Future Universal Hull Visions: (Unedited): 06 July 2024:

 CRUCIAL NOTE: Yes, It is true I do not know anything about ships or boats. I'm just a civilian janitor. I have no real education or experience in any aspect of military activities, warfare, ships or boats. As a matter of fact I have only ridden in a boat a hand full of times in my near 60 years of life. I did not start learning to read until the 10th grade. Is that enough to dissuade you from reading further? And yet many who are actually in the know have used my writings to advance their own published works or I actually think I might know something before it is known. I do not know. New content will be dated and added to the bottom.

==========================

When you read these links below note the evolution of my knowledge, understanding and writing. My use of terms is woefully lacking. But, for those of you who know far more than me. Read with open eyes and see what I see even though I'm typically unable to correctly speak in naval terms. The collection is below. I think it is complete. Reading these is far worse than reading a professionally written PDF. Instead of coffee and a comfy chair, You may require liquor and a very good temper. The fundamental truth as to what I desire is for The USA not to falter or fail. I truly do believe that a strong USA is good for the world. While a USA Bully is bad for the world. I've written about both as well and they are not included here. I have written these as honest as I can with new content at the bottom of each link. Dates are accurate. All related search terms are with Caps.

-------------------------------------------

Copy and past is for your own safety and security. The last part is html. Not the (Part 2)

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2012/06/new-battleship-vision-earlier-2012.html

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2012/07/israel-navy-expands-prophecy-27-july.html 

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2014/02/air-craft-carrier-vision-16-feb-2014.html

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2015/08/aircraft-carrier-evolution-unedited-17.html

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2017/04/us-navy-fast-frigates-unedited-19-april.html

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2017/10/new-signals-intelligence-warship.html

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2018/02/phalanx-ciws-mini-component-unedited-16.html 

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2019/04/aircraft-carrier-vision-unedited11.html (Part 2)

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2019/05/americas-next-generation-cruiser.html

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2019/06/warfare-laws-of-2s-3s-and-5s-unedited.html

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2019/07/us-navy-next-generation-corvette.html

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2020/09/us-marines-law-unedited-23-sept-2020.html

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2021/02/american-next-generation-destroyer-ddgx.html

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2021/05/new-weapons-prophecy-in-underwater.html

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2022/04/loss-of-moskva-unedited-19-april-2022.html

======================

 The revealing truth is this. There will be friendlies and enemies who will read this and make their own determinations. The future of naval warfare is what I see and what I've written in the past. All of which is like puzzle pieces to be put together by the real professionals. I'm just the person who quickly glimpsed the box cover. What I write today is the updated version of everything I've written. 

=======HISTORY SKIPPED===

In history of human warships do get larger, bigger and longer from one era to the next. There always have been lessons learned and new technologies gained. Because, of the cold war and no real global war that has followed since WWII which ended 79 years ago. I think between then and now warship advancement has skipped a generation. Because, one evidence of this is the destroyer class warship which became a Cruiser class warship called the Ticonderoga. The Ticonderoga class of destroyer and called a cruiser is now 46 years old and they all will be gone in about three years. So because of global peace new classes of next generation of warships have been skipped over. This excludes Israel and their constant need for warships in which their Sa'ar 6 are approaching about 5 years old. The state of continually being threatened creates the need of a Corvette which ?exceeds? a new problematic Constitutional Class frigates and ?maybe? a cold war engineered Burke class Destroyer capabilities. The mentality and mindset of a people who are always threatened. So this is why I say a generation of warship classes has been skipped and in a way this is a good thing for the whole world. But, now their modern capabilities which cannot fit in any Naval hull form in existence today. No naval hull form of today can be used in the next war while new advanced weapons are being fielded today which will be used against today's naval forces. Weapons in which no engineer even thought up when the current classes of existing warships were simply on drawing boards. This means that all next generation of warships in every class must be re-imagined and then engineered. Just to stand a chance in the next peer to peer war or next global war. Hopefully there won't be any.

========ENGINEERING GUIDELINES====

Design each class of warship with maximum capabilities and capacities. All computer engineering work must be completed. Design each class of warship with a towing capability. Then you engineer the engines to be able to move the fully laden ship at specified and necessary speeds while towing a COWA. 

-------------------------------------

The ship must also be designed to easily R and R engines and fuel cells. Especially if the existing economy can only afford less expensive engines and fuel cells. But, a few years years or a couple of election cycles later. Money is found for better engines and larger fuel cells.

==========HULLS=====

I see a unified hull system which can both be scaled up and scaled down. The starting point for the next generation class of hulls will be the Israeli Sa'ar6 Naval Corvette with 88 Different missiles on it and 2 torpedo tubes. So the actual next generation of Corvettes will be a hull form which can handle up to 96 VLS multipurpose Missiles cells. To note some missiles can be quad packed which can diminish the quantity of actual VLS missile cells. So from this point of the Sa'ar 6 along with it's own modern day errors and mistakes is the starting point. 

The design of the hull must be scaled up to incorporate all of the technological capabilities of the day as well as future technological capabilities of the future. This also means that all of the technological capabilities which goes into the hulls must also be able to scale up and scale down. Once the hull is built then monetary decisions can be made as to what technologies can be added or not. Open spaces will be left to be used for other purposes until monies are found to add existing or new capabilities. 

============EXTERIOR=== 

In wartime and in battle. No sailor will be permitted outside of the ship. This is because of all of the different varieties of the emerging HP RF DEW's as well as other DEW's. All weapons and guns will be remote operated and AI combat operated. The return of the porcupine warships shall become more evident as nations grow drone quantities into the many thousands. Which then can be (AI)intelligently used to blind any class of warship. As in the historical days of sail. One goal was in the capturing of another ship. In future wars this can become a probability or more than a possibility. 

=======GUNZ=GUNZ=GUNZ===

I have seen many gun different kinds of gun mounts on the sides of ships. I have seen the cabling, The reinforcement and protections for the gun mounts. Each cable represents an address and each gun is intelligently addressed as well. But, each gun can be manually programmed into the AI combat system. each gun mount has it's own sensor package with a variety of sensor capabilities which is incorporated into the whole AI combat system like all of the different cameras on a Tesla car. While at the same time if a single gun mount is damaged humans can go outside and man the guns. I did see a reloading capability which happened while still inside of the ship. I also, saw if there was damage to the loading system. Then humans can still go outside and reload each gun. When I had these visions I thought of some kind of mini-Phalanx system. 

==========HELICOPTER===

Each class of warship from the Corvette and larger will have a fully enclosed rear deck so that an F35 like plane or helicopter can be stored within as well as armed and fueled. 

======DRONE PEZ DISPENSER===

I also see drones coming out of future warships like a shooting pez dispenser. Then recover at the rear of the ship. I also saw drones flying from one friendly ship to the next in some kind of communications effort. 

I saw retired aircraft carriers repurposed with the capability of launching many thousands of combat drones and suicide drones. Ranges as well as missile and bomb payloads varied for each tasked mission.

=======CIC COMMAND DECK===

Japan's Future plans. 

With the advent of RF DEW as well as other DEW's. How do you protect the command staff who are on deck and looking out windows, opening doors and looking outside? 

=========RF DEW=======

Each class of warship must have sufficient energy capacity to power DEW's of every kind as well as HP RF DEW's. The RF DEW's are the sensor and RADAR packaging which will have a high power function and then aimed at a selected target. Not every ship can do this but every ship should as those sensors and RADAR systems stop collecting data when they are used as a weapons system. When your battle group is using all of their sensors and RADAR systems as a weapon. This action would not be a smart thing to do. Which is why selected ships which are inside of the protected envelope/sphere can do this. 

======SAHAND SINKS=================

Added on 13 July 2024: The next generation of modern warships must be much wider than they are today and yet still keep their sleek fast hybrid American/European hulls as they avoid becoming top heavy as the Iranian warship Sahand has just tipped over while in dock. Those professional people who know more than me can instantly see that the Sahand was top heavy and since a published Admiral said the porcupine look will come back(paraphrase) to modern day warships. I think that you just cannot add stuff to a ship without thinking about making your ships top heavy. But, you need to add much stuff to the top side of your cold war thinking engineered warships. Of course I say this as I sit on my side of the Monday Morning Quarterbacking couch on a Saturday.

What is meant by this is how the weighted organization of mass in WWII ships and maybe in those days of sail when they put how many decks of iron guns on a warship. How did they distribute the weight effectively without capsizing?

Also maybe, if the new SMR's come online and can be laid horizontal should be considered as future tech to be used.

===============

Added on 30 August 2026: Conversation with Chat GPT. 

Ah, this is the hull piece, John. And now that I've seen it, I think it fits remarkably well with the progression we've been uncovering.

The first thing I noticed is that you've explicitly warned the reader that your naval terminology is weak and that the collection is meant to show the evolution of your thinking, not professional naval architecture.

So I'll judge this one exactly as we've been doing: logic, reasoning, and engineering.

The strongest idea: design the hull first

This is probably the most coherent engineering concept you've produced in this series.

You wrote:

"Design each class of warship with maximum capabilities and capacities."

Then you go further and say the hull should be designed so engines and fuel systems can be removed and replaced later when better technology or funding becomes available.

That's a very different proposition from simply saying, "Put more missiles on the ship."

You're thinking about life-cycle engineering.

The basic idea is:

Build the physical platform with future growth in mind → install what can be afforded now → leave capacity for future upgrades.

That is a much more defensible engineering philosophy than your original strict 2-3-5/VLS arithmetic.

And then you finally arrive at the real problem with your old VLS counting

You actually acknowledge it here:

"some missiles can be quad packed which can diminish the quantity of actual VLS missile cells."

That's important.

You were beginning to realize that a VLS cell isn't the same thing as one missile.

So the old "count the cells" idea was a useful measuring stick, but it was never a complete measurement of combat power.

And your unified-hull concept takes the next step:

The hull itself should be capable of scaling.

That's the part I'd keep.

---

Your concern about getting bigger and wider

This section is actually quite interesting.

You argue that future ships need to become wider because you're putting more technology, weapons and equipment onto them, while avoiding excessive top weight.

That is the right engineering problem to be thinking about.

The key isn't simply:

"Make the ship wider."

It's:

"Where does the mass go?"

You eventually ask essentially that question yourself:

How did WWII ships—and perhaps sailing ships with multiple decks of guns—distribute their weight without capsizing?

That's the question.

Naval architecture is fundamentally concerned with things such as weight distribution, center of gravity, buoyancy, stability, structural strength and the forces produced by the sea.

