Category: Analysis

The Analysis category will feature publicly available content published by the U.S. Navy. The Americans for a Stronger Navy will review and proviide to its members and subscribers, in-depth analysis, commentary, and insights on the latest developments and issues related to the United States Navy’s strategic direction. The category will cover a wide range of topics, including warfighting, operating forward, readiness, modernization, and people, as well as other issues related to the Navy’s mission and goals. The aim is to provide members and subscribers with valuable information and perspectives that can help them better understand the challenges and opportunities facing the Navy and how Americans for a Stronger Navy is working to support its strategic direction.

Posted on

Aegis Combat System Proves It Can Counter Hypersonic Threats

Introduction.

On March 24, 2025, the USS Pinckney (DDG 91) made history. Off the coast of Kauai, Hawaii, the Navy successfully completed Flight Test Other-40 (FTX-40)—also known as Stellar Banshee—using the Aegis Combat System to detect and simulate engagement with a hypersonic missile threat. This test is a major milestone in the United States’ ability to defend against rapidly emerging threats from near-peer adversaries like China and Russia, both of whom are investing heavily in hypersonic technology.

Test Details: Simulating the Future of Warfare

A Medium Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM) equipped with a Hypersonic Target Vehicle (HTV-1) was air-launched from a C-17 aircraft. The USS Pinckney used a simulated SM-6 Block IAU interceptor and Lockheed Martin’s latest Aegis Baseline 9 software to detect, track, and engage the target. While no live intercept occurred, the simulated engagement offered critical insights and data collection, validating the system’s ability to counter maneuvering hypersonic threats.

This test also previewed the system’s scalability. Aegis can be deployed at sea or on land—key flexibility in a complex global security environment. The test utilized a virtualized Aegis software configuration, a leap forward in adapting the system for next-generation warfare.

Building on Momentum: Past Successes and What’s Next

FTX-40 follows the success of FTM-32, known as Stellar Sisyphus, in which the USS Preble (DDG 88) intercepted a MRBM with an upgraded SM-6 Dual II missile in a live-fire test. These continued advancements will pave the way for FTM-43, which will aim to perform a live intercept against an HTV-1 target.

The collaboration between the U.S. Navy, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), Lockheed Martin, and other defense partners signals a renewed commitment to innovation and integrated missile defense.

Why Americans Should Care

Hypersonic missiles travel at speeds greater than Mach 5, can maneuver mid-flight, and are extremely hard to detect and counter with traditional systems. Adversaries like China and Russia are rapidly developing and testing these weapons. If successful, these weapons could bypass our current defenses and strike critical infrastructure, fleets, or even the homeland.

This test shows that the United States is not standing still. Our Navy is preparing for tomorrow’s battles—today. The Aegis Combat System’s evolving capabilities directly protect American service members at sea, allies abroad, and Americans at home. It’s another reason why investment in a stronger Navy isn’t optional—it’s essential.

Implications for the Navy

This test reinforces the Aegis system as the backbone of the Navy’s integrated air and missile defense strategy. With its growing flexibility, the system can support both forward-deployed naval units and U.S.-based missile defense installations. It also helps the Navy operate in contested environments—areas where hypersonic threats are expected to become commonplace.

Implications for Our Allies

Many of our closest allies—Japan, South Korea, Australia—also rely on Aegis-equipped ships or similar missile defense systems. Demonstrating this capability strengthens not only U.S. deterrence but also our credibility with partners. In a world where multilateral defense cooperation is key, proof of performance matters.

Closing Thought

FTX-40 didn’t just simulate a hypersonic intercept—it sent a clear message: The United States Navy is adapting and preparing to meet new challenges head-on. For Americans watching the headlines, this is a win worth knowing—and a mission worth supporting.

Posted on

Australia’s Naval Reality Check—America Should Take Notes

If Australia is vulnerable, what does that mean for America?

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

In a recent article for The Australian, Jennifer Parker—an expert associate at the National Security College, Australian National University, and an adjunct fellow in naval studies at the University of New South Wales Canberra—examined China’s latest naval maneuvers near Australia. Her analysis sheds light on vulnerabilities that should concern not just Australia, but the United States as well.

A stark reality: China’s naval task force is actively testing Australia’s response—militarily, politically, and diplomatically. A Chinese fleet operating near Australia’s waters isn’t just a message to Canberra; it’s a signal to the world that Beijing is expanding its reach.

For Americans, this should be a wake-up call. Australia, a key U.S. ally, has long enjoyed security from major conflicts. Yet, China’s maneuvers off its coast expose vulnerabilities in a way that should concern every nation reliant on maritime security, global trade, and naval power.

If China can challenge Australia’s sovereignty at sea today, what stops it from doing the same to America and its allies tomorrow?

China’s Strategy: Testing and Expanding

The deployment of a Chinese naval task group so close to Australia is no accident. It follows a pattern:

  • Probing reactions. Just as it has done in the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, and Latin American ports, China is assessing how the world will respond to its growing military presence.
  • Disrupting global security norms. Conducting live-fire drills near civilian air routes, refusing to issue proper warnings, and testing defense response times all serve a greater goal—normalizing an expanded Chinese naval footprint.
  • Challenging the free world. This is about more than Australia. China is signaling that it has the capability—and the intent—to pressure democratic nations and reshape global power structures in its favor.

