting the Flintstones in the future like we did the last 30 years. And this interview gives you deep dive, granted most of this is the same arguments of my entire life and I'm 41, but so many people just don't know. For example the navy hast been able to replace air craft fleet because the Airforce never bought enough aircraft, not only for the Airforce but the navy as a hole. Yesterday we were talking F-18 super hornets for the navy but even the Airforce never bought enough F-18 for the Airforce, so you can't even upgrade them and send them to the Navy. Today's argument is the same one, just a different aircraft. The Navy want X amount of F-35s once again to replace several 30 and 40 plus year old Aircraft and it doesn't look like it going to happen. We're a professional military everyone along the chain makes a professional salary with full benefits, Then there is Maintenance cost which also includes spare parts cost. We also have boot camp. We have R&D, we have new Procurement the buying of missiles and bullets and so on, than you have a budget for ship building which is tiny. All that to say with both current and recent events anyone should be able to see if since October in the Red Sea if the Navy and Airforce used 300 missiles/ bombs and we know some of that was Interceptors which we have the lease amount of that we aren't even replenishing our arsenal at used levels. This doesn't even cover Ukraine or our 30 years of playing around in the deserts. America going back to the 1800s nickname was the Arsenal Of Democracy, we aren't anywhere near that today, but as a 5 year goal it would be nice to get back to that place, in the single most important category Defense of our nation.

True, but more that any other service, the Navy can adapt to changing troubles. A single U.S. carrier can transfer on of the largest air forces on the planet to any region on the planet at 30 mph.

@@Inkling777 There is ZERO picking favorites, they all need money to achieve the same future objectives of the future

The U.S. heavily supported Iran under the Shah. Shortly after 1979 the U.S. pivoted to support Iraq against Iran.... Then there's operation Ajax and the foreign meddling in Iran that in part led to the revolution of 1979... Talk about a cluster. The Navy can't even get existing projects finished because the prime contractors have no incentive to deliver on time or anywhere near on budget. LCS class debacle, SIOP cost overruns, Constellation class delays despite being based on existing ships... On and on. The American people are being robbed by prime contractors and the military brass are complicit.

​@@sshumkaer 2 billion and I could secure the entire ocean with semi autonomous drones, with multi-decade lifespans.

Good stuff, old issue, as the decades go past they have different aircraft

@natopeacekeeper97 Not quite true both of them live just outside of Wash DC. McGrath works at the US Naval Institute. They are both insiders.

o don't this mistake/mindset got the USA 🇺🇸 into nam and more than one gulf/Muslim-war including afaganistan, a place were national's go to die aka no-one have won a war with them ever, and now you're on team let's pick a fight with USSR/Russian's ethic groups 🤦🏻‍♂ how dumb are people in the western world? hopefully not napoleon or 3d-rike stupid or stubbornness, best the usa vs putan can get based off historical knowledge and figures is a draw/stalemate aka no-one win's but more likely outcome is bankrupt USA 🇺🇸 and losing like japan's ww2 happened

So sad , but to True

Why would we want a bunch of 20+ year people outside of the admirals and generals? That would slow promotions all the way down the chain and make it harder to implement new technology and ideas.

@@adamyoung9132 … not my point. The navy is notorious for treating junior sailors like crap. Along with promoting the officers who are happy to continue the tradition of treating people like crap. The only believable part of the Top Gun Maverick is the douchebag LT in the first movie made it too Admiral

@@adamyoung9132 There is No substitute for Actual experience and knowlege

@@henrycarlson7514 it's called innovation

I made the maiden Med deployment aboard Ike in 79. It was six months long. We had 13 deployable carriers plus the Lexington for training.

Yeah time flies lol

@@robzilla60 great experience

Russia invaded crimea and started a civil war in eastern ukraine in 2014 and the Ukrainians were still caught with their pants down in 2022. I can only hope we aren't betting on the chinese being a paper tiger when the end of the decade gets closer.

If they create amphibious capabilities at scale they will be read the riot act, but the outcome will not be in doubt. You're right though budget constraints unrelated to requirements is bad news for the country, especially since they are related to out of control entitlements spending

@@jyy9624 the problem is that china already has the amphibious lift capacity for a Taiwanese invasion. They build their civilian ferry's to fit military roll on roll off and have high enough ramps to be used at any conventional harbor. Not including the military vessels.