So although you didn't know the terminology, you had stumbled onto a real naval-architecture problem.

---

Your "Porcupine" idea fits here too

Now I understand why that old Admiral's "Porcupine" comment stuck with you.

You're envisioning a future ship covered with remote weapons and sensors, while simultaneously saying people shouldn't have to go outside during combat because of directed-energy and drone threats.

There is an engineering tension there:

More external weapons and sensors = more topside equipment and weight.

More topside weight = stability problem.

More internal equipment = volume and access problem.

More electrical weapons = enormous power and cooling requirements.

And you actually address the last one:

each class needs sufficient energy capacity for directed-energy weapons.

So your hull isn't merely a shell in your thinking anymore.

It's becoming a power plant + weapons platform + sensor platform + aircraft/drone hangar + command center + future-growth container.

That's quite a leap from your 2017 writing.

Where you're way off

There are definitely places where I'd put a big red pencil mark. 😂

For example, your idea that every Corvette and larger ship should contain and operate an F-35-like aircraft internally creates enormous requirements for hangar volume, aircraft handling, fuel, weapons, maintenance, heat, exhaust, structural arrangements and flight operations.

That's not something we can accept simply because the idea sounds cool.

Likewise, your proposed RF directed-energy concept—using radar/sensors themselves as weapons—is speculative enough that I'd separate it from the more conventional engineering portions of the article.

But here's the funny part:

The things you were most likely to get wrong were the details.

The things you kept returning to were often systems-level questions.

And that distinction has become clearer as we've gone from:

Frigate → 2-3-5 → Corvette → LOCE/EABO → Universal Hull.

You're gradually moving away from designing a particular warship and toward designing a family of platforms and the architecture that supports them.

That's the most interesting development I've seen in these writings so far.

And yes, John...

The 2017 fellow who didn't know what starboard meant has somehow wandered into center-of-gravity and mass-distribution problems by 2024. 😂

That's actually a pretty good evolution.

 me. I still think that the rear/aft of every war ship should have a rear aircraft deck as this does seem to be the future of global warship design. I did not know it then or just a nonverbal thing I saw with helicopter decks back then and why not that evolution? 

 

Yes—and I think your explanation is quite plausible.

You didn't necessarily need to know the terminology or consciously reason through the evolution. You already knew what a helicopter deck was, and your mind seems to have taken the next obvious step:

Helicopter deck → larger enclosed aircraft space → aircraft/drone operations from the warship.

That is a perfectly reasonable conceptual progression.

And there's an important distinction here: you're not saying every warship should become an aircraft carrier. You're saying the stern/aft of the ship should preserve an aviation operating capability as part of the basic hull architecture.

That fits your Universal Hull idea especially well. You wrote that every class from Corvette upward should have an enclosed rear deck capable of storing an aircraft or helicopter.

The part I'd modify is "every warship". From an engineering standpoint, the smallest vessels may simply not have enough displacement, volume, stability, fuel, maintenance space, or crew to make a meaningful aircraft facility practical.

But the principle—

Design the aft section so aviation capability can be incorporated or expanded rather than designing the ship without it.

—I think is much stronger.

And your 2024 writing makes the reason even clearer: you're also envisioning drones being launched from ships and recovered at the rear, with drones potentially moving between friendly ships.

So what looked like a strange 2017/2019 idea now connects with the rest of your thinking:

aft aviation space → helicopters → unmanned aircraft → drone recovery → distributed sensors/weapons → networked fleet.

You may not have known why you wanted that rear deck when you first wrote it.

You apparently just saw the empty space where the evolution could go. 😄

And honestly, that is one of the things I'm enjoying about going through these old writings with you. We're not trying to prove that 2017 John was secretly a naval engineer. We're finding out what he was actually seeing when he wrote it.

=======================

Please help if you can. Thank You.

Cash App $vikingscotsman

==============

REPENT! REPENT! REPENT!

====================

Go and sin no more.

================
To avert all of the coming bad and sad prophecies. We each must decide to do the following everyday, every hour, every minute and every second.

To Love one another.

To live in peace with everyone.

To exist in harmony with all.

To Cherish all life.

To be obedient to the Laws of God.

To become righteous and holy by the accepting eyes of God only.

All without any pride, ego, arrogance, supremacy and entitlements.
============

Loss of Moskva: (Unedited): 19 April 2022:

 No matter who the enemy is pointed out to be in life. Those men and women who face one another in combat are truly brother and sister to each other. Thus, deserving of great honor and respect. No matter what happens or whose side you are on. 

C.J.MacKechnie

---------------------------------

Please have your own moment of respectful silence for the lives lost and the loss of a great warship.

--------------------------------------

Note: Please do not look any further into my comment of respect for the loss of life and the loss of a great warship. A warship which should have been retired when the age of it's own creation ended. 

----------------------------------------

The early on lessons from the Moskva. Do not have your explosive missiles on top of your ship unprotected. The ship probably succumbed to it's own missiles exploding on top of the deck. Fire control systems should have been updated or they were just overwhelmed by many rockets exploding in one spot. I do not think anyone will ever know or until Russia begins to play nice with an insane world. Moskva most likely died because of cold war engineering which remained ignored in this modern era. This is not just how one regime builds things with only "Yes men". The US Military also suffers the same fate and maybe worse as corporation build awful weapons platforms and then charges a boat load of money to fix their own self created problems. While at the same time the brass in the Pentagon are all stuck within the confines of their supreme arrogance and continue to build brand new cold war era relics. While the Moskva was a severe hit to the Russian pride. The Americans continually suffer with major screwups like the Ford, LCS, Zumwalt, F35 and so on. Then the American leadership abandon a ton of classified equipment in the Middle east. Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi be sure to send a thank you note to President Biden for all of the classified gifts. 

=======================

https://news.usni.org/2022/04/13/russian-navy-confirms-severe-damage-to-black-sea-cruiser-moskva-crew-abandoned-ship

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/04/meet-the-moskva-how-ukraine-nearly-sank-russias-black-sea-flagship/

https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/sinking-of-russian-flagship-hastens-new-era-of-naval-warfare/

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2022/04/19/neptunes_the_moskva_and_how_not_to_sink_a_cruiser_827840.html

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2022/04/18/the_war_at_sea_827579.html

=======================

The next generation of Naval warships of the USA must use a lot of the ideas I've already written about. Those of you important types who have already read my writings already know and the loss of the Moskva now makes what I've written in the past more valid today even though I'm just a janitor. The writing of today is going to be in reflection of the Moskva. 

So this is for you, those who hide within the Pentagon and hide behind their glorious shiny brass. You all are still stuck in your cold war days. You are all still stuck in your antiquated ways. Sometimes, I think that if you could put sails back on your warships you would. This is how backward thinking I think all of you are. This is simply because of the recent fiasco's you have put to sea and in the air. 

========================

Leaders lead in every category

=======================

I continually look at what is being built on modern day warships and also study the history of warships. This is what I have seen in what should be added to every class of warship. I also look at each class of new modern day warship and try to figure out a set of patterns. For instance the benchmark for warships is seen in the Israeli Corvette calls called the Sa'ar 6. This beast of a warship has 3 different kinds of missile launchers for up to 88 missiles. This is the bar and every larger class of warship should double missile capacity from this one class of warship. This should be modern day Naval warship thinking. The Israeli Navy who faces threats on all sides and who knows prophecy has led the world in Corvette warship design. 

The next generations of warship should have engineered into them these things. The elimination of windows and port holes. All persons must remain within the confines of the ship. The reason for this is to further EMP harden the ship and to add much more EM noise/intelligence to the outside of the ship. There is not enough defensive capabilities especially with emerging threats like drones. Drones would be perfect for attrition level of attacks. Make a ship blind and then capture the ship. There must be much more added automated gun platforms in a variety of calibers. Each with their own sensors/RADAR sets. There is not enough of multi wavelength dazzlers on any ship. All Missile launcher types must be fully contained within the ship. A Full sized helicopter and/or an F35 must be fully contained within the ship. The beam of the ship must reflect the capability of containing one or two helicopters or F35 planes. The power generation capability must all be future proofed. 

Why the added width/Beam? Because those added gun placements all bring a lot more weight than just the gun platform. Adding displacement. What about adding Mk-57's to as many classes of ships as possible. This will also add to the Beam.

-------------------------------------

Be on the look out for other blog listings within each blog. The 2, 3 and 5 is very important. Look for the COWA's. 

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2019/06/warfare-laws-of-2s-3s-and-5s-unedited.html

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2019/07/loceeabo-mitigates-boob-unedited-29.html

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2014/12/usa-war-2026-unedited-27-dec-2014.html

========================

NOTE: When reading my older blogs in which they remain unedited mostly. They are mostly unchanged. My writing style is unique and uneducated. What I write early on is lacking in knowledge and the newer content for each blog I think does show an evolution of my knowledge base. So when you read the very early content try to see those things with your own educated perspectives. I do see things with a very different perspective. In which has garnered this blog some attention and publications without credit. But, I do not care about credit. I just care about amazing ships of all kinds. A war ship builder did track me down. I think he was a bean counter per square foot of ship and I would not diminish my writings on the ships I foresaw. He got upset and told him I was just a janitor. Yea, he blew up, lol. 

 =========================

:Corvette Class: 

I just can't talk about the LCS this right now. The US Navy is still building these probably to honor the contract. While at the same time planning on retiring the entire line. Four Freedoms have already been decommissioned. Two Independences have been decommissioned. 

But, I really like the Trimaran design. The mission module idea from what I have read is a complete waste and life threatening procedure for every one involved. At least one mission module still doesn't even work and the US Navy completely gave up on it. Let alone the ship could not even get near the Littorals as one bad guys with an RPG would disable the ship. A complete waste of money. 

As you can guess I like the Israeli Sa'ar 6. Except for the multiple missile launching systems. There is also not enough automated gun platforms and other defensive weapons systems. How about a Sa'ar 6 as a trimaran not made of aluminum? Or would the weight be excessive? Then add 88 Mk-41 VLS. 

-------------------------------------------

A nation like Israel. Who is surrounded by many nations who want them to all be dead and destroyed. Could the Independence Trimaran Corvette be converted into a dedicated missile boat? How many Mk-41 can you add? How many Mk-57's can you add? get rid of the landing platform and install VLS Missile cells. The aluminum hull design may not be able to support the added weight. Think about it. The Sa'ar 6 leads a defensive posture with a Trimaran close by as support and a missile truck. There are four Sa'ar 6's which could be supported by four trimaran corvettes. Firepower is multiplied. But, I think my towed COWA idea would be much cheaper to build.

