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.
The Questions Americans Deserve Answered (Part 1 of 8)
Bill Cullifer, Founder
I served as a blue-water destroyer sailor in the 1970s, and like many veterans, I’ve spent the years since trying to understand how America maintains the naval strength that protects our country, our allies, and the global sea lanes we all depend on.
The charts and analysis below help tell part of that story.
This article is part of Charting the Course: Voices That Matter, our ongoing educational series exploring the future of American sea power and the policies, people, and industrial strength that sustain the U.S. Navy.
This article also launches a focused 8-part series within Charting the Course examining some of the most important questions facing the Navy today — from shipbuilding capacity and fleet readiness to workforce challenges and the future of maritime deterrence.
We’re calling it The Questions Americans Deserve Answered.
For most Americans, the Navy is something we think about only in moments of crisis. A conflict erupts, a carrier group deploys, or a headline mentions tensions in the Pacific or the Middle East.
But the strength of the U.S. Navy is not decided during those moments. It is determined years — sometimes decades — earlier in shipyards, classrooms, industrial plants, research labs, and congressional hearings.
Today the United States faces serious questions about shipbuilding capacity, industrial readiness, and long-term naval strategy. China is building ships at a pace the world has not seen in generations. Russia continues to challenge Western stability at sea. Critical maritime infrastructure and supply chains are increasingly vulnerable to disruption.
And yet many Americans remain understandably disconnected from the decisions shaping the future of our fleet.
The strength of the U.S. Navy is determined long before ships sail into crisis—it is built in shipyards, sustained by skilled workers, and shaped by decisions made years earlier in industry, technology, and national policy.
Why Americans Should Care
America is, and has always been, a maritime nation.
Nearly 90 percent of global trade moves by sea. The global economy depends on secure shipping lanes. Energy markets, supply chains, and the stability of democratic alliances all rely on freedom of navigation.
The U.S. Navy has quietly safeguarded those sea lanes for generations.
But maintaining that advantage requires more than ships — it requires people, industry, technology, and public understanding.
Chart: Global Operational Demand on the U.S. Navy
This Heritage Foundation chart illustrates the geographic reach of U.S. naval operations across multiple regions. Carrier Strike Groups and Amphibious Ready Groups are routinely deployed worldwide, highlighting the constant global demand placed on the fleet.
The Questions Americans Deserve Answered
Over the coming weeks, this series will explore several critical questions about the future of U.S. sea power.
Can America rebuild the shipbuilding capacity required to compete in a new era of great power competition?
Do we have enough skilled workers — engineers, welders, and naval architects — to sustain fleet growth?
How serious is the maintenance backlog affecting submarines and surface ships?
Are current procurement processes helping or hurting the Navy’s ability to modernize?
How should the United States balance aircraft carriers, submarines, uncrewed systems, and logistics platforms?
What role do civilian shipyards and maritime infrastructure play in national security?
Can the United States scale submarine production fast enough to match emerging threats?
And perhaps most importantly: how do we ensure the American public remains engaged in decisions that affect the future of the fleet?
These are not partisan questions. They are national questions.
Understanding the Industrial Challenge
Much of the discussion about naval power focuses on ships already at sea. But the true story begins on land — in America’s shipyards and industrial base.
Chart: Age Distribution of Chinese and U.S. Naval Fleets
This chart compares the age distribution of Chinese and U.S. naval fleets. China’s fleet contains a larger number of relatively new ships, reflecting rapid shipbuilding expansion in recent years.
China now possesses the world’s largest shipbuilding industry by a wide margin.
Meanwhile, American shipyards face workforce shortages, supply chain constraints, and unpredictable funding cycles.
Chart: U.S. Navy Ships Nearing or Exceeding Service Life
This chart shows the growing number of U.S. Navy ships approaching — or exceeding — their expected service life, placing additional strain on fleet readiness and modernization timelines.
The Human Factor
Ships and technology matter — but ultimately the Navy is built on people.
