The Mine countermeasure ship USS Avenger (MCM 1) “Old Gaurd” heads out for decommision.
The New Guard: Independence-class LCS as a ‘Mother Ship’
The transition to the Independence-class Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) represents a fundamental shift in naval doctrine. As seen in recent operations, vessels like the USS Canberra (LCS 30) utilize their massive mission bays and stern launch capabilities to act as a command hub for uncrewed systems.
Independence-class LCS deploying surface assets from the mission bay.
Technical Deep Dive: The AN/AQS-20 Sonar
Central to the new MCM Mission Package is the AN/AQS-20 sonar set. Unlike the legacy hull-mounted systems on the Avenger ships, this towed array uses five separate sonar arrays to detect and classify mines in a single pass, providing 3D bottom mapping with high-resolution clarity.
The AN/AQS-20 sonar being prepared for deployment.
A Strategic Evolution
By moving the primary sensors and sweep systems off the manned ship and onto uncrewed platforms, the Navy significantly reduces the risk to sailors. These autonomous systems can operate closer to the threat while the “Mother Ship” remains at a safe standoff distance, ensuring our sea lanes remain open through advanced technology rather than wooden hulls.
Strength at sea now includes protecting the invisible systems that guide global trade.
Electronic warfare is no longer confined to the battlefield. In the days following U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, maritime intelligence firms reported that more than 1,100 ships operating in and around the Strait of Hormuz experienced GPS or AIS disruption. Vessels appeared inland on digital maps. Others showed strange circular patterns off the coasts of the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Oman. Maritime officials described the risk level in the region as “critical.”
This is what modern conflict looks like.
Not just missiles. Not just drones. Navigation. Commerce. Confidence.
The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most important maritime chokepoints on Earth. Roughly a fifth of the world’s oil moves through that narrow passage. When positioning systems degrade in such a congested, militarized waterway, the risk of collision, grounding, or miscalculation rises sharply. Add aerial threats and naval maneuvering to the equation, and degraded navigation becomes a risk amplifier.
Why Americans Should Care
Most Americans will never sail through the Strait of Hormuz. But they will feel the effects if shipping slows, insurance premiums spike, or energy markets react to instability. Maritime security is economic security. The sea lanes quietly underpin global supply chains, energy flows, and financial stability. When GPS signals flicker in a strategic chokepoint, markets notice.
Electronic interference aimed at navigation systems is not just a military tactic. It directly impacts civilian shipping. Tankers hesitate. Routes change. Traffic patterns compress. The cost of uncertainty ripples outward. In a globally connected economy, those ripples eventually reach American households.
For years, we have warned that maritime chokepoints are soft underbellies in a fragile system. This latest episode underscores that warning. The battlespace now includes the invisible infrastructure of positioning, navigation, and timing.
Implications for the Navy
When commerce comes under electronic pressure, the U.S. Navy becomes the stabilizer. Escort missions, presence operations, surveillance, and deterrence all require ships, crews, logistics depth, and technological resilience. Strength at sea is not abstract. It is measured in hulls, readiness, training, and industrial capacity.
Yet we continue to fund our maritime industrial base through unstable, year-to-year appropriations cycles. We debate ship counts while the underlying architecture remains fragile. Predictable investment is not about expansion for its own sake. It is about reducing systemic risk.
Electronic warfare against commercial shipping highlights the need for redundancy. Redundancy in fleet capacity. Redundancy in basing and logistics. Redundancy in navigation technologies. If GPS can be degraded in one of the world’s most vital trade routes, resilience cannot be optional.
The Case for Predictable Maritime Investment
This moment should not trigger panic. It should prompt clarity.
America’s maritime security underwrites global commerce. Yet the economic beneficiaries of secure sea lanes are not structurally aligned with long-term investment in the maritime industrial base. That mismatch creates vulnerability.
The Strategic Economic Alignment for the Maritime Industrial Base Act, the SEAS Act, is about architecture, not urgency. It seeks to create stability and predictability in funding so that shipyards, suppliers, and maritime infrastructure can plan for the long term. It recognizes that maritime security is foundational economic infrastructure.
If navigation becomes a weapon, then resilience becomes a responsibility.
Strength is built on redundancy. Stability is built on predictability. The events in the Strait of Hormuz are a reminder that modern conflict increasingly targets the connective tissue of commerce. We can either respond episodically, or we can build a durable framework that matches the strategic environment.
At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we believe the American people must understand what is at stake. The Navy belongs to the nation. Its readiness, its resilience, and its industrial foundation require public awareness and engagement.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — an ongoing educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
As a former blue water sailor and founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy, I learned early that naval strength is not defined by speeches or strategies alone. It is defined by readiness—by ships that work, sailors who are trained, and shipyards that can sustain them.
Over the past two years, through Americans for a Stronger Navy and StrongerNavy.org, I have worked to better understand the forces shaping the future of our Navy. What I have discovered is both reassuring and sobering.
