But I do have something special for you guys (and we do have a companion piece publishing tomorrow)
While poking around my normal haunts of antique stores, library sales, and the like, I came across an old book and bought it. No surprise.
A bigger surprise was finding this old veteran tucked in between the pages, used as a bookmark. It is well-traveled and yellowed, printed on cheap paper using wartime-quality ink.
But it has traveled 81 years to be here and deserves a mention.
I am presenting you with the program and menu for the 1944 Christmas dinner aboard the United States Landing Ship (Tanks) 294, at the time, “somewhere in England.”
I thought one of the more humorous parts was that “Cigarettes!” with an exclamation point is listed under desserts.
USS LST-294 gets hardly a mention in naval history, but she was there. I mean t-h-e-r-e kinda there. Like the first wave of D-Day on Omaha Beach, kinda there. And that was just over four months after she commissioned.
USS LST-294 high and dry on the beach at Normandy, June 1944.
Engineered to outmatch any foreign adversary, the new battleship class will be the centerpiece of naval power. At triple the size of an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, its massive frame provides superior firepower, larger missile magazines, and the capability to launch Conventional Prompt Strike hypersonic missiles and the Surface Launch Cruise Missile-Nuclear.
The Trump class will be capable of operating in a traditional Integrated Air and Missile Defense role with a Carrier Strike Group or commanding its own Surface Action Group for Surface and Anti-Submarine Warfare efforts, in addition to delivering long-range hypersonic strategic fires and quarterbacking the operations of an entire fleet as the central command control node.
I mean, yes, build a Great Navy.
A world-class Navy with new and innovative vessels that will be cutting-edge for generations to come.
Bring back a modern BBG or BBGN, hell, bring back a class of CGNs while you are at it.
I’m all for a modern take on USS Long Beach with 192 VLS strike-length cells.
But the move to designate these new battlewagons the “Trump class” with hull number “1” and the first named USS Defiant (BBG-1) is just pure unadulterated MAGA autism.
You would be far more likely to get a Democratic-controlled Armed Services Committee (coming in 2027 if not 2029) to approve billions of pork-flavored dollars for a ship named after a state. Give it the name of the biggest state (in terms of population and House seats) that currently doesn’t have a ship named after it already on the Navy List, and give it a traditional hull number in line with previous battleships– the future and sixth USS South Carolina (BB-67)– or BB-72 if you take into account the canceled Montana class battleships.
Plus, it should be pointed out that the canceled USS Kentucky (BB-66) was redesignated as BBG-1 in 1954 while still under construction, so at least the new Trump battleship should be BBG-2.
Further, there is already a “Defiant” on the Navy List, a Valiant-class harbor tug (YT-804), which commissioned in 2010. The Navy also owns the Nichols/Serco Maritime unmanned demonstrator ship USX-1 Defiant, which is not officially in commission.
Moving past the name and hull numbers and looking at the renderings, these will be the same rough size (35,000 tons, 840-880 feet oal) as the 10 fast battleships of the North Carolina/SoDak/Iowa classes, but Trump is advertising a build out of 20-25 (!) of these leviathans.
Main battery will be a dozen Conventional Prompt Strike cells (including the use of a theorized W80-4 tipped SLCM-N) and 128 Mk 41 strike-length VLS, with a secondary battery of a 32MJ railgun (hold your breath), a pair of 5-inch guns, 2 300-600kW lasers, and a defensive battery of two RAM launchers, four Mk46 30mm guns, four AN/SEQ-4 ODIN lasers, and two undefined counter UxS systems.
A huge mistake is making these gas turbine-powered akin to the DDG and LHD-8 designs rather than nuclear powered– something that will be desperately needed with the electric draw of the rail gun, ODINs, etc.
Plus, there are realistically just two yards in the country (Ingalls and Newport News) that could build these without major improvements to their facilities, and both are already swamped making CVNs, SSBNs, SSNs, LHAs, LPDs, DDGs, and FF(X)s, so somehow freeing up yard space for two dozen 35,000-ton battleships while still building everything else is…well…just not going to happen.
Three other private yards may have slipways big enough for an 880-foot/35,000-ton warship: NASSCO in San Diego, Philly Shipyard, and BAE in Jacksonville, but do they have the personnel and shop space to pull off such a project?
There are only something like 21 certified dry docks in the entire country to conduct routine warship maintenance– with just four of those on the West Coast (THE biggest issue with a modern Pacific naval war in my opinion). Of those 21, just nine are rated to hold a battleship-sized vessel, and they are busy supporting CVNs, LHA/Ds, AOs, and LPDs.