From sailors standing watch at sea tonight to the skilled workers building submarines and carriers at home, the strength of the fleet depends on the dedication and expertise of thousands of Americans.
Implications for Our Allies
America does not operate alone at sea.
Alliances with countries such as Japan, Australia, the Philippines, and NATO partners form a critical part of global maritime stability.
These partnerships reinforce an important truth: deterrence is strongest when democracies stand together.
Public Engagement Matters
The U.S. Navy ultimately belongs to the American people.
Yet the complexity of defense planning can make it difficult for citizens to understand how decisions about shipbuilding, budgets, and strategy affect national security.
That is one of the reasons we created StrongerNavy.org.
Our goal is simple: help Americans better understand the challenges facing the fleet, the industrial base that supports it, and the people who serve at sea and in shipyards across the country.
The Questions Americans Deserve Answered — Series Guide
Part 1 – Understanding the Industrial Challenge (this article)
Part 2 – Can America Rebuild Shipbuilding Capacity?
Part 3 – The Submarine Production Challenge
Part 4 – Maintenance and Fleet Readiness
Part 5 – Workforce and the Maritime Industrial Base
Part 6 – The Role of Allies in Sea Power
Part 7 – Procurement, Policy, and the Future Fleet
Part 8 – Why Public Engagement Matters
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.
Cutting through the noise on the world’s most critical waterway — and why this moment calls for resolve, not panic.
There is a lot of noise right now about the Strait of Hormuz. Some of it is accurate. Some of it is not. All of it is loud. Before you form an opinion about what this crisis means — and what America should do about it — you deserve the facts, stated plainly, without an agenda.
That is what we do at StrongerNavy.org. Plain language. Verified facts. No spin.
What Is Actually Happening
The Strait of Hormuz — a 21-mile-wide waterway on Iran’s southern border — is the single maritime exit for the Persian Gulf. Every barrel of oil produced in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, and Iran that leaves by sea passes through this one gap. It carries 20% of the world’s oil and a substantial share of global liquefied natural gas. There is no alternative route. Ships that cannot use the strait must sail around the southern tip of Africa — adding two to three weeks to every voyage.
Since February 28, that strait has been effectively closed to nearly all commercial shipping. Let’s be precise about what that means.
It is legally open. The U.S. Central Command has confirmed the strait “remains open to international navigation.” Iran has not formally closed an international waterway — it cannot under maritime law.
It is operationally closed. Ship traffic is down 94%, according to the Joint Maritime Information Center. The world’s largest shipping companies — Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd, MSC, CMA CGM — have all suspended transits. Approximately 750 ships are caught in or around the strait, unable to move.
The reason ships stopped is not Iran’s navy. It is marine insurance. A European regulatory framework called Solvency 2 requires insurers to hold capital sufficient for a once-in-200-year loss event at all times. When conflict escalated, insurers recalculated their exposure overnight. Cancelling war risk coverage takes seven days. Raising new capital takes months. The math was simple — and 90% of the world’s commercial fleet lost its coverage. As maritime historian Sal Mercogliano put it plainly on March 4: “It’s not the Iranians closing the strait. The decision was made by the shipping companies.”
Iran’s weapon is not its fleet. It is economic fear. And it has worked — for now.
What It Tells Us
None of this should be a surprise. The vulnerability of the Strait of Hormuz has been documented for decades. Naval planners have war-gamed this scenario repeatedly. The question was never whether it could happen. The question was whether America would be ready when it did.
On March 3, President Trump ordered the U.S. Development Finance Corporation to provide government war risk insurance for all maritime trade in the Gulf — effective immediately, at what he described as “a very reasonable price.” It was the right instinct. Private insurers had fled the market overnight, and the insurance gap — not Iranian guns — was what stopped the ships.