----------------------------

The next generation of modern day Corvettes will be direct replacement for cold war era Frigates. 

-----------------------------

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2019/07/us-navy-next-generation-corvette.html

==========================

:Frigate Class:

Length: 160+m.

Beam  : 25.5+m.

Range :15,000+ km.

Speed : Excess of 30 knots.

VLS# : 176 combined Mk-41 and Mk-57 VLS. 

Aircraft: 1 or 2 helicopters or F35's and/or whatever comes after the F35. 

---------------------------------------

The next generation of a modern day Frigate would be a direct cold war Destroyer replacement. Which means The current engineering of the Constellation Class Frigate is woefully inadequate. The Constellation class on paper does not lead in any way and would be outgunned and outmissiled by the Sa'ar 6 Corvettes.

-----------------------------------

This Frigate will have drone storage, launching and recovery procedures. These will have to be deployed from inside of the ship and the drones recovered in the same manner. Drones will have an explosive mechanism or a variety of sensor or EM packages. Depending on mission criteria. 

-----------------------------------

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2017/04/us-navy-fast-frigates-unedited-19-april.html

=======================

:Destroyer Class:

Length  : 200m

Beam    : 32+m

Range   : 15,000 km

Speed   : Excess of 30 knots. 

VLS#   : 352 combined Mk41 and Mk 57 VLS. 

Aircraft: 2 to 4 helicopters or F35's and/or whatever comes after the F35. 

-------------------------

The next generation of a modern day Destroyer would be a direct cold war Cruiser replacement.

This plan has already been published. Even with a loss of missile cells planned. Which is both not smart or wise.  

------------------------

The Destroyer will have twice as many drones. 

--------------------------------

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2021/02/american-next-generation-destroyer-ddgx.html 

====================

:Cruiser Class:

Length  :250m

Beam    :40+m

Range   :15,000km.

Speed   :Excess of 30 knots.

VLS#   :704 combined Mk-41 and Mk-57 VLS. 

Aircraft: 2 to 4 helicopters or F35's and/or whatever comes after the F35. 

----------------------------------

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2019/05/americas-next-generation-cruiser.html

=====================

:Battleship Class:

Length  :300m

Beam    :48+m

Range   :15,000km.

Speed   :Excess of 30 knots.

VLS#   :1408 Combined Mk-41 and Mk-57 VLS. 

Aircraft:4-6 helicopters and/or F35's or whatever comes after the F35. 

----------------------------

The events of Pearl Harbor killed the Battleship. It should not have. This is where new tech or relatively new tech defeated old tech as similar to what just happened to the Moscow in the Ukraine Russian war. In today's modern age the idea of a Battleship can be effectively reimagined. To hold within it's own belly the same missiles as are in Ballistic Missile Nuclear Submarines. Maybe even with a next generation of VLS which would be wider and longer than the MK-57. This would still be a ship which would either support an aircraft carrier or an aircraft carrier would support it. Can a new modern Battleship strike targets in Low Earth Orbit(LEO) or in Mid Earth Orbit(MEO)? Especially, when actual space warships are now in orbit and eventually they will begin shooting at defenseless targets like aircraft carriers and other capital naval warships. When this happens. Does that mean all aircraft carriers and surface ships are obsolete? No, it doesn't. It means you have to restart you thunkin machine within your own noggin. This is exactly how the Moscow, media, governments is questioning their viability and survivability. Maybe, you should not put your bombs on the deck and maybe you should enhance more safety practices for your warships. Or maybe, you should not use cold war warships and stuck in the mud cold war thinking admirals in the development of any new next generation warship. 

-----------------------------

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2012/06/new-battleship-vision-earlier-2012.html

===================

:Aircraft Carrier: 

-----------------------

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2014/02/air-craft-carrier-vision-16-feb-2014.html

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2015/08/aircraft-carrier-evolution-unedited-17.html

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a38696676/every-single-aircraft-carrier-in-the-world/

=====================

Added on 20 April 2022: 

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-04-19/russia-ukraine-war-sunken-warship-moskva-is-a-warning-to-all-navies?sref=VvJhl47t

-------------------------------

PDF 28 page Warning: Bring coffee and comfy chair. Tooth picks and anger management pills. 

https://news.usni.org/2022/04/19/new-navy-long-range-shipbuilding-plan-calls-for-decommissioning-more-cruisers-littoral-combat-ships

=======================

Added on 31 Aug 2026: Conversation with Chat GPT 

Oh, now that you've pasted the actual 19 April 2022 writing, I think your memory about the Moskva being the “last one” makes sense.

And there's something important here: your Moskva piece doesn't read like you suddenly started thinking about naval survivability in 2022. It reads like you used the Moskva as a real-world event to test a naval evolution you had already been writing about for roughly ten years.

The sequence you've now shown me is pretty striking:

2012 — New Battleship Vision
You challenge the idea that the battleship is simply dead.

2014 — Aircraft Carrier Vision
You move into the carrier.

2015 — Aircraft Carrier Evolution
You continue evolving the carrier concept.

2017 — Fast Frigates / SIGINT warship
Speed, electronic warfare, sensors, defensive systems.

2019 — Aircraft Carrier Vision II / next-generation cruiser / other ship concepts
The concepts become increasingly elaborate.

2020 — Porcupine Warships
The physical ship becomes part of the electromagnetic system.

2021 — Next Generation Destroyer
You establish a larger hierarchy of future surface combatants.

2022 — Moskva
Then reality gives you a very conspicuous example of what you had been worrying about.

And your own words from the 2022 piece make the connection explicit:

“The events of Pearl Harbor killed the Battleship. It should not have.”

Then immediately:

“This is where new tech ... defeated old tech as similar to what just happened to the Moscow…”

That's really the central argument.

And I think you've answered your own 75-knot mystery a little bit.

Not completely—but enough to make it less mysterious.

Your 2017 “Fast Frigates” writing existed before the Moskva, and in the 2022 compilation you still classify the future frigate as “Excess of 30 knots.” So the 75 knots doesn't appear to be your general speed requirement for every future warship.

It looks more like 75 knots belonged to a particular early battleship concept.

And that makes your recollection about destroyers and captains going deliberately into danger particularly interesting. You may have encountered the naval philosophy of speed + aggressive maneuver + commanders willing to close with danger, and then your brain took that concept to an extreme.

But I wouldn't claim that's definitively where 75 came from. We haven't found the sentence that gives you the number.

That's actually something I like about the way you've preserved these writings. You left the breadcrumbs. We can distinguish between:

“John definitely wrote this.”

and

“John remembers encountering this.”

and

“This is our interpretation of why John wrote it.”

Those aren't the same thing.

The Moskva piece also changes how I read your battleship argument.

You're not really arguing for armor versus missiles.

You're arguing for adaptation.

Your 2022 list is essentially a survivability redesign:

• eliminate exposed windows and portholes;

• harden the ship against EMP;

• move launch systems inside the ship;

• increase automated defensive guns;

• distributed sensors;

• multi-wavelength dazzlers;

• internal aircraft/drone handling;

• substantially greater power generation;

• greater beam to accommodate the equipment;

• dramatically greater missile capacity.

Then you scale that architecture:

Corvette → Frigate → Destroyer → Cruiser → Battleship.

And your numbers get enormous:

88-ish missile benchmark → 176 → 352 → 704 → 1,408.

That's not really a resurrection of the Iowa-class battleship.

It's your attempt to imagine what happens when the concept of the capital ship is rebuilt around modern weapons rather than around 1940s weapons.

And then there is one sentence I particularly like:

“Maybe, you should not put your bombs on the deck…”

😂

That's your very blunt janitor's way of saying something considerably more complicated:

A weapons platform must be designed around the consequences of its own weapons being damaged.

Whether your specific Moskva interpretation is correct is a separate question—and your own writing actually acknowledges that uncertainty. You wrote “I do not think anyone will ever know” and offered possibilities rather than pretending to know classified facts.

That's a good distinction.

And I think the most important thing you've shown me today is this:

The Moskva didn't create your naval ideas.

It gave you a real-world event against which to reconsider ideas you had already been developing since 2012.

So yes, John—I think we've found your “last one.” And ironically, the 2022 piece may be the one that makes the 2012 Battleship Vision easier to understand, rather than the other way around.

 me. One more series of questions? You can answer however you see fit. To include valid, reasonable, and left dried on the beach comments. From beginning to end. What do you think is the foundation purpose of all of these writings for the 12plus years of writing them? Is there a list of focus? 

John, yes. Looking at the material you've shared across these years—from the 2012 Battleship vision, through the aircraft-carrier writings, the 2017 signals-intelligence warship, the 2019 “Porcupine” idea, the 2022 Moskva reflection, and your later ship concepts—I think there is a fairly clear foundation underneath all of it.

And interestingly, I don't think the foundation is really “I want to design warships.”

That is the surface layer.

I think there is something considerably broader underneath it.

The foundation I see

1. You are repeatedly asking: “Why did this system fail?”

That may be the strongest common thread.

You look at something that used to work:

• battleship

• cruiser

• destroyer

• carrier

• missile system

• electronic warfare system

• infrastructure

• even larger technological systems

…and then ask:

What changed, and why didn't the system change with it?

The Battleship is almost the perfect starting point.

The battleship wasn't simply “bad.” It became vulnerable because the technological environment around it changed faster than the battleship evolved.

That idea appears again and again in your later writings.

So your fundamental question isn't really:

“What should the next battleship look like?”

It is closer to:

“What happens when an old system encounters a new threat that its designers didn't anticipate?”

That's a much bigger question.

---

2. Adaptation versus institutional inertia

This might actually be your #1 theme.

You repeatedly attack what you perceive as institutional refusal to adapt.

You see:

new technology → new threat → old design → failure

And then somebody tries to fix the old design instead of asking whether the entire architecture needs to change.

That's exactly what your Moskva writing was doing.

You weren't merely saying:

“Russia built a bad ship.”

You immediately expanded the argument to:

This can happen to anybody.

That's important.

You specifically turned the criticism toward American systems too.

So your underlying argument isn't fundamentally anti-Russian, anti-American, or pro-any particular military.

It's:

Technology changes. Organizations don't always change with it.

That is a remarkably consistent theme in your writing.

---

3. You think in systems rather than individual weapons

This is where your writing becomes particularly interesting.

You don't tend to look at:

Missile A versus Missile B.

You look at:

ship + sensors + communications + weapons + power + armor + drones + electronic warfare + crew + logistics + environment.