This matters to the United States because we rely on the same global shipping lanes, trade networks, and security partnerships that China is testing right now.

Lessons for the U.S. Navy and America

Jennifer Parker’s article points out an uncomfortable truth: Australia’s navy is struggling to meet growing demands. Its limited number of warships, outdated replenishment capabilities, and defense spending shortfalls are now under the spotlight.

But let’s not pretend this problem is unique to Australia.

  • The U.S. Navy is stretched thin. With growing commitments in the Indo-Pacific, Middle East, and beyond, America is already balancing a smaller fleet against greater global threats.
  • Shipbuilding capacity is a bottleneck. While China launches warships at record speed, the U.S. struggles to maintain its current fleet.
  • Defense funding debates mirror Australia’s. At just 2% of GDP, U.S. defense spending is below Cold War levels, and ship procurement continues to face budgetary and political hurdles.

Australia’s vulnerabilities should be a case study for the United States. If a key U.S. ally is struggling to keep pace with China’s naval expansion, America cannot afford to take its own naval dominance for granted.

What Needs to Happen Next?

The right response is not panic—it’s preparation. America must learn from Australia’s situation and take the following steps:

  1. Increase Naval Readiness
    • The U.S. must expand and modernize its fleet, ensuring it has the ships, submarines, and logistical support needed to deter threats.
    • Fleet maintenance and shipyard infrastructure must be prioritized so that existing assets remain operational.
  2. Strengthen Strategic Alliances
    • The U.S.-Australia partnership is critical—joint naval exercises, intelligence sharing, and strategic basing agreements must be expanded.
    • Coordination with Japan, the Philippines, India, and other Indo-Pacific allies must also be reinforced.
  3. Engage the American Public
    • Most Americans aren’t aware of how dependent the U.S. economy and security are on naval power.
    • China isn’t just flexing its military strength—it’s waging a long-term strategic contest to control global trade, technology, and resources.
    • If we don’t educate and rally support for a stronger Navy now, we risk falling behind when it matters most.

Final Thought: A Call to Action

Australia is waking up to the reality that it must invest in naval power to protect its interests. America should take this moment to do the same.

We don’t need alarmism. We need action.

The choice is simple: Invest in a stronger Navy today, or risk facing a crisis tomorrow.

Posted on

An Open Letter: Forward Presence is Not the Problem—Fleet Size Is

An Open Letter: Forward Presence is Not the Problem—Fleet Size Is

To the Editors of War on the Rocks and Dr. Jonathan Panter,

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

Your recent commentary argues that naval forward presence is to blame for the U.S. Navy’s inability to deter China and sustain high-end warfighting capacity. While your article correctly identifies the exhaustion and strain imposed by relentless deployments, it misdiagnoses the cause and proposes a dangerous solution.

The problem is not forward presence—it’s fleet size, maintenance shortfalls, and a lack of leadership advocacy for real change.

“It is both realistic and very necessary to maintain forward presence while preparing for high-end conflict.”
— Captain Brent D. Sadler, USN (Ret.), Senior Fellow, Heritage Foundation

“The U.S. fleet size to support that deployment has significantly decreased since 1990.”
— Captain Steven Wills, USN (Ret.), Senior Advisor, Center for Maritime Strategy

A Shrinking Navy, An Expanding Mission

The numbers tell the real story:

  • ✅ In 1991: The U.S. Navy had 550 ships. Today, it has fewer than 290—a nearly 50% decline.
  • ✅ During the Cold War: Only one-fifth of the fleet was forward deployed. Today, it’s one-third, meaning fewer ships are doing more work.
  • ✅ Maintenance Shortfalls: The Navy has lost critical shore-based infrastructure, making it difficult to sustain current commitments—let alone expand.

Meanwhile, China’s threat has grown, not receded:

  • ✅ China’s Navy: Surpassed 340 ships in 2023 and continues expanding.
  • ✅ Indo-Pacific: Now the primary theater of strategic competition—where U.S. presence is more critical than ever.

The Wrong Solution: Scaling Back Presence

The argument that pulling back from forward deployment would somehow strengthen the Navy by reducing strain is not just wrong—it’s dangerous.

A reduced forward presence does not deter China—it emboldens it.

Beijing is already testing U.S. resolve in the South China Sea, Taiwan Strait, and beyond. A withdrawal would send a clear signal:

America is retreating.

That is not a path to deterrence—it’s a path to ceding maritime dominance to an adversary actively working to reshape the global order.

The Right Solution: A Bigger, More Sustainable Navy

Rather than abandoning forward presence, we must fix the real problem: our shrinking, overstretched fleet.

That means:

  • ✅ Growing the Fleet: Expand to at least 355 ships—endorsed repeatedly by military leaders.
  • ✅ Rebuilding Shore Support: Reinvest in shipyards, dry docks, and logistics infrastructure.
  • ✅ Leadership Advocacy: Navy leaders must demand either more ships or fewer assignments, not accept the status quo.
  • ✅ Congressional Action: Congress must prioritize fleet expansion over short-term cuts.

Conclusion: We Need More Ships, Not Fewer Commitments

Your commentary correctly highlights that the U.S. Navy is stretched thin and struggling to sustain global operations. But forward presence is not the problem. The real issue is that we are trying to maintain it with a fleet too small to sustain the mission.