Whether it moves the needle remains to be seen. The shipping industry has signaled the offer may not be sufficient to restore confidence on its own. And if vessels are damaged, American taxpayers could face a bill in the hundreds of millions — potentially billions. The commitment is real. The details are still emerging.
On March 4, President Trump pledged the U.S. Navy would escort commercial tankers through the strait. Within hours, Lloyd’s List reported the Navy had privately told shipping industry leaders it does not currently have sufficient assets to fulfill that commitment. Approximately 125 ships transit the strait daily under normal conditions. The U.S. has roughly eight guided-missile destroyers and three Littoral Combat Ships in the region. As Mercogliano noted: “This is nowhere near enough assets. They just do not have the assets to do it.”
There are no frigates available — because the U.S. has not yet built a replacement frigate. The Littoral Combat Ships present cannot reliably provide air defense against drones and missiles, as the Red Sea campaign demonstrated. And even as U.S. forces degrade Iran’s conventional navy — including the March 4 torpedo sinking of the Iranian corvette IRS Dena, the first U.S. submarine sinking of a warship since World War II — the asymmetric threat remains. Drones, mines, and fast boats do not require a functioning navy. The Houthis proved that. The Ukrainians proved that in the Black Sea.
We also do not know the full readiness picture of the ships operating in the Gulf tonight — because the Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey readiness reports have been classified since 2008. The American public cannot independently verify whether those vessels are fully mission-capable. That is unacceptable. #FreeTheData
The gap between the President’s public commitment and the Navy’s private assessment is not a failure of this administration alone. It is the accumulated result of a generation of deferred shipbuilding, underfunded shipyards, and what we have long called seablindness — America’s institutional tendency to underinvest in naval power during periods of relative peace, then scramble when a crisis arrives.
You cannot build a destroyer in a crisis. The fleet available tonight was determined by decisions made — and deferred — over the past decade.
We Have Been Here Before
I want to say something that tends to get lost in the noise: America has fixed this before.
I served aboard USS Henry B. Wilson in the 1970s. That was the hollow Navy — undermanned, underfunded, demoralized after Vietnam, outpaced by a Soviet fleet that was growing faster than ours. The readiness gap then was real. The threat was real. The concern among those of us who served was real.
And then America came together and fixed it.
The Reagan-era naval buildup — driven by bipartisan recognition that sea power was not optional for a global superpower — took a Navy that could barely sustain itself and rebuilt it into the 600-ship force that helped end the Cold War without firing a single shot at its primary adversary. It did not happen because of panic. It happened because enough Americans, in and out of uniform, looked at the problem clearly and decided the answer was investment, not retreat.
That is the moment we are in again. The Strait of Hormuz crisis is not the end of the story. It is the alarm clock.
What America Does Now
The framework for action already exists. The President signed Executive Order 14269 restoring America’s maritime dominance. The Maritime Action Plan, released in February 2026, identified exactly the investments needed — shipbuilding capacity, workforce development, industrial base expansion, a Maritime Security Trust Fund with dedicated funding. The National Commission on the Future of the Navy is preparing public hearings in Q2 2026. The SHIPS for America Act has bipartisan support in Congress.
The architecture is there. What has been missing is national will — the public demand that elected representatives treat naval power as the non-negotiable strategic necessity it is.
That is what StrongerNavy.org exists to build. Not alarm. Not partisanship. Not finger-pointing. A clear-eyed, evidence-based, nonpartisan case that a strong Navy is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. It is an American issue — as fundamental to our security and prosperity as any question before the country today.
The Strait of Hormuz will reopen. Insurance markets will recalibrate. Ships will move again. But the underlying readiness gap — the shipyard capacity shortfall, the escort deficit, the classified readiness reports, the two-theater question that nobody in Washington wants to answer plainly — will still be there the morning after.
The question is whether this crisis produces the national conversation that leads to real investment, or whether we absorb the shock, breathe a sigh of relief, and go back to sleep.
America does not have to choose seablindness. We chose our way into this. We can choose our way out.