Portsmouth NSY and Bremerton NSY both have very large dry docks capable of holding a CVN, but could they construct a 35,000-ton battleship and still address their huge maintenance backlogs of current ships? That’s probably a big no.
Industrial reality is going to hit this project hard.
Congress may hit it harder.
An Arleigh Burke-class (DDG-51) destroyer costs roughly $2.5 billion per ship for the newest Flight III models, while a Ford-class carrier is more like $13 billion. Back-of-the-envelope math would have a BBG fall somewhere in the middle of those two bookends, which would still be an amazingly stout $7.75 billion per hull. Times 25 hulls is $193B. Sure, the F-35 program runs $2 trillion, but that includes mountains of R&D and sustainment costs as well as spare parts. Speaking of which, what would lifecycle costs be on 25 battleships, each with a 650-800 member crew (which is about three times the size of a DDG crew)? The Navy has often quoted that it cost $100K per year per bluejacket, so that is $2B in just salaries and benefits for battleship sailors, per year, not to count those in shoreside support and maintenance.
Hell, maybe this is all a big ask to get Capitol Hill to gratefully torpedo the 25 Trump-class battleships for a new and improved 12-ship Long Beach CGNs, all conveniently named after Big Blue Cities.
I’d take that.
USS Long Beach (CGN 9), concept by T.G.Webb of proposed anti-air warfare modernization with the Aegis Fleet Air Defense System, FY77. NH 90071
Some 75 years ago this week. The Iowa-class fast battleship USS Missouri (BB-63) fires a 16-inch shell from her forward turret at enemy forces attacking Hungnam, North Korea, during a night bombardment in December 1950. In the background, LSMRs are firing rockets, with both ends of the trajectory visible. This is a composite image, made with two negatives taken only a few minutes apart.
U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph. Catalog #: NH 96811
The photograph is dated 28 December 1950, but was probably taken on 23-24 December. She was providing gunfire support for the Hungnam defense perimeter until the last U.N. troops, the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division, were evacuated by way of the sea on Christmas Eve.
While the Navy in June 1950 had 15 dreadnoughts on the Navy List (four Iowas, four SoDaks, two NCs, three rebuilt Colorados, and two rebuilt Tennessees), Missouri was the only U.S. battleship in commission. The old USS Mississippi (BB-41) had been converted into a gunnery training ship, re-designated AG-128, in 1947 was still around but in no shape to work a gun line.
Missouri, leaving the Atlantic Fleet in August 1950, joined the U.N. forces just west of Kyushu on 14 September. The first American battleship to reach Korean waters, she bombarded Samchok on 15 September in a diversionary move coordinated with the Inchon landings the next day, the first of many NGFS missions.
F4U-4B Corsair of VF-113 “Stingers” over Inchon, 15 Sept 1950, with Missouri under. NH 97076
Missouri fired 2,895 rounds from her 16-inch guns and 8,043 rounds from her 5-inch guns during her first Korean deployment alone. She added five battlestars for Korea to her three from WWII.
Returning to Norfolk in May 1953, she was decommissioned on 26 February 1955 and kept in mothballs as an unofficial museum ship at Bremerton for three decades, while as many as 250,000 visitors trooped her topside decks each year to see where WWII had ended.
She was recalled for a second time in 1984, then in 1998 began her final career as an official museum ship, bookending the wreck of the old Arizona on Battleship Row.
As we covered previously, SECNAV and CNO have been flirting with the Coast Guard’s 418-foot Legend (Bertholf)-class National Security Cutter– one of which is often deployed on 2nd or 7th fleet tasking at any given time already– as the country’s new fast frigate.
The FF(X) is a highly adaptable vessel. While its primary mission will be surface warfare, its ability to carry modular payloads and command unmanned systems enables it to execute a broad spectrum of operations, making it ready for the challenges of the modern maritime environment. Small surface combatants have always been essential to the fleet, handling a wide range of missions where a large warship isn’t required. The FF(X) will continue this vital role and will take on more routine operations, enhancing the fleet’s operational flexibility, adaptability, and mission readiness.
FF(X) is engineered for rapid, cost-effective production, enabling this vital capability to the fleet faster. This is made possible by basing the new frigate on HII’s proven Legend-Class National Security Cutter. This approach leverages a mature design to deliver ships to our sailors without delay.