For more than 75 years, forward-deployed U.S. naval forces have prevented conflict, reassured allies, and ensured maritime security. Scaling back presence does not fix the strain—it accelerates decline and weakens deterrence at the worst possible moment.

“If the United States is serious about deterring China, protecting global stability, and upholding its commitments, the answer is clear: Build a larger, more capable, and better-supported Navy.”

Educating the Public: Our Responsibility

The problem is not just military—it’s political and public awareness.

Too many Americans don’t realize how naval power secures our national and economic security. Without public pressure, there will be no political will to rebuild the fleet.

That’s why we at Americans for a Stronger Navy are launching:

“China, Russia, and America: Navigating Global Rivalries and Naval Challenges”

In our upcoming educational series, we will tackle the most pressing issues facing U.S. naval power, including:

  • ✅ The Role of Naval Power in Preventing Global Conflict
  • ✅ Economic & Strategic Impact of a Shrinking Fleet
  • ✅ China & Russia’s Naval Expansion and the Strategic Threat
  • ✅ U.S. Shipbuilding Crisis: Causes and Solutions
  • ✅ Congressional Accountability: Who’s Responsible for the Shrinking Fleet?

This isn’t just a discussion—it’s a call to action.

To naval leadership, policymakers, and media: Stop pretending all is well. Demand action before the Navy reaches a breaking point.

To the American public: Get informed. Get involved. A strong Navy is not just for the military—it’s for every American who benefits from global stability.

The U.S. Navy’s forward presence is not a luxury—it’s a necessity.

The problem is not the strategy—it’s the lack of resources to sustain it.

If the U.S. wants to deter China, protect its interests, and maintain global stability, the answer is clear: Build a stronger, larger, better-supported, and more capable Navy.

We urge the administration, Congress, and military leadership to acknowledge reality:

Our commitments are not too big—our Navy is too small.

Sincerely,  Bill Cullifer
Founder, Americans for a Stronger Navy

Posted on

When America Ships, America Wins

Wake up, America—our destiny depends on it.

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

Introduction

In our ongoing pursuit to strengthen America’s sea power, we must confront the challenges facing both our Navy and the broader maritime domain. Over the weekend, I immersed myself in key publications—from Captain Brent D. Sadler’s impassioned article, The Nation Needs a Shipbuilding Revolution (February 2025 Proceedings), to insightful analyses on platforms like War on the Rocks and legislative presentations regarding the SHIPS for America Act. In addition, I revisited the history and nuance of Naval versus Maritime Statecraft.

The conclusion is clear: our nation’s strength at sea relies on a transformative, integrated approach. In short, When America Ships, America Wins.

Why This Matters

For too long, the U.S. Navy has operated under a narrow warfighting mandate—a legacy of policies from the 1950s that prioritized combat readiness above all else. Yet history teaches us that true American sea power has always depended on two interlinked capabilities: a modern, formidable fleet and an engaged maritime domain that underpins commerce, diplomacy, and humanitarian efforts.

As Rep. Garamendi recently stated,
“Today, less than 200 oceangoing ships fly the American flag; the SHIPS for America Act will empower our shipyards and marine merchants to uphold our country’s status as a leader in the maritime industry.”

Meanwhile, Senator Mark Kelly emphasized,
“Strengthening America’s shipbuilding capacity and revitalizing our commercial maritime industry is critical to both our national security and economic resilience.”

These words capture the urgent need to reinvest in our naval statecraft while simultaneously enhancing our broader maritime strength.

Our Journey to Clarity
Throughout my review, several key insights emerged:

Dissecting the Sources: Captain Sadler’s article calls for a revolution in U.S. naval shipbuilding. He writes, “For too long, needed investment in and action to bolster our nation’s maritime industrial base have been elusive. That luxury is no longer feasible given the threat from a revanchist and massively invested Chinese military.” His words, combined with insights from War on the Rocks and historical reflections, remind us that our Navy must once again balance combat readiness with essential peacetime missions.

Clarifying Terminology: We now clearly distinguish between “naval statecraft”—focused on rebuilding our fleet and shipbuilding capacity—and “maritime statecraft,” which encompasses the broader economic, diplomatic, and logistical roles at sea. Recognizing that these two concepts are mutually reinforcing helps create a coherent strategic message.

Refining Our Message: After extensive review and discussion, our distilled, bold message is: When America Ships, America Wins. Coupled with the rallying cry, Wake up, America—our destiny depends on it, this encapsulates the urgent need to invest in our naval statecraft to secure our maritime future.

Key Takeaways and Implications

Integrated Mission for a Modern Era: A strong Navy is not just about preparing for war—it is the foundation of national security, economic prosperity, and global maritime influence. When America builds its ships, it reinforces its entire maritime domain.

Economic and Security Benefits: Investment in our shipbuilding industry creates high-quality jobs, revitalizes our manufacturing base, and ensures our fleet is capable of sustaining military operations and global trade. Without sufficient modern vessels, our ability to maintain critical supply chains is at risk.

Historical Lessons for Today: The interwar period showed that the U.S. Navy once balanced readiness for war with vital peacetime missions like humanitarian aid and diplomatic engagement. Recalling these lessons provides a blueprint for integrating naval and maritime statecraft in today’s complex environment.