Reassuring because the Navy’s leadership clearly understands the changing threat environment. Sobering because serious professionals—inside and outside the Navy—are actively debating how best to prepare for it.
This series is designed to help Americans understand that debate.
A Navy in Transition
The United States Navy is undergoing one of its most significant strategic transitions since the end of the Cold War. For decades, our Navy operated in an environment where it could project power with relative freedom. That era is over.
China now operates the world’s largest navy by ship count and continues expanding its industrial capacity at a pace unmatched in modern times. Russia remains a capable undersea competitor. Meanwhile, unmanned systems, artificial intelligence, and directed-energy weapons are changing how naval warfare may be conducted in the decades ahead.
The Navy’s leadership recognizes this reality. They are adapting strategy, exploring new technologies, and rethinking how naval forces will operate in the future. But within that effort, there are important and healthy debates—and Americans deserve to understand them.
Different Perspectives, Shared Purpose
Some leaders emphasize the continued importance of traditional crewed ships—destroyers, submarines, and aircraft carriers—as the backbone of naval power. Others emphasize the growing role unmanned systems may play in extending reach and enhancing survivability. Still others focus on the industrial foundation that makes both possible: shipyards, maintenance infrastructure, and workforce capacity.
These are not disagreements about the mission. They are discussions about how best to ensure the Navy remains ready, effective, and capable in a changing world. What unites these perspectives is a shared recognition that readiness requires sustained national support.
Ships must be built. Shipyards must be modernized. Sailors must be trained. Infrastructure must be maintained. None of this happens automatically.
Why Industrial Capacity Matters
One of the most important lessons from this work is that naval power is built on industrial strength. Strategy determines what the Navy needs to do. Industrial capacity determines whether it can do it.
Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), our public and private shipyards, and the skilled workforce that supports them form the foundation of naval readiness. Without their ability to build, maintain, and modernize ships, even the best strategy cannot succeed.
This is not a criticism. It is simply reality—and it is why public understanding matters. Americans deserve to know how their Navy works, what challenges it faces, and what is required to sustain it for future generations.
From Understanding to Sustained Support: The Strategic SEAS Act
Understanding the challenge is the first step. Sustaining readiness over time requires structural solutions.
That is why Americans for a Stronger Navy developed the Strategic SEAS Act—a framework designed to provide predictable, sustained funding for shipbuilding capacity, shipyard modernization, workforce development, and allied maritime infrastructure. Its purpose is straightforward: to help ensure that the Navy and the maritime industrial base have the long-term support necessary to meet national security requirements.
The Strategic SEAS Act complements legislative efforts like the SHIPS Act by addressing a critical question: how to provide sustained, reliable funding to support the Navy’s long-term readiness. Readiness is not built in a year. It is built over decades.
Why This Matters Now
The decisions being made today—about ships, shipyards, technology, workforce, and sustained funding—will define America’s naval strength for the next generation. These decisions are being made now, in budget cycles and legislative sessions that most Americans never see.
Meanwhile, serious questions are being raised by experienced naval professionals, defense analysts, and members of Congress about whether America’s shipbuilding capacity and industrial base can support the strategy at the pace required. Those questions deserve honest, public answers.
This series is intended to provide that clarity—directly, responsibly, and in plain English.
The Questions This Series Will Address
Among them:
• Are traditional ships like destroyers, submarines, and carriers still essential in the age of drones and autonomous systems?
• Can unmanned systems truly enhance naval power—or are they being asked to do too much, too soon?
• Is America’s shipbuilding and repair infrastructure strong enough to sustain the Navy the nation requires?
• What role does Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) play in ensuring readiness—and what challenges does it face?
• How does America’s shipbuilding capacity compare to China’s—and what does that mean strategically?
• Can the Navy realistically surge its fleet when needed?
• What role do Congress, industry, and the American people play in sustaining naval strength over time?
• And most importantly: what must be done—practically, responsibly, and sustainably—to ensure the United States Navy remains ready to protect American interests for decades to come?
These are not political questions. They are national questions. And Americans deserve clear, honest answers.
Why Americans Should Care
The U.S. Navy protects far more than military interests. It safeguards global commerce, deters conflict, reassures allies, and protects the economic system Americans depend on every day. When the Navy is ready, it helps preserve peace through strength. When industrial capacity declines, readiness becomes harder to sustain.
The decisions being made today will shape America’s naval strength for decades to come. Americans deserve to understand those decisions.
What This 8-Part Series Will Explore
In the weeks ahead, this series will examine why traditional naval ships remain essential, how unmanned systems are changing naval operations, the critical role of NAVSEA and America’s shipyards, the industrial and workforce foundation behind naval readiness, how China and other nations are approaching maritime power, how naval strength is sustained over time, and what must be done to ensure continued readiness.
This is not about choosing sides in a debate. It is about understanding the full picture—because an informed public is essential to sustaining a strong Navy.