Note, the “G” moniker doesn’t seem to be mentioned anymore as they apparently won’t have many guided missiles other than up to 16 NSMs on the stern and what looks to be a 21-cell RAM and an 8-cell tactical VLS forward, which could be quad-packed with Enhanced Sea Sparrows to give it 32 of the latter. If they could make that a 16-cell VLS, that could at least add a couple of SM-2s and vertically launched ASROCs to the mix.
Is a long-hulled variant coming, with, say, a 64-cell VLS, better sensors, and a twin helicopter hangar, while a Flight I group of ships gets built by a lead yard (Ingalls), then is expanded to a multi-yard design (Bath, Fincantieri, Austal, Bollinger?). Perhaps, as hinted at in the video.
In the meantime, well, any frigate is better than none.
With that, how about this amazing watercolor painting by Edward T. Grigware titled “Scene Onboard Ship,” one you can almost feel if in a snowy area today.
It was painted in 1943 and depicts U.S. Navy sailors aboard two tied-up destroyers working in bone-numbing cold and snowy conditions, likely in the Alaska theater where Grigware, an official Navy artist, was deployed.
Painting, Watercolor on Paper; by Edward T. Grigware; 1943; Framed Dimensions 16H X 18W. Naval History and Heritage Command Accession #: 07-805-P
Grigware, born in 1889, was already a well-known American artist and illustrator before he moved from Chicago to Cody, Wyoming, in the 1930s. He attended the Chicago Academy of Fine Arts and spent time working as a commercial artist.
During WWII, Grigware created poster art to support the war effort and painted pieces for the Navy, including the haunting work above.
Panama Defense Force patches, including that of the Macho de Monte jungle commandos, captured during Operation Just Cause in December 1989, at the USAF Armament Museum, Eglin AFB (Chris Eger)
More Just Cause PDF patches, including the desk plate and helmet from Noriega’s desk, are at the Infantry Museum, Fort Benning. (Chris Eger)
I once worked with a guy, let’s call him Dan, who I now list as a friend, on a government contracting job about 20 years back, who had just retired as a Marine SNCO.
One cold night, while talking over a way too tough pot of coffee, the subject matter turned to Panama, and Dan fished a photo from his wallet of a younger version of him, clad in M81 Woodland BDUs and a high-and-tight, war face, and an M16A2 dutifully on display.
“That’s when I was stationed in the Canal Zone.”
Dan said he loved it. Kid in a candy store kind of duty in 1988, shifting to the big bad Just Cause in 1989 when things weren’t so much fun.
He said the night Just Cause kicked off, he was on a one-man post shared with a PDF corporal on an oft-forgotten back gate of some naval base (Rodman?), when the phone rang– a call Dan had been advised was coming– and was told to go ahead and take the Panamanian into custody one way or another.
It almost turned into a 1911-on-1911 “gunfight in a phone booth,” but eventually de-escalated, and my friend was able to sit back down at his desk with an extra pistol and no shots fired.
“I’d have blown his brains out,” Dan said, sipping coffee. “Glad I didn’t have to.”
Fast forward to today, where Just Cause is now 31 years in the rearview, and these pictures came into my feed, part of the expanded formalization of efforts for the DOD/DOW getting involved with Panama’s mil/LE counterparts.
A combined U.S. Navy SEALs and Panamanian special operations team conducted a complex crisis scenario at the U.S. Embassy in Panama City, according to information shared on December 9, 2025, by U.S. Special Operations in Central, South America, and the Caribbean. Officials familiar with the drill described it as a full-spectrum validation of how quickly partner units can synchronize communications, access sensitive areas, and stabilize a rapidly evolving threat within a diplomatic facility. The mission paired U.S. Navy SEALs from Naval Special Warfare with Army Special Forces operators from 7th SFG(A), who worked alongside embassy security elements and Panama’s elite Dirección Nacional de Fuerzas Especiales, or DINFEE.
Members of the U.S. Marine Corps and Panamanian security services practice contact drill techniques during the Combined Jungle Operations Training Course at Base Aeronaval Cristóbal Colón, Panamá, Dec. 8, 2025. U.S. Southern Command is focused on increasing partner nation capacity and interoperability in the region and reflects the United States’ enduring promise of friendship, partnership, and solidarity with the Panamanian people. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Trey Woodard)
230214-N-NH267-1484 INDIAN OCEAN (Feb. 14, 2023) U.S. Navy Fire Controlman (Aegis) 2nd Class Cody McDonald, from Spring Creek, Nev., fires an M500 shotgun during a visit, board, search, and seizure (VBSS) gun shoot on the flight deck of the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Paul Hamilton (DDG 60). (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Elliot Schaudt)
The military could soon begin passing on surplus pump-action shotguns to the public via the Civilian Marksmanship Program.