In my efforts to understand the challenges facing the U.S. Navy and our maritime infrastructure, I have spent a fair amount of time reviewing the Jones Act and the range of views surrounding it. While there are differing opinions on how best to strengthen our domestic shipping industry, one thing is clear—America needs more ships, a stronger supporting infrastructure, and a Navy that is fully equipped to protect our national security. Regardless of where one stands on the specifics of maritime policy, we can all agree that a Stronger Navy is critical to American security and economic resilience. My focus remains on ensuring that we have the industrial capacity, shipbuilding capabilities, and logistics networks necessary to maintain U.S. maritime strength in an increasingly contested world.

Why Americans Should Care

For over two centuries, American maritime strength has been a cornerstone of our global leadership. Yet today, our domestic shipbuilding industry has shrunk from over 300 shipyards in the 1980s to just 20, and our U.S.-flagged commercial fleet has dwindled to fewer than 80 vessels. With China dominating global shipbuilding and maritime trade, the equation is simple: When America Ships, America Wins. Our shipyards are the engines powering our Navy, safeguarding our commerce, and securing our freedom.

Implications for the Navy and the Maritime Domain

For the Navy: Modernizing our fleet enhances operational readiness, supports a skilled and sustainable workforce, and allows the Navy to execute both war and peacetime missions. A modernized Navy is essential to deter adversaries and defend our national interests.

For the Maritime Domain: A thriving shipbuilding industry is vital for protecting American commerce, ensuring free navigation, and fostering economic resilience. Strengthening our maritime statecraft reinforces strategic partnerships and maintains our global influence.

The Legislative Response: SHIPS for America Act

Bipartisan efforts led by figures such as Senator Mark Kelly, Congressman Mike Waltz, Rep. Trent Kelly, and Rep. John Garamendi have culminated in the introduction of the Shipbuilding and Harbor Infrastructure for Prosperity and Security (SHIPS) for America Act. This comprehensive legislation proposes to:

  • Revive U.S. Shipbuilding: Offer tax incentives and targeted investments to rebuild our shipyards and attract private-sector growth.
  • Expand the U.S.-Flagged Merchant Fleet: Implement cargo preference laws to ensure more goods travel on American ships.
  • Strengthen National Security: Increase the supply of ships available for military logistics and rapid response.
  • Develop a New Maritime Workforce: Establish apprenticeships, trade school incentives, and recruiting programs to restore critical skills in ship maintenance and marine operations.
  • Forge Strategic Partnerships with Allies: Collaborate with trusted nations like Japan, South Korea, Finland, and Canada to enhance our shipbuilding capacity while ensuring American oversight.

This legislation is not about partisan politics—it’s about survival. With global supply chains vulnerable to disruption, the urgency to rebuild our maritime strength has never been greater.

Conclusion & Call to Action

History teaches us that nations fall when they lose control of the seas. Today, as our adversaries grow stronger and our industrial base shrinks, we cannot afford to dawdle. It’s not war we desire, but peace achieved through strength—and our enemies must know that America will not stand idly by.

Join us in this crucial mission. We call on policymakers, industry leaders, and every American who values freedom and prosperity to support transformative initiatives that invest in our naval statecraft. By strengthening our shipbuilding industry and modernizing our Navy, we secure a robust maritime future that benefits us all.

When American Ships, America Wins.
Wake up, America—our destiny depends on it.

Visit StrongerNavy.org to learn more, get involved, and help ensure that our nation’s shipbuilding efforts pave the way for a secure and prosperous future.

In service to a stronger America,
Bill

Posted on

Strengthening America’s Maritime Future: A Wake-Up Call for Action

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we have long advocated for a robust maritime strategy that includes both a stronger U.S. Navy and a revitalized civilian maritime industry. Our commitment to this cause is rooted in a belief that America’s strength at sea is indispensable to its national security, economic stability, and global leadership.

Recently, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) released findings from an investigation into China’s dominance in the shipbuilding, maritime, and logistics sectors, revealing practices that undermine fair competition and threaten American interests. This news reaffirms the urgency of revitalizing our shipbuilding industry—a call echoed by U.S. legislators like Senator John Garamendi and others who are leading efforts to rebuild our maritime capabilities.

What the Investigation Found

The USTR investigation, launched in response to petitions by five unions, highlights how China’s aggressive industrial policies have positioned it as a global leader in shipbuilding. According to USTR Katherine Tai, China builds over 1,700 ships annually—dwarfing the fewer than five built by the United States. The report emphasizes that Beijing’s practices displace foreign firms, foster dependencies, and create significant economic and security risks for the U.S.

Quoting Katherine Tai:
“Beijing’s targeted dominance of these sectors undermines fair, market-oriented competition, increases economic security risks, and is the greatest barrier to revitalization of U.S. industries.”

Why This Matters

America’s maritime industry was once the backbone of our global influence and security. Today, it is a shadow of its former self, leaving us vulnerable to external dependencies. The decline of U.S. shipbuilding not only erodes our military readiness but also jeopardizes our economic security, particularly in the face of escalating geopolitical tensions with China.

The implications extend beyond shipbuilding. Logistics, supply chains, and the broader maritime ecosystem are critical to ensuring that America can sustain its global commitments and respond to crises effectively. As Alliance for American Manufacturing President Scott Paul aptly noted:
“Failing to take decisive action will leave our shipbuilding capabilities at the mercy of Beijing’s persistent predatory market distortions.”