Over the years, I’ve watched with pride as the United States Navy continues to answer the call — anywhere, anytime. We remain the most capable blue-water navy on earth. Our carriers project power globally. Our submarines dominate beneath the waves. Our sailors perform with professionalism and discipline that few nations can match.
But there’s a hard truth we need to confront as Americans.
We are running our fleet — and our sailors — very hard.
The USS Gerald R. Ford and the Bigger Pattern
When the USS Gerald R. Ford deploys, it represents American industrial power, advanced engineering, and decades of naval aviation expertise. It is the most technologically advanced aircraft carrier ever built.
And yet, like so many ships before it, it has faced extended deployments, compressed maintenance cycles, and intense operational tempo.
This is not about one ship.
It’s about a pattern.
For more than two decades, global demand for U.S. naval presence has increased — while fleet size has not kept pace. The Navy today operates fewer ships than it did during much of the Cold War, yet it is tasked with deterring conflict in the Western Pacific, reassuring allies in Europe, maintaining stability in the Middle East, countering threats in the Red Sea, and responding to crises in the Caribbean and beyond.
The math is unforgiving.
The Carrier Debate — And the Irony
We often hear arguments that aircraft carriers are obsolete, too vulnerable, or relics of a past era.
Yet when tensions rise, when diplomacy tightens, when regional stability wavers — who gets called?
The carrier.
Because nothing else can:
• Deliver sustained airpower without relying on host nation permission • Generate massive sortie rates from international waters • Provide immediate, sovereign options to a president • Signal deterrence visibly and credibly
Critics focus on vulnerability. Decision-makers focus on options.
That is the carrier irony.
We debate their relevance in peacetime — and depend on them in crisis.
The Real Issue: Capacity, Not Capability
The U.S. Navy is still the strongest in the world.
But strength without depth creates strain.
Extended deployments affect more than headlines. They impact:
• Sailor fatigue and family stability • Training cycles • Shipyard scheduling • Long-term readiness
When maintenance gets compressed, the effects don’t show up immediately. They show up later — in availability gaps, repair delays, and cascading readiness challenges across the fleet.
This is not alarmism.
It is operational reality.
Why Americans Should Care
Most Americans assume we have a massive Navy that can surge indefinitely.
They see a carrier sent to a region and feel reassured.
They do not see the maintenance backlogs, the stretched crews, or the industrial bottlenecks behind the scenes.
Sea power underwrites global commerce. Roughly 90 percent of global trade moves by sea. Energy flows, supply chains, and strategic chokepoints all depend on maritime stability.
When the Navy is stretched thin, that stability becomes more fragile.
This isn’t about war. It’s about deterrence, economic security, and preventing conflict before it starts.
The Path Forward
The answer is not to bash carriers.
The answer is not to overuse them either.
The answer is depth:
• More ships • Stable deployment cycles • Stronger shipbuilding capacity • Investment in maintenance infrastructure • Support for the sailors and families who carry the burden
America’s Navy belongs to the American people. And if we expect it to remain the strongest in the world, we must understand what it actually takes to sustain that strength.
We can be proud of our Navy.
But pride alone does not build ships.
Public understanding does.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
Lockheed Martin has officially pulled back the curtain on a revolutionary piece of naval technology: the Lamprey Multi-Mission Autonomous Undersea Vehicle (AUV). While the world focuses on high-speed drones, Lockheed is looking at persistence and endurance. Inspired by the natural world, the Lamprey isn’t just a drone; it’s a parasite—in the best way possible.
The Remora Strategy: Hitching a Ride Named after the fish known for latching onto larger marine animals, the Lamprey drone solves the “energy gap” in undersea warfare. Typically, a small drone wastes most of its battery life just traveling to its mission area.
The Lamprey changes the game
Passive Transit: It attaches to the hull of a friendly ship or submarine using suction or a mechanical docking system.
Energy Harvesting: Instead of draining its batteries, it uses small onboard turbines (hydrogenerators) to harvest energy from the water flowing past the host vessel.
Arrive Fully Charged: By the time the host ship reaches the objective, the Lamprey detaches with 100% battery, ready for combat. Modular Lethality: A 24-Cubic-Foot Payload The Lamprey isn’t just a sensor; it’s a modular “Swiss Army knife” for the Navy. Built with an open architecture and a 24-cubic-foot internal payload bay, it can be swapped for various missions without a major redesign:
Electronic Warfare: Deploying acoustic decoys and intercepting signals.
Intelligence Gathering: Using deployable sensor arrays.
Aerial Dominance: It can be fitted with up to three retractable twin-tube launchers to deploy aerial drones from beneath the waves. Distributed Warfare: The “Quiet” Threat
In a conflict, these drones are built for persistence. Multiple units can deploy at once, settle quietly on the seabed, and wait. They can sit silently for days or weeks, gathering data and relaying intelligence. When commanded, they shift from passive observers to active disruptors or strike platforms.