@@jonahhekmatyar yes that is worrisome if they continue and even with current capabilities. They are close to having the full range of capabilities for an amphibious assault of Taiwan. They will still lose, but no complacency

The Navy is only able to spend the budget that Congress gives them. If you think we’re not spending enough, don’t vote for politicians who passed a “Defense Fiscal Responsibility” Act last year, and especially don’t vote for clowns who think holding the FY2024 defense budget hostage 6 months over a partisan cat fight is a smart idea.

Glad you recognize that one can only rule by projecting force through debt and waste 😞

@runswithraptors at some point in the near future, we will be unable to make the loan payments, and then we will be in default and of coarse bankrupt. At that point your government will no longer be able to provide social services such as Medicare and, for that matter, anything else. And of course, how do we pay the military? Remember what happened in Russia after the Russian government fell in the 90's.

@@runswithraptors Except what he described wasn't projecting force. It was projecting poor policy choice paired with poor execution.

@@wisenber the problems exist in the context of the US maintaining military bases across the entire globe (that's every continent my guy.) Is that not projecting force? What role do you think a global navy plays😂 Sorry I'm not military I know you guys have trouble seeing the big picture, you can get there read some more history

@@runswithraptors The problem with that assertion is ignoring that the US managed said locations (and more) for decades while also ignoring the explosion of domestic spending that did not exist during those decades. The groundwork for the debt bomb wasn't laid until the 2008 crash fell into the "never let a disaster go to waste" category. Then the US doubled down with piling on unneeded COVID spending (after a year of ridiculously high COVID spending) paired with "green" spending to the moon. The next decade looks to revisit the stagflation of the 1970s, except the US national debt was under 50% of GDP in the 1970s.

you're taking the fun outta the game. LOL. The goal is to get rich off the gov't taxpayer!

It also sounds like maybe we're building way too few of each item, especially the smaller ones like missiles. There is understandably enormous cost to design, develop, and build manufacturing capacity for the first unit of any model. What if instead of 25 Tomahawks we ordered 250, 2500, or 25,000, all under a program where govt manufacturing cost experts (not private profit corps) were overseeing the mass production buildout. Ordering in such small quantities is basically inviting the contractor to barely even consider optimizing for unit cost or production capacity, while in a real war that very much matters. (I also worry that in Ward's summary we didn't hear anything about mass offensive and defensive drone fleets, maybe/hopefully because that's classified, not because we're sleeping on it.)

Exactly! I’m just a lowly taxpayer and I’m over here listening to this going “ok, I get it, we need more ships and all that. Where did the $68 Billion a year for the last twenty fiscal years go then? Why do we need to keep throwing more $$$ at the problem and why are we criticizing the folks who are saying wait a minute, maybe we already have the budget we need and we can reallocate some of the $$ we already give them.” I understand it costs money to be the top military in the world. But we are how many multiples of the annual spending of all our adversaries combined and somehow we are still worried they will beat us in a peer conflict? How is that possible if not for immense waste, and why can’t we fix THAT problem? I’m just not understanding it.

The requirement to underbid competitors has been driving real costs up for 150 years. For some reason we just refuse to learn.

We should threaten these companies with nationalization. Then the country becomes the most important shareholder....

There was ZERO increase in this budget

Too many corporations paying next to zero tax. The coffers are empty unless they keep extending the debt books upwards and upwards. Any decent president would be looking to increase tax receipts from the corporations and the super rich to make up the difference.

@@TheChodax they could but they don't want to lose their pocket money and upset them.

Inflation-adjusted, the FY2024 defense budget is slightly higher than the FY1987 budget, which was the peak of the Reagan buildup ($850B for 2024, versus $304B 1987 which inflation-adjusts to $830B in 2024 dollars) . You're thinking of defense spending as a percentage of GDP, a measure by which the FY2024 budget is substantially lower than the FY1987 budget (about 3% versus about 6%). Now the question becomes, how much of this gulf (and the gulf between capabilities then versus capabilities now given we're still spending enormous sums) is due to truly awful procurement and maintenance and manning decisions made by the brass, versus awful decisions made by politicians, versus industry consolidation (which naturally reduces bang-for-the-buck since there is less competition), versus industry graft.

