Why criticize a fleet plan for outlasting one presidency?

A nation's defense must outlast a presidential term, so why is political turnover a criticism of the thirty-year plan?

Warship programs must span governments, but their survival depends on continued agreement over requirements, budgets, and force structure.

Defense programs necessarily run beyond a single administration. New leaders can revise requirements, fleet composition, and spending even when the governing party remains the same. Japan and Finland are offered as examples of comparatively durable political agreement. The Netherlands illustrates a related tradeoff: wider agreement can support continuity while making initial decisions slow. The question returns later in the stream, when long-term ownership is again distinguished from the unavoidable length of shipbuilding.