Status Check: Is Lamprey Mission-Ready? While the technology is groundbreaking, it is important to distinguish between “unveiled” and “fully operational.” Based on recent developments in February 2026, here is the ground truth:
Advanced Prototyping: Lockheed Martin developed the Lamprey using internal research and development (IRAD) funds. This means they built it on their own initiative to prove the concept before seeking a formal government contract.
Proven at Sea: The drone has already undergone successful sea trials, validating its autonomous maneuvering and “hitchhiking” energy-harvesting capabilities in real-world conditions.
The “Product on the Shelf”: Lockheed has effectively “handed the keys” to the U.S. Navy. It is a mature system ready for immediate adoption, though it has not yet been designated as an official “Program of Record” for mass production.
The Lamprey addresses the biggest challenge in autonomous undersea systems: endurance. By turning friendly vessels into mobile charging stations, it trades raw speed for staying power. In a battle space where hiding matters more than sprinting, the Lamprey is the future—quiet, modular, and already in position before the fight begins.
Over the past several years, hundreds — sometimes thousands — of Chinese fishing vessels have been observed assembling in concentrated groups across the South China Sea, the Western Pacific, and even far beyond Asia. At first glance, it looks like industrial fishing on a massive scale.
But this story isn’t really about fish.
It’s about state power, maritime control, and what happens when economic activity and national strategy blur at sea.
What’s Actually Happening
China operates the largest distant-water fishing fleet in the world, numbering in the thousands of vessels. Many of these ships operate far from China’s coast, often for months at a time, supported by at-sea logistics ships that refuel and resupply them.
Satellite imagery and maritime tracking data have repeatedly shown large numbers of Chinese fishing vessels assembling in coordinated formations, sometimes near disputed waters or critical sea lanes.
This isn’t random.
These fleets move, loiter, disperse, and regroup in ways that mirror organized maritime behavior, not independent commercial fishing.
Why Americans Should Care
Most Americans don’t think about fishing fleets as a national security issue — but they should.
These vessels strip global fish stocks, threatening food security for developing nations and destabilizing regional economies.
They operate in areas where the U.S. Navy and allied navies must already maintain freedom of navigation.
They complicate maritime awareness — overwhelming sensors, patrols, and coast guards simply by their sheer numbers.
When hundreds of ships show up in one place, they change the facts on the water without firing a shot.
That matters to global trade, stability, and ultimately American prosperity.
The Gray Zone at Sea
China’s fishing fleet often operates in what strategists call the “gray zone” — the space between peace and conflict.
These vessels are nominally civilian, but many:
Receive state subsidies
Share information with maritime authorities
Operate alongside coast guard and naval units
Assert presence in disputed waters without overt military force
This creates plausible deniability while advancing national objectives.
It’s influence without invasion.
Implications for the U.S. Navy
Every large-scale fleet operating overseas demands attention, monitoring, and resources.
That means:
More patrols
More intelligence collection
More strain on an already stretched Navy and Coast Guard
More coordination with allies who face the same challenge
The U.S. Navy isn’t just deterring warships anymore — it’s managing mass maritime pressure created by civilian fleets backed by state power.
This Isn’t About Hating China — It’s About Seeing Clearly
This isn’t anti-China rhetoric. It’s pro-reality.
If you ever doubted China’s long-term maritime intentions, the scale and coordination of these fishing fleets should give you pause. Nations don’t build and sustain fleets of this size accidentally. They do it because the sea matters — economically, strategically, and politically.
Ignoring that reality doesn’t make it go away.
What Comes Next
The real question isn’t whether China will continue expanding its maritime reach — it will.
The question is whether Americans understand:
Why the Navy matters beyond wartime
Why sea control protects everyday life
Why economic power and maritime power are inseparable
That understanding is what ultimately determines whether the U.S. can respond smartly, calmly, and effectively.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late. Let’s roll.
There’s a concept every naval planner understands but few Americans realize – one that I’ve come to appreciate over time: the decisions we make today about shipbuilding, maintenance, and industrial capacity don’t affect today’s Navy – they determine what Navy we’ll have seven to ten years from now.
This creates what I call the Critical Window – a concept familiar to anyone who’s managed large-scale projects. It’s that narrow period when decisions made now lock in outcomes years down the line. For shipbuilding, budget decisions, industrial investments, and strategic commitments made in 2026-2027 will directly shape our naval capabilities in the 2030s.
After this window closes, the die is cast. The industrial base will be committed. The budgets will be locked in. The ships – or the absence of ships – will be determined by choices we’re making right now.
Why 2026-2027 Is The Critical Window
The mathematics of naval construction are unforgiving:
Attack submarines take 7-8 years from contract award to delivery. A Virginia-class submarine ordered in FY2027 enters the fleet in 2034-2035.