Legislative Efforts to Revitalize U.S. Shipbuilding

Amid these challenges, leaders like Senator John Garamendi are working to reverse the tide. Garamendi, alongside Senators Mark Kelly and Todd Young, recently introduced the SHIPS for America Act—a comprehensive, bipartisan effort to rebuild the U.S. shipbuilding industry and expand the U.S.-flagged fleet. Key provisions of this legislation include:

  • Establishing a national maritime strategy and a White House Maritime Security Advisor.
  • Expanding the U.S.-flagged fleet by 250 ships over the next decade.
  • Rebuilding the shipyard industrial base with tax credits, financial incentives, and funding for workforce development.
  • Strengthening regulations to ensure government-funded cargo is transported on U.S.-flagged vessels.

These efforts align closely with our own calls for a balanced strategy that integrates the needs of both the Navy and civilian maritime industries.

What Needs to Be Done

The USTR’s findings, combined with the SHIPS for America Act and related initiatives, offer a roadmap to reclaim America’s maritime leadership. However, this will require decisive action from policymakers, industry leaders, and the American public. We need to:

  • Invest in shipbuilding infrastructure and workforce development.
  • Expand the U.S.-flagged fleet to reduce dependence on foreign shipping.
  • Foster innovation in shipbuilding technologies to compete globally.
  • Unite bipartisan support for maritime legislation that prioritizes national security and economic resilience.

A Call to Action: Wake Up, America!

The stakes have never been higher. As we outlined in our recent open letter, the decline of America’s maritime capabilities is not just an industry problem—it’s a national security crisis. For too long, we have allowed complacency to erode our standing as a maritime power. It’s time to wake up.

We urge you to contact your representatives and demand support for legislation like the SHIPS for America Act. Share this message with your community, and join us in advocating for a stronger Navy and a revitalized civilian maritime industry.

America’s future at sea depends on it. Let’s make it happen.

Credit to AFP for their reporting on the USTR investigation and to the Alliance for American Manufacturing for their continued advocacy.

“`

Posted on

Reflections on the U.S.-China Science and Technology Agreement: A Legacy of Neglect

On Jan. 31, 1979, Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping and President Jimmy Carter sign historic diplomatic agreements between the United States and China. (Photos: Jimmy Carter Library

Introduction: A Decision Made in Haste

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

The December 2024 renewal of the U.S.-China Science and Technology Agreement (STA) has left some Americans questioning its timing and rationale. While the original 1979 agreement aimed to foster collaboration and mutual respect, today’s geopolitical realities demand a more cautious approach. As an American deeply concerned about our nation’s security and technological leadership, I share the frustration of Senators Marco Rubio, Bill Hagerty, and Jim Risch, who criticized this rushed decision. Senator Risch aptly noted, “The era when this agreement made sense is long gone,” a sentiment that reflects the growing consensus among those wary of China’s strategic ambitions.

Historical Context: Cooperation vs. Competition

The STA, first signed under President Jimmy Carter and Premier Deng Xiaoping, symbolized a hopeful era of collaboration. It was a landmark moment in U.S.-China relations, with industries and policymakers believing that shared knowledge could lead to mutual prosperity. However, over the decades, successive administrations—Republican and Democratic alike—failed to reassess the agreement’s implications. Instead, they allowed industries to prioritize market access over national security, kicking the proverbial can down the road.

Now, as the stakes grow higher, the optics of renewing this agreement without public scrutiny are troubling. Worse, the decision was made just before a presidential transition, effectively denying the incoming administration an opportunity to weigh in. This lack of transparency is a glaring issue, especially given how previous agreements with China have often left the U.S. vulnerable.

The Costs of Neglect: Knowledge Shared, Power Shifted

The consequences of this complacency are clear:

Industrial Espionage: Cases like Motorola and Micron Technology illustrate how China has systematically exploited intellectual property to advance its technological and military capabilities.

Military Implications: From stealth fighters to missile technology, stolen innovations have directly bolstered China’s ability to challenge U.S. military dominance.

A Navy Left Holding the Line

While industries reaped profits, the Navy was left to address the fallout:

Countering Advanced Threats: The Navy now faces adversaries equipped with technologies once exclusive to the U.S., making global readiness more challenging.

Strategic Vulnerabilities: Decades of neglect have created gaps in naval capabilities, leaving our sailors to pick up the pieces without the tools they need.

A Call for Accountability and Action

The renewal of the STA should have been an opportunity for reevaluation, not a rushed decision made behind closed doors. While the updated agreement includes some safeguards, such as excluding critical technologies like AI and quantum computing, these measures fall short of addressing the broader risks.

As Dr. Steven T. Wills, Ph.D., Captain (USN Retired), author of Strategy Shelved: The Collapse of Cold War Naval Strategic Planning and Senior Advisor for American for a Stronger Navy, explains: “The renewal of the U.S.-China Science and Technology Agreement must be viewed with a critical eye, especially given China’s consistent exploitation of open collaborations to advance its military and technological objectives. As a former U.S. Navy officer and author focused on strategic naval planning, I’ve seen firsthand how seemingly innocuous decisions can have long-term implications for national security. This agreement, while framed as a step forward in modernizing cooperation, risks overlooking the broader strategic context. If we fail to adopt a comprehensive approach that aligns scientific collaboration with national security, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past—leaving our Navy and national defense community to address the consequences without adequate tools or support. The time for a unified, forward-looking strategy is now.”

