Peace Through Strength – Community Driven – Membership Supported
Category: Capitol Hill Watch
Capitol Hill is the seat of the U.S. government, home to the domed United States Capitol, Senate, Houses of Representatives and the neoclassical Supreme Court. Capitol Hill Watch covers the news, current and pending legislation of interest to the Americans for a Stronger Navy.
Recent developments reported by the Navy Secretary, Carlos Del Toro, to the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee illuminate the critical challenges and operational demands facing the U.S. Navy. Amid 130 direct attacks over six months and a significant munition shortfall, the testimony underscores the urgent need for enhanced naval capabilities and support.
Key Takeaway
* The U.S. Navy’s ability to defend against frequent hostile actions and its urgent need for funding to replenish critical munitions highlights the indispensable role of naval forces in maintaining national and global security.
* The recent combat use of Standard Missile 3s (SM-3) further underscores the Navy’s forefront position in technological defense advancements.
Facing Frequent Threats
Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro revealed that U.S. warships have fended off 130 direct attacks in the Middle East over the past six months, demonstrating the volatile environment in which our forces operate. This significant number of attacks highlights the constant threats our naval forces face and the critical role they play in deterrence and defense.
Financial Strain and Legislative Urgency
The Navy is currently experiencing a $1 billion shortfall in munitions essential for these defenses. Del Toro’s appeal for Congress to approve additional funding is a stark reminder of the financial strains on military readiness. The delay in passing the national security supplemental funding by the House represents a critical bottleneck in supporting our naval operations.
Technological Advancements in Combat
The first-ever combat use of the SM-3 missile during the recent Iranian assault on Israel marks a significant milestone. This event not only demonstrates the Navy’s advanced capabilities but also the effectiveness of our current investments in missile defense technology.
Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA guided missile
Del Toro’s confirmation of the SM-3’s deployment highlights the Navy’s capability to engage and neutralize threats from beyond the atmosphere.
Bipartisan Support for Global Security
Senator Patty Murray’s comments emphasize the bipartisan nature of national security and the global implications of a well-funded Navy. Her criticism of the House’s delay in passing the supplemental reflects the broader political dynamics that can impact military readiness and global stability.
Why This Matters
The ongoing operational challenges and financial needs of the U.S. Navy are not just matters of military preparedness but are essential to sustaining global peace and security. The capability to deploy advanced defensive technologies like the SM-3 in combat situations is critical to deterring aggressive actions by state and non-state actors, ensuring the safety of international waters and global trade routes.
Conclusion
The testimonies before Congress serve as a critical reminder of the stakes involved in maintaining a strong and responsive U.S. Navy. As we navigate these uncertain times, it is paramount that bipartisan support for naval funding is secured without delay. The strength and readiness of our naval forces are key to our national defense strategy and a cornerstone of our international security commitment.
As we continue charting the course of the U.S. Navy’s future, we set sail into a sea of critical decisions. Well, today we focus on – the contentious debated divest-to-invest strategy. The Navy proposes to decommission certain vessels to free up resources for advanced capabilities, but Congress has its own course to chart. Let’s navigate these turbulent waters and explore the implications for the Navy, potential challenges, and the long-term impact on U.S. naval power.
What You Need to Know
At the heart of the debate is the Navy’s proposal to decommission 19 ships, including 10 before reaching their expected service lives. These ships may include cruisers, dock landing ships, and littoral combat ships (specific details are still being verified with Navy contacts). The Navy argues that divesting from older vessels will free up resources for investments in newer technologies and capabilities, better positioning the Navy to address evolving global threats. This divest-to-invest strategy, however, has faced opposition from some members of Congress.
Several lawmakers have voiced concerns about specific aspects of the plan. For instance, Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT) expressed worries about reducing the number of Virginia-class attack submarines, emphasizing the need for a larger submarine fleet in the face of a growing Chinese navy. Sen. Angus King (I-ME) highlighted the importance of icebreakers for operating in the Arctic Ocean.