Surface combatants take 4-5 years to build. An Arleigh Burke-class destroyer funded in FY2027 delivers in 2031-2032.
Shipyard expansions take 3-4 years to become operational. Capacity investments made in FY2027 start producing results in 2030-2031.
Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines require 7+ years and are consuming enormous portions of the shipbuilding budget through the end of this decade.
This isn’t abstract policy planning – it’s industrial reality. You cannot surge naval capability. You cannot speed up physics, metallurgy, or the skilled workforce required to build nuclear-powered warships.
Several factors converge to make 2026-2027 uniquely consequential:
The Big Beautiful Bill Timeline: The $150 billion defense investment passed in July 2025 is one-time funding available through 2029. By 2027, Congress must decide whether to sustain these investments with recurring appropriations or let them lapse.
The 2030s Capability Gap: Multiple studies project the Navy falling below required force structure in the early 2030s as older ships retire faster than new ones are built.
The China Pacing Challenge: China’s shipbuilding capacity far exceeds America’s. The gap between their naval growth and ours widens with each passing year we fail to accelerate production.
The Commission Opportunity: The National Commission on the Future of the Navy becomes operational in 2026. This represents a once-in-a-generation chance to reshape naval policy.
Looking Through The Binoculars: What We See In The 2030s
What you see depends entirely on decisions being made right now. If we maintain the current trajectory, the total battle force will decline by 2030, and the attack submarine fleet will reach minimum viable numbers by 2032. By 2035, China’s navy will be substantially larger, exploiting our constrained shipbuilding.
If we use the Critical Window wisely, shipyard expansions funded in 2026-2027 will come online by 2030. Accelerated production will begin delivering boats by 2032, and industrial base investments will enable us to match strategic requirements by 2035.
What The Critical Window Requires
Using this window effectively demands moving beyond one-time supplemental funding to sustained, recurring appropriations. The Big Beautiful Bill provided a down payment, but the FY2027 and FY2028 budgets must demonstrate a commitment to sustaining those investments. We also need acquisition reform to reduce the time from budget authorization to ship delivery and alternative funding mechanisms to supplement traditional appropriations.
From Experience: The Hollow Navy and The Reagan Response
I served during the 1970s hollow Navy – ships that couldn’t deploy and maintenance deferred. I also witnessed the Reagan administration’s response: a commitment to rebuild the Navy to 600 ships. That wasn’t just rhetoric – it was budget authority and political will sustained across multiple cycles. We face the same choice now. The 1980s rebuild succeeded because leaders recognized their Critical Window. We must do the same.
What You Can Do During The Critical Window
For veterans and advocates, understand that your voice matters most during the budget markup season. For policymakers, recognize that today’s choices have 10-year consequences. For concerned citizens, ask candidates about their plans for sustaining naval investment. Peace through strength requires backing rhetoric with budget authority.
The Bottom Line
The Critical Window of 2026-2027 is closing. We cannot change the physics of shipbuilding, but we can recognize this moment for what it is. The decisions made in the next 18 months will determine what Navy America has in the 2030s.
Americans for a Stronger Navy advocates for naval transparency, readiness, and strategic policy development. Learn more: StrongerNavy.org
Follow the Commission: National Commission on the Future of the Navy
The Critical Window is now. The time to act is today.
While we focus on ship counts, readiness percentages, and hull maintenance, there’s another critical battle being fought in Navy Medicine laboratories that directly impacts our fleet’s combat power: the fight against antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
The Naval Medical Research Command (NMRC) just completed a six-year research program that could revolutionize how we protect our sailors and Marines from one of the most insidious threats they face—bacterial infections that laugh at our best antibiotics.
The Invisible Enemy
Here’s the reality: our warfighters aren’t just exposed to enemy fire. They face bacteria through combat injuries, deployments to overseas locations, and the close-quarters environment of shipboard life. And increasingly, these bacteria are resistant to the antibiotics we’ve relied on for decades.
Four bacterial villains are the focus: Acinetobacter baumannii (nicknamed “Iraqibacter” from the early Iraq war days), Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus. All can cause fevers, fatigue, swelling—and in severe cases, death.
When a sailor or Marine is fighting a multidrug-resistant infection, they’re not mission-ready. They’re not protecting their shipmates. They’re fighting for their life.
The Navy’s Secret Weapon: Bacteriophages
Navy Medicine Research & Development has a solution that sounds like science fiction but is brilliantly simple: use viruses that naturally hunt and kill bacteria.
Bacteriophages—or phages—are viruses that target specific bacteria with surgical precision. Unlike antibiotics that carpet-bomb your body’s bacterial ecosystem (killing both good and bad bacteria), phages are smart weapons. They go after only the harmful bacteria you want eliminated.
Over six years of focused research funded by Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDRMP), NMRC has developed approximately 2,500 phage cocktails. Think of these as personalized medicine—specific combinations designed to attack specific bacterial threats.
