Giled Pallaeon
@giledpallaeon.bsky.social
Military & International Affairs nerd. Defense professional. Mostly naval subjects, but all aspects of defense and natsec welcome. Oh, & plastic spaceships, that too. All opinions on all subjects my own #WeAreNAFO
Original five*
November 25, 2025 at 11:51 PM
Original five*
We’d be reading stories in the early 2030s about how the Navy won’t send them into the Pacific and the North Atlantic half the year for weather concerns.
November 25, 2025 at 11:51 PM
We’d be reading stories in the early 2030s about how the Navy won’t send them into the Pacific and the North Atlantic half the year for weather concerns.
You do it by having the submarine officer who ordered picking a foreign design never read the NAVSEA standards governing surface ship design or have a meaningful conversation with US design experts about why we design differently. If 62 had gotten waivers for everything she failed…
November 25, 2025 at 11:51 PM
You do it by having the submarine officer who ordered picking a foreign design never read the NAVSEA standards governing surface ship design or have a meaningful conversation with US design experts about why we design differently. If 62 had gotten waivers for everything she failed…
There was a government reference design the original dice were compared to built entirely inside NAVSEA. That team was disbanded after FREMM was picked. I don’t think some of the team even work for the Navy anymore.
And having a replacement doesn’t affect whether CONNIE is fit for combat.
And having a replacement doesn’t affect whether CONNIE is fit for combat.
November 25, 2025 at 11:48 PM
There was a government reference design the original dice were compared to built entirely inside NAVSEA. That team was disbanded after FREMM was picked. I don’t think some of the team even work for the Navy anymore.
And having a replacement doesn’t affect whether CONNIE is fit for combat.
And having a replacement doesn’t affect whether CONNIE is fit for combat.
They *might* be fully capable but they will never see upgrades and won’t even gracefully handle the weight gain common to warships as they age independent of anything their owners do. And only two ships will make maintenance and readiness a bear.
November 25, 2025 at 11:42 PM
They *might* be fully capable but they will never see upgrades and won’t even gracefully handle the weight gain common to warships as they age independent of anything their owners do. And only two ships will make maintenance and readiness a bear.
Yes but it also had a millstone around its neck in the form of Richardson’s ego. Being forced to mod a foreign design was always a damn stupid idea but NAVSEA was overruled.
November 25, 2025 at 11:37 PM
Yes but it also had a millstone around its neck in the form of Richardson’s ego. Being forced to mod a foreign design was always a damn stupid idea but NAVSEA was overruled.
The goal wasn’t to build a great ship but it’s gone and built an awful one. In that respect it’s a mirror of the Zumwalt program which for all its management faults built an incredible ship. FFG 62 is not that, and quite far away.
November 25, 2025 at 11:36 PM
The goal wasn’t to build a great ship but it’s gone and built an awful one. In that respect it’s a mirror of the Zumwalt program which for all its management faults built an incredible ship. FFG 62 is not that, and quite far away.
Part of the issue is that FFG 62’s design still isn’t done, so NAVSEA is still discovering things unacceptable to USN standards and trying to fix them. Most of the issues involve adding weight to solve which is a compounding problem.
November 25, 2025 at 11:30 PM
Part of the issue is that FFG 62’s design still isn’t done, so NAVSEA is still discovering things unacceptable to USN standards and trying to fix them. Most of the issues involve adding weight to solve which is a compounding problem.
I’m gonna say this as nicely as possible, because I do respect the hard work of CRS/CBO/GAO. Those reports are basically never written by true technical professionals. Now that the issues are better understood I’d expect the next round to include them.
November 25, 2025 at 11:30 PM
I’m gonna say this as nicely as possible, because I do respect the hard work of CRS/CBO/GAO. Those reports are basically never written by true technical professionals. Now that the issues are better understood I’d expect the next round to include them.
If it wasn’t for the industrial concerns about keeping FMM open I’d want to cancel those two ships and scrap CONNIE on the ways.
November 25, 2025 at 11:17 PM
If it wasn’t for the industrial concerns about keeping FMM open I’d want to cancel those two ships and scrap CONNIE on the ways.
She’s something less than 15% common with her parent to meet USN spec, most of which was written in blood. And the mods to make her compliant and keep her parent hullform do not work together. Mark my words, there will be LCS’s with longer service lives than FFG 62 and 63.