​@@kaeseesa very significant portion of it is spent on boondonggles and keep senators happy. That money could go much further if spent properly.

it can only make sense if you are expecting a hot war in the very immediate future

I don't think he moved an inch 😂

McGrath might believe that if it were true.

@@bryanmcgrath3887 I really appreciate that you spent the time to monitor this conversation about your talk. I hope you are right about the fiscal state of the country.Thank you.

Sounds like a great experience

That could be true

And that happens from a corporate decision to increase profits since they can’t sell the products unless they can make them cheap.

When I was on Votech not too long ago we had lots of engines donated from GM and other domestic manufacturers

@@chickenfishhybrid44 praise the lord

​@@chickenfishhybrid44my vo-tech got a new 69 Fairlane, that Ford turned into a "cutaway" after it had fallen off a railcar. Mechanically fine, body "kinda" damaged, mostly, cutaway.

Not exactly a new idea. Zumwalt proposed lower cost carriers to provide numbers and basing forward where the full carriers not needed, even using them for the routine operations and keeping the proper carriers nearer to home where would be harder to pre-emotive attack them, then surging the proper carriers out to the hotspots as required. And that was back on 70s

One of the best arguments for the naval version of the F-35 is just that. It can operate off smaller carriers.

@@Inkling777 USAF=F-35A CTOL(conventional take off/landing, USMC=F-35B STOVL(Short Take Off Vertical Landing, USN/USMC=F-35C CATOBAR(Conventional Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery.

The problem is you can only embark a handful of -35s and/or Harriers from an amphib. And they’re not really ideal aircraft for a conflict of this magnitude.

@@Inkling777But not in useful numbers.

Must have been well built to last so long.

I was on Ike from '83-'86 as part of VF-142. Nice to come across a shipmate from those days.

@@aaronwilkinson8963 ...and insanely well maintained by well trained people

@@oldgoat142 I want to thank you for your service and sacrifice to our beautiful country. There are still millions of us out there that love our sailors. Godspeed and God bless yourself and your family.

@@xprettylightsx3781 Thank you. I really appreciate that. May God bless you and your family as well.

Lol great experience I'm sure

@@sshumkaer Yes it was.

@@oldgoat142 That would have been exciting for me personally

@@sshumkaer It was for me. I was assigned to an F-14 Tomcat squadron, VF-142, which was part of carrier air wing 7 assigned to the Eisenhower. Working on a top fighter jet while on a great ship is the highlight of my younger years. It's also one of the highlights of my professional life.

@@oldgoat142 For sure, the ship is a legend and so is the Jets envoled. Totally amazing

Was it the first hull of its class

@@aaronwilkinson8963 No, the Nimitz was.

@@aaronwilkinson8963 Nimitz will turn 50 next year (going by the commissioning date).

@psychohist Ofcourse they are the Nimitz class. Thanks. I think it's a testament to the people who designed and built these carriers to make them last so long. They are still the corner stone of the US military and the US strategy. My biggest concern is that these ships can still be lost. And they can't really be replaced

@@aaronwilkinson8963 Thanks, as I was responsible for Nimitz reactor engineering for a time - though this was in the Operating Plants group, so it was more maintenance, including life extension. We really need to keep ordering two Fords at a time to build on the Nimitzes.

If they had used that money to build destroyers and back the Iowas China would become wetting themselves right now.

That was a program trying out new technology which didn't pan out. One has to do such things occasionally to advance technology. Not every program will succeed. They are killing that program as quickly as possible while making some use of the existing hulls where it makes sense to do so.

yep, we need that constelation class asap instead of more Littoral Crap Ships

@@therealuncleowen2588 Doesn't matter if it's new tech or not. It's still nonsense to buy more just to directly send em to the junk yard.

@@therealuncleowen2588 from day 1 that sold that ship as all things to all missions and anyone with half a brain could see it would never be that. Billions of dollars and years wasted. DoD has done this over and over again and throwing more money at them has never changed the behavior, only made it worse so they can now saw oh, look how bad off we are, give us a LOT more money to fill our bucket that we already acknowledge is leaking h from the bottom. Insane

True and all 4 branches including cost guard are short money

Perhaps true; however, I’d rather see the economy driven off the DoD than the $ go to China and unbalanced trade and green climate fever dream.