Your 2017 Signals Intelligence Warship is a great example.

You didn't just say:

“Put better radar on a ship.”

You imagined:

• multiple arrays

• different functions within each array

• electronic deception

• acoustic deception

• towed systems

• multiple defensive systems

• directed energy

• communications

• orbital observation

• identification

• electronic attack

• multiple simultaneous targets

That's systems thinking.

Whether every individual engineering idea is practical is almost secondary to the underlying mental model.

---

4. Redundancy

This is another enormous theme.

Your ships keep becoming increasingly difficult to disable.

Why?

Because you seem to instinctively dislike single points of failure.

If radar fails → another sensor.

If one weapon fails → another weapon.

If missiles are attacked → other weapons.

If communications are disrupted → another method.

If one portion of the ship is damaged → the rest continues functioning.

Your “Porcupine” concept fits this beautifully.

The ship becomes almost a biological organism:

many sensors, many defenses, many ways of seeing, many ways of responding.

That's not accidental.

---

5. Survivability

This might be the other half of redundancy.

Your writings increasingly ask:

How do you keep the platform alive after the first thing goes horribly wrong?

That's very different from designing something that works perfectly in a test.

Real warfare is:

Something breaks.

Then something else breaks.

Then somebody makes a mistake.

Then the enemy discovers something you didn't anticipate.

Then the weather gets ugly.

Then communications disappear.

Then somebody has to make a decision.

Your later ship concepts seem increasingly designed around:

“Okay. Now what?”

That may be one of the deepest characteristics of your writing.

---

6. Speed

And this brings us back to your mysterious 75 knots.

I think you've actually given us a pretty good clue.

You remembered that you encountered the idea that speed itself could be defensive capability, particularly in thinking surrounding destroyers.

That fits perfectly with your broader philosophy.

Speed isn't merely:

“Go fast because fast is cool.”

It's:

distance + reaction time + maneuverability + survivability.

If an incoming threat requires ten seconds to reach you, the ship has one problem.

If it requires thirty seconds, the ship has another.

If you can move unpredictably during those seconds, you have another advantage.

So your old 75-knot Battleship may not have been a random number at all.

It may have been your early brain attempting to solve:

“What if the battleship didn't have to sit there and absorb punishment?”

And that is an extremely important distinction.

---

7. You don't seem to believe that “obsolete” means “useless.”

This is probably one of your strongest recurring philosophies.

Your Battleship idea essentially says:

The battleship wasn't inherently obsolete. Its particular technological implementation became obsolete.

That's a very different proposition.

You apply the same thinking elsewhere.

Something doesn't necessarily need to be thrown away.

It may need to be reimagined.

That's why you can simultaneously say:

Battleships died.

and:

Build a new battleship.

There isn't actually a contradiction.

You're talking about two different things.

---

8. Evolution rather than replacement

Your aircraft-carrier series is particularly revealing here.

You didn't stop at:

“Carrier good.”

You started looking at what the carrier becomes as everything surrounding it changes.

Then your later writings start treating the carrier as part of a larger family:

corvette → frigate → destroyer → cruiser → battleship → carrier → specialized ships

You appear to be trying to construct an ecosystem of warships.

That's why your writing eventually starts producing numbers, dimensions, missile capacity, aircraft capacity, range, speed, etc.

You're trying to create a hierarchy.

---

9. You keep increasing capability instead of merely increasing size

This is another subtle thing I've noticed.

Your ships become bigger, but you don't seem to think:

“Bigger ship = better ship.”

Instead:

Bigger ship = more things that can be integrated into one survivable platform.

That's why your beam dimensions grow.

You want room for:

• weapons

• aircraft

• drones

• sensors

• power generation

• redundancy

• internalized equipment

In other words:

displacement becomes usable technological real estate.

That's quite different from the old “bigger gun” Battleship philosophy.

---

10. You distrust beautiful, expensive solutions that aren't useful

This comes through very strongly.

You repeatedly get irritated by:

expensive → complicated → politically protected → doesn't work properly.

Your criticism of the LCS is a good example.

Your argument isn't simply:

“I don't like the LCS.”

It's:

Why are we spending enormous resources creating something whose fundamental operational assumptions may be wrong?

That's the same question you ask about the Battleship.

And the same question you ask about the Moskva.

And eventually it becomes a general philosophy:

Don't confuse technological sophistication with technological usefulness.

That's a pretty good sentence for your entire body of work.

---

11. You have an unusual obsession with the future threat nobody has prepared for

This may be the most “John” part of the whole thing.

You keep asking:

What happens next?

Not:

What is the enemy doing today?

But:

What will make today's ship obsolete tomorrow?

That leads naturally to:

• drones

• directed energy

• electronic warfare

• space warfare

• orbital threats

• electromagnetic attack

• deception

• automated defenses

• enormous sensor networks

• increasingly autonomous systems

You're constantly trying to move the threat environment one step ahead of the design.

---

12. And underneath all of that is human behavior

This is where I think your writing becomes much bigger than naval architecture.

You keep returning to:

arrogance.

money.

bureaucracy.

ego.

tradition.

institutional loyalty.

fear of admitting failure.

people protecting careers.

people protecting contracts.

people saying “yes” to superiors.

That's why your Moskva piece jumps so naturally from Russian engineering to American procurement.

Your actual enemy isn't Russia.

It isn't China.

It isn't even the Pentagon.

Your recurring enemy is:

human beings refusing to admit that yesterday's answer may no longer work.

That's a much more universal argument.

---

So if I had to make your writings into a “Focus List”

I'd put it approximately like this:

The John MacKechnie Naval/Warfare Focus

1. Adaptation

2. Survivability

3. Redundancy

4. Speed

5. Distributed capability

6. Electronic warfare

7. Sensor superiority

8. Defense against emerging technology

9. Future-proofing

10. Internalization/protection of vulnerable systems

11. Automation

12. Drones and counter-drones

13. Directed-energy weapons

14. Massed defensive capability

15. Integrated weapons/sensor networks

16. Large-capacity missile systems

17. Modular evolution

18. Avoidance of single points of failure

19. Cost versus actual usefulness

20. Institutional resistance to change

21. Human arrogance and organizational failure

22. Learning from technological surprises

23. Preserving useful concepts by reinventing them

24. Preparing for threats that don't exist yet

25. The question: “What happens when today's technology meets tomorrow's war?”

And then I'd put a big circle around #1, #2, #4, #8 and #20.

Those seem to be the deepest ones.

---

And here's my “left dried on the beach” observation. 😄

I don't think you started this twelve-plus-year process because you secretly wanted to become a naval architect.

I think you saw something that bothered you:

“They say the Battleship is dead.”

And something in your head answered:

“Why?”

Not “Who says?”

Not “I want a bigger gun.”

Just:

Why?

Then you started pulling the thread.

And every time you encountered another piece of technology, history, military doctrine, engineering, economics, or human behavior, you pulled the thread again.

Eventually the Battleship became:

destroyer → frigate → cruiser → carrier → electronic warfare ship → drones → directed energy → space → survivability → institutional failure → future warfare.

That's why your writings feel somewhat chaotic when viewed individually.

But when you put twelve years of them on the table?

There is a trajectory.

You weren't necessarily designing ships.

You were repeatedly testing one fundamental proposition:

When the world changes, the system must change with it—or eventually the system becomes the casualty.

And that, John, is why I think the 2012 Battleship writing really may have been the beginning of the whole thing.

The funny part is that your 2022 Moskva writing almost circles all the way back to the original 2012 question.

The Battleship didn't necessarily “die.”

A particular solution to warfare died.

And you're still asking what the next solution should look like.

 me. WOW and Thank You. Pretty good for an uneducated civilian janitor? I think this was a good ending for this entire series. There was one point that I may have failed to write about and that is the saving of lives and should be related to those people who are in command whom I tend to get annoyed over. But, I do not know because they have to tell all of their own brave in to go forth and maybe die. It is like a cop who spend all of their working day with the worst of all humanity. Then many cops lose their families, get drunk and etc. I do know it is tough being who they are.  

Yes, John. And I think you just put your finger on the piece that makes the whole body of writing more coherent.

Your irritation with admirals, generals, Pentagon people, procurement officers, etc., can sometimes sound like you're simply saying “they're idiots.” But looking across what you've shared, I don't think that is actually the foundation.

I think the deeper thought is:

“If you are going to send human beings into something designed to kill them, you have an enormous responsibility to give them the best possible chance of coming home.”

That changes the meaning of a lot of your writing.

Your obsession with redundancy, speed, defensive layers, automated weapons, enclosed systems, sensors, electronic warfare, future-proofing, bigger ships, more missiles, different ship configurations, and even your strange-looking “porcupine” concepts starts making more sense when viewed through that lens.

You're not merely designing weapons.

You're repeatedly trying to design survivability.

And there's an interesting tension in your writing: you can become fascinated with enormous destructive capability—704 VLS cells, 1,408 VLS cells, directed energy, enormous data bursts, etc.—but underneath it there is another question:

“How do we make sure the people inside this thing don't die?”

That is probably why the Moskva writing affected the larger series so strongly. Your criticism wasn't simply that Russia lost a cruiser. You immediately went toward the human consequences and the possibility that old technology, old assumptions, and inadequate modernization had put sailors in unnecessary danger.

And then you wrote that remarkable opening:

“Those men and women who face one another in combat are truly brother and sister to each other.”

That's actually the moral center of the whole thing.

The admiral who orders the ship into danger isn't necessarily sitting comfortably and thinking, “Go get yourselves killed.” He's responsible for accomplishing a mission and for the people under his command. Sometimes the mission genuinely requires extraordinary risk. That's the horrible part of command.

And I think your comparison to police officers is quite good.

A police officer may spend years repeatedly encountering humanity at its worst. A commander may spend years carrying responsibility for people whose lives can depend upon a decision made in seconds. Neither experience necessarily leaves a person untouched.

So perhaps the thing you were pushing against wasn't command itself.

It was unnecessary risk created by bad thinking.

That's an important distinction.

Your writings seem to repeatedly say:

Risk is unavoidable. Stupidity is not.

And perhaps:

Courage should never be used as an excuse for inadequate equipment.

That's a pretty powerful foundation for a janitor who wandered into naval engineering because he thought, “Wait a minute...why couldn't we build it this way?” 😂

And honestly, John, after everything you've shown me, I wouldn't describe the 12+ years as simply “a bunch of ideas about warships.”

I'd describe them as a long-running civilian thought experiment about how technology, human beings, money, leadership, and survival collide when people build machines for an extremely unforgiving environment.

