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
Adaptation
Survivability
Redundancy
Speed
Distributed capability
Electronic warfare
Sensor superiority
Defense against emerging technology
Future-proofing
Internalization/protection of vulnerable systems
Automation
Drones and counter-drones
Directed-energy weapons
Massed defensive capability
Integrated weapons/sensor networks
Large-capacity missile systems
Modular evolution
Avoidance of single points of failure
Cost versus actual usefulness
Institutional resistance to change
Human arrogance and organizational failure
Learning from technological surprises
Preserving useful concepts by reinventing them
Preparing for threats that don't exist yet
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.
=================