Lawmakers have also been critical of the proposed decommissioning of cruisers and other vessels, citing their combat capabilities and missile power. These concerns have sparked debates between Navy officials and Congress, highlighting the complexities of balancing fiscal constraints with the need for a modern and effective fleet.
We are reaching out to Navy contacts to verify the complete list of proposed decommissionings and will update this post with any further information.
Why This Matters
The divest-to-invest strategy is not merely a budgetary concern; it’s a reflection of the Navy’s vision for future warfare readiness. The Navy argues that investing in newer, more capable vessels is essential to address evolving global threats, particularly a rising China, effectively. While the Navy’s proposal is part of the Fiscal Year 2025 budget plan, Congress has yet to decide on its implementation.
Implications for the Navy
For the Navy, the proposed decommissioning represents a shift towards a leaner, more technologically advanced fleet. It’s a move that could enhance the Navy’s combat power and operational agility but also requires careful consideration of the costs associated with maintaining older ships versus investing in new ones. Additionally, recent reports indicate delays in the construction of new ships, which could further complicate the implementation of the divest-to-invest strategy.
Implications for Congress
Congress faces the challenge of balancing the strategic needs of a larger fleet with the economic impact of decommissioning on shipyards and communities. Lawmakers must weigh the Navy’s arguments against the potential loss of jobs and the broader economic repercussions.
Challenges in Implementing the Divest-to-Invest Strategy
While the divest-to-invest strategy offers a potential path towards a modernized fleet, challenges remain in its implementation. A recent article from Breaking Defense highlights concerns from Congress about the divestment of ships exceeding the number of new ships being built. This raises questions about the Navy’s ability to maintain a sufficiently sized fleet in the short term.
The article also mentions the Navy’s request for only one Virginia-class submarine in FY25, despite previously planned purchases of two. This points to broader challenges in shipbuilding, potentially impacting the Navy’s ability to deliver on its long-term goals.
Conclusion
The debate over the Navy’s divest-to-invest strategy is more than a fiscal discussion; it’s a strategic deliberation that will shape the future of U.S. naval power. As the Navy and Congress navigate these turbulent waters, the decisions made today will have long-lasting implications for national security, economic stability, and the Navy’s ability to fulfill its mission in an ever-changing global landscape.
Call to Action
We encourage our readers to stay informed about this important issue. Follow along for updates on the budget proposal and Congressional hearings as continue . We also invite you to share your thoughts and questions about the divest-to-invest strategy by joining the discussion on our social channels by clicking here for Facebook.
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.
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.
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.
Today, we introduce the U.S. Navy’s new warfighting doctrine. According to the U.S.Navy, the doctrine not only reinforces the commitment to securing maritime freedom but also strengthens collaborative ties, ensuring the Navy remains a vanguard of global stability and security.
Introduction
The unveiling of the new joint warfighting doctrine signifies an evolution, not a departure, from the traditional “peace through strength” stance. It reaffirms the U.S. Navy’s pivotal role as the global guardian of the seas, adapting to modern challenges while maintaining its foundational principles.
What’s New
This doctrine introduces a multi-domain approach, integrating land, air, sea, space, and cyber capabilities. It emphasizes agility, technological innovation, and a proactive stance in the dynamic security landscape.
Why Americans Should Care
The doctrine, according to the U.S. Navy ensures the U.S. remains at the forefront of global security, safeguarding national interests, and promoting international peace and stability.
Integration Across Domains: It advocates for seamless operations across all military domains, enhancing responsiveness and effectiveness.
Innovative Approaches: The focus is on harnessing cutting-edge technologies and concepts to stay ahead of adversaries.
Adapting to Modern Threats: It addresses the need to continuously evolve in response to emerging security challenges.
Implications for the Navy
The Navy is set to benefit from enhanced strategic direction, capability development, and operational planning, ensuring it remains a formidable force in protecting global maritime interests.