From Wastewater to Warfighter
The collection process is global and fascinating. Navy researchers harvest phages from wastewater—bogs, sewers, rivers—across multiple continents. These microscopic hunters are everywhere. In fact, if you strung together all the phages on Earth, they could wrap around the Milky Way Galaxy three times.
Each collected phage goes through rigorous purification and characterization. As Dr. Biswajit Biswas, chief of NMRC’s Bacteriophage Science Division, explains: “We collect these phages, purify them and grow them in large quantities. Then, we extract DNA, sequence its genome and analyze the phage very carefully to understand if it carries any toxins, since we cannot push something in the human systems if the phage carries toxins.”
This is meticulous work. This is Navy excellence.
Proof of Concept: The Tom Patterson Story
In 2015, NMRC achieved something historic. Dr. Tom Patterson fell critically ill from Acinetobacter baumannii, slipped into a coma, and remained ill through multiple treatments. Nothing worked. Until he was administered an NMRC-developed phage cocktail intravenously.
He survived.
As Dr. Biswas notes: “It should be understood that before Tom Patterson’s case, nobody used phage to treat systemic bacterial infection in the United States.”
NMRC didn’t just save a life. They opened a door.
Why This Matters for Naval Readiness
Commander Mark Simons, director of NMRC’s Infectious Diseases Directorate, gets straight to the point: “Navy and Marine Corps warfighters are often first to the fight as expeditionary units, and thus will experience early casualties in a potentially prolonged-care setting. This will require novel antimicrobial countermeasures to be used early and throughout the continuum of care to treat antibiotic-resistant infections which are rising globally and highly prevalent in developing countries and high-conflict regions.”
Read that again. First to the fight.Early casualties.Prolonged-care settings.
When we deploy our carriers to the Indo-Pacific, when we send Marines into contested environments, when we operate in regions where medical evacuation isn’t guaranteed—our people need every medical advantage we can give them.
A sailor fighting a superbug infection can’t stand watch. A Marine with a resistant wound infection can’t complete the mission. Medical readiness is operational readiness.
Joint Innovation at Its Best
This research demonstrates something we don’t celebrate enough: when Navy Medicine and Army Medicine researchers work together with focused priorities, incredible things happen. NMRC collaborated seamlessly with Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) and the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory.
WRAIR’s Forward Labs collected phages in Thailand, Kenya, and Georgia. Naval Medical Research Unit (NAMRU) SOUTH provided phage isolates from South America. This global network, coordinated across services, created a phage library that will serve warfighters for years to come.
This is how you build combat advantage.
Next Mission: FDA Approval
NMRC’s next objective is clear: Investigational New Drug applications with the FDA to move the most promising cocktails into phase one safety and immune response studies.
“Navy Medicine R&D is a leader in bacteriophage research so that we can bring this promising technology to clinicians and corpsman to improve battlefield survival for Sailors and Marines,” Commander Simons states.
That’s the goal. Not publications. Not academic prestige. Battlefield survival..
The Bigger Picture
We talk often about the “hollow Navy” of the 1970s—rusting ships, deferred maintenance, degraded readiness. But readiness isn’t just hull numbers and operating budgets. It’s whether our people can fight and survive when called upon.
This bacteriophage research represents the same commitment to readiness that we demand in ship maintenance, training, and logistics. It’s the Navy refusing to accept that warfighters should die from infections we could prevent or treat.
It’s innovation driven by mission necessity.
It’s medical capability that directly enables combat power.
It’s the kind of work that happens when national will, proper funding, and talented professionals align toward a clear objective: keeping our sailors and Marines ready, healthy, and lethal.
What This Teaches Us
For 250 years, Navy Medicine has delivered healthcare to warfighters “on, below, and above the sea and ashore.” This bacteriophage research continues that legacy with 21st-century tools.
But it also demonstrates something broader about naval strength: readiness is a system. Every piece matters. From hull coatings that prevent rust to phage cocktails that prevent death from resistant bacteria, it all connects.
When we advocate for a stronger Navy, we’re advocating for all of it. The ships, yes. But also the medicine, the logistics, the training, the innovation, the global partnerships that make American naval power possible.
NMRC and its partner commands have shown what’s possible when the mission is clear and the resources are provided. They’ve built a library of 2,500 phage cocktails, established processes that could save countless lives, and positioned the U.S. military to lead in a crucial medical technology.
That’s not just good science. That’s good strategy.
That’s a stronger Navy.