“The time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining.” — John F. Kennedy
The sun is not shining right now. But when it does — and it will — let’s make sure we remember what this week felt like. And build accordingly.
Stay Informed. Stay Engaged.
StrongerNavy.org has been covering the naval readiness gap for over two years — plain language, verified facts, no spin. If this post was useful, share it with someone who needs to understand what is at stake. And follow our ongoing coverage as this crisis develops.
This is America’s wake-up call. What we do with it is up to us.
Sources: USNI News | Lloyd’s List | Bloomberg | CNBC | Axios | Breaking Defense | Navy Times | Seatrade Maritime | AAA | Kpler | S&P Global | Joint Maritime Information Center | U.S. Central Command | Rapidan Energy Group | U.S. Energy Information Administration | Sal Mercogliano, What’s Going On with Shipping (March 4, 2026)
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.
For years, maritime decline has been treated as a niche issue — something for defense insiders, shipyard executives, or Navy circles to debate quietly. That is beginning to change.
Recently, Senator Todd Young published, in American Affairs Journal a thoughtful piece arguing that rebuilding America’s maritime industrial base is essential to both economic strength and national security. He traced the issue back to the Revolution, through Mahan, and into the present-day competition with China.
That matters.
Not because of who wrote it. But because of what it signals.
Maritime Power Is Back in the Conversation
For decades, America has allowed its commercial fleet to shrink. Shipyards have closed. Skilled labor has aged out. Foreign-flagged vessels now move the overwhelming majority of our trade.
Meanwhile, China designated shipbuilding a strategic industry and built accordingly.
This is not about panic. It is about arithmetic.
Eighty percent of global trade moves by sea. Most of America’s trade does too. If we cannot build, repair, and crew ships at scale, we are strategically exposed — economically and militarily.
The encouraging sign is that leaders are once again speaking openly about maritime strength.
That is progress.
Policy Is Necessary — But Not Sufficient
Legislation like the proposed SHIPS Act is an important step. Tax incentives, regulatory reform, maritime academy modernization — these are serious proposals.
But here is the harder truth:
Industrial revival cannot be sustained by legislation alone.
Shipbuilding capacity requires:
Workforce development Steel production Port modernization Cybersecurity resilience Long-term capital investment And, above all, public understanding
Without public buy-in, even well-crafted policy fades with political cycles.
This Is Not a Coastal Issue
One of the most overlooked truths in this debate is that maritime strength touches every American.
Indiana steel feeds shipyards. Midwestern grain moves to global markets by sea. Energy exports rely on tankers. Supply chains run through ports.
Sea power is not about nostalgia. It is about jobs, commerce, resilience, and deterrence.
When ships deploy longer because the fleet is too small… When maintenance backlogs grow… When sealift capacity shrinks…
Those are not abstract statistics. They are signs of strain in a system Americans depend on every day.
Civic Engagement Is the Missing Ingredient
We can debate fleet numbers. We can debate funding mechanisms. We can debate industrial policy.
But unless Americans understand why this matters — and choose to participate in the conversation — nothing lasting will change.
Rebuilding sea power is not simply a government project. It is a civic project.
It requires voters who ask informed questions. Taxpayers who demand accountability. Educators who teach maritime history and strategy. Industry leaders willing to invest long-term.
America’s maritime strength has always rested on the character and engagement of its people.
That spirit has not disappeared.
The conversation is shifting. That is a good sign.
Now the responsibility shifts to us.
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.
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.
Protecting America’s Naval Edge Strategic competition, documented technology theft, and military-linked research highlight why protecting America’s technological advantage is essential to maintaining naval superiority.
Abstract
Naval power in the 21st century is shaped as much by technological innovation as by fleet size. Strategic competitors are investing heavily in research, industrial capacity, and military modernization to close the technological gap with the United States. This article analyzes the implications of documented research security concerns, the role of military-linked academic institutions, and the broader strategic environment, and argues that preserving America’s technological advantage requires informed public engagement, policy alignment, and sustained national awareness.