Implications for Our Global Partners
The doctrine fosters stronger alliances and interoperability among international partners, uniting efforts in maintaining a secure global environment.
Conclusion
The new doctrine is a testament to the enduring value of “peace through strength,” with the Navy continuing to serve as a cornerstone of global security and stability. Supporting a strong, adaptable Navy is more crucial than ever in navigating the complexities of contemporary and future threats.
Chester Alan Arthur: A Forgotten Architect of America’s Naval Strength
Introduction:
In the annals of American history, some presidents shine brightly, while others, like Chester Alan Arthur, the 21st President of the United States, are less remembered. Yet, Arthur’s contributions, particularly in strengthening the U.S. Navy, were pivotal in shaping the country’s future.
This blog post, inspired by PBS’s extensive collection on American Presidents, delves into Arthur’s presidency and his unheralded role in fortifying America’s naval power.
Early Presidency: Chester Alan Arthur, a product of the New York political machine, ascended to the presidency in 1881 following the assassination of President James Garfield. Known for his integrity and honesty, Arthur’s administration was characterized by surprising reformative actions, especially considering his roots in political patronage.
Civil Service and Domestic Policy: Arthur’s commitment to reform was evident in his domestic policies. He signed the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, revolutionizing federal employment by prioritizing merit over political allegiance. His veto of pork barrel expenditures reflected a fiscally responsible approach, even as he indulged in refurbishing the White House with the creative touch of Louis Comfort Tiffany.
Foreign Affairs and Naval Expansion: Arthur’s presidency is notable for its impact on foreign relations and naval development. His efforts to lower tariffs and negotiate trade agreements demonstrated a progressive approach to international economics. However, his most enduring legacy lies in his vision for a modern U.S. Navy. Recognizing the strategic importance of naval power, Arthur championed the development of a fleet with steam-powered engines and steel cladding, a significant advancement from the wooden ships of prior eras.
Presidential Politics and Legacy: Arthur’s rise to the presidency, initially seen with skepticism, turned into a narrative of surprising integrity and dedication to public service. His battle against his political patron, Senator Roscoe Conkling, and his governance despite a fatal kidney disease diagnosis, showcased his resilience and commitment to the nation’s welfare.
Conclusion: Chester Alan Arthur’s presidency, often overlooked in the broader tapestry of American history, was a period of significant transition and modernization, especially for the U.S. Navy. His contributions laid the groundwork for America’s emergence as a major naval power in the 20th century. As Americans, we owe a part of our naval strength and international standing to this often-forgotten president, a testament to the lasting impact of Arthur’s administration.
I’ve had the privilege of engaging with multiple experts at the forefront of naval innovation and strategy.
These conversations have illuminated the significant technological strides and forward thinking in the U.S. Navy, particularly in the realm of autonomous vessels.
During a brief pause in these discussions, my thoughts drifted to the storied Army-Navy football game set for December 9, 2023. This annual event, steeped in tradition and camaraderie, sparked a curious reflection on the future intersection of technology and tradition.
In a creative moment, I envisioned autonomous Army and Navy football players – a fusion of technology and sport. This vision, while fascinating in a technological sense, also stirred a poignant realization.
The rapid evolution of autonomous technologies, while enhancing our naval capabilities, might also mean that future generations could miss out on traditional experiences. The prospect of serving at sea or competing on the football field might become memories of a bygone era.
This duality is at the heart of our upcoming series. While we explore the technological advancements and their implications for national security, we must also acknowledge the sentimental aspects. The camaraderie of sailors at sea, the saltiness in the air, the taste of ballpark hot dogs, and the roar of the crowd at a football game – these are experiences that shape character, foster bonds, and define human experiences.
As members and friends of Americans for a Stronger Navy, you understand the delicate balance between embracing innovation and preserving tradition. Our naval history is rich with tales of bravery and unity, and our future promises unprecedented technological prowess.
Let’s embrace this journey together, exploring how these advancements will shape the U.S. Navy while remembering the human element that has always been its backbone. The future of American naval power is not just about ships and technology; it’s about the people who serve and the traditions that bind us.