FREDERICK, Md. (April 11, 2025) Researchers with Biological Defense Research Directorate (BDRD), pose for a group photo after conducting bacteriophage therapy research to combat multidrug resistant bacteria that could impact warfighter readiness. Phages are viruses that target and kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Navy Medicine Research & Development (NMR&D) is engaged in bacteriophage therapy research to protect the warfighter from these threats, keeping U.S. forces ready and lethal. NMRC, headquarters of NMR&D, is engaged in a broad spectrum of activity from basic science in the laboratory to field studies in austere and remote areas of the world to investigations in operational environments. In support of Navy, Marine Corps and joint U.S. warfighter health, readiness and lethality, researchers study infectious diseases, biological warfare detection and defense, combat casualty care, environmental health concerns, aerospace and undersea medicine, operational mission support and epidemiology. For 250 years, Navy Medicine, represented by more than 44,000 highly-trained military and civilian healthcare professionals, has delivered quality healthcare and enduring expeditionary medical support to the warfighter on, below, and above the sea and ashore.
Americans for a Stronger Navy advocates for the transparent reporting, proper resourcing, and strategic innovation necessary to maintain U.S. naval superiority. Medical readiness is operational readiness. Support the sailors and Marines who stand the watch.
Why a narrow stretch of ocean between three landmasses has shaped 80 years of naval strategy — and why Americans need to understand it now
Introduction
A recent debate centered on whether China or Russia pose an imminent military threat to Greenland. The answer from intelligence sources appears to be no. But that answer, while technically correct, misses the deeper strategic point that has guided U.S. thinking for over two centuries.
The real issue is not invasion. The real issue is strategic positioning in geography that matters to naval power.
Greenland sits in one of the most important pieces of maritime real estate on the planet. And the United States has understood that for a very long time.
The GIUK Gap: A Naval Choke Point Since World War II
Greenland forms the western anchor of what naval strategists call the GIUK Gap — the sea space between Greenland, Iceland, and the United Kingdom.
This is not a modern concept. During World War II and throughout the Cold War, this gap was the primary maritime passage between the Russian Northern Fleet and the Atlantic Ocean. Soviet submarines had to pass through this space to threaten U.S. and NATO shipping lanes.
The U.S. and NATO built an entire system of surveillance, patrols, air bases, and anti-submarine warfare doctrine around this geography. This was one of the most heavily monitored naval regions on earth for decades.
That geography has not changed.
What has changed is public memory of why it mattered.
Greenland and the U.S. Military Presence
The United States has maintained a military presence in Greenland since World War II. Today, Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base) remains a critical U.S. installation for:
Missile warning
Space surveillance
Arctic operations
Early warning radar coverage of the North Atlantic and polar approaches
This is not symbolic. It is operationally significant to U.S. homeland defense and NATO maritime awareness.
The Monroe Doctrine and Western Hemisphere Strategy
In 1823, the Monroe Doctrine established a foundational principle of U.S. strategy:
Foreign powers establishing strategic footholds in the Western Hemisphere is a U.S. security concern — even if that presence appears commercial or political rather than military.
This was never about invasion. It was about presence.
Because presence becomes leverage.
That thinking has guided U.S. behavior for 200 years across the Caribbean, South America, Central America, and the Arctic.
Greenland fits squarely into that tradition.
China’s Pattern of Strategic Positioning
There is no evidence China plans to invade Greenland. But there is extensive documentation of China’s interest in:
Arctic shipping routes as ice recedes
Rare earth and mineral projects in Greenland
Financing infrastructure projects, including attempted airport construction
Expanding its presence in Arctic research and commercial ventures
This pattern is not unique to Greenland. Similar approaches have been seen in Africa, the Pacific Islands, South America, and Australia.
The pattern is not military. It is long-term positioning.
That is what concerns strategists, not headlines.
Why This Matters to Naval Strategy
Naval strategy is built around geography, choke points, and access.
Greenland is not important because of its population or economy. It is important because of where it sits on the map.
Control and awareness of the GIUK Gap means control and awareness of submarine movement between the Arctic and the Atlantic. That has been true for 80 years.
It is still true today.
Why This Is Urgent Now
Three developments make Greenland’s strategic position more critical today than at any point since the Cold War:
1. Arctic ice recession is opening new shipping routes and resource access, increasing activity in waters the U.S. has monitored for decades.
2. Russian submarine activity in the North Atlantic has returned to Cold War levels, but U.S. anti-submarine warfare capabilities have atrophied.
3. China’s systematic positioning in Arctic governance, research, and commercial ventures is establishing presence before the U.S. fully recognizes the competition.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy faces its smallest fleet since 1916 and readiness challenges that limit sustained presence in multiple regions simultaneously.
The stake is not hypothetical: If the U.S. cannot maintain awareness and presence in the GIUK Gap, it cannot guarantee:
Protection of transatlantic commerce that underpins the American economy
Early warning of submarine-launched threats to the homeland
Credible deterrence that prevents crises from starting
Why Americans Should Care
Most Americans think of naval strength as ships and aircraft carriers. Few think about the map.
But naval power is first and foremost about geography.
The sea lanes that carry global trade, energy supplies, and military movement pass through predictable choke points. Greenland anchors one of them.
Understanding this is key to understanding why the United States watches foreign interest in Greenland closely — not because of paranoia, but because of history.