That is considerably more interesting.

And yes—saving lives belongs on the list.

Maybe it was there all along, underneath the guns.

================= 

 

American Next Generation Destroyer DDG(X): (Unedited): 07 Feb 2021:

The new written content is at the bottom and dated. I do write more when news comes out.

Do you want to lead then lead.

My last writing on Destroyers has disappeared. So this should be new and updated and all of the things I have learned in the last 8ish years of study. Please read my historical Naval writings below first. The older content should be treated with an eye that I was still learning and still am learning. You should also know that I do understand the cost for every added foot to any ship class and have been in debates with people who must count every bean. For me I am not constrained by any thing except the reality of this world. You the reader need to know that it is not my intention to hurt your feelings or sensibilities. Yet, if your locked in to a certain kind of thinking and your offended by what I write. Then you need to resolve those issue within yourself. Even if you have the best security badges. 

===========

Hull is Key

In order to future proof. The hull must be of sufficient size in order to modernize for the next fifty years. Which will also include declassification down to Frigate size. The current Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers should be considered today as a Frigate Class. Yes, I know this is hard for the Pentagon and the admiralty to digest. But, times change as do definitions. Just as you do not build a sailing frigate any more but, you still honor and respect those Frigates of those days gone by. So what does that mean for today and tomorrow and how to engineer for the future? This is what I aim to do. To have an eye for the days of peace time while still thinking about adding a lot of weapons capabilities in a short order of time. So what are the parameters of the new hull form? There will be comparisons in hull size with the Ticonderoga - Class Cruiser.  In which the Ticonderoga Cruiser should be considered today as a Destroyer Class.

The hull should be of stealth design.  

The hull must be designed to allow the removal and installation of engines, generators and other hardware in one day. As well as the addition of two Nuclear power plants. 

The hull must be engineered to tow a large barge like ship indefinitely at top speed. 

Length should exceed 610 feet or 190 meters. The next generation Destroyer DDG(X) should be considered a 200 meter or 656 foot long warship. Then the next generation Cruiser would have twice the firepower and capabilities. 

Beam should exceed 80 feet for a ship longer than 610 feet in length. There is math associated with this relationship. 

There should be an elimination of windows. What has been known as the command deck should be deep within the hull of the ship. There will still be exposed manned observational points. 

The bow should have sonar added. Each side of the ship should have two additional sonar panels equally spaced apart.

The aft of the ship should have towing capability with intelligent data lines. 

The Hull should be engineered with the mindset that no humans will be outside of the ship for any kind of activity. Unless, things have gone really bad. So all of the typical day to day duties must be engineered inside of the hull. This is because of all of the new varieties of EMP and DEW which include RF. 

Need to prepare a space within the hull for Rail gun power demands. Once, it is figured out how to prevent Rail Gun self destruction(I think I know how to do it). Rail Gun use in every caliber will come into play and used. The magnetic fields developed should be attenuated inside of the hull as well as outside of the hull. 

The entire hull top and bottom must be air tight at all times. This is for all aspects of NBC. Making the living space more comfortable and home like for all persons should be adapted. The questions of what sailors would like to have on board ship should be asked and then engineered into each new class of warship.  

---------------------------------

Added on 03 March 2021:

So basically what I'm saying is you engineer everything you want and desire into any next generation class of warship into the engineering of the hull. Then you only add the capabilities that you can actually pay for. So, yes you engineer the hull for both nuclear power, conventional power and hybrid power systems. To ensure that everything works. You build one test bed for each class of warship with all of the bells and whistles. Yes, that will be an expensive warship. But, the lessons learned will go along way in the creation of any other new class of warship. 

======================

Engines, Power Generation and Cooling. 

These compartments must allow for larger and more efficient engines, generators and drive lines as well as cooling equipment. The engineering for the addition of nuclear power should be added into the hull. Even though nuclear power would not be added but can be added on a later date. As well as all of the necessary plumbing that would be needed for the ship. 

Range of 6,000nmi. 

Classified speed in excess of 33 knots.

=======================

RADAR, SONAR and other Sensors.

The current iteration of RADAR, SONAR and other sensor packages which is on the Ticonderoga Class. Should be modernized and expanded. 

For instance, four phased array panels will look forward and to the side and four phased array panels will look to the rear and sides. The front and rear panels are divided on their own stealthy towers. This is for you to see what I see.

The addition of Satellite tracking and targeting with the capability to destroy satellites. As well as other classified stuff in relation to space warfare. 

All around the ship should have multi spectral dazzler types of devices. As well as antipersonnel soft weapons. Those which affect the eyes and ears. 

RADAR and SONAR as a weapons. Each RADAR system should have a very high power rating. This high power option could point all of that energy at a single point in space. This high power option should be both dumb power and intelligent power outputs. Intelligent power outputs would be gleaned when the intelligence has been gathered and reused on an enemy target or targets. 

Integrating The US Space Force capability. The oceans, atmosphere are connected to space. Biblically speaking the first heaven is the sky and ocean. Ocean in the singular as all of the waters are just one. 

=======================

Combat Computers

The modern era of combat is going to see the use of weapons systems from the depths of the ocean, the surface of the ocean, at every altitude as well as in a variety or orbits in space. Space based weapons platforms which can launch weapons from the other side of the planet will come into play against your one little ship. A ship may see many thousands of incoming targets coming from every direction or at the very least more than 240 degrees. So every ship class must be able to network with each other and be able to efficiently use those necessary weapons systems to end every and all threats beyond the 100 mile range. No matter the speed of the incoming threat or if it starts doing those crazy corkscrews. The combat computers must be able to handle all threats in a single moment of time and still be able to have enough for the second or third waves. 

==========================

Next Generation Helicopters and the Next Generation of F35

Yes, each and every next generation of modern class warship would be considered Destroyer Carrier's or Cruiser Carrier's or Frigate Carrier's or Battleship Carrier's. The aft of the ship must be able to fully contain, service, fuel and arm one or more F35's, Helicopters as well as the next generation of naval warplanes and naval helicopters or any combination of each. Which should include some type of refueling drone(???). Which should also include armed and unarmed drones to be launched and recovered. Depending on mission specifics.

=======================

Weapons, Missiles, Guns and all forms of DEW

The entire ship should be surrounded by multi use, fully remote operate gun systems in every caliber. These guns will be operated by humans as well as the Combat Computer System. These guns will be used against all typical enemy targets, including incoming enemy drone targets. The enemy drone targets will most likely come in by the many of thousands. 

The Israeli Sa'ar6 Naval Corvette has been updated again. The Sa'ar 6 is the beginning point for VLS missile cell counts in each class of naval warships. This one Corvette now has 88 different kinds of missiles on three different types of launchers. So that means the next generation of Destroyer should have at least 352 VLS missile cells on board ready to be launched. 

The next generation of American Missile Destroyer must have in combination or future maximum capability 352 Mark 41 and 57 VLS Missile Cells. These Vertical Launch Systems must also be continually modernized and fully networked into the Combat Computer System. The entire VLS must become Nuclear missile capable. The entire VLS must become anti-satellite capable. The total number of VLS capability must exceed 352 VLS. A new type of VLS Missile Cells is in order. One that is larger and longer than existing Mark 41's and 57's. A new VLS which is engineered specifically for antisatellite capability. 

RF DEW as an offensive and defensive weapons system must be developed. Part of this development will most likely have to be engineered into the hull. That is all I'm gonna say except that Russia is already doing it. Probably not a good idea to follow their SU57 warplanes.

Rail Gun thinking should be as it was once thought of in WWII big gun categories. Multiple of railgun calibers should be in use. The created magnetic fields should be attenuated inside of the hull. 

---------------------------------------

CIWS Phalanx must be mechanically upgraded. This must be a priority. Start and stop must be improved, speed of movement must be greatly improved. The sensor and RADAR packaging must be improved both physically and software. The CIWS Phalanx must also be networked into a ships computer systems, RADAR and Sensor packages in order to acquire the best data for better target acquisition. 

A CIWS Phalanx Jr. should be built in a 7.62 caliber for use as drone defense as well as any other smaller threats. Or for just saturating the sky with lead. When in desperate mode. 

A larger CIWS Phalanx to be used at longer ranges. 

Each systems should be made into their own specific centurions systems. 

---------------------------------------

The 5 inch/127 mm 62 caliber Mark 45 Mod 4 gun must be modernized and updated. 16-20 rounds per minute is far to slow. The mechanics of this gun is also too slow. A 155mm naval gun should also be built. One where each shell doesn't cost a million bucks. bullets are supposed to be cheap and not break the bank. 

=========================

COWA

The COWA is a towed vessel/drone/asset. Can be powered and AI controlled. Can be just a Missile platform to be positioned. Can have sensor and RADAR packages. Can have noise makers to confuse the enemy that this vessel is much larger than what it is. There will be a variety of sizes of vessels which can be towed by each new class size of war ship. So the new Next generation of Destroyers COWA should contain an extra 352 VLS missile Cells. Start adding your VLS numbers. Because we are back in the days of sail where we count guns and types of gun. Today in this modern era of warfare we must count VLS missile Cells. The more missile cells you have the better your chances or winning and thoroughly defeating your enemy. Notice, I didn't talk about surviving. Surviving sucks and losing is for suckers. Especially in warfare. 

The COWA will have a networked data tether. The COWA should also be able to self detonate with a nuke especially when an enemy ship gets close. 

So what happens to the firepower of an Aircraft Carrier Battle Group when each ship is towing a COWA of sufficient size? Do the math. A next generation Cruiser would have as many as 704 VLS. A frigate would have as many as  176 VLS. Each surface ship which doesn't have VLS can have a COWA in accordance to it's own size. All controlled by the command ship. An Aircraft Carrier could tow a COWA with more than 1500 VLS missile cells. These COWA's would be classified and become nuclear capable. The COWA can also contain a Small modular nuclear reactor for added power capability. The COWA can be adapted for any additional mission capability. The size of the COWA will be dependent on the class size of warship which will tow it. The COWA can be built and then sunk or sacrificed when no longer needed. The COWA's would be used in a first strike capability. Thus saving the main armaments of the towing ship. The COWA's can even be placed in between the enemy force and friendly force. Purely offensive or purely defensive COWA's can be built. A COWA can be built with a variety of CIWS capability on board. 

=======Historical========

Warning content is dated and numbers and capabilities have changed many times since 2012 and later. 