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.
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.
Welcome back to our series: From Depths to Skies: Exploring the Future Landscape of U.S. Naval Power. In this series, we aim to inform and engage our members and friends on behalf of Americans for a Stronger Navy. We examine the current and future challenges and opportunities for the U.S. Navy in maintaining its global leadership and superiority in the maritime domain.
In the previous segment, we focused on the submarine fleet, one of the most important and complex elements of the U.S. naval power. We discussed its role, capabilities, and plans for modernization and acquisition. We also reviewed some of the reports and studies that have been published on this topic and provided our own analysis and recommendations.
In this segment, we will shift our attention to the submarine industrial base, which is the backbone of the submarine fleet. We will explore how the AUKUS defense technology partnership, which involves supplying Australia with nuclear-powered submarines, will affect the U.S. submarine industrial base and its ability to meet the demand for both domestic and foreign submarines. We will also look at how Congress and industry are responding to this challenge and what are some of the potential benefits and risks of this deal.
Proposed Funding for Submarine Industrial Base
On October 22, 2023, President Joe Biden submitted a supplemental budget request to Congress, which earmarks $3.4 billion for further investments in the U.S. submarine industrial base. This funding is intended to improve the build and sustainment rates for attack submarines in order to meet U.S. military requirements, and to support the commitments under AUKUS.
The supplemental budget request comes after 25 U.S. Republican lawmakers urged Biden in July to increase funding for the U.S. submarine fleet, saying that the plan under AUKUS to sell Australia Virginia-class nuclear-power submarines would “unacceptably weaken” the U.S. fleet without a clear plan to replace them.
The U.S. Navy also supports the supplemental budget request, saying that it is “critical” to ensure that the submarine industrial base can deliver both Virginia-class and Columbia-class submarines on time and on budget. The Navy also says that AUKUS will “strengthen our ability to deter aggression, defend our interests, and maintain our technological edge”.
Key Takeaways from Congressional Hearing
On October 25, 2023, a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee held a hearing on AUKUS and its implications for the U.S. submarine industrial base. The hearing featured testimony from Mara Karlin, acting deputy under secretary of defense for policy; Vice Admiral William Houston, commander of the U.S. Navy’s Submarine Force; Rear Admiral Scott Pappano, program executive officer for Columbia-class submarines; and Rear Admiral David Goggins, program executive officer for submarines.
Some of the key takeaways from the hearing are:
• AUKUS contributes to building a more robust defense industrial base ecosystem that contributes to integrated deterrence; and … the submarine industrial base can and will support AUKUS.
• Congress is critical to the success of AUKUS, and needs to approve four legislative proposals this year: authorizing transfer of submarines to Australia; allowing maintenance of U.S. submarines in Australia and Britain; authorizing Australian funding for U.S. shipyards and training of Australian workers; and streamlining defense trade between AUKUS partners.
• The U.S. submarine industry is hoping to increase its production rate from 1.2 Virginia-class submarines per year to two – this on top of one Columbia-class submarine – but faces challenges such as supply chain fragility, labor shortages, and cost overruns.
• The AUKUS deal will require sharing sensitive U.S. technology with Australia and Britain, which poses risks such as leakage, espionage, or reverse engineering by adversaries or third parties.
• “AUKUS is an unprecedented opportunity to deepen our cooperation with two of our closest allies in developing cutting-edge capabilities that will ensure our collective security well into this century.” – Mara Karlin
• “This funding is critical to improve build and sustainment rates for attack submarines in order to meet U.S. military requirements, and will also support our commitments under AUKUS.” – Joint statement by Navy representatives
• “The fact is, the supply chain still remains very fragile. Any additional funding and support, whether it’s through the supplemental or other Navy support would be extremely helpful.” – Jason Aiken, General Dynamics’ chief financial officer
• “We are confident that we have the appropriate measures in place to protect our technology as we move forward with this initiative.” – Vice Admiral William Houston
• “The administration’s plan to sell Virginia-class submarines to Australia will unacceptably weaken our own submarine fleet without a clear plan to replace them. … The administration has not provided any evidence that our submarine industrial base can handle this additional workload without jeopardizing our own submarine programs.” – Representative Rob Wittman, ranking member of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.
