I still don't understand why they felt the need to build six of these in the first place
Because then they can make it look like a crisis for more money when the time comes to go crying to Congress.
Like how the Navy has been complaining for a few years now that they "cant build enough ships" and desperately need new drydocks built. And then you look at their proposal of what would be "enough" and it is shipbuilding on par with the height of WW2. Even though we are building ships at the same rate we have since the 1980's, but with ships that are far more capable than they were back then.
Come back and tell me it is a crisis when we are sidelining carriers and attack subs (the two ships in the Navy that actually make us a dominant force).
This is not the crisis people think it is.
I still don't understand why they felt the need to build six of these in the first place (eight if you count Montford and Glen).
Because then they can make it look like a crisis for more money when the time comes to go crying to Congress.
Like how the Navy has been complaining for a few years now that they "cant build enough ships" and desperately need new drydocks built. And then you look at their proposal of what would be "enough" and it is shipbuilding on par with the height of WW2. Even though we are building ships at the same rate we have since the 1980's, but with ships that are far more capable than they were back then.
Come back and tell me it is a crisis when we are sidelining carriers and attack subs (the two ships in the Navy that actually make us a dominant force).
The carrier requires a whole group, tactically.
Yes, but they are considered one unit because of that from a tactical point of view. So if they cant fill out the whole CVBG, it doesnt sail.
Like the OP said: sidelining a few high speed transports isnt the end of the world for the Navy.