Introduction
For decades, America’s naval superiority rested on more than ships—it rested on technological advantage. That advantage was built in American shipyards, laboratories, universities, and research institutions. Today, that technological edge is being challenged by strategic competitors who have invested heavily in naval expansion, industrial capacity, and military-relevant technologies. Increasingly, naval professionals, policymakers, and national security experts are raising concerns about how technological competition is unfolding—and how little public awareness exists about its implications. Some documented cases involving technology theft, undisclosed foreign military-linked affiliations, and strategic research competition have received only limited public attention. Americans deserve to understand what is happening, why it matters, and what it means for the future strength of the United States Navy.
Naval Power Begins Long Before a Ship Is Built
Every modern U.S. Navy platform depends on breakthroughs in science and engineering:
Nuclear engineering enables submarine propulsion and carrier endurance
Advanced materials determine hull strength, stealth, and survivability
Semiconductors power radar, communications, and weapons systems
Artificial intelligence and autonomy are reshaping the future of naval warfare
The future DDG(X) destroyer, unmanned naval systems, and next-generation submarines will rely heavily on research happening today in American universities, national laboratories, and federally funded programs.
These institutions are essential to national strength.
But the knowledge they produce exists in a world defined by strategic competition.
Documented Cases Show the Risk Is Real
Concerns about research security are not theoretical. Federal investigations and criminal prosecutions have confirmed cases involving the theft of sensitive technology, undisclosed foreign affiliations, and illegal transfer of research with national security implications.
In January 2026, a U.S. federal jury convicted a former Google engineer of stealing more than 2,000 confidential artificial intelligence and supercomputing files and transferring them to entities linked to China. These technologies have direct military and intelligence applications.
In 2021, Harvard University professor Charles Lieber was convicted for failing to disclose his financial relationship with China’s Thousand Talents Program while receiving U.S. federal research funding. Federal authorities determined he had concealed foreign financial ties tied to a Chinese state-affiliated university.
U.S. authorities have also prosecuted multiple export control violations and research-related concealment cases involving sensitive technologies, including advanced materials, computing, and engineering fields directly relevant to military capability.
The FBI has warned repeatedly that China operates one of the most extensive technology acquisition efforts in modern history, targeting critical research sectors tied to national defense.
These are documented cases—not speculation.
What the “Seven Sons” Represent
U.S. government reports and independent research institutions have identified a group of Chinese universities known as the “Seven Sons of National Defense” as central to China’s military research and development ecosystem. These institutions maintain deep ties to China’s defense industry and serve as primary training grounds for engineers and scientists supporting naval, aerospace, and weapons development.
China’s Military-Civil Fusion strategy explicitly integrates civilian research with military advancement, accelerating defense capability development.
This structural integration differs fundamentally from the decentralized American system and highlights the importance of protecting the technological advantage that underpins U.S. naval superiority.
Why Americans Are Only Beginning to Hear This Story
Many of these cases involving technology theft, undisclosed affiliations, and research security concerns have been publicly reported—but rarely remain in the national spotlight long enough for Americans to see the broader pattern.
Through our China Watch coverage, Americans for a Stronger Navy has documented the larger strategic picture: rapid Chinese naval expansion, sustained investment in military-relevant technologies, and long-term efforts to close the technological and industrial gap with the United States.
This is not a moment for panic—but it is a moment for awareness.
Naval superiority depends on technological leadership. And technological leadership depends on national awareness.
Congress Recognized the Challenge — But the Debate Continues
In 2025, Congress passed the SAFE Research Act in the House of Representatives to strengthen transparency and accountability in federally funded research involving foreign adversary-linked institutions.
However, the provision was removed from the final National Defense Authorization Act after opposition from major academic organizations.