Both the House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act defense policy spending bill for 2026, under Section 1062, call for the Army, Navy, and Air Force to transfer such scatterguns to the CMP.
The one-time transfer would cover guns that are “surplus to the requirements” of the respective service– including being surplus to military history and museum use. Further, they can’t be a shotgun that “is a modern ancillary addition to a service rifle” such as a “Masterkey” style gun that fits under an M16/M4. Also, guns that legally meet the definition of a “short-barreled shotgun” are barred from transfer.
The services would have to report to Congress, at least 60 days beforehand, the number of shotguns, including the make and model, that meet the surplus requirements and the number of which they intend to transfer to CMP.
Furthermore, the NDAA will modify the sale authority under U.S. law to permit the sale of surplus pump-action shotguns. Currently, the federally chartered non-profit, which is dedicated to promoting marksmanship nationwide, can only legally sell surplus rifles such as M1 Garands, M1903 Springfields, M1917 Enfields, M1 Carbines, and .22 trainers, as well as surplus M1911/1911A1 .45 pistols.
The U.S. military has been using pump-action breechloading shotguns for over 130 years, including the Winchester 1893, 1897, and M1912 Riot and “Trench” guns; as well as the Remington Models 10, 12, 31, and 870; the Stevens 520 and 620; the Ithaca 37, and the Mossberg 500/590– the latter of which are still under active contract.
“American M1897 Winchester Trench Shotgun, 12 gauge; American M1917 Enfield rifle; and M1903 Springfield rifle. General Headquarters, AEF Ordnance Department. Chaumont, Haute Marne, France, 4 January 1919.” Signal Corps photo 111-SC-154935. National Archives Identifier 313154926
Shotgun-armed Navy sentry on guard in port, August 1943. Navy Photograph. Courtesy of the Library of Congress PR-06-CN-215-5
Dec. 1942 Production B-17 heavy bomber, Army sentry, Boeing’s Seattle plant, Winchester 12 shotgun, riot gun
“PFC. Art Burgess, a candidate in the Ranger Indoctrination Program (RIP), 2nd Battalion, 75th Infantry (Ranger), fires a Winchester-built Model 12 combat shotgun during special weapons training at Range 31, 13 January 1982.” The gun has been modified with a heat shield over the barrel, a bayonet lug/sling swivel, an over-folding buttstock, and a pistol grip. DA-SN-83-09168 Via NARA
As to how many of the above are still on hand in armories, depots, and arsenals– and are considered surplus– is anybody’s guess. Still, U.S. martial shotguns of any type are extremely collectible, leading them to be often faked (always be careful on a “good deal” M97 Trench Gun), so the prospect of a vetted quantity of these veteran guns headed to market is exciting.
The Republican-backed bill would still need to make it to President Trump’s desk and earn his signature, which is likely.
Now, if we can just get Congress to transfer all of those millions of old M16s that are in storage to the CMP, even if it is just the uppers, we’d really be cooking.
A great view of a cramped turret full of 8″/55 (20.3 cm) Mark 12 guns of the New Orleans-class heavy cruiser USS Tuscaloosa (CA-37), as she rests in Norfolk, hosting dignitaries. ADM William D. Leahy (fore, L) and his wife are seen standing under the guns with Capt. Lee P. Johnson (fore, R), before they collectively departed for Vichy France, on a diplomatic mission.
LIFE Archives
Admiral William D. Leahy, USN, and his wife on board USS Tuscaloosa (CA 37), inspecting the cruiser’s Marines, before they depart for France in late December 1940. Note the Springfield 1903s
The big T in December 1940 was amid her stint on FDR’s Neutrality Patrol in the Atlantic and Caribbean– having met up with the Dutch gunboat Van Kinsbergen to examine the latter’s 40mm Bofors mounts just four months prior.
Tusky’s December was to be a busy one. Per DANFS:
On 3 December 1940, at Miami, President Roosevelt embarked in Tuscaloosa for the third time for a cruise to inspect the base sites obtained from Great Britain in the recently negotiated “destroyers for bases” deal. In that transaction, the United States had traded 50 old flush-decked destroyers for 99-year leases on bases in the western hemisphere. Ports of call included Kingston, Jamaica; Santa Lucia, Antigua; and the Bahamas. Roosevelt fished and entertained British colonial officials-including the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, on board the cruiser.