Like them wanting a train on the moon?

TAX all wealth, all income, go to war footing, quadruple all shipyards, weapon supply chains, implement 2 months on one off, for NATO and America.

The republic has already failed. The voters have proven incapable of balancing income and spending.

as a former DOD contracting officer, it's not that the government sucks at procurement.....the issue is the Defense Industry is an oligopoly. They set the price....little to no competition for the bigger ticket systems.

China has 300% more ship building capacity , and growing

@christopho3255 *Thus the delays refueling the U. S. Navy CVAN-68 Class.* And constructing the CVBN-78 Class.

We desperately need a militia of volunteers, not a restricted national guard, in the exact meaning on the constitution

If by no one knows how much goes into BOB, it means our adversaries don't either then Bravo.

When anyone says, “military industrial complex” unironically 👀

Who can build these ships anyway.

@@aaronwilkinson8963 We have only a handful of shipbuilders in this country able to build frigate sized or larger surface combatants and submarines. These have become so specialized that asking them to build anything else only earns you a stony glare. We really don't build much of anything other than warships in this country and not enough of those to keep those yards busy enough to keep them efficient.

@robertf3479 I'm British and we managed to build a couple of futuristic aircraft carriers. Only if they worked mind you. I hear one will be mothballed and used for spare parts. Scrapped in effect. We don't have any jets to put on them any way. We sold off all our Harriers to the US marines. The truth is if we did go to war with the Russians and the Chinese and we came into range of those hypersonic missiles they have. Those carriers would be at the bottom of the ocean within a flash. But the real truth is that they are so valuable and irreplaceable we probably wouldn't ever commit them.

@@aaronwilkinson8963 Where did you hear we are mothballing one of the carriers ? The fact you repeat the tabloid BS about having no jets to put on them causes me considerable scepticism as to your knowledge of the subject.

@Belisarius1967 Just done a Google search. There is talk of mothballing one of the carriers but the MOD Denies it. That's where I have heard it. Just because the MOD Denies something doesn't mean you should believe them. Like they need to tell us the truth.

Our elected officials just keep spending money and expect our Grandkids to pay it off.

​@@kCI251Because most of them are there for benefits and opportunities. They don't care about your family or your culture.

It's not the same thing. There is modernization needed, that happens to platforms that can be modernized, than there are the thing's that have no use any longer, than there are the big ticket generational builds best off generational technology discovery. You can maintain your car, but the military can't role the ball down the road like that. It's all the branches. The only thing that keeps a solider alive in the modern battfiled is expensive technology that protects them. We don't even say the Coast Guard they need new ships as well.

@kCI251 incorrect, the military has nothing to do do with your nation financial issue, it literally only makes up 16% of the nation budget. However those 3 things that no one want to fix are bankrupting your country Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare in 2018 made up 60% of the entire national budget, it's higher today

@wayne9287 and none of thar matters, either way they have become soldiers and they are entitled to those benefits, less than 3% of the nation is military none of this is hurting the country.

@DonWan47 "Only in America could a trillion dollar budget be described as defence on the cheap. Ridiculous." Ever look at Entitlements? THAT is 1. Where The Real Money is, 2. Talk about waste!

@@stevenwiederholt7000 Have a look at corporate welfare and tax breaks for corporations and billionaires, there’s you’re problem. Every civilised nation has universal healthcare but you prefers people to die in poverty.

The federal govt. spent 6.1 trillion in 2023. Less than a trillion on defense. So what can we defund to shift to defense, and who is going to scream like a stuck pig when we do it. And that’s with spending a couple trillion more than revenue as it is.

@@richdurbin6146Stop giving g tax cuts to the ultra rich. For starters! That alone put y’all a trillion more in debt. You could provide everyone with decent universal health care if you actually taxed people proportionally…🙄🤦🏼‍♂️

@@stevenwiederholt7000 I have healthcare funded through my taxes, my country has no mass shootings, I have six weeks paid vacation, my wife has maternity leave and maternity pay, my kids go to great schools, and the police answer to the people. What do you have?

