Chuck, as an engineer, I learned a long time ago that all of the clinical "metrics" in the world are fine for initial planning and design. In fact, they are an absolute must.
However, at the same time, when you come down from the 50,000 foot level and have to start getting in the weeds, you have to season all of that and look at a reality that is not easily (and sometimes not at all) measured by the "professional metrics."
This holds true in engineering (where any good engineer gives huge weight to the field people who have to actually work with and maintain what he designs), it holds true in military training and operations (it's why every good officer listens closely to his NCOs who are on the ground and able to relate the real world to an officer who is steeped in military theory), and it holds true in these kind of considerations as well.
I did not discount your report. I just seasoned it with a good dose of reality on the ground. Much of what I took issue with was your comments where you indicated "it seems," this that or the other based on the report you referenced. I countered that with another perspective.
Agreeing to disagree is fine with me. The only time this assertion, one way or another, will be proven is in the event of a severe crisis where the US has to stand up significant naval shipbuilding very quickly. I pray that does not happen, but am also confident that if it does, the US, as it is currently constituted and operating, will be able to stand up whatever is necessary to meet that crisis.
In the meant time, the point of this thread is that US Naval shipbuilding proceeds at a very decent clip with the major shipyards building the new classes as documented in this thread.