Dr. Wills’ perspective highlights a critical point: this isn’t just about protecting intellectual property—it’s about ensuring that strategic decisions today don’t leave the Navy and the broader defense community vulnerable tomorrow.

The renewal of the STA should have been an opportunity for reevaluation, not a rushed decision made behind closed doors. While the updated agreement includes some safeguards, such as excluding critical technologies like AI and quantum computing, these measures fall short of addressing the broader risks.

It’s time to demand:

Comprehensive Evaluation: Policymakers, industry leaders, and defense experts must scrutinize agreements like the STA to ensure they align with national security interests.

Support for the Navy: Our sailors deserve the resources and tools necessary to address the consequences of decades of neglect.

A Unified National Strategy: The U.S. must adopt a cohesive approach to balancing innovation with security, ensuring industries that benefited from globalization contribute to safeguarding national interests.

Conclusion: Enough Is Enough

The optics of this renewal are undeniably poor. It sends the wrong message at a time when China has consistently exploited partnerships for strategic gain. Americans for a Stronger Navy stands for transparency, accountability, and vigilance. We cannot afford to be naïve or complacent when the stakes are so high.

As someone who served in the U.S. Navy during the Cold War, I’ve had enough of watching decision-makers prioritize short-term gains over long-term security. In upcoming podcasts, we will examine this agreement and its implications in greater detail, bringing together experts to discuss how America can reclaim its leadership in science and technology while safeguarding its future.

It’s time for all Americans—especially industries that have profited most—to step up and support the Navy and national security. This isn’t just about science; it’s about our freedom, our future, and our ability to stand strong in the face of growing challenges.

Posted on

Open Letter to gCaptain: Rallying Americans for a Stronger Navy and Maritime Future

Americans Must Rally: A Call for Accountability, Transparency, Action, and Sustainability in Protecting Our Maritime Future

Dear gCaptain Team, Officers, and Readers,

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

Your recent article, “Could Trump Rebuild and Repair The U.S. Navy?”, has sparked crucial questions about the future of our Navy and maritime security. We find ourselves in strong agreement with the article’s urgent call for action within the first 100 days of the next administration. While leadership may change, our commitment to a stronger Navy and secure maritime future must remain constant. The need for a comprehensive fleet readiness review, a revitalized industrial base, and a stronger Navy and civilian maritime workforce are clear. These steps underscore the essential measures needed to sustain and fortify our national maritime capabilities.

This mission, however, extends beyond any one administration—it requires enduring bipartisan support and a commitment from all Americans to ensure the resilience and strength of our Navy. As Dale A. Jenkins, Senior Advisor to Americans for a Stronger Navy, Staff Director of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, and author of Diplomats and Admirals, reminds us,

“True strength isn’t built overnight or through short-term gains. It’s a sustained commitment—one rooted in strategic thinking and a shared vision of America’s future on the world stage.” – Dale A. Jenkins

By fostering a united approach, we can address the challenges our Navy faces and secure a sustainable, long-term future for America’s maritime security.

The Need for Public Trust and Involvement

As the founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy, I share your sense of urgency. Our Navy is underfunded and overstretched, struggling to maintain basic readiness in the face of rising global instability. Yet, the solutions to these challenges lie not only within government circles but also in greater public accountability. To that end, we must actively strengthen trust by engaging informed community who bring credibility and understanding to the table, rather than overwhelming the Navy with generalized public input.

Heightened Threats: Cybersecurity and Misinformation Campaigns

The threats we face today are more immediate and serious than many realize. Adversaries like China, Russia, and Iran have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to hack critical infrastructure and disrupt telecommunications networks. Recent breaches—such as the infiltration of presidential cell phones and sustained attacks targeting U.S. energy, transportation, and communication systems—highlight the vulnerabilities at our nation’s strategic chokepoints. These adversaries are also engaged in misinformation campaigns aimed at disrupting our elections and undermining public discourse. In these volatile times, protecting the Navy also means protecting the commerce and infrastructure that support our economic security. Our readiness to secure these critical pathways is essential to maintaining both national stability and global trade.

Communicating Threats with Clarity

It’s no secret that Americans are weary of “sky-is-falling” rhetoric. Recent messaging around foreign threats and national security has met with mixed reactions, with figures like Senator Rand Paul raising questions about threat exaggeration and others comparing current concerns to past overhyped crises like Y2K. Yet today’s threats are uniquely layered and immediate; they extend beyond traditional warfare into digital, economic, and strategic domains that impact every American. As Reagan wisely put it,

“Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will. When action is required to preserve our national security, we will act.”  – Ronald Reagan 

Overreactions and misdeeds by bad actors have eroded trust, making it crucial that these real and present dangers are communicated with clarity and restraint. Our task, then, is to educate Americans with transparency, balance, and practical information. To do this effectively, we must break out of our silos and work together across organizations, agencies, and forums to foster the lasting support needed for a stronger Navy and a resilient maritime sector.