They have shipped the industrial base to China , they have 300% more ship building capacity , we will never be able to win a major war with a peer combatant , its going to be a one shot deal , then nothing, it’s time to exit nato and any Asian defense agreements we have , trying to be the cop of the world will lead to the destruction of our Republic

When I enlisted in '73 a 9 mo tour was standard.

And THAT is why recruitment & retention will get harder & harder

If the Navy wanted you to have a wife or husband…………. something, something about a seabag?

I met with one of the first female enlisted to serve in an aircraft carrier while going to a school near Quantico Virginia. Discovered this in our conversation about our experience in the Navy. I told her I was against this policy. She was shocked, so I went on to explain why. After discussing the advantages and disadvantages she actually agreed with me. I served at sea on six carriers. One active duty CVN65 77-81. And five east coast carriers 1985-1992as a F14 civilian radar tech rep. Times be uh changing I guess. 👍👍🥃🥃🍺🍺😎

This issue seems to have begun back in the 1990s when the USAF began to demand that married men spend duty time in Minutemen silos with a woman-two being required to launch the missiles. No opting out, even for men wanting to save already shaky marriage. And when you're talking about long carrier assignments, the problem doubles. It also becomes, "Is he/she cheating back home because he/she thinks he/she is cheating on that carrier?" Long ago I talked to someone who'd been given 45-minutes notice to go on a six-month carrier cruise with a wife eight-months pregnant. As he told me, "I went, but from that moment on I was out of the Navy." *Some of those who provide our military with the best service are precisely those who made deep commitments. They will leave the military rather than put their marriages and children at risk.*

You're an analyst for...whom?

@@DennisTedder-wj5ln Didn't know you need to be an analyst to see obvious glaring holes in your countries military. Hence, you know, what these two Military professionals are discussing.

One of the issues with the smaller carriers is without catapult and arresting gear, the aircraft on board will have limited range. Additionally the would require the same amount of protect as a "Mega Carrier" in a hot zone, so the Navy would be using the same amount of assets defending a significantly less capable one. - However sail the smaller carrier to less hostile areas is a way to minimize reduce the burden on the larger fleet. LHA 6 and 7 can fill that role if needed.

Light Carriers don't have catapults. Without those you don't have E-2 radar planes. Each Carrier Air Wing has 4 of them in order to provide 24hr coverage.

The problem with the mini-carriers is they're unable to launch a sizable strike package given their inherent space limitations and number of catapults. Remember USS Midway upon her retirement, only had TWO catapults, France's similarly sized but nuclear powered CdG only has two catapults. The magazine and fuel capacity of a mini-carrier, is limited requiring replenishment every 3-4 days. A mini-carrier would be conventionally powered requiring much more internal space devoted to machinery and internal duct-work, further limiting magazine depth and fuel capacity. IN short, the study to produce Ford, found that the mini-carrier has A LOT of limitations, which would require a complete rework to NAVAIR doctrine; 25-30 of these mini-carriers would be needed, in order to duplicate the current number of super carriers along with a comparable increase in auxiliaries.

Yes, with LCS. Didn’t work.

More like the LCS & DDG-1000 debacle, which forced the hand to rush-source FFG-62, which will now be THREE YEARS late because the country doesn't have a maritime strategy ergo the rapid shrinking of the shipbuilding industry, hence FFG-62 and its own problems.

@@corsair6 Those people are long retired and working for contractors. FFG(x)/FFG-62 is unfolding before our eyes.

Her. Her name is Ingrid.

Not any national security problems.

Rarely.

Depends on the problem. Shipbuilding requires money.

@@psychohist But why does the navy require the building of new LCSes that will directly go to the junk yard?

No, putting badges over deep cut doesn't heal the wond. As mentioned in the video you can't decommissioned 29 ship and build less when the stated goal is to increase the size. China building 4 to 6 big ticket ships per year. We can't even build 2 per year big problem

Yeah - it looks a really neat dog Is it a Setter or a big Spinnone maybe?

Smart dog, slept thru interview and got up at the end. Wonder if he heard the music due at the end of program.

inflation was caused because of supply chain issues and shitty right wing fiscal policy.