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

AI in Naval Warfare – From Logistics to Combat Strategy

Introduction from Americans for a Stronger Navy:

Bill Cullifer

Hello, Bill Cullifer here with Americans for a Stronger Navy. Welcome to our inaugural episode of this enlightening series where we delve into transformative technologies reshaping naval operations. Throughout this series, we will explore various cutting-edge topics, including AI, unmanned systems, Directed Energy Weapons, cyber warfare, and more. Today, we begin with the crucial role of Artificial Intelligence in naval warfare.

Series Outline:

  1. AI in Naval Warfare – This episode.
  2. Uncrewed Systems – How drones and autonomous vehicles are changing naval tactics.
  3. Directed Energy Weapons – The future of combat with lasers and high-energy systems.
  4. Cyber and Electronic Warfare – Securing supremacy in digital battlefields.
  5. Future Naval Strategies – Integrating new tech into traditional naval doctrines.

Overview: The Strategic Importance of AI in Military Operations AI’s role in military operations extends from enhancing logistical support to refining combat strategies. Its integration into naval operations promises significant advancements in operational efficiency and tactical decision-making.

Interview Segment: Insights from Admiral James Stavridis

We feature key insights from Admiral Stavridis during his interview with Fareed Zakaria on GPS. His expertise illuminates AI’s potential in transforming naval capabilities.

  • Logistics and Maintenance: AI’s predictive capabilities ensure higher readiness and efficiency.
  • Strategic Decision-Making: AI’s ability to analyze historical data aids in crucial decision-making processes.
  • Advanced Threat Response: The evolving role of AI in managing drone swarms and other asymmetric threats.

Why It Matters: Understanding the integration of AI into naval operations is crucial for anticipating how future conflicts will be managed and fought. AI not only enhances current capabilities but also opens new avenues in warfare strategy.

Implications for the Navy: Admiral Stavridis’ insights lead into a broader discussion on:

  • The necessity for ongoing training and adaptation among naval personnel to leverage AI effectively.
  • The potential shifts in naval strategy as AI technologies mature, particularly in terms of autonomous decision-making and real-time strategy adjustments.
  • Ethical and security considerations as AI becomes a pivotal element in defense.

Interview: CNN ZAKARIA and ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET.), FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER

  • CNN ZAKARIA: We humans have a lot to worry about these days, climate change and other pandemic, even the threat of World War Three. But the unregulated development of artificial intelligence might be as potent a threat as any, according to my next guest. He was NATO’s allied commander Eirope. And he’s now vice chair of global affairs at the Carlisle Group. His fascinating new book “2054 Novel,” which he co-wrote with Elliot Ackerman, very talented, is centered on the existential treat AI poses for the future of the world. Jim, pleasure to have you on. Fascinating how you’re writing these series of books. And this one is really about the A.I. race in military affairs. So first, I want to ask you, explain to us the power of A.I.
  • CNN ZAKARIA: So, you’re a — you’re a naval commander, what would A.I. allow you to do as a naval commander that you weren’t able to do when you were actually commanding ships?
  • ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET.), FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: Let me give you three very practical things. Number one — and it doesn’t sound sexy, but it’s logistics and maintenance. Artificial Intelligence has a capability to predict when a particular set of maintenance functions are needed, make sure that the spare parts are in train, all of that done in a way that is much more efficient, much more capable.
  • ZAKARIA: But that’s huge because it keeps the ships in permanent readiness.
  • STAVRIDIS: Absolutely. We always say in the military, the amateurs are the ones talking about strategy. The professionals are focused on logistics. That’s what wins wars.
  • But number two, artificial intelligence will allow a commander — say I was the captain of a destroyer, which I was. If I had an A.I. advising me, plugged into my decision process, that A.I. will have access to every naval battle ever fought. It would be capable of scanning the horizon of history and whispering into the commander, you really ought to think about this.
  • And then third and finally, and we’re seeing the edges of this in Ukraine, drone, swarms, bringing them together in very lethal ways. We currently can’t quite do that. Artificial intelligence will make swarming drones the greatest threat by mid-century.
  • ZAKARIA: You talk a lot about the A.I. race and it’s really U.S. versus China.
  • STAVRIDIS: Yes.
  • ZAKARIA: Who’s ahead?
  • STAVRIDIS: U.S. marginally ahead. Our mutual friend, Eric Schmidt, did a marvelous set of research on this a couple of years ago, and he would have said then, we’re about a year ahead of China.
  • My sense from my sources, China is closing that gap. This is the foot race that will determine geopolitical superiority by mid-century.
  • ZAKARIA: Are we building the right kind of military for that kind of world?
  • STAVRIDIS: Absolutely. And let me add another example in terms of drones versus naval. Look what’s happening in the Black Sea. The Russian Black Sea fleet a third of it is on the bottom of the Black Sea, drinking seawater as we would say in the business.
  • Why? Not because Ukraine has a Navy, they don’t. It’s because the Ukrainians have used both air and surface drones. So, to your question
  • ZAKARIA: Drones are amazing. The minister showed them to me. They looked like toy boats —
  • STAVRIDIS: Yes.
  • ZAKARIA: — and they are really highly lethal drones that can sink these hundred — hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of warships.
  • STAVRIDIS: Correct. And so, the question then becomes, are the carriers still viable? I think they are for the moment, for the tenure future, 15-year future. Boy, you get much beyond that. And the capacity of massive swarms of drones accompanied by cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, all linked together by artificial intelligence, it will make those crown jewels of the fleet, our aircraft carriers vulnerable.
  • ZAKARIA: So, you’ve — you’ve held very, very high military office. And you know that there are some people who worry that Donald Trump, where he to be elected again, would politicize the military. Do you worry about that?
  • STAVRIDIS: I do. And I think that the greatest aspect of our national security isn’t a political military. And we would edge in to politics into that force at great peril to the republic. At the moment, all of my contacts in the active-duty military reassure me that the military continues to regard itself as apolitical, followers of the constitution. Let’s hope it stays that way.
  • ZAKARIA: And when you look at NATO, you were the former supreme allied commander, great, great title, by the way, there are people in Europe who worry a lot about Trump and NATO. And what I’ve heard people say is it’s — he doesn’t have to pull out of NATO. He just has to say, I’m not going to defend Latvia, Lithuania —
  • STAVRIDIS: Estonia.
  • ZAKARIA: Right. Because it’s a sort of — in some ways the whole — NATO is basically — it’s a psychological game. It’s the thread is psychological that the U.S. will get involved. That’s what Putin has to be calculating. And if the president says something like that — the NATO — the building can continue, the meetings can continue, but the heart of it is lost.
  • STAVRIDIS: We always say deterrence is the combination of capability and credibility.
  • NATO is incredibly capable. The defense budget of the United States and the Europeans together is well over 10 times that of Russia. The population is well over five times the size of Russia.
  • So, the capability is not the problem. You’ve put your finger on it, it’s the credibility. And yes, I would be very concerned about a Trump presidency that did not actively support and, indeed, lead within NATO. That’s a real concern.
  • ZAKARIA: From the former supreme allied commander of NATO.
  • STAVRIDIS: My pleasure, Fareed.
  • ZAKARIA: Thank you, sir.
  • STAVRIDIS: Thank you.

Further Viewing

Carrie Council interview with Elliot Ackerman and Admiral Stavridis:

Outro

Thank you for joining us for the first episode of our series. Don’t forget to subscribe to our podcast on your favorite platform to ensure you don’t miss any of our discussions on the future of naval warfare. Together, we aim to keep you informed and engaged with the latest in naval defense technology.

 

 

Posted on

Can America Reclaim Its Shipbuilding Might? A Deep Dive into Delays and the Road Ahead

Bill Cullifer
Bill Cullifer, Founder

The backbone of American naval power, the U.S. Navy’s shipbuilding industry, is facing a critical juncture. Years of delays in key programs have raised concerns about the Navy’s ability to maintain its edge and keep pace with potential adversaries. But the path forward is a complex one, fraught with economic considerations, national security implications, and the very real question of what price tag comes with rebuilding domestic shipbuilding capacity.

This investigative series will delve into the issue, giving voice to a range of stakeholders and exploring the potential solutions. We, the American people, ultimately foot the bill and rely on a strong Navy. This series aims to provide transparency and spark conversation about how to best move forward.

The Problem: Delays and Mounting Concerns

Recent reports paint a concerning picture. The Navy acknowledges delays of up to three years in major shipbuilding programs, impacting vessels like the Columbia-class submarine and the Constellation-class frigate. These delays raise serious questions about the Navy’s ability to meet its operational needs and deter potential threats.

Stakeholders: Who Has a Say?

Understanding the issue requires hearing from all sides. We’ll be speaking with:

  • Navy Leadership: What are the Navy’s specific concerns with delays? What solutions are they exploring?
  • Shipbuilders: What challenges are they facing that contribute to delays?
  • Policy Experts: How do these delays impact national security on a global scale?
  • Taxpayers: What are the economic implications of various solutions, including potential cost increases for domestically-built ships?

A New Twist: The Secretary of the Navy Visits South Korea

Adding another wrinkle to the story, in February 2024, U.S. Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro visited shipyards in South Korea, a world leader in shipbuilding. This visit sparked speculation about whether the Navy might be considering partnerships or outsourcing some shipbuilding efforts to alleviate domestic delays.

New Details Emerge: A Look at the Press Release

An official U.S. Navy press release sheds light on Secretary Del Toro’s visit and reveals some key details:

  • Focus on Collaboration: The primary goal of the visit was to attract Korean investment in U.S. shipbuilding facilities. This suggests the Navy is exploring partnerships with South Korean companies to bolster domestic capacity and efficiency.
  • Advanced Technology: The press release highlights Secretary Del Toro’s interest in the advanced technology used by Korean shipbuilders. Collaboration could potentially lead to improvements in U.S. shipbuilding techniques.
  • Long-Term Vision: The press release emphasizes Secretary Del Toro’s vision for a revitalized U.S. shipbuilding industry that encompasses both commercial and naval vessels. This broader perspective suggests a long-term strategy for strengthening the entire maritime sector.

Looking Ahead: Building Here vs. Outsourcing

The debate hinges on two central options:

  • Domestic Shipbuilding: Renewed investment in American shipyards could create jobs and bolster domestic manufacturing. But it might come at a cost in terms of time and expense.
  • Outsourcing: Turning to foreign shipyards could expedite production and potentially reduce costs. However, this raises concerns about national security and dependence on foreign entities.

A Complex Calculus: Speed, Cost, and Security

The ideal solution likely lies somewhere between these extremes. We’ll explore:

  • The “cost” of outsourcing: Is it solely financial? What are the potential security risks of relying on foreign shipbuilders for critical naval vessels?
  • Maximizing Efficiency: Can domestic shipyards improve efficiency to compete with foreign options?
  • The Long-Term View: What does a sustainable shipbuilding strategy look like for the U.S.?

We Need Your Voice: Join the Conversation

This investigation is for the American people. We encourage your questions, comments, and insights. As we delve deeper into the issue, let’s have an open dialogue about the future of American shipbuilding.

Posted on

At the Helm of Uncertainty: Charting a Course Through the Navy’s Budgetary and Operational Storms

Introduction

In the vast and often tumultuous sea that is national defense, the US Navy stands as a beacon of strength and resilience. Yet, even the mightiest fleets face storms that test their mettle and resolve. Recent revelations about significant delays in critical shipbuilding programs amidst the rising tide of strategic competition underscore the challenges at the helm of America’s naval future.

The Heart of the Matter

As the Navy’s largest trade show, the Sea-Air-Space Exposition, unfolded without the customary briefings on marquee shipbuilding programs, the waves of concern grew taller. A damning internal report unveiled sweeping delays across four pivotal shipbuilding endeavors, casting shadows over our naval preparedness against the backdrop of an expanding Chinese fleet.

The Delays Unpacked:

The cascading delays, stretching from one to three years across various programs, reveal a complex web of supply chain disruptions, exacerbated by the global pandemic, and a pattern of changing designs mid-construction. At the core of this storm is not just a battle against time and resources, but a struggle to adapt and realign with the relentless pace of technological and geopolitical shifts.

Implications for Strategic Readiness:

The ripples of these delays extend far beyond the shipyards. They touch upon the very essence of our strategic readiness and our ability to project power across the globe. As we navigate through these troubled waters, the need for a resilient and adaptable naval force has never been more pronounced.

Charting a Course Forward

In the face of these challenges, the path forward demands more than just steadfast resolve; it requires a comprehensive reevaluation of our shipbuilding and procurement strategies. This involves not only addressing the immediate hurdles of supply chain and workforce shortages but also fostering a more agile and responsive industrial base that can weather the storms of uncertainty.

A Call to Action

As we stand at this critical juncture, the call to action resonates louder than ever. It is a call for collaboration between the Navy, Congress, and industry partners to forge innovative solutions that ensure the timely delivery of our future fleet. It is a call for vigilance and adaptability in the face of evolving threats and opportunities.

Conclusion

The journey ahead is fraught with challenges, yet it is within the tempest that the true strength of our Navy and our nation is forged. As we chart a course through these budgetary and operational storms with foresight, innovation, and unwavering commitment, we face a critical examination of our shipbuilding practices and the evolving demands we place upon them. Bryan Clark, a seasoned voice from the Hudson Institute, articulates this sentiment, noting, ‘The Navy just keeps larding new requirements on the ships. And each new generation is so much more sophisticated than the predecessor that inevitably you’re going to get to the point where you’re just asking too much of the shipbuilding industry to punch out the ships on quick timeliness.’ This reflection serves as a poignant reminder of the delicate balance between ambition and feasibility, urging us to navigate these waters with a keen eye on both the horizon and the depths beneath..

In the ever-evolving narrative of our Navy’s strength and readiness, each challenge we encounter is an opportunity to reaffirm our resolve and adaptability. Let’s engage in this crucial conversation, not as mere observers, but as active participants in shaping the future of American naval power. Together, we can navigate through the noise and chart a course towards a stronger, more resilient Navy.

Posted on

Charting the Course: The Future of American Naval Power – An Evaluation of US Navy Strengthening Plans FY25

Bill Cullifer, Founder

In our previous blog post, we acknowledged the importance of defining requirements before diving into the intricacies of Navy budget analysis.

We appreciate the insightful feedback received from a reader who highlighted this point, and we recognize the valuable insights it brings to our exploration of the Navy’s budget.

The US Navy plays a vital role in global security and national defense. As the geopolitical landscape evolves, it’s crucial to assess current plans for strengthening the Navy’s capabilities. This analysis will delve into various proposals and strategies, aiming to foster a well-rounded understanding.

To gain further insights into the Navy’s FY25 budget request, let’s take a moment to view a C-SPAN video featuring a press briefing by Navy officials. This briefing delves into the details of the proposed budget and its implications for strengthening the Navy.

Building a Stronger Navy

Building a stronger Navy requires a comprehensive understanding of its present and future needs. We explored critical areas like artificial intelligence (AI) and unmanned systems in our “Charting the Course – The Future of Naval Power” series.

We also delved into the DDG(X) program, the next-generation guided-missile destroyer envisioned as the backbone of the future surface fleet. You can find a more detailed analysis of the DDG(X) program within the series and by clicking here the summary of the series.

Evaluating Strengthening Plans

This framework focuses on several key criteria:

  • Cost-effectiveness: We will analyze the financial feasibility of each plan, considering both upfront costs and long-term maintenance expenses. While we may not have in-house accounting expertise to conduct an in-depth line-by-line budget analysis of each plan, we are committed to evaluating the broader financial feasibility based on credible data sources such as official Navy reports and analyses from respected think tanks.
  • Impact on Fleet Capabilities: The effectiveness of each plan in enhancing the Navy’s operational capabilities will be a critical evaluation point. This includes factors like firepower, survivability, and mission versatility.
  • Alignment with Strategic Objectives: We will assess how well each plan aligns with the Navy’s long-term strategic goals and national defense priorities.
  • Technological Considerations: The evaluation will take into account the technological feasibility and adaptability of each plan in light of evolving defense technology.

To conduct this analysis, we will rely on a variety of data sources. These include official Navy reports, independent analyses from think tanks, and insights from experienced naval experts.

By considering diverse perspectives and utilizing credible data, we aim to present a balanced and informative evaluation.

Examining Existing Programs

The DDG(X) program, among others, is a significant initiative aimed at modernizing the Navy’s fleet. A dedicated section within this analysis can detail the specific features and potential impact of the DDG(X) program in light of the established evaluation criteria. (Here, you can delve deeper into the DDG(X) program) [Refer to previous outline for details on how to approach the DDG(X) analysis]

Other Strengthening Plans: While the DDG(X) program represents a significant initiative, it’s important to acknowledge the existence of other proposals for strengthening the Navy. We are committed to analyzing these plans as well, utilizing the established evaluation framework.

Seeking Balanced Perspectives

Engaging with experienced analysts and experts from diverse backgrounds is vital for a comprehensive evaluation. We will actively seek out a range of viewpoints to ensure a balanced and informative discussion. This includes considering the perspectives expressed by stakeholders like Rep. Rob Wittman.

The quote from Rep. Wittman (March 11 statement) exemplifies the ongoing debate surrounding Navy force structure and shipbuilding cadence. By incorporating a variety of voices, we strive to present a nuanced picture of the challenges and opportunities facing the US Navy.

Moving Forward

Through this evaluation, we hope to contribute to a well-informed conversation regarding the future of the US Navy. By analyzing existing plans and fostering a dialogue with experts, we can help chart a course towards a stronger and more effective maritime force. We will continue this discussion in future blog posts, delving deeper into specific plans and the findings of our analysis.

Call to Action

We encourage our readers to share their feedback and suggestions for additional resources, especially regarding the financial aspects of these plans. Your input is valuable in ensuring a well-rounded analysis. We also invite you to engage on our social media Facebook page by following the links beloe to share your thoughts on strengthening the US Navy.

Posted on

A Closer Look: The Department of the Navy’s FY 2025 Budget Request

Department of the Navy Fiscal 2025 Budget Proposal

Greetings, members and friends of Americans for a Stronger Navy!

This is the first in a series of deep dives examining the details of the Department of the Navy’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 President’s Budget request. We’re launching a series analyzing the details – from ship construction to sailor well-being. Is the Navy getting enough to fight?

This blueprint outlines the Navy’s funding priorities for the coming year, impacting everything from our national security posture to the lives of our dedicated sailors and Marines.

Key Takeaways:

  • Modest Increase: The budget request of $257.6 billion represents a small increase (0.7%) from FY24.
  • Readiness First: The Navy prioritizes maintaining a ready and capable force with investments in ship maintenance, training, and operational deployments.
  • Modernization Matters: Funding is allocated for next-generation submarines, unmanned vehicles, and advanced aircraft.
  • Investing in People: The budget includes a pay raise for service members, increased recruitment efforts, and improved quality-of-life initiatives for sailors and Marines.
  • Partnerships for Power: The Navy emphasizes strengthening strategic relationships with allied nations.

Implications for the Navy:

  • Maintaining Maritime Dominance: The budget supports the Navy’s role as the primary instrument of sea control, essential for protecting our interests worldwide.
  • Focus on the Future: Investments in research and development ensure the Navy remains at the forefront of technological innovation.
  • Efficiency and Optimization: Upgrading shipyards and infrastructure aims to streamline operations and maintenance.

Implications for Navy Personnel:

  • Pay and Benefits Boost: A 4.5% pay increase and increased recruitment/retention bonuses offer a competitive edge.
  • Investing in Quality of Life: Improved housing, childcare, and professional development opportunities boost morale and retention.
  • Focus on Sailor Safety: Increased funding for mental health and suicide prevention programs prioritizes the well-being of our personnel.

Implications for Suppliers:

  • Potential Growth: Increased shipbuilding and aircraft procurement could translate to more contracts for defense contractors.
  • Modernization Opportunities: Investments in shipyard infrastructure may open doors for companies specializing in construction and engineering.

Implications for the American Public:

  • A Strong Navy, a Safe Nation: A well-funded and modernized Navy safeguards American interests and deters potential adversaries.
  • Investing in Security: The budget reflects a commitment to national security, a critical concern for all Americans.
  • Supporting Our Heroes: The focus on sailor and Marine well-being aligns with the public’s desire to see our service members thrive.

The Road Ahead

Americans for a Stronger Navy will continue to analyze this budget request in detail. We’ll be looking closely at whether the funding levels are sufficient to maintain a truly powerful Navy in the face of evolving threats. We’ll also be advocating for policies that prioritize the well-being of our sailors and Marines, the strength of our shipbuilding industry, and ultimately, the safety and security of the American people.

Stay tuned for further updates and opportunities to get involved!

Posted on

Reinforcing America’s Pacific Defense through Strategic Partnerships

The First Island Chain, extending from Japan through Taiwan to the Philippines and Borneo.
NOTE TO READER: The blue line should go between Taiwan and China because Taiwan is an integral component of the First Island Chain.

Introduction

Bill Cullifer, Founder

In an era where global dynamics are rapidly evolving, the strategic importance of the Pacific region in maintaining America’s defense capabilities cannot be overstressed. A key element, often overlooked even by the well-informed, is the mid-Pacific chain of islands. These islands are not just dots on the map but pivotal assets in the geopolitical chessboard, ensuring America’s military and strategic superiority in the Asia-Pacific.

Strategic Significance of the Compacts of Free Association

The First Island Chain’s Defense Backbone

The First Island Chain, extending from Japan through Taiwan to the Philippines and Borneo, forms a natural barrier crucial for regional stability and security. However, its defense is untenable without a secure base of operations in the central Pacific, provided by the Compacts of Free Association (COFA) states: Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Marshall Islands.

Guardians of the Central Pacific

These nations, through COFA agreements with the U.S., offer more than just strategic locations; they ensure American military mobility and operational freedom across a vast east-west corridor. This not only deters potential adversaries but also fortifies America’s defense posture across the Pacific.

Financial and Diplomatic Dimensions

A Cost-Effective Investment

At a glance, the financial commitment to the COFA states—$2.3 billion over 20 years—may seem substantial. However, when contextualized within the broader U.S. defense budget and the strategic value it brings, this investment is not only prudent but also cost-effective. The COFA agreements represent a fraction of America’s defense expenditure but play a critical role in maintaining peace and stability in the region.

Reciprocal Benefits

Beyond financial aid, the COFA agreements encompass deeper ties, including the right for COFA citizens to work in the U.S., many of whom serve in the U.S. military at commendable rates. This reciprocal relationship strengthens cultural and economic bonds, enhancing the strategic partnership beyond mere financial transactions.

Why This Matters

In the current geopolitical climate, where the balance of power in the Pacific is increasingly contested, the role of the COFA states becomes even more critical. The strategic locations of these island nations offer unparalleled advantages for surveillance, rapid deployment, and logistical support, essential for deterring aggression and ensuring regional security. The renewal of the COFA agreements is not just a matter of policy but a cornerstone of America’s Pacific defense strategy.

Conclusion

“The strategic landscape of the Pacific is intricately defined by the mid-Pacific islands, which are essential for our defense strategy. Dale A Jenkins, a Senior Advisor to Americans for a Stronger Navy and the author of ‘Diplomats and Admirals,’ poignantly underscores the critical significance of these islands within our defense framework—a fact that often eludes even the well-informed.”

As we navigate the complexities of contemporary geopolitics, the renewal of our agreements with these islands transcends mere policy—it’s an essential investment in the bedrock of America’s security and its leadership stance in the Pacific.

For entities like the Americans for a Stronger Navy and all advocates for regional peace and stability, championing these agreements is not just strategic but an imperative.

These partnerships stand as a testament to our enduring commitment to our Pacific allies, underpinning the collective security that safeguards our nation’s interests and upholds the values we share with our friends across the vast expanse of the Pacific.

Posted on

Naval Crisis: Aging Fleet and Aging Yards – A Blueprint for Modernization

To the members, dedicated friends, and supporters of Americans for a Stronger Navy,

It is with a sense of urgency and commitment to our national security that we delve into an issue of paramount importance – the revitalization of the U.S. Navy’s shipyards. This topic, often overlooked in public discourse, is a cornerstone of our naval strength and a critical factor in maintaining our status as a global maritime power.

The Navy’s four public shipyards — Norfolk, Portsmouth, Puget Sound, and Pearl Harbor — are essential for maintaining submarines and aircraft carriers, ensuring fleet readiness. Originally built for sail- and conventionally-powered ships, these 19th and 20th-century shipyards now struggle to efficiently service modern nuclear-powered vessels. Confronted with outdated facilities and technology, they face increasing maintenance costs, scheduling delays, and reliability concerns.

Recognizing the need for modernization, the Navy initiated the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP) in May 2018. Managed by Naval Sea Systems Command with support from Naval Facilities Engineering Command and Commander, Navy Installations Command, SIOP aims to upgrade dry docks, optimize industrial processes, and modernize equipment to meet contemporary standards. This program is a critical step in transforming these historic shipyards into state-of-the-art facilities, aligning them with current naval operational needs.

Why This Matters

The significance of a robust and modern naval force cannot be understated in an era defined by great-power competition and rapidly evolving global threats. Our shipyards are the backbone of this force, serving as the lifeblood that keeps our fleet operational, advanced, and ready for any challenge. However, as recent assessments reveal, the current state of these facilities is far from meeting the demands of contemporary naval warfare and strategy.

Why America Should Care

Every American should be concerned about the state of our Navy’s shipyards. These facilities are not just about maintaining ships; they are about safeguarding our national security, ensuring global maritime dominance, and protecting our economic interests. A powerful Navy guarantees open sea lanes for commerce, deters potential adversaries, and provides a rapid response capability in times of crisis. The efficacy of our Navy is directly linked to the health of our shipyards.

Key Takeaway Problems

Two critical analyses – one from Forbes and another from Maiya Clark, The Heritage Foundation – highlight the pressing issues facing our shipyards:

  1. Aging Fleet and Infrastructure: Our Los Angeles Class submarines and shipyard facilities have aged, hindering operational efficiency.
  2. Resource Misallocation: There’s a notable misallocation of resources, with billions being spent on maintaining older vessels instead of investing in newer classes or infrastructure.
  3. Maintenance Delays: Prolonged maintenance periods are causing significant operational gaps in fleet readiness.
  4. Inefficient Modernization Efforts: Efforts like the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan (SIOP) face challenges in funding and execution, threatening their effectiveness.
  5. Human Capital Needs: A modern shipyard also requires a talented workforce, including engineers and trade personnel, to effectively utilize and maintain the upgraded infrastructure.

How Urgent Is This?

The urgency of this situation cannot be overstated. With each passing day of delayed maintenance and underfunded modernization, our naval capabilities diminish. The world is not standing still; as potential adversaries advance their naval capabilities, any lag on our part creates vulnerabilities. Addressing these issues is not just a matter of military preparedness; it is a necessity for national survival.

Solutions

The path forward requires a multifaceted approach:

  1. Strategic Investment in Modernization: Fully funding and efficiently executing the SIOP is crucial for modernizing our shipyards.
  2. Prioritizing Fleet Readiness: The Navy must reallocate resources towards vessels and infrastructure that significantly enhance our naval capabilities.
  3. Public-Private Partnerships: Leveraging private shipyards for maintenance work can alleviate pressure on public yards and introduce innovative practices
  4. Boosting Workforce Expertise: Critical for Naval Advancement to complement infrastructure development, prioritizing workforce expertise is vital. The Navy should focus on attracting and nurturing skilled engineers and tradespeople through enhanced training programs and partnerships. This strategic investment in human capital is essential to fully leverage upgraded vessels and facilities, thereby bolstering overall naval capabilities.
  5. Policy Support and Advocacy: It’s vital for organizations like Americans for a Stronger Navy to advocate for policies that support these changes and raise public awareness about the importance of a modern and capable Navy.

Conclusion

As members, friends, and supporters of Americans for a Stronger Navy, we play a crucial role in shaping the discourse and action around this critical issue.

Our collective voice can drive the change necessary to ensure that our Navy remains the most formidable maritime force in the world.

We must not only understand the challenges but also actively advocate for practical solutions.

The future of our naval superiority and, by extension, our national security, depends on our commitment to revitalizing America’s shipyards. Together, let’s champion a stronger, more resilient Navy for a safer, more secure America.

Posted on

Charting a Course for a Stronger and Competitive U.S. Navy

Image: US Navy

Introduction

Bill Cullifer, Founder

With a heritage rooted in my service as a US Navy Destroyer sailor and as the founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy, I carry a profound appreciation for the indispensable role of the U.S. Navy in safeguarding our nation’s security and prosperity. Having stood stem to stern with sailors of diverse backgrounds, I’ve been a witness to their commitment and the sacrifices they make for our country’s well-being. My dedication to this esteemed American institution is unwavering, and I am resolute in my commitment to maintain our Navy as the most formidable maritime force globally.

It is encouraging to note that GOP candidates Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley in last night’s debates have both recognized the need for a “stronger Navy.” Their collective acknowledgment underscores the urgency of reinforcing our naval capabilities in the face of escalating threats from strategic adversaries like China, Russia and Iran.

Mackenzie Eaglen, in her American Enterprise Institute Op-Ed, has astutely pinpointed the growing challenges confronting the U.S. Navy, advocating for fleet modernization, technological investment, and reinforced alliances to sustain our maritime dominance.

Echoing Eaglen’s sentiments, I contend that an agile adaptation to the shifting maritime theater is essential. Investing in the right mix of technology, forging stronger alliances, and galvanizing public support for naval endeavors are critical steps towards this goal.

As we acknowledge the challenges outlined by Eaglen and others, we at Americans for a Stronger Navy understand the gravity of these concerns and the imperative of a strategic response.

The Path Forward

To address the multi-faceted nature of these challenges, a comprehensive strategy encompassing innovation, force structure assessment, shipyard modernization, and strengthened alliances is necessary:

  • Strategic Innovation: The Navy should lead in deploying advanced technologies like unmanned systems and artificial intelligence, amplifying the capabilities of our current fleet and personnel.
  • Force Structure Assessment: Regular evaluations of our force composition will ensure that we have the optimal blend of high-end assets and versatile platforms for varied operational demands.
  • Shipyard Modernization: Upgrading our shipbuilding facilities and fostering workforce proficiency is crucial for augmenting our shipbuilding capacity and minimizing maintenance delays.
  • Budget Certainty: It’s imperative that Congress affords the Navy a predictable and substantial budget, mitigating the inefficiencies of financial uncertainty.
  • Alliances and Partnerships: Fortifying our bonds with allies and encouraging their naval modernization endeavors will be pivotal for a robust collective defense.
  • Holistic Defense Strategy: The Navy must be integrated within a broader defense architecture that encompasses air, space, cyber, and land forces.
  • Education and Outreach: Fostering strong connections with educational entities will nurture the future craftsmen and leaders essential for naval supremacy.
  • Investing in Its People: The backbone of the U.S. Navy is its sailors. To maintain a competitive edge, we must invest in their professional growth and personal well-being. This entails comprehensive training programs, educational opportunities, career development paths, and supportive services that ensure our sailors are not only prepared to meet the demands of modern warfare but also feel valued and invested in. By doing so, we cultivate a workforce that is resilient, skilled, and deeply committed to the Navy’s mission. Our sailors deserve the best support a nation can offer, from cutting-edge training systems to robust family and health services, ensuring they are mission-ready and their families are well cared for.

Public Engagement

To cultivate enduring support for a formidable Navy, we must enhance public engagement through:

  • Awareness campaigns that illuminate the Navy’s role and capabilities.
  • Educational programs to broaden knowledge of the Navy’s contribution to national security.
  • Opportunities for public involvement to support the Navy’s mission.

Concluding Thoughts

In essence, we urge a united front of policymakers, industry leaders, and citizens to embrace a strategic vision that preserves the U.S. Navy’s preeminence on the global stage. With discerning evaluations and consistent investment, we can nurture a balanced, mighty naval force ready to counter any threat and uphold our national interests for future generations.

Posted on

Fleet Forward: Charting Tomorrow’s Navy: Episode 2: The Budgetary Challenge of Naval Shipbuilding

Bill Cullifer, Founder

Welcome back to Fleet Forward: Charting Tomorrow’s Navy, a podcast series that explores the challenges and opportunities facing the US Navy in the 21st century. 

With this series, inspired by our shared values and patriotic spirit, we aim to complement our upcoming December podcast series ‘Charting the Course: Navigating the Future of American Naval Power’

In the previous episode, we introduced the series and explained why we decided to create it. We also discussed the format and the content of the series, and how we hope to provide you with insightful and informative analysis and commentary on the issues and trends that shape the Navy’s present and future.

The Budgetary Challenge of Naval Shipbuilding

In this episode, we will focus on one of the most important and contentious issues facing the Navy: the budgetary challenge of naval shipbuilding. How much does it cost to build a Navy? How do we balance the need for a larger and more capable fleet with the reality of fiscal constraints and competing priorities? How do we ensure that our naval force is ready and relevant for the 21st century?

These are some of the questions that we will explore in this episode, as we examine the Navy’s shipbuilding plan for fiscal year 2024, which presents three alternatives for the future fleet, each with different costs and capabilities. We will also explore how the Congressional Budget Office and Brent Sadler have critiqued the Navy’s plan and offered alternative perspectives on how to optimize the Navy’s budget and capabilities. We will also delve into the stories and people behind the Navy’s shipbuilding strategies, and reflect on their implications for our national security, economic vitality, and our role on the global stage. 

The Stakeholders and Perspectives of Naval Strategy

Today we ’ll not only delve into the Navy’s shipbuilding strategies but also the stories and people behind them, reflecting on our national security, economic vitality, and our role on the global stage.

Introduction

In this episode, we will examine the fiscal landscape of naval procurement, focusing on the budgetary challenges and trade-offs that the Navy faces in pursuing its shipbuilding plans. We will also explore how the CBO and Sandler have critiqued the Navy’s strategies and offered alternative perspectives on how to optimize the Navy’s budget and capabilities.

The Navy’s Shipbuilding Budget

The Navy’s shipbuilding budget is the primary source of funding for acquiring new ships and maintaining the existing fleet. The budget is determined by the Navy’s long-term shipbuilding plan, which outlines the desired size, composition, and capabilities of the future fleet, as well as the projected costs and schedules for each ship class. The plan is updated annually and submitted to Congress as part of the President’s budget request.

The current shipbuilding plan, released in December 2022, covers the period from 2023 to 2052 and aims to achieve a fleet of 355 ships by 2035 and 400 ships by 2052. The plan also introduces the DDG(X) program, which is intended to replace the aging Arleigh Burke-class destroyers with a more advanced and capable design. The plan estimates that the Navy will need an average of $33 billion per year (in 2022 dollars) for shipbuilding over the next 30 years, which is 50 percent more than the historical average of $22 billion per year over the past 30 years.

The CBO’s Analysis of the Navy’s Shipbuilding Plan

The CBO, an independent and nonpartisan agency that provides budgetary and economic analysis to Congress, has conducted a detailed assessment of the Navy’s shipbuilding plan and its implications for the federal budget and the Navy’s capabilities. The CBO’s report, released in October 2023, raises several issues and challenges with the plan, such as:

•  The plan’s cost estimates are optimistic and likely to increase over time, due to factors such as inflation, technical risks, and schedule delays. The CBO projects that the plan will actually cost an average of $40 billion per year (in 2022 dollars) for shipbuilding over the next 30 years, which is 21 percent more than the Navy’s estimate and 82 percent more than the historical average.

•  The plan’s funding requirements are unsustainable and unrealistic, given the competing demands and constraints on the federal budget. The CBO estimates that the plan will consume an average of 13 percent of the total defense budget over the next 30 years, which is significantly higher than the historical average of 9 percent. The plan will also require increasing the Navy’s share of the defense budget from 28 percent in 2022 to 34 percent in 2052, which will likely entail reducing the funding for other military services or increasing the overall defense budget.

•  The plan’s fleet size and composition goals are ambitious and questionable, given the operational and strategic environment. The CBO questions the rationale and feasibility of achieving a 400-ship fleet by 2052, which would be the largest fleet since the end of World War II. The CBO also suggests that the plan may not adequately account for the changing nature of naval warfare and the emergence of new threats and technologies, such as cyberattacks, hypersonic weapons, and unmanned systems.

The CBO’s report concludes that the Navy’s shipbuilding plan is not a viable or effective strategy for meeting the nation’s naval needs and recommends that the Navy and Congress reconsider the plan’s assumptions, objectives, and priorities. The CBO also offers some alternative shipbuilding scenarios that would achieve different fleet sizes and compositions at lower costs than the Navy’s plan.

Sandler’s Critique of the Navy’s Shipbuilding Plan

Sandler, a former U.S. Naval Captain and author of U.S. Power in the 21st Century, has also published a blog post in November 2023, criticizing the Navy’s shipbuilding plan and proposing a different approach to naval strategy and shipbuilding. Sandler’s main arguments are:

•  The Navy’s shipbuilding plan is based on a flawed and outdated paradigm of naval power, which emphasizes quantity over quality, platforms over payloads, and conventional over asymmetric warfare. Sandler argues that the Navy is stuck in a Cold War mentality and fails to adapt to the changing realities and challenges of the 21st century, such as the rise of China, the proliferation of anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities, and the diffusion of power and influence.

•  The Navy’s shipbuilding plan is wasteful and inefficient, as it invests in expensive and vulnerable ships that are not suited for the current and future threat environment. Sandler singles out the DDG(X) program as an example of a misguided and unnecessary project, which he calls a “gold-plated boondoggle” that will cost billions of dollars and provide marginal benefits. Sandler contends that the DDG(X) is a redundant and obsolete design that will be outmatched by cheaper and more effective weapons and systems, such as missiles, drones, and submarines.

•  The Navy’s shipbuilding plan is counterproductive and dangerous, as it provokes and escalates tensions with potential adversaries, especially China, and undermines the stability and security of the international order. Sandler warns that the Navy’s pursuit of a 400-ship fleet and the DDG(X) program will trigger a naval arms race and increase the risk of conflict and miscalculation in the Indo-Pacific region. Sandler also cautions that the Navy’s plan will alienate and weaken the U.S.’s allies and partners, who may not share the same vision or interests as the U.S. and may not be willing or able to contribute to the Navy’s ambitious and costly goals.

Sandler’s blog post concludes that the Navy’s shipbuilding plan is a strategic blunder and a fiscal disaster that will undermine the U.S.’s naval power and global leadership. Sandler advocates for a radical shift in the Navy’s mindset and approach, which he calls “smart power”. Sandler’s smart power concept is based on four principles:

•  Quality over quantity: The Navy should focus on developing and acquiring fewer but more capable and versatile ships that can deliver multiple effects and missions across the spectrum of conflict.

•  Payloads over platforms: The Navy should prioritize investing in and deploying advanced and adaptable weapons and systems, such as missiles, drones, and cyber capabilities, that can enhance the lethality and survivability of the existing and future fleet.

•  Asymmetric over conventional warfare: The Navy should embrace and exploit the opportunities and advantages of asymmetric warfare, such as stealth, speed, deception, and innovation, that can offset and counter the A2/AD capabilities of potential adversaries.

•  Cooperation over competition: The Navy should seek and strengthen cooperation and coordination with the U.S.’s allies and partners, as well as engage and deter potential adversaries, through diplomacy, deterrence, and dialogue, rather than confrontation, coercion, and conflict.

Conclusion

In this episode, we have explored the fiscal landscape of naval procurement and the budgetary challenges and trade-offs that the Navy faces in pursuing its shipbuilding plans. We have also examined how the CBO and Sandler have critiqued the Navy’s strategies and offered alternative perspectives on how to optimize the Navy’s budget and capabilities. In the next episode, we will delve into the technological advancements and design considerations in modern shipbuilding, with a spotlight on the DDG(X) program. Stay tuned for more insights and analyses on the Navy’s path forward.

sources 

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59708

Posted on

The Sinking Submarine Industrial Base: Voices That Matter

Bill Cullifer, Founder

This article draws heavily upon the insightful and meticulously researched paper by Emma Salisbury, who shed light on the intricate challenges and opportunities facing the U.S. submarine industrial base with remarkable clarity.

Submarines are indeed an integral part of the U.S. Navy’s future. Many agree that the United States needs more submarines if it is to deter China in the Indo-Pacific and maintain its maritime superiority. 

Submarines are stealthy, survivable, and lethal platforms that can operate in contested waters and deliver precision strikes, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and special operations.

However, the U.S. submarine industrial base is facing serious challenges that threaten its ability to deliver the submarines that the Navy needs on time and on budget. 

The submarine industrial base consists of two main shipbuilders — General Dynamics Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Newport News Shipbuilding — and hundreds of suppliers across the country that provide parts, materials, and services for submarine construction and maintenance.

The submarine industrial base is struggling to keep up with the growing demand for submarines, which has increased from one Virginia-class attack submarine per year in 2012 to two per year in 2021, plus the addition of the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine program, which is the Navy’s top acquisition priority.

The Navy has recognized the importance of stabilizing and strengthening the submarine industrial base and has taken some actions to address its challenges. However, these actions are not enough.

The submarine industrial base needs more support and investment from Congress, the Department of Defense (DoD), and from our view, especially from the American public if we’re going to get anywhere. Decisions surrounding our national defense and industrial capabilities shouldn’t just be left to policymakers in isolation.

In our history, we’ve seen time and again the profound impact public opinion and support can have on shaping policy decisions. For our submarine industrial base and broader naval defense, public support isn’t just a nice-to-have; it’s the lynchpin.

While experts can identify problems and policymakers can draft solutions, it’s the collective will of the American people that determines our nation’s priorities. 

By becoming informed, involved, and vocal about the importance of a strong and capable Navy, the American public can be the driving force that ensures our naval defense remains robust and prepared for the challenges of the 21st century.

We echo the sentiments of urging Congress and DoD, and we further advocate for the American public to support and invest in the submarine industrial base.

Specifically, we need to:

  • Raise awareness of the imminent risks facing our naval defense. The U.S. Navy’s capability to deter potential threats, maintain maritime superiority, and ensure national security is at stake. Delays and shortcomings in our submarine and surface fleet programs could leave us vulnerable in a rapidly evolving global security environment. 
  • It’s essential to mobilize public support now for increased funding for both submarine and surface fleet programs alike, including infrastructure, support services, and the often overlooked but equally important logistics.
  • Invest in education and training in career techical education for shipyard building and management in areas such as welding pipefitting and for naval STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields. Beyond immediate funding and infrastructural upgrades, there’s an underlying need to address the skills gap.

If you are interested in learning more about the industrial base, the need for education and training, or supporting our cause, you can find more information at StrongerNavy.org.