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.
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!”
We at the Americans for a Stronger Navy are deeply concerned about the current situation in the Senate, where more than 300 military nominations are being blocked by a single senator. This unprecedented and irresponsible action is putting our national security and our naval capabilities at risk.
The Senate Hold: What Is It and Why Is It Happening?
A Senate hold is a parliamentary procedure that allows any senator to delay or prevent a vote on a nomination or a bill. It is not a rule, but a courtesy that the Senate leadership usually honors. However, it can also be abused for political or personal reasons.
That is what Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama is doing. He has placed a hold on more than 300 military nominations since February 2023, demanding that the Pentagon reverse its decision to cancel a contract with an Alabama company that was supposed to build a new missile defense system. The contract was canceled due to cost overruns, technical failures, and ethical violations.
Senator Tuberville claims that he is fighting for the jobs and the security of his state, but he is actually hurting the entire country and the military services that he claims to support. He is holding hostage the careers and the futures of hundreds of officers who have dedicated their lives to serving our nation.
The Impact of the Hold: How It Affects Our Military Services and Our National Security
Ladies and gentlemen, to tackle the national-security challenges of the 21st century, we need our Navy more than ever,” Austin said. “It’s especially vital in today’s world.”
As you may have heard, Admiral Michael Gilday, the Chief of Naval Operations, relinquished his command on Monday, August 14, after serving for four years as the Navy’s top admiral. He was praised by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin for his dedication to advancing American sea power at a critical time for global security.
However, his nominated successor, Admiral Lisa Franchetti, has not been confirmed by the Senate due to the hold imposed by Senator Tuberville. Franchetti, who has been serving as the Vice Chief of Naval Operations since September 2022, would become the first female CNO and the first woman on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, if confirmed.
She is not the only one affected by this hold. The Army and the Marine Corps are also operating without confirmed leaders, as General Randy George and General Eric Smith are also waiting for their confirmations. This is the first time in history that three military services are without Senate-confirmed chiefs.
This is unacceptable and dangerous. The hold is undermining our military readiness, hindering our ability to retain our best officers, and upending the lives of far too many military families. It is also hampering our efforts to deter conflict and keep the peace in the Indo-Pacific region, where we rely on our Navy to sail, fly, and operate wherever international law allows.
The Solution: How We Can End the Hold and Confirm Our Military Leaders
We urge Senator Tuberville to lift his hold immediately and allow these highly qualified and experienced officers to assume their rightful positions.
We also urge all senators to fulfill their constitutional duty and confirm these nominations without further delay. Our national security and our naval strength depend on it.
We thank Admiral Gilday for his service and his leadership, and we wish him all the best in his retirement. We also congratulate Admiral Franchetti on her nomination and we hope to see her confirmed soon as