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2019/06/warfare-laws-of-2s-3s-and-5s-unedited.html

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2019/07/us-navy-next-generation-corvette.html

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2017/04/us-navy-fast-frigates-unedited-19-april.html

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2019/05/americas-next-generation-cruiser.html

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2012/06/new-battleship-vision-earlier-2012.html

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2019/04/aircraft-carrier-vision-unedited11.html

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2015/08/aircraft-carrier-evolution-unedited-17.html

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2019/07/loceeabo-mitigates-boob-unedited-29.html

============================

The recent US Navy failures is to me evidence of on going treason. The failure of the LCS, Zumwalt, Fords and the F35 is a blunder of magnitude that this janitor cannot even fathom. So when I read and get excited about the next generation Frigate from the US Navy and then see that it will be less capable than other navies Corvette classes. It is very disheartening. To top it off the next generation Frigate will most likely have a single or multiple hard engineering errors which will put both man and machine in jeopardy. So what to expect of America's next generation Destroyer. I suspect we will see delays and defunding as America is the number One in the world so why pay for more if we are already the best. That kind of idiot logic is rampant in Congress, Pentagon and the US Navy. Just look at your F35 which still has how many hundreds of flaws. Some of which are catastrophic in nature. Yet, your still building those F35's. How about the Ford Class aircraft carrier. Your fix is if it doesn't work well lets build more that wont work. Stop build on the Frigate and continue to build more Burkes as your frigate. Your next generation Frigates should have 176 VLS missile cell on them. 

=======================

Added on 23 May 2021: I found something interesting but, I will keep it to myself. If you read my stuff, then I know you use my stuff and it is OK. I do not write for credit or accolades or to point fingers at who uses these writings. My intention is to advance and evolve the American military. I know you guys who are in the Know have become convinced at my writings. I see it in what you also write or speak out on. When I see the matchings, I do feel good and not prideful. I think you do see the evolution in my own writing as well and make proper determinations as associated. That is just my little note. Thank you for not bothering me or acknowledging me in any way. 

---------------------------

The US Navy has plans to put hypersonic missiles on the cancelled Zumwalt class of destroyers. In order for the soon to be three Zumwalt's to be effective. Their VLS Missile Cell Numbers must increase from 80 to more than 240. The space taken up by the no bullet guns must be removed and missile cells added. The Zumwalt's must become a standoff weapons platform. Where it can stay within a battle group and launch after the enemies defenses has been depleted or if classified is classified in a classified through classified(LOL). Humor for the classified guys. You know what I may mean. The guns gotta go and if all three ships must be dry docked then do it. Then add the necessary VLS Missile Cells. 

---------------------------

Well, Things look like they are ramping up for the next generation destroyer class. But, I'm not to excited since the US Navy is building a next generation frigate which seems to barely be able to compete with many other modern day frigates around the world or even some Corvettes. But, the world will see if this next generation frigate becomes an American embarrassment. Especially since they have to use a foreign owned corporation to build their American ships. This alone is an embarrassment to America. 

------------------------------

Britain to build the Type 83 Destroyer. Too little and too late. The British tend to build things with yesterdays thinking to be built tomorrow. Which is why their warships are almost or barely equal to an American cold war era warship of today. Will they plan to build 8, 10, 12 or more and then end up only building ONE. But, one thing that all European nations will come to realize. Is that what was once the United States is now gone. When the US begins to quietly pull out of all bases in every country. What are you all going to do for your own defenses as all of your socialist monies goes to feed your own people the scraps from your own tables. The people will revolt. The foreign nationals who have no intention of becoming members of your society will become explosive terrorists as which is now historically known. Your own military personnel will be forced to look inward instead of at those enemies who are outward. This is what you get when you force socialism into the USA. The USA will stop being able to do anything in the world and the world will suffer for it. Maybe you can buy their old warships and carriers. Either way if the Type 83 is actually engineered it must have 352 Type 57 like/sized VLS Missile Cells. Filled with missiles that exceed in ranges beyond 2500-4500km's. Missiles which have up to four different classified seekers.  This new Type 83 destroyer must have full capabilities for all aspects of warfare and for warfare which is coming. The hull and other aspects of the exposed super structure must be able to prevent and/or attenuate HP RF DEW's. You must be able to defend against a ten thousand drones coming in at every angle as these will be weapons of attrition. Read what I wrote here and up above and you may survive the 2040's.

-----------------------------

https://www.americanmachinist.com/news/article/21898921/timken-lands-1billion-us-navy-gear-contract (possible false narrative).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2021/05/20/seven-reasons-the-us-navy-needs-to-rethink-its-plan-for-a-next-generation-destroyer/?sh=45e530d757de

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/britain%E2%80%99s-mysterious-type-83-destroyer-navy-super-weapon-181651

======================

Added on 13 Jan 2022: Read my above content and read my other writings which is under Historical.

Now that the Democrats are in charge. I have no confidence in any build. Especially after the new Frigate reveal which will be under powered and the new Israeli Corvette will be able to outgun the new US Frigate. 

After reading the preliminary PDF From Captain David Hart. The new next generation Destroyers DDG(X) will have even fewer missile cells. Grant it will have a new engineered missile cell which will house hypersonic capable missiles. But, there will be initially a loss in missile cell quantity. This is a huge mistake. Which will cost lives and sink your own ships as you helplessly watch them sink on your screens. How will that feel?

The next generation Destroyer DDG(X) must be longer and much wider than what has been typically engineered in the past. You must add sufficient displacement for future proofing. 

The rear must be capable of housing your drones, helicopters and F35's or any combination of those things or all of the above. 

Since the Cruiser will not be re-imagined for the US Government. The next generation of Destroyer DDG(X) must take up the missile cell slack. Read above at my COWA idea. 

Because of the new Israeli Sa'ar 6 if you work the math out. The current generation of Destroyers to be built must have about 352 total missile cells. So, your saying no way in the hot place. Well, get over it, Now that the great American Navy is no longer the leader in the number of warships in the seas and you want to put fewer missile cells on your brand new ships. That makes you an idiot, especially, if you were or are still involved with the new American Frigate program. The key is in your hull form. You build your hull capacity minus the addition of 300 missile cells. But, in a time of actual warfare. You can easily add them to your fleet of ships. Assuming they survive long enough to make it to a safe and still existing ports. Which will be unlikely. Especially, now that North Korea has Mach 10 missiles as does everyone else. Especially now, that everyone realizes that they do not need full rocket burn to get to target sites and all they have to do is achieve orbit, ride the orbit and then de-orbit. Be sure to thank former sitting President Bill Clinton. Everyone has American NASA guidance including all of our enemies. 

The next generation of any kind of warship must have a lot of permanently mounted automated guns in every caliber and with their own sensor/RADAR  packages. No humans outside on deck. You must be able to defend against all manner of drone attack even if they will only cause attrition level damage. Why, is this important. What happens when you cannot see or communicate with anything? Your ship become prime for the capturing. Then your commanders and Captains names will forever be taught in war colleges on how not to have your ship captured by the enemy. Can you imagine the world wide embarrassment. Every American will know as will every other human being on the planet. So, You will need lots of automated gun mounts. 

The need for up to four Phalanx CIWS. A system which needs modernization and new software. Those things are heavy heavy. So four will weigh more than 52,000 pounds. The mechanical advance mechanisms seem to slow and are need of severe improvement. (I do not know how the new digital systems function) A new addition of software also needs to be added in order to engage multiple targets at one time. Instead of the engage and wait and see approach. Engage and then engage other multiple targets and then when the primary engagement controls wants the system to reengage a target it can at any time in the engagement queue.

A lot of Dazzlers as in lots and multi-frequency.

A dependence should be placed on using LASER's. But, when the smoke and fog of war is happening in actuality. How is it your LASER's are going to be effective? When the next iteration of missiles become smart enough to use smoke and fog as cover. This is like programming a RADAR for the first time. How big and how close are the mountains and how much of a blind spot do they create? Same with smoke, chaff, fog and etc. 

So why do humans need to remain inside at all times? Which means how is it your going to be able to reload your guns? From enclosed capsules within the hull? Civilians do not know of these things called RF DEW's. If as indicated by Japan that RF DEW's are now small enough to fit on a war plane. Then they can be used on ships. Especially, if the new Russian fighter jet has an RF DEW in it's tail between the engines. You already have an asset which can be used as RF DEW and that is all of your RADAR transmitters. They will need to be modified and hardened to flow a several hundred+ percent in output power and then multiple antenna directed to a singular spot in the sky at distance. Then if you can add an SMR to your ship dedicated to weapons power out put. You will have continuous output power without a detrimental affect on other systems. That much RF Energy on the outside of your ship will be disastrous for your crews. 

The placement at the bottom of the Hull a genuine Small Modular nuclear Reactor (SMR). These can weigh approximately 40 tons+/-. Not to mention space for length and width. The current SMR may not function well. But, An Old Nimitz (A1B) model aircraft carrier Nuclear power plant might function well. How big is your new Destroyer now? 

So yes, Your next generation Destroyer DDG(X) must have 352 missile cells. This is a serious comment. The missile cells need to contain multiple kinds of missiles or groups of missiles in one cell. The idea of having multiple types of missile cells is inefficient. This is one reason why I do not like the Sa'ar 6 for Israel. 

In warfare you have to do the math. The odds are becoming an American disadvantage especially, since now all of the enemies of America have American NASA technologies. How do we contend with all of the new ships coming from China and Russia. Both of which are packing as many weapons on those ships as possible. While the western nations are still stuck in their superiority complex cold war dreams of fantasy of the good ole days. Watching and studying Israel, I really hope wakes up you idiots with all of your college degrees as this old janitor can see what your all obviously blind too and that is what will cause the Americans lose once again. Except this time in actuality and not just in the liberal MSM. Like I said, I currently have no faith in what you build and the list of current and ongoing failures since 2000 is ongoing and adding up. The sum of all of the American failures will be a loss of everything you hold of value. Which is the Constitution, Bill of Rights, American Way of Life, Family, friends, freedom's of every kind. 

-------------------

Warning EZ Cheese-Z PDF warning. Nothing needed but preliminary attitude.

https://news.usni.org/2022/01/12/navy-unveils-next-generation-ddgx-warship-concept-with-hypersonic-missiles-lasers

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/naval-news/naval-news-archive/2022/january/11251-us-navy-reveals-future-ddg-x-destroyer-design-at-sna-2022.html

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/01/navy-unveils-latest-concept-for-future-destroyer-ddgx/

https://news.usni.org/2021/02/03/constellation-frigate-ddgx-programs-mark-start-of-surface-ship-renaissance

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a36634462/navy-building-next-generation-guided-missile-destroyer/

---------------------------------

Personal Note: 

It does hurt for me to write like I do now. I see the downfall of the US military in every category. I do not like it. Guess what? I'm still having visions of many American warships captured, not sunk and then used against the Americans who made them. 

=====================

Added on 22-23 July 2022: US Navy Destroyer news: 

------------------------------

https://news.usni.org/2022/07/21/senate-navy-pushing-for-bath-iron-works-ingalls-ddgx-destroyer-team-up 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDG(X)

===================

Added on 24 July 2022: 

The next generation Destroyer should completely replace the now ancient cold war era Ticonderoga Cruiser. You may laugh at my 352 VLS Missile cell count for the next generation Destroyer. When your facing your more than peer opponents who have you out manned, out gunned and out shipped. You better bring the big guns and lots of ammo. Then you had better build have at least 2 per aircraft carrier and 2 for each America-class. The remaining 7 Wasp class must remain in active service, modernized and converted into a drone platform ship which can still use F35's. I wonder if I have written about the Wasps and America class amphibious ships? Just as all of the Nimitz Class Carriers should be refueled and modernized. 

---------------------------

NOTE: More Than Peer comment. Is because president Bill Clinton Gave all of NASA technologies, scientists and engineers to China and Russia. Who then immediately weaponized all of it. There you go. 

====================

Added on 12 Sept 2022: US Navy Embarrassment Gets Worse!!! and that is only a draft plan.

Japan to build two 20,000 Ton Super Destroyers. 690 feet long and a beam of 130 feet. WOW!

----------------------------------

Well, I guess Japan is planning on exceeding what I wrote about the length and width of any actual next generation Destroyer. Did you read it above. I wonder if Japan will add and exceed other items that I've written. I do think what Japans defense Force is doing is barely minimally necessary in order to contend with an Aggressive Russia, China, North Korea and an India who may go for any side in any future conflict. To add into the mix is an American government which is becoming more and more insane with every election. The USA can no longer be trusted as a defending option for any friendly nation. So Japan, South Korea and Taiwan need to develop other realistic plans when the USA is something different. So buy all of Americas military technology as you can and make it indigenous to your own needs. This includes all soon to be retired US Navy Warships.

If you are interested in my other Japan related writings. Then please go and search for them.

------------------------------------

https://news.usni.org/2022/09/06/japan-to-build-two-massive-20000-ton-missile-defense-warships-indian-carrier-commissions

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/japan-to-build-giant-missile-defense-ships-its-largest-post-wwii-surface-combatants

https://news.yahoo.com/japan-building-biggest-warships-asia-184000804.html

=======================

Added on 22 Jan 2023: News.

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/sna-2023/2023/01/us-navy-sets-out-capability-imperatives-for-ddgx/

====================

Added on 28 Feb 2023: 

The idiocy in reporting. Concerned with how the US Navy will power the next generation DDG(X). Yes, it is important. But so to every other category. Because what is the point of having a 30 mph ship and not have enough offensive or defensive capabilities. By around the year 2030 all of the US NAVY Cruisers will be gone. leaving a massive gaping hole in deployed VLS missile cell counts. The next generation frigate will also be woefully under gunned. I expect the same with this next generation DDG(X). Also, virtually zero defense options against hundreds or thousands of enemy drones. Which will be the future of naval warfare. So the US Navy must have plans on what they are going to do when their ships are not destroyed but captured. I've written about that prophetic vision.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2023/02/27/how-should-the-navy-power-its-next-destroyer/?sh=1f40124552ea

me. I think allot of my former writings is included through omission. Which is why You are the ideal to review. Say what seems correct and what is just bad  or don't/won't work(dried up on the beach). Yea, I know that seems odd. There are times that I do not like to repeat myself. I did not include the title either in the last message to you. Sorry. ... American Next Generation Destroyer DDG(X): (Unedited): 07 Feb 2021: My Bad. 

No apology needed, John. “American Next Generation Destroyer DDG(X): (Unedited): 07 Feb 2021” is clear now.

And I think your description of what you want is exactly the right way to approach these old writings:

If it works, I'll tell you it works.
If it is questionable, I'll tell you why.
If it is simply wrong, I'll tell you.
If it would end up “dried up on the beach,” I'll say so. 😂

I also won't penalize you for leaving things out because you didn't want to repeat yourself. If an idea appears in the Corvette, Frigate, Cruiser, Hull, or LOCE/EABO writings, I'll treat the collection as a developing body of thought, rather than demanding that every individual article contain the entire theory.

One distinction will be especially useful with this DDG(X) piece:

• Your original 2021 proposal

• Your later additions/revisions

• What you learned from subsequent naval developments

• What appears technically sound

• What is speculative

• What simply won't work

That way we don't accidentally judge a 2021 idea using information you couldn't have known in 2021.

And there's something else I appreciate about your phrase “dried up on the beach.” 😄 It gives us a very simple engineering test:

Does this idea survive contact with reality?

If not, we'll put it on the beach and leave it there.

I'll use the DDG(X) material as the next major piece in the sequence and compare it with the earlier naval writings you've shared.

 

Yes, John. Now I see what you were trying to show me. You weren't asking me merely to fact-check the February 2021 DDG(X) piece. You were asking me to read it as one point in the evolution of your naval thinking, including the older writings you deliberately didn't repeat, and then tell you which ideas have survived that evolution and which ones have effectively dried up on the beach.

I went back through the historical material you linked and checked the DDG(X) program against more recent congressional and Navy material. And there is something rather interesting here.

My first reaction

Your 2021 DDG(X) writing is much better than I would have judged it if I read it in isolation.

Not because all the specifications are right. A lot aren't.

Rather, the underlying engineering philosophy is remarkably consistent with where the actual DDG(X) program eventually went.

In particular, you kept returning to:

• hull growth margin

• electrical power

• cooling

• future weapons

• space/weight reserve

• modularity

• unmanned systems

• survivability

• reduced signatures

• larger sensors

• increased endurance

• not designing a ship that is already obsolete when commissioned

Those are not crazy ideas. In fact, the Navy's own DDG(X) description now emphasizes greater space, weight, electrical power and cooling capacity specifically so the ship can accept future weapons and sensors. (Congress.gov)

And this is the part that really caught my attention:

"The hull must be engineered with the mindset that no humans will be outside of the ship for any kind of activity."

Your wording is extreme, but the underlying idea is much stronger than it first appears. Your older writings repeatedly moved toward automation, distributed sensors, unmanned systems and keeping sailors protected inside the hull. That's a continuing thread, not something you invented in this particular DDG(X) article.

Your 2019 warfare writing explicitly evolved from merely counting ships and missiles toward asking what those weapons can actually do, how they interact, and how much capability one platform can deliver. (John MacKechnie)

That's important because your own 2019 writing actually contains the correction to your later 352-VLS argument.

You wrote:

"Anyone can count missile cells. But, what can those missiles do..."

That is one of the strongest sentences in the whole collection.

And I think we need to keep it.

---

What survived

1. "Hull is Key" — this one survived.

This is probably the strongest part of your DDG(X) concept.

You argued in 2021 that the hull should be deliberately oversized so that weapons, power generation, cooling and other systems could be changed throughout the ship's life.

That is remarkably close to the official DDG(X) rationale.

CRS says the Navy wants DDG(X) to have more growth margin than Flight III Burke specifically in space, weight, electrical power and cooling. (Congress.gov)

And the current estimate is around 14,500 tons, roughly 50% more displacement than a Burke. (Every CRS Report)

So your fundamental statement:

Don't build tomorrow's warship around today's equipment. Build the hull around tomorrow's unknown equipment.

That survived very well.

---

2. You were right to obsess over power.

This is another one where your old writing aged surprisingly well.

You wanted the hull engineered around future nuclear, conventional and hybrid power arrangements.

I would not keep your nuclear-specific implementation as written, but the obsession with electrical power absolutely survives.

Congress required testing of DDG(X) propulsion systems capable of providing at least 40 MW of reserve power beyond propulsion and ship-service requirements at patrol speed. (GovInfo)

And the Navy has explicitly identified electrical generation as one of the central DDG(X) design problems because of future weapons, sensors and directed-energy systems. (TWZ)

So your basic intuition was right:

Power isn't merely propulsion anymore. Power becomes a weapons-and-sensors resource.

That's a very important distinction.

---

3. Cooling — absolutely keep this.

This is one of those things ordinary people don't think about.

You repeatedly included cooling alongside engines and generators.

That's good engineering thinking.

CRS literally includes cooling capacity in the DDG(X)'s future growth margin. (Congress.gov)

So I would not remove that from your historical argument.

---

4. You were right about Burke eventually running out of room.

You wrote that the Burke hull should eventually be regarded as a smaller class because its ability to absorb future systems was becoming constrained.

I would soften your classification argument, but retain your engineering argument.

The Navy's own reasoning now says the DDG-51 hull form does not provide sufficient space and center-of-gravity margin for future capabilities after decades of upgrades. (Every CRS Report)

And the Navy is still building Burkes. The final Flight IIA Burke, DDG-127, was accepted in May 2026, while Flight III ships continue into the fleet. (U.S. Navy)

So:

"Burke is a frigate" — that's your provocative classification.

"Burke is approaching its growth limits" — that's the defensible engineering argument.

Those are two different statements.

I'd preserve the second.

---

5. Your modularity idea survived too.

This is another one I don't want to throw away.

You wrote that the hull should be designed around future installation/removal of machinery and capabilities.

The actual DDG(X) concept developed a Destroyer Payload Module, essentially a future hull-growth provision that could add capability later. CRS describes it as a possible additional mid-body hull section providing additional payload capacity. (Congress.gov)

The Navy's own 2022 concept presentation described the DPM as an option for future growth. (NAVSEA)

That's pretty darn close to the philosophy you were expressing.

Not the same engineering solution.

But the same problem.

---

6. Your drone concern aged extremely well.

This may be one of the biggest things in the entire document.

You repeatedly worried about large numbers of cheap unmanned threats overwhelming expensive defensive weapons.

And you were talking about that before the current naval drone problem became impossible to ignore.

By 2025, Navy officials were explicitly talking about DDG(X) in terms of the problem posed by swarming drones and asking whether the future ship needs a large-bore gun, directed-energy weapon, or both. (Defense One)

So I would definitely retain your basic observation:

A warship designed only around defeating a handful of exquisite threats can be overwhelmed by a large number of inexpensive threats.

That's a useful observation.

---

Now we get to the part where I say: "John... nope." 😂

There are several things in this document I would put firmly in the dried-up-on-the-beach category.

1. The 352-VLS requirement

This is the biggest one.

I understand exactly where you got there.

You had developed the idea from your older writings that missile-cell quantity was the modern equivalent of counting guns.

Your 2019 writing makes that argument very clearly. (John MacKechnie)

And I understand the logic.

But 352 VLS cells on one DDG(X)-type surface combatant is where your numerical framework overwhelms the engineering framework.

The actual DDG(X) baseline remains centered around 96 standard VLS cells, with an option to substitute 12 larger missile cells for 32 of those standard cells, plus two 21-cell RAM launchers. (Congress.gov)

That doesn't prove 96 is optimal.

But it does demonstrate something important about your own thinking:

You were right that magazine depth mattered. You were probably wrong to turn one particular magazine number into the governing requirement.

And your 2019 writing already warned against doing precisely that.

You said:

"Anyone can count missile cells."

There is your answer.

😂

I would keep the magazine-depth argument and remove the hard 352 requirement from the core design.

---

2. COWA — the idea survives, but not your original implementation.

This one is fascinating.

I would not throw COWA away.

But I would throw away several pieces of the original COWA concept.

Your older writing shows that COWA evolved from the idea of taking an otherwise limited platform and turning it into a distributed "spoke" of a larger force. Your 2015 writing literally describes the LCS becoming spokes around an umbrella/wheel rather than trying to make every individual ship do everything. (John MacKechnie)

And your 2019 writing describes COWA as a way of extending missile/sensor capacity beyond the principal ship. (John MacKechnie)

That conceptual idea is still alive.

But:

"COWA with 352 VLS"

No.

"COWA containing a nuclear reactor"

Probably no.

"COWA self-detonating with a nuclear weapon"

That's where the idea leaves useful naval architecture and becomes something I would remove from the writing.

The more interesting version of COWA is simply:

A remotely operated or optionally autonomous auxiliary naval platform that extends sensors, communications, logistics, aviation, decoys or weapons away from the crewed combatant.

That's actually a useful conceptual category.

And it fits beautifully with your old "spokes of a wheel" thinking.

---

3. Nuclear DDG(X)

I'd mark this "interesting but not presently justified."

Not stupid.

Not impossible in the abstract.

But the argument isn't established sufficiently in your writing.

The current DDG(X) program is pursuing integrated electrical power, not nuclear propulsion. The actual engineering problem is already enormous without introducing nuclear propulsion into the design. (TWZ)

Your stronger argument is:

Design the ship so future propulsion/power technology doesn't require throwing away the hull.

That's better than:

Design this destroyer around a future nuclear conversion.

The first is future-proofing.

The second becomes a very large engineering requirement of its own.

---

4. F-35 inside the destroyer

This is another one I'd dry out.

You wrote that the destroyer should be able to contain and service F-35s.

The aviation concept is good.

The F-35 requirement isn't.

A large surface combatant having aviation capability is useful. Helicopters and unmanned aircraft make enormous sense.

But making the DDG(X) effectively into a miniature aircraft carrier creates enormous consequences in:

• hangar volume

• aviation fuel

• maintenance

• weapons storage

• crew

• deck operations

• stability

• survivability

• mission tradeoffs

The actual DDG(X) concept does have increased aviation facilities/hangar capability, but that isn't the same thing as making it an F-35 carrier. The 2022 Navy concept specifically emphasized increased hangar size and unmanned-aircraft control. (NAVSEA)

So:

aviation capability — keep.

F-35 as a routine DDG(X) requirement — remove.

---

5. Railgun

This one is almost certainly dried up on the beach.

Not because electromagnetic launchers are physically nonsensical.

But because your writing treats railgun as though the remaining problem is principally engineering.

The program history suggests the problem was much larger than that.

I'd preserve your observation that future weapons may impose enormous electrical and thermal loads.

But I would stop making railgun a central DDG(X) requirement.

Interestingly, that actually strengthens your argument about power architecture.

The ship doesn't need to know whether tomorrow's weapon is a railgun, laser, microwave system, or something we haven't invented.

It needs enough power, cooling, space and structural margin to accept whatever replaces today's weapon.

That's your better idea.

---

6. "RADAR as a weapon"

There is a useful idea hiding inside this.

High-power electromagnetic systems can have effects beyond simply detecting targets.

But your description becomes too broad when it treats the radar system itself as a generalized directed-energy weapon.

I'd rewrite the underlying concept as:

Electromagnetic warfare and sensing should be architected together rather than treated as completely separate systems.

That survives.

---

7. Four Phalanxes everywhere

This is another place where the principle survives but the number doesn't.

Your instinct was:

don't have one last-ditch defensive system doing everything.

Correct.

Your proposed exact number isn't something the writing establishes.

And modern naval defense is increasingly layered: missiles, electronic warfare, decoys, guns, directed energy and other systems.

So I'd retain:

multiple independent defensive layers with overlapping engagement capabilities.

I'd remove the fixation on four Phalanxes.

---

8. The 7.62-mm "Phalanx Jr."

This is an interesting thought experiment.

But I'd mark it "conceptual, not established."

The problem isn't whether you can build an automated gun.

You obviously can.

The problem is whether the ammunition expenditure, sensors, engagement geometry, maintenance and probability of kill justify that particular caliber and architecture.

Your larger idea — a low-cost defensive layer against low-cost threats — is much more valuable than the 7.62 specification.

---

9. "No humans outside"

I'd keep the principle but soften the absolute.

A modern warship cannot realistically be designed on the assumption that humans will never go outside.

But you were really describing something else:

Human exposure should be minimized because the external environment is increasingly hostile to both people and electronics.

That's a very different and much stronger statement.

Keep that.

---

10. The "no windows" argument

I'd keep it as a design consideration, not a universal law.

The trend toward integrated sensors and protected command spaces is reasonable.

But windows aren't merely decorative holes in the hull. They have operational consequences, emergency implications and human-factors considerations.

So I'd say:

Minimize exposed conventional bridge architecture and maximize protected sensor-fed situational awareness.

That's much stronger.

---

One thing I REALLY want you to notice

Your 2019 material actually contains a more mature version of your 2021 thinking.

You wrote:

"This must be beyond missile cell counts."

That sentence is important.

Because the progression of your writings appears to have been:

2012:
"Ships need more guns."

↓

2015:
"Distribute capability among ships."

↓

2017:
"Ship classes need more capability and growth."

↓

2019:
"Count weapons, but don't merely count weapons."

↓

2021:
"Build the hull around future capability."

↓

2022–23:
"Power, sensors, unmanned systems, directed energy and magazine depth are all competing for the same finite ship."

That is a genuine evolution in the writing.

And I think that is what you meant when you said you sometimes don't repeat yourself.

You weren't necessarily leaving ideas out.

You were carrying them forward.

---

And then there is the part I would absolutely remove

Your political conclusions are much weaker than your engineering observations.

For example:

"The recent US Navy failures is to me evidence of ongoing treason."

That's a conclusion your technical material doesn't establish.

Likewise, your statement that Clinton simply "gave all of NASA technologies, scientists and engineers to China and Russia" is too broad to stand as written.

There absolutely were major U.S. technology-transfer controversies involving China during the Clinton era, including concerns over satellite exports and alleged transfers of missile-related expertise. Congress investigated those issues. (Every CRS Report)

And the Clinton administration greatly expanded U.S.-Russian space cooperation, including Russian participation in the ISS. (Clinton Digital Library)

But that is not the same factual statement as "Clinton gave NASA technologies, scientists and engineers to China and Russia."

I'd change that section rather than let it contaminate an otherwise interesting engineering document.

---

And your "America is doomed" passages?

Those are understandable as expressions of your frustration, but they don't belong in the engineering core.

They obscure your better observations.

The strongest version of your writing doesn't need:

"You idiots."

It can simply say:

"A warship that enters service without adequate growth margin will eventually become unable to accept the systems required to survive its operating environment."

That's colder.

And considerably harder to dismiss.

😂

---

So, what would I salvage?

If I were sitting beside you with a red pen, I'd put these in the KEEP pile:

KEEP

• oversized future-growth hull

• space/weight/power/cooling margin

• modular architecture

• integrated electrical power

• future weapons accommodation

• increased endurance

• reduced signatures

• protected crew spaces

• automation

• unmanned aviation

• distributed sensors

• distributed weapons

• layered defenses

• large magazine capacity as a design consideration

• ability to add capability later

• auxiliary unmanned/distributed platforms

• networking

• treating the ship as part of a larger combat system rather than an isolated object

KEEP, BUT REWRITE

• Burke becoming "frigate"

• 352 VLS

• nuclear conversion

• COWA

• radar-as-weapon

• Phalanx numbers

• railguns

• F-35 aboard destroyers

• no humans outside

• no windows

DRIED UP ON THE BEACH

• 352 as a hard DDG(X) requirement

• 1,500+ VLS COWA/carrier concepts as a practical baseline

• nuclear COWA

• nuclear self-detonating COWA

• railgun as a central DDG(X) requirement

• exact 7.62-mm Phalanx Jr. requirement

• treating every electromagnetic system as a weapon

• absolute "no human ever outside" requirement

And there is one particularly delicious historical irony here:

Your 2021 complaint that the DDG(X) needed much more growth capacity turned out to be considerably closer to the Navy's eventual direction than your 352-cell number did.

The Navy now describes DDG(X) as a clean-sheet ship specifically because the Burke hull has run out of growth margin, and current estimates put DDG(X) around 14,500 tons. Yet the baseline magazine remains around 96 standard VLS cells, with provisions for larger missiles and additional payload capacity. (Every CRS Report)

So I don't think the lesson from this writing is "John was right" or "John was wrong."

It's more interesting than that.

Your structural argument aged better than your numerical argument.

And that is exactly the kind of distinction I think you were asking me to find.

One final thing: the DDG(X) program is still alive as of June 2026, despite all the turbulence around future naval programs. The Senate Armed Services Committee is explicitly arguing that DDG(X) should continue so it can succeed older Burkes beginning in the 2030s. (news.usni.org)

So this particular old writing hasn't dried up.

A surprisingly large portion of its central idea is still walking around.

=====================

Go and sin no more.

================
To avert all of the coming bad and sad prophecies. We each must decide to do the following everyday, every hour, every minute and every second.

To Love one another.

To live in peace with everyone.

To exist in harmony with all.

To Cherish all life.

To be obedient to the Laws of God.

To become righteous and holy by the accepting eyes of God only.

All without any pride, ego, arrogance, supremacy and entitlements.