Building a Sustainable, Long-Term Impact

At Americans for a Stronger Navy, our mission is to educate, engage, and rally Americans around the critical importance of maritime security to national stability and prosperity. We believe the key to lasting impact lies in building a “groundswell of support” from the American people. History shows us the importance of such buy-in; Reagan’s successful naval expansion during the Cold War was driven by bipartisan support and public backing, creating a sustainable, long-term defense initiative. As Reagan once said,

“Strength is the most persuasive argument we have to convince our adversaries to negotiate seriously and to cease bullying other nations.”-  Ronald Reagan

While the president undoubtedly influences these decisions, we know from experience that initiatives without public buy-in and congressional support are destined to struggle. Americans also need a clearer understanding of what’s at stake and why these actions matter.

Our Path Forward

  • Engaging Veteran Groups and Nonprofit Organizations: We propose enlisting veteran groups, nonprofits, and civic organizations to help bridge the gap between the Navy and the American public. These groups offer credibility and firsthand experience, helping Americans understand the Navy’s role beyond headlines and defense budgets. Their connection to local communities is invaluable in turning national support into local action.
  • A Smarter, More Comprehensive Public Strategy: Rather than working in silos, we must consider the taxpayer in every recommendation. Americans are fatigued with crisis messaging, so our approach must be nuanced, practical, and respectful of their investment. Taxpayers need to see where their support goes, with a clear view of how a stronger Navy directly contributes to national and economic security.
  • Fostering Long-Term, Congressional Support and Collaboration: Rallying Americans for a stronger Navy isn’t about party lines—it’s about protecting our nation’s future. To achieve this, we must create a platform that prioritizes transparency, accountability, and citizen engagement. Such a united approach can help avoid politicizing the Navy, reinforcing that naval readiness is a shared national responsibility that resonates beyond any one administration.
  • Expanding on gCaptain’s Key Recommendations:
    • Comprehensive Fleet Readiness Review: We support a thorough review of our fleet, shipyards, and industrial base, with an eye toward transparency. Bringing in a volunteer committee of former Navy personnel could lend critical insights, ensuring the review captures both strategic needs and firsthand realities.
    • Halting Early Decommissioning: Rather than prematurely retiring ships, we need creative, cost-effective solutions to extend their service. Involving experienced veterans and industry experts can provide valuable perspectives on this approach, minimizing strategic gaps.
    • Building a Stronger Maritime Workforce: We echo the call for a revitalized maritime workforce but stress that this must come with taxpayer accountability and public support.

An American Imperative

This is not a left or right initiative—it is an American imperative. As John F. Kennedy wisely said, “Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer.” Today, we echo that call for unity. The threats we face are larger than many realize, and we cannot afford to let partisan divisions stand in the way of building the Navy we need. We call for community leaders to unite under a common voice, advocating for a stronger Navy, greater accountability, and a sustainable foundation for our maritime security. By fostering long-term resilience and preparedness, together, we can protect our maritime future for generations to come.

Sincerely,
Bill Cullifer
Founder, Americans for a Stronger Navy

Posted on

Open Letter to Dov S. Zakheim: Addressing the U.S. Navy’s Submarine Shortage

USS Idaho (SSN-799)

From the desk of Bill Cullifer, Founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy

Dear Mr. Zakheim,

I recently read your opinion piece in The Hill on October 18, 2024, titled “How the Navy Can Solve Its Submarine Shortage,” with great interest. Dov S. Zakheim, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute, brings unparalleled expertise to this discussion. As a former undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004, as well as deputy undersecretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987, your insights on defense spending, strategic planning, and military capabilities are invaluable in understanding the complexities of the U.S. Navy’s submarine deficit. 

The challenges the Navy faces in maintaining and expanding its submarine force are central to the security and operational effectiveness of the United States and its allies. At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we have long advocated for solutions to bolster our naval capabilities in light of growing global threats.

Your analysis of the potential for non-nuclear alternatives, including unmanned submarines and diesel-electric options, highlights viable paths for supplementing our fleet. However, after discussing these ideas with Captain Brent Sadler, U.S. Navy (Retired), Senior Fellow for Naval Warfare and Advanced Technology at The Heritage Foundation, a 26-year Navy veteran with extensive operational experience on nuclear-powered submarines and author of U.S. Naval Power in the 21st Century: A New Strategy for Facing the Chinese and Russian Threat, we are convinced that while these alternatives may fill certain gaps, they fall short of meeting the United States’ broader strategic needs. As Captain Sadler pointed out, “only nuclear-powered submarines possess the range, endurance, and strategic capabilities necessary to project power and safeguard the distant maritime choke points critical to both American and Australian interests.” This reality remains just as pertinent today as it was when Australia evaluated its own submarine needs decades ago.

The U.S. Navy’s dependence on nuclear-powered submarines stems not just from their superior endurance but from their ability to maintain forward presence in vital regions like the Indo-Pacific, where distances and operational demands far exceed the capabilities of diesel-electric subs. While unmanned systems like the Manta Ray and smaller ISR variants may enhance the fleet’s flexibility, they cannot replace the strategic depth provided by manned, nuclear-powered vessels.

Moreover, the capital infusion from Australia under the AUKUS agreement is a critical step toward increasing the production rates of Virginia-class submarines. Yet, as you astutely noted, even with this funding, workforce and industrial base shortages present formidable hurdles. The U.S. Navy must prioritize workforce development and shipyard modernization to accelerate production timelines and meet both our own force requirements and our commitments to allies like Australia.