Where We Stand
AUKUS deal is still being debated and negotiated by the governments and parliaments of the three countries involved: Australia, the UK, and the US. The deal also faces opposition and criticism from some other countries and groups, such as France, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, some Australian political parties and unions, some US lawmakers and analysts, and some environmental and anti-war activists.
The AUKUS deal has two main components: one is to help Australia acquire nuclear-powered submarines, and the other is to enhance joint capabilities and interoperability in areas such as cyber, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and undersea capabilities.
The first component is expected to take at least 18 months of consultation and planning before the actual construction of the submarines can begin. The US plans to sell between three and five Virginia-class submarines to Australia in the 2030s, before Australia starts building its own submarines in the 2040s. The US Navy and the US submarine industry are hoping to increase their production rate to meet the demand for both domestic and foreign submarines, but they face challenges such as supply chain fragility, labor shortages, cost overruns, and technology protection.
The second component is intended to foster deeper information sharing and technology sharing among the three AUKUS partners, but it also requires streamlining defense trade and export controls between them. The US Congress needs to approve four legislative proposals this year to authorize the transfer of submarines to Australia, to allow maintenance of US submarines in Australia and Britain, to authorize Australian funding for US shipyards and training of Australian workers, and to simplify defense trade between AUKUS partners.
The AUKUS deal is a historic and strategic initiative that aims to enhance the security and stability of the Indo-Pacific region and beyond. However, it also poses significant challenges and risks for the three countries involved and their allies and partners. The deal will require substantial investments, coordination, and oversight from the governments, parliaments, militaries, industries, and publics of the three countries.
Conclusion
The AUKUS deal is a historic and strategic initiative that aims to enhance the security and stability of the Indo-Pacific region and beyond. However, it also poses significant challenges and risks for the U.S. submarine industrial base, which is already under pressure to deliver submarines for the U.S. Navy and its allies. The deal will require substantial investments, coordination, and oversight from Congress, the Pentagon, the Navy, and the industry to ensure that it does not compromise the quality, quantity, or timeliness of the U.S. submarine fleet.
We at Americans for a Stronger Navy believe that AUKUS could be a worthwhile and beneficial endeavor that could strengthen our naval power and our alliances. However, we also acknowledge that there are different views and perspectives on this deal, both within and outside the U.S. We think that it is important to learn more from those who support and those who oppose the deal, and to understand their arguments and concerns. We also think that it is vital to hear from the American public, who ultimately have a stake in the future of our naval force and our national security. Therefore, we invite you to share your opinions and feedback on AUKUS with us, and to join the conversation on this topic with your fellow Americans.
• Some Republican lawmakers, such as Representative Rob Wittman, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces. He said that the plan to sell Virginia-class submarines to Australia would “unacceptably weaken our own submarine fleet without a clear plan to replace them” and that the administration has not provided any evidence that the submarine industrial base can handle the additional workload. Click here to review additional detail.
• Some defense analysts, such as Bryan Clark, a former Navy strategist and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He said that selling submarines to Australia would reduce the number of attack submarines available to the U.S. Navy and that the Navy should prioritize building its own next-generation attack submarine (SSN-X) before exporting it. Click here for additional detail.
Some of the groups and individuals who are concerned about U.S. technology getting into the wrong hands are:
• Some Democratic lawmakers, such as Senator Edward Markey, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He said that he was “deeply concerned” about the potential for nuclear proliferation and leakage of sensitive technology as a result of the AUKUS deal and that he would seek assurances from the administration that it would not undermine the global nonproliferation regime. Click here for additional detail.