Implications for the Navy
For the U.S. Navy and NATO maritime forces, Greenland and the GIUK Gap remain central to:
Monitoring Russian submarine activity
Securing North Atlantic shipping lanes
Maintaining Arctic awareness as access increases
Supporting homeland and allied defense from the maritime domain
This is classic naval statecraft.
Implications for Our Allies
Denmark, the United Kingdom, Iceland, Canada, and NATO partners all share an interest in maintaining control and awareness of this region.
Greenland is not just a U.S. concern. It is a NATO maritime concern.
The Real Debate
The debate is not about whether China or Russia plan to invade Greenland.
It is about whether we recognize the long pattern of strategic positioning that great powers use long before conflict.
Geography doesn’t change. Neither does its importance to naval strategy.
Understanding Geography Is Just The Beginning
Greenland matters because of where it sits on the map. But knowing why geography matters doesn’t answer the harder questions:
How did the U.S. Navy — which once dominated these waters without question — reach a point where we’re debating our ability to maintain presence in strategically vital regions?
What decisions, what budget choices, what policy shifts brought us here?
And most importantly: what must happen next?
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. We connect the dots between geography, strategy, budgets, readiness, and national will. Our goal is simple: educate the public on the fundamentals of naval power so Americans understand what’s at stake — and what it will take to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
As I continue to learn from naval professionals, analysts, and thoughtful voices like CDR Salamander, Brent Sadler, and Steven Wills, one reality keeps coming into sharper focus: wars between major powers are not decided by what we start with, but by what we can replace after the fighting begins. Many of our most advanced systems today are designed in ways that make rapid replacement, repair, and adaptation extremely difficult. This is not simply a funding or acquisition issue — it is a design, industrial, and national alignment issue. Understanding this is essential if Americans are to understand what true naval power requires in the 21st century.
Bill Cullifer, Founder
Introduction
As I continue this journey with Americans for a Stronger Navy, I find myself learning as much as I am advocating.
One of the most valuable parts of this work has been listening to and reading professionals like CDR Salamander, retired U.S. Navy Commander and widely read naval commentator; Brent Sadler, Senior Research Fellow for Naval Warfare and Advanced Technology at The Heritage Foundation and former U.S. Navy submariner; and Dr. Steven Wills, naval historian and former U.S. Navy officer, who are describing a reality that should concern every American — not just those in uniform or working in the defense industry.
Here’s the light-bulb moment. Imagine two football teams. One starts the game with the best players in the league — faster, stronger, more skilled. The other starts with good players, but has a deep bench. When players get hurt, they substitute quickly. When equipment breaks, they replace it. When fatigue sets in, they rotate fresh players onto the field. By the fourth quarter, the first team is exhausted, short-handed, and can’t keep up. The second team wins.
Wars between major powers work the same way. It’s not the starting lineup that decides the outcome. It’s the depth of the bench.
Today, we have an impressive starting lineup. What professionals like Salamander, Sadler, and Wills are warning us about is the size of our bench.
That was true in World War II. It is proving true in Ukraine today. And it will be true in any future conflict in the Pacific.
Here’s the uncomfortable part: many of the systems we build today are extraordinarily capable — but they are not designed to be built, repaired, or replenished at wartime scale.
The Lesson We Forgot from World War II
In World War II, America did not win because our tanks, ships, and aircraft were perfect. We won because they were designed to be built in massive numbers by the factories we already had. Design matched industrial strength. Throughput, not elegance, won the war.
What CDR Salamander Is Warning Us About
“In a fight defined by attrition, adaptation, and industrial endurance, the winning systems will not be the perfect ones on paper but the ones that can be produced, replaced, and improved the fastest.”
Brent Sadler and Maritime Statecraft
Sadler calls this maritime statecraft — naval power tied directly to shipyards, logistics, trade, workforce, and industry.
Steven Wills and the Structural Slide
Wills shows this is a structural capacity problem, not a readiness statistic.
What This Means for Middle America
Factories, trades, ports, shipyards — naval power begins in American towns long before a ship leaves port.
How We Got Here — The Quiet Erosion of Industrial Depth
This didn’t happen overnight. Industrial redundancy gave way to efficiency. What was once economic change is now understood as national security fragility.
Maritime Commerce — The Part Most Americans Never See
Over 90 percent of global trade moves by sea. Naval strength protects American prosperity.
How the Country Benefits
Stable supply chains, energy security, jobs, reliable trade, and deterrence.
The Good News
The good news is this: America has solved this problem before. In the 1930s, we did not yet have the industrial capacity that would later win World War II. What we had first was understanding. Once Americans understood what was required, industry, workforce, and national focus followed. We are at a similar moment now.
Why Americans Should Care
If war comes in the Pacific, it will not be decided in the first month. It will be decided in month six by who can replace losses fastest.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
Independence-class LCS deploying surface assets from the mission bay.
The AN/AQS-20 sonar being prepared for deployment.