While the President cruised in Tuscaloosa, American officials in Washington wrestled with the problem of extending aid to Britain. Having barely weathered the disastrous campaign in France in the spring and the Battle of Britain in the summer, the United Kingdom desperately needed war materiel. American production could meet England’s need, but American neutrality law limiting the purchase of arms by belligerents to “cash-and-carry” transactions was about to become a major obstacle, for British coffers were almost empty. While pondering England’s plight as he luxuriated in Tuscaloosa, the President hit upon the idea of the “lend-lease” program to aid the embattled British.
On 16 December, Roosevelt left the ship at Charleston, S.C., to head for Washington to implement his “lend-lease” idea, one more step in the United States’ progress towards full involvement in the war. Soon thereafter, Tuscaloosa sailed for Norfolk and, on 22 December, embarked Admiral William D. Leahy, the newly designated Ambassador to Vichy France, and his wife, for passage to Portugal. With the “stars and stripes” painted large on the roofs of Turrets II and III, and her largest colors flying, Tuscaloosa sailed for the European war zone, initially escorted by USS Upshur (DD-144) and Madison (DD-425).
Letting those big guns sing in the Torch (North Africa), Overlord (Utah Beach at Normandy) Dragoon (Southern France), Detachment (Iwo Jima), and Iceberg (Okinawa) landings, Tuscaloosareceived seven battle stars for her WWII service. She fired 22,000 shells in the latter two operations alone.
Placed out of commission at Philadelphia on 13 February 1946, Tuscaloosa remained in reserve there until she was struck from the Navy list on 1 March 1959. Her hulk was sold on 25 June 1959 to the Boston Metals Co. of Baltimore for scrapping.
The U.S. Navy accepted delivery of the Submarine Force’s newest hunter-killer, the future USS Idaho (SSN 799), from Electric Boat on 15 December.
And with that, the Navy List is looking very 1944ish.
The future USS Idaho (SSN 799) on builders trials 251215-N-N2201-002
Idaho is the 26th Virginia-class submarine co-produced by EB and HII-Newport News Shipbuilding through a long-standing teaming arrangement. It is the 14th delivered by EB and is the eighth of 10 Block IV-configured attack submarines.
The future USS Idaho is the fifth Navy ship to be named for the state of Idaho. The first was a wooden-hulled storeship commissioned in 1866. The last was Battleship No. 42, which was commissioned in 1919 and received seven battle stars for service in World War II, then ignobly sold for scrap in 1947.
USS Idaho (BB-42) ship’s company posed on the after deck and after 14 gun turrets, circa 1938. Note Curtiss SOC-3 Seagull floatplanes, of Observation Squadron Three, atop the Turret # 3 catapult and on deck to port of the turrets. Courtesy of the Naval Historical Foundation. Collection of Vice Admiral Alexander Sharp, USN. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.Catalog #: NH 83900
She joins the fifth (completed) U.S. Navy vessel named for the Bay State, the future USS Massachusetts (SSN 798), which was delivered to the service from Newport News on 21 November.
Future USS Massachusetts (SSN 798) on builder’s acceptance trials. 251008-N-MQ094-002
The last and most famous to carry the name thus far (BB-59) was commissioned in 1942 as a South Dakota-class fast battleship, earning 11 battle stars for exceptional service in WWII from Casablanca to Okinawa before being decommissioned in 1947. She remained in the Reserve Fleet until stricken from the Naval Vessel Register in June 1962 and continues to serve as a floating museum.
USS Massachusetts underway somewhere in the Pacific (1943)
While Idaho and Massachusetts are set to be commissioned in 2026, the current USS Iowa (SSN 797) was commissioned in April.
Sailors attached to the fast-attack submarine USS Iowa man the newly commissioned sub during a ceremony in Groton, Conn., April 5, 2025. The Iowa operates under Submarine Squadron 4, which provides fast-attack submarines that are ready, prepared, and committed to meet the unique challenges of undersea combat and deployed operations in unforgiving environments across the globe. Navy Chief Petty Officer Joshua Karsten
The last Iowa, the famed class-leading fast battleship BB-61, which was christened on 27 August 1942, was only stricken from the NVR on 17 March 2006 and endures as a floating museum at Los Angeles, the only West Coast battlewagon.
USS Iowa (BB-61) off Pearl Harbor, en route to the U.S. at the end of her Korean War combat tour. The photograph is dated 28 October 1952. Note the ship’s hull number (61) and U.S. Flag painted atop her forward turrets. Official U.S. Navy Photograph, from the collections of the Naval History and Heritage Command. Catalog #: NH 44536