• Some former U.S. officials, such as Richard Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state under George W. Bush. He said that he was “very nervous” about sharing nuclear propulsion technology with Australia and Britain and that he feared that it could be compromised by China or other adversaries. Click here for additional detail.
The AUKUS deal, which involves supplying Australia with nuclear-powered submarines, has sparked a heated debate among various stakeholders in the U.S. and abroad. Some of them have expressed opposition or concern about the deal, based on different reasons and perspectives. For example, some Republican lawmakers, such as Representative Rob Wittman, argue that the deal would weaken the U.S. submarine fleet and industrial base, without a clear plan to replace the submarines sold to Australia. Some defense analysts, such as Bryan Clark, suggest that the deal would reduce the availability of attack submarines for the U.S. Navy and that the Navy should prioritize building its own next-generation submarine (SSN-X) before exporting it. Some Democratic lawmakers, such as Senator Edward Markey, are worried about the potential for nuclear proliferation and leakage of sensitive technology as a result of the deal and seek assurances from the administration that it would not undermine the global nonproliferation regime. Some former U.S. officials, such as Richard Armitage, are nervous about sharing nuclear propulsion technology with Australia and Britain and fear that it could be compromised by China or other adversaries.
We will continue to monitor and report on this topic as it unfolds. We invite you to follow along and read more reports and studies on this topic as we delve deeper into this important and timely issue. We also welcome your feedback and suggestions as we seek to inform and engage our members and friends on behalf of Americans for a Stronger Navy. The time to act is now. Stay tuned for more updates soon.
To Our Valued Members and Friends of Americans for a Stronger Navy,
Greetings,
Bill Cullifer, founder
As the founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy, I felt the pressing need to share my insights on a topic that is of paramount importance to our nation’s security and future. Our Naval force is not just a testament to our military prowess but a symbol of our commitment to safeguarding global peace and ensuring the freedom of our seas.
It’s undeniable that our U.S. Navy, along with other branches of our defense, has faced readiness challenges in recent times. A recent GAO report shed light on the Department of Defense’s (DOD) ongoing efforts to balance the readiness of its existing forces with the desire to modernize. Notably, the report highlighted the readiness challenges identified by the GAO across various domains, including the sea.
From the challenges of the pandemic to external geopolitical pressures, the Navy is facing a ship repair crisis that impacts its readiness. Recent data in the last fiscal year indicates only 36% of surface ship maintenance was completed on time, a decline from 44% in the preceding fiscal year. Furthermore, the GAO analysis of DOD readiness data points out that resource readiness ratings, which measure the status of personnel, equipment, supplies, and training, are a vital metric. These ratings provide a deeper understanding of how equipped our forces are to execute their designated missions.
Why Does This Matter?
Nearly two decades of conflict have degraded military readiness, the Navy included. As the GAO study reveals, to maintain our military’s advantage in this new age characterized by great-power competition, the DOD is earnestly working to rebuild and restore readiness while also embarking on modernization. Every delay, every deferred maintenance schedule, has real-world implications – from extended deployments for our sailors to decreased deterrence capabilities against potential adversaries.
Voices That Matter
I echo the sentiments of the now-retired Vice Admiral William Galinis, who once rightly pointed out the importance of continuous investment in our shipyards, saying, “We must continue to invest in our shipyards – both public and private – as they are critical enablers of our naval power projection.”
It’s not just the Navy’s higher-ups who understand this. The industry, the backbone of our naval infrastructure, has been vocal about its commitment. Jennifer Boykin, president of Newport News Shipbuilding, remarked, “We bring our expertise and experience in shipbuilding, engineering, and digital transformation to help the Navy achieve its goals and overcome its challenges.”
