1 On the hopeful side, some of the tools for this stuff can be miniaturized to fit up through a tiny tube. (I am not a medical device scientist, and I am not qualified to give medical advice.) Thoughts and prayers.

2 New post is another malformed request string. (My thoughts? Ships are big. There have been disputes over recent ship procurements. (LCS) I would expect that the lead times could be long enough for the fulfillment of this program to be on later or future administrations. I don't know about defining the requirements for these machines, but design and construction take time and work. I would basically have to see the tests to have an opinion, and technically successful design can also be useless. I do want to believe that DoD procurement can do good things.)

3 There was an issue with the post title. Pixy got it sorted out. Thanks for the heads up! I could not see the issue on my end!

4 Still can't comment on the battleship post, malformed request string.
In my opinion, the actual design of what ship(s) we build at this point is far less important than actually building something close to on schedule and budget. The Virginia class seems to have been successful. I haven't heard how the Columbia's are doing. But the LCS project was a disaster, and the recent frigate project, that was supposed to take an excellent (imho, better than the coastie design) Italian design and produce it in our yards was a complete failure because the idiots, even knowing that not doing so was the entire original intent and it would cause the project to fail, simply COULD NOT resist changing everything about the design along the way.
The biggest design problem I see with the BB (please no, do not name the class after Trump), is that it's not nuclear powered. A lack of electrical power is one of the current limiting factors on the Arleigh Burkes, and while the Zumwalt has a much more powerful plant, it's still not really enough.

5 Also running into problems accessing the other ship post.
There is, currently, not a single ship class being built for the US Navy that is running to schedule.  The Columbia-class is actually the closest, with somewhere between 6 months to 1 year delay.  The Ford and Virginia-classes are next, with about a year to 18 months behind, with Burke-class right behind them, and everything else currently running years behind schedule.  US shipbuilding has been a mess for a while, and the Navy has done basically nothing about it for the last three decades - which would have been one excellent reason from a long list for why SECWAR Hegseth should have fired all the admirals right after he fired CNO Franchetti.

It is even worse when you dig into the specifics.

The Virginia-class is a successful ship, but the production has been inadequate, with two shipyards pushing out a total 1 to 2 boats a year.  There has been little sign of improvement, despite both the US and Australia spending money on the production, in yearly amounts that might have been enough if they started 20 years ago and consistently spent that much each since then, but not for today.  They certainly are not going to hit the 2-3 boats a year that will be needed in the next decade, especially since the US Navy will be losing 3-5 Virginias to the Australians (Which, if you want to see a navy that is being handled even worse than the USN...Just look at the RAN.).  Frankly, the more I look at AUKUS, the worse the agreement is...And that is before Biden decided the US was done sharing nuclear power plant technologies for ships to anyone else.

LCS were fine if we had built them in small numbers to try them out, and if the mission modules had been developed.  Neither of those ended up the way they should have been.

The Constellation-class was never going to go well.  First, it was far too big and expensive for ships that were suppose to take on secondary duties and relieve the DDGs for more important missions.  We are talking about a base design - FREMM - that is only a third smaller in displacement than the Burke-class, and an actual design that was closer in size and displacement than that.  It would be larger than some destroyers - the French treat their FREMM as equivalent to their destroyers, while the Italian FREMM are almost are large as their destroyers.  A Constellation/FREMM certainly is better than the Legend-class but it is also significantly larger and more expensive, and intended for different mission sets.

Second, there was no way the Constellation would have been launched without requiring a lot of changes.  The original FREMM designs were not expected to use a majority of American equipment, and they had to be changed to USN standards for others.  That was always going to jeopardize the benefit of getting an off-the-shelf design for fast construction - either you spend more time redesigning it to use your own equipment or you end up using equipment that is literally found on just those ships and no other ships in your fleet.  Or you can end up in the weird, half way point the RAN is picking with the Upgraded Mogami FFM.  Where the USN really FUBARed was their redesign process, where they both made questionable design choices (The stated reason why a 7300 ton FFG only carried a 32 cell VLS instead of a 48 cell VLS?  Because the redesign work would take too long....) and could never settle on design requirements and selections, let alone hit design freeze, before they laid down the keel plates.  In fact, they never got to design freeze before FFG-64 and later members of the class got canceled, and while FFG-62 and 63 were under construction - which is an apt commentary on the entire program.

I would like to see a class of nuclear power surface warships again, but there are reasons why nuclear power is not as useful on a regular warship as it is on a carrier.  And this is not even getting into the bias against cruisers that the current USN leadership seem to have internalized.

6 Yeah, there are two sides, the engineering/construction and the doctrinal or operational. I basically do not know anything about using ships. I am not a surface warfare officer, this is not financial advice, and I did not sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. 

We need to actually build new things, because maintenance gets expensive the older the electronics are, and endlessly retrofitting eventually stops working. 

This includes ships. 

But, a jobs program that does not deliver usable things is a waste.

To schedule and on budget would be great, I'm not sure it is always possible, but I would be surprised if we could not do better on everything but software.  However, if you do not freeze specifications, the design rework screws stuff.  And, delivering on a 'no fooling, that was final' takes leadership. 

I'm basically feeling cynical or at least 'we will see' on whether Trump's administration delivers on these promises.  Long term construction projects a) difficult b) less shiny c) necessarily involve future administrations and congress. 

7 Constellation-class / FFG(X) and the Legend-class / FF(X) clearly are intended for different mission sets and fulfill different operational requirements.  I do expect that there will be a Constellation-equivalent coming down the line eventually, since there still a need for a ship smaller, less capable, and cheaper than a DDG that can still handle missions with carrier groups and surface action groups like DDGs, while freeing up DDGs from escorting convoys and amphibious readiness groups.  But it will probably a smaller ship than the Constellation / FREMM, probably closer to 5500 to 6000 tons.

FF(X) is actually closer in concept and mission set of the La Fayette-class frigates, especially once they get the VLS and towed array sonar.  Though the modular containers might allow them to ship similar capabilities even with the Flight 1 ships.