Organizations raising concerns included:
Association of American Universities (AAU)
Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU)
American Physical Society (APS)
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF)
These organizations warned the legislation could harm scientific collaboration, innovation, and America’s ability to attract global talent.
Their concerns reflect legitimate interests in preserving America’s research leadership.
At the same time, the strategic competition affecting naval power continues to accelerate.
Both realities exist.
Why This Matters to the Future of the U.S. Navy
Naval superiority is no longer determined solely by fleet size.
It depends on maintaining technological leadership in:
Nuclear propulsion
Artificial intelligence
Advanced materials
Autonomous systems
Sensors, communications, and computing
These technologies determine whether future American ships remain dominant—or vulnerable.
Shipbuilding matters. Industrial capacity matters. But technological leadership remains decisive.
If America protects its technological edge, it protects its naval advantage.
If it does not, ship numbers alone will not be enough.
Why Americans Should Care
The U.S. Navy protects global trade, deters conflict, and secures the maritime foundation of the American economy.
Every American depends on maritime security.
But naval strength requires more than ships. It requires public awareness, industrial strength, and national alignment.
Americans cannot support what they do not understand.
That is why awareness matters.
Conclusion: A National Conversation Worth Having
America’s openness has fueled generations of innovation and built the most capable Navy in history.
But strategic competitors have studied our system, invested heavily, and worked deliberately to close the gap.
The question is not whether America should remain open.
The question is whether America will remain aware.
Naval superiority cannot be taken for granted. It must be protected—not just in shipyards, but in laboratories, in policy decisions, and in the national will of the American people.
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.
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.
Bill Cullifer Founder, Americans for a Stronger Navy
Senator Dan Sullivan (R-AK) recently highlighted a critical shift in global geopolitics: the Arctic is no longer a distant, icy frontier—it is a burgeoning front line. As Russia and China actively challenge American interests in the High North, the urgency that Americans for a Stronger Navy has long advocated is now more apparent than ever.
A recent Wall Street Journal report detailed a chilling technological milestone: Chinese research submarines have successfully navigated thousands of feet beneath the Arctic ice for the first time. This is far more than a scientific expedition; it is a clear military and commercial signal. As Senator Sullivan warns, these “incursions” test our defenses. In the eyes of authoritarian regimes, the only language that resonates is power.
Projecting Power in the Arctic
Senator Sullivan identifies several pillars critical to securing our northern flank:
Accelerated Icebreaker Production: Our current fleet is woefully inadequate compared to Russia’s. Establishing a persistent presence requires homeporting new, capable icebreakers directly in Alaska.
Enhanced Missile Defense: Strengthening Alaska’s defense infrastructure is vital to protecting the homeland from trans-polar threats.
Energy Dominance: Unleashing Alaskan energy resources is a matter of national security, reducing dependence on foreign adversaries.
Strategic Infrastructure: Developing Adak and Nome into robust operational hubs ensures our forces have the reach to project power throughout the Arctic.
Our Call to Action
We fully endorse the Senator’s call to “keep the pedal to the metal.” However, true Arctic security requires a Stronger Navy fully integrated with the Coast Guard’s mission. To secure the High North, we must:
Close the Icebreaker Gap: We need a sustained shipbuilding plan that delivers Polar Security Cutters on schedule while exploring advanced naval platforms for icy environments.
Invest in Undersea Domain Awareness: The breakthrough in Chinese submarine capabilities demands a sophisticated response in undersea surveillance and anti-submarine warfare (ASW).
Strengthen Arctic Logistics: Our fleet needs resilient, forward-operating bases like Nome to maintain a 24/7 deterrent posture.
The Arctic is a vital theater for global trade and strategic maneuver. Senator Sullivan is providing the leadership Alaska—and the nation—needs. Americans for a Stronger Navy stands ready to advocate for the maritime power necessary to ensure “Peace through Strength” extends to the High North.
Independence-class LCS deploying surface assets from the mission bay.
The AN/AQS-20 sonar being prepared for deployment.