At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we believe in advocating for a multifaceted approach—one that includes continued investments in nuclear-powered submarines, increased collaboration with our allies, and targeted support for the U.S. industrial base to reduce delays in production. This will allow us to respond effectively to the twin challenges posed by China and Russia, while also maintaining readiness in other volatile regions like the Middle East.

In conclusion, while unmanned and non-nuclear options can and should play a role in the future of undersea warfare, nuclear submarines remain the backbone of our strategy. We must remain steadfast in building and maintaining a fleet capable of meeting the global challenges of the 21st century.

Thank you again for your insightful analysis, and I look forward to further discussions on this critical topic.

Sincerely,
Bill Cullifer
Founder, Americans for a Stronger Navy

Note: I am not a paid spokesperson for any organization. My statements reflect my personal commitment to strengthening the U.S. Navy and advocating on behalf of those who serve.

Posted on

Navy’s Project 33: A Bold Push for Modernization and Preparedness by 2027

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

The U.S. Navy is at a critical juncture. Faced with increasing global threats and a rapidly modernizing Chinese military, the Navy’s leadership is taking bold steps to ensure it is ready for future challenges. Central to these efforts is Project 33, an ambitious initiative spearheaded by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti. With a clear deadline of 2027, Project 33 aims to equip the Navy with cutting-edge robotic systems, ensure readiness through ship and submarine maintenance, and boost recruitment and retention, all while addressing budgetary constraints.

A Strategic Focus on China

The Chinese military, under President Xi Jinping, has been directed to be ready for conflict by 2027—potentially over Taiwan or other strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific. As the world’s second-largest Navy, China’s growing fleet and multi-domain capabilities present a significant challenge for the U.S. Navy. However, as Adm. Franchetti’s recently released Navigation Plan outlines, it’s not just about fleet size anymore.

Gone are the days when naval power was measured simply by the number of ships. Instead, the threat posed by China is more complex, spanning multiple domains, including cyber warfare, economic strategies, and the development of dual-use infrastructure like airfields and civilian vessels repurposed for military use. In response, the Navy is evolving to counter this diverse array of threats by incorporating advanced technologies, such as unmanned systems and artificial intelligence (AI), into its operations.

Project 33: Preparing for the Future

At the heart of Franchetti’s strategy is Project 33, a forward-looking plan that seeks to ensure the Navy is ready for any potential conflict by 2027. This initiative centers on several key goals:

  • Scaling Robotic and Autonomous Systems: The Navy recognizes that it cannot quickly build enough traditional ships to match China’s growing fleet. Instead, it’s turning to robotic and autonomous platforms that can expand its warfighting capacity at a lower cost. These systems not only keep sailors out of harm’s way but also create a more agile and flexible force. By 2027, Franchetti plans to integrate these capabilities into all deploying Carrier and Expeditionary Strike Groups.
  • Combat-Ready by 2027: Franchetti’s Navigation Plan calls for the Navy to be prepared for war, particularly focusing on countering China’s growing naval presence. Through Project 33, the Navy aims to have a hybrid fleet of both manned and unmanned systems fully operational in key mission areas, including surveillance, fires, logistics, and networking.
  • Information Dominance: As modern warfare increasingly revolves around data, the Navy is prioritizing the ability to collect, analyze, and share critical information across fleets. With the development of new Maritime Operations Centers (MOCs) and integration into the broader U.S. military’s Joint All-Domain Command and Control (CJADC2) system, the Navy will be better positioned to make real-time, data-driven decisions that can turn the tide of battle.

Facing Financial Constraints

Adm. Franchetti has been clear about the financial challenges the Navy faces. While these modernization efforts are essential, the Navy’s ability to meet its goals depends on securing the necessary budget to maintain both its current operations and future development. Without this support, the Navy will face “deep strategic constraints,” limiting its ability to defend U.S. interests and protect allies in key regions like the Indo-Pacific.

But Franchetti’s Navigation Plan doesn’t shy away from these realities. Instead, it sets clear, achievable goals, such as reducing maintenance delays for ships, submarines, and aircraft, while advocating for the resources needed to build a future-ready Navy.

The Broader Threat Landscape

While much of the focus is on China, the Navigation Plan also acknowledges other growing threats. From a “wounded and isolated” but still dangerous Russia, to Iranian-backed forces like the Houthis, to ongoing instability in the Middle East, the Navy must be prepared to address multiple challenges across the globe. The threats extend below the surface, with recent attacks on undersea pipelines and cables highlighting the vulnerabilities of seabed infrastructure.

These threats underscore the importance of Project 33’s goals: a fleet that’s ready for war, equipped with the latest technologies, and capable of responding to diverse threats across multiple domains.

A Call to Action

As the Navy accelerates its efforts to meet the demands of a complex global landscape, Americans must rally behind the men and women who serve. Adm. Franchetti’s Navigation Plan is a clear-eyed assessment of the challenges we face and a roadmap for ensuring the Navy is ready to meet them head-on. But the Navy can’t do it alone. It requires not only adequate funding and resources but also the full support of the American public.

Through Project 33, the Navy is poised to lead in the fight for peace and security, leveraging cutting-edge technologies and operational innovations. As we look to the future, it’s essential that we, as a nation, understand the importance of these efforts and stand behind our Navy as it prepares for the challenges ahead.

Together, we can ensure that the U.S. Navy remains a powerful force for good, ready to respond to crises and defend freedom on the world’s oceans.