I think they pretty clearly meant 'practical best' rather than 'theoretical best'. Theoretically we could be so much better, which is why everyone is so grumpy about U.S. shipbuilding.

For 'practical best' you'd normally point people to examples of warships the U.S. actually can build without much drama, but if you try this with the Navy you're basically left with, what, the last LPD class?

10 years ago you'd call the Virginia SSNs a success, but even those have now run into construction delays due to various issues, even as the Navy needs their #1 priority (Columbia-class SSBN, also delayed) to succeed to decommission the Ohios on time.

Because there's no secret group of competent people waiting in the wings.

The military-industrial complex we have is the only one we got.

Because US Navy procurement has been a disaster for over two decades now?

Just Zumwalt and LCS alone are like $50 billion burned up for nothing.

The Navy's issues with procurement go all the way back to the retiring of the Oliver Hazard Perry class without a suitable replacement in the pipeline.

One project becoming a boondoggle is evidence we're not living up to our potential. Every project becoming a boondoggle is evidence we are.

I'm not saying its the best we should do. But its the best we are capable of doing.