gold plated navy

Defense spending is in the hot seat, as the jockeying for dollars begins in the new administration.

So let's zero in on the navy for a second, as few services have demonstrated such clownish incompetence and forming requirements then building something, anything, to meet them.

Via Galrahn, a lambasting of the Navy's latest stab at coming up with a coherent procurement plan:

Let no one suggest the Barack Obama administration will be soft on defense, because when the administrations first Navy budget could potentially include a new shipbuilding plan with FOUR of the most powerful surface combatants ever built in human history, it appears absolutely clear to me that the Obama Navy with John Young's pen signing checks with taxpayer money is prepared to defend every square inch of the oceans the US Navy sails from a potential future threat by China, not to mention invasion from outer space.

David Axe echoes his sentiments:

Make that two questions: where does the littoral and amphibious fleet fit in a shipbuilding plan skewed towards more battleships? If we can manage the design, construction and budgeting for a battleship-heavy force and a new littoral fleet, then great: go forth and let’s do both. But if reality and recent experience intervene and force us to make hard choices, are we going to buy the amphibs and coastal forces Obama promised, or ditch them in favor of new battleships designed to destroy alien invaders?

Bottom line: naval shipbuilding needs a reset. But it's not just the Navy:

According to the firebrands at the Air Power Australia think-tank, the Lockheed Martin F-22 stealth fighter, today the priciest U.S.-made fighter at around $140 million per new copy, will actually cost less than the supposedly cheaper F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, built by the same company and intended to be a cost-effective “75-percent” substitute for extra F-22s.

Meanwhile, two emerging superpowers play cat and mouse...