November 25, 2025 at 11:15 PM
She’s something less than 15% common with her parent to meet USN spec, most of which was written in blood. And the mods to make her compliant and keep her parent hullform do not work together. Mark my words, there will be LCS’s with longer service lives than FFG 62 and 63.
She sucks more than most first-in-classes. A lot more
November 25, 2025 at 11:02 PM
She sucks more than most first-in-classes. A lot more
The issues are not those kind of issues. They’re throw it all out and start over issues.
November 25, 2025 at 10:22 PM
The issues are not those kind of issues. They’re throw it all out and start over issues.
That last one is the kicker. It has no margin. At all.
November 25, 2025 at 10:21 PM
That last one is the kicker. It has no margin. At all.
This is not the issue. FFG 62’s design has numerous issues, and while you can argue about whose fault they are, twenty bucks says 62 and 63 don’t see twenty years of service. Good probability they don’t even get fifteen.
November 25, 2025 at 9:38 PM
This is not the issue. FFG 62’s design has numerous issues, and while you can argue about whose fault they are, twenty bucks says 62 and 63 don’t see twenty years of service. Good probability they don’t even get fifteen.
FFG 62 has numerous naval architecture issues. I’m annoyed we wasted this much time on it to soothe the ego of a long-departed CNO I’m hardly shedding tears for the program.
November 25, 2025 at 9:35 PM
FFG 62 has numerous naval architecture issues. I’m annoyed we wasted this much time on it to soothe the ego of a long-departed CNO I’m hardly shedding tears for the program.
Two thirds of U-boat kills were solo sailors either too brave, too stupid, or too fast for the convoys.
November 25, 2025 at 4:26 AM
Two thirds of U-boat kills were solo sailors either too brave, too stupid, or too fast for the convoys.
N Atlantic losses drop below 100K for the first time since 1941, and after July they stay below that line. Global figures follow about a year later.
On the convoy count, the good enough estimate is that 10% of convoys were actually attacked, and 10% of those suffered major losses.
On the convoy count, the good enough estimate is that 10% of convoys were actually attacked, and 10% of those suffered major losses.
November 25, 2025 at 4:26 AM
N Atlantic losses drop below 100K for the first time since 1941, and after July they stay below that line. Global figures follow about a year later.
On the convoy count, the good enough estimate is that 10% of convoys were actually attacked, and 10% of those suffered major losses.
On the convoy count, the good enough estimate is that 10% of convoys were actually attacked, and 10% of those suffered major losses.
Massive convoy attacks were vanishingly rare, but even on tonnage sunk Nov 42 is still if anything a high water mark for the U-boats. My data has 500K tons of sinking that month in the N Atlantic, but that’s the highest it’ll be for the rest of the war. June 43 will be the first time…
November 25, 2025 at 4:26 AM
Massive convoy attacks were vanishingly rare, but even on tonnage sunk Nov 42 is still if anything a high water mark for the U-boats. My data has 500K tons of sinking that month in the N Atlantic, but that’s the highest it’ll be for the rest of the war. June 43 will be the first time…
May of 1943, TRITON is cracked (albeit hours instead of seconds), B-Dienst has lost Allied codes, and 41 submarines are sunk that month.
November 25, 2025 at 1:22 AM
May of 1943, TRITON is cracked (albeit hours instead of seconds), B-Dienst has lost Allied codes, and 41 submarines are sunk that month.
I’m gonna be That Nerd and say (based on the data I have) November 42 was not decisive in the Atlantic. TRITON isn’t cracked, the four rotor naval variant of Enigma, B-Dienst still has some convoy codes cracked, and Nov only had 13 kills of the ~370 active Type VII/IX fleet.
November 25, 2025 at 1:22 AM
I’m gonna be That Nerd and say (based on the data I have) November 42 was not decisive in the Atlantic. TRITON isn’t cracked, the four rotor naval variant of Enigma, B-Dienst still has some convoy codes cracked, and Nov only had 13 kills of the ~370 active Type VII/IX fleet.
But much pet cause/oversimplified explanation of events to fit my priors!
November 24, 2025 at 4:59 PM
But much pet cause/oversimplified explanation of events to fit my priors!