Brent Sadler, Senior Research Fellow, Naval Warfare and Advanced Technology, Center for National Defense, U.S. Navy officer and author of the highly acclaimed U.S. Naval Power in the 21st Century: A New Strategy for Facing the Chinese and Russian Threat, commented, “How the U.S. Navy plans and builds its fleet is particularly important given the time frames required to recapitalize shipbuilding infrastructure, design, and build a larger modern fleet to meet maritime threats from China and Russia. Yet the Navy, shipbuilders, Congress, and the public do not seem to be on the same page. A better understanding of the foundational principles involved in shipbuilding can help to bridge these divides and also help the nation to recapture its maritime prowess and ensure that our maritime industry delivers warships on budget and on time. By focusing on best engineering design and construction principles rather than merely on numbers of ships commissioned, the Navy and shipbuilders can build the Navy the nation needs.”
A Straight Shooter’s Perspective
In all transparency, advocating for a stronger Navy is not about endorsing a particular industry. As the founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy, my primary motivation is a heartfelt desire to serve our great nation in the best way I know. I genuinely believe that many in the industry resonate with this sentiment. As the GAO report suggests, continued focus on the readiness of our existing forces is crucial as the DOD will rely on much of today’s force for decades to come.
An Invitation for Insightful Exploration
I encourage each and every one of our members and friends to review the recent GAO report in its entirety. Understanding the intricate dynamics of our Navy’s readiness and the broader implications for our national security is vital. Please find the report linked below. While I’ve shared my perspective, it’s essential to draw your own conclusions and engage in informed discussions. Together, our collective insight and understanding will only further the cause we so passionately champion.
Conclusion
The challenges faced by our Navy are profound, but they are not insurmountable. We stand at a pivotal moment in history, where our collective actions, advocacy, and awareness can bring about tangible positive changes. The essence of our Navy’s strength isn’t just in its formidable ships or advanced technologies; it lies in the indomitable spirit of the American people who support, maintain, and advance its mission. As we unite in purpose and commitment, let us also remember the tireless individuals – both in uniform and the civilian sectors – who strive daily to ensure our Navy remains a beacon of strength, deterrence, and hope in an increasingly complex world. Your involvement and voice matter. Together, we sail stronger.
As the advocacy group “Americans for a Stronger Navy,” we’ve always championed the importance of a robust naval force in safeguarding our nation’s interests, both domestically and globally. Today, we find ourselves at a juncture where our very principles are under threat, not from an external adversary, but from internal bureaucratic deadlock. The potential government shutdown carries implications far beyond political disagreements, directly impacting the lives of those who stand at the forefront of our defense – the brave men and women of the U.S. Navy.
The Direct Impact on Military Families
The looming government shutdown poses a severe threat, not only to the functioning of various federal departments but more critically, to the sailors on the frontlines of the U.S. Navy. Such a shutdown would result in unpaid troops, causing hardships for military families who often live paycheck to paycheck. These families would be thrust into financial uncertainty, having to depend on savings, loans, or charity.
Operational Setbacks and Morale Decline
The ripple effects would also be felt in the operational readiness and morale of the Navy. Essential training sessions, drills, and exercises would face postponements or cancellations. This disruption could hamper sailors’ combat proficiency and the Navy’s strategic objectives in different global scenarios.
Community Engagement and International Commitments at Risk
Events like San Francisco’s Fleet Week, which boosts the Navy’s public engagement, could be adversely affected. Such disruptions tarnish the Navy’s image and hinder vital community interactions. Additionally, the Navy’s commitment to supporting nations like Ukraine, especially in light of ongoing external threats, could face roadblocks, potentially compromising defense capabilities. The modernization drives within the Navy, which focuses on new technologies and advanced systems, may also experience delays, giving adversaries potential advantages.
A Call for Congressional Responsibility
This shutdown is not just a failure on the part of leadership; it is an affront to those who dedicate their lives to safeguarding the nation. It’s imperative for Congress to rise above political impasses, pass the necessary budget, and ensure that national security and public service remain uncompromised. As the situation remains precarious, it’s essential to express solidarity with sailors and their families, lauding their unwavering commitment and hoping for a quick resolution to this crisis. In times like these, the nation must rally with a united voice, echoing the sentiment: “Don’t give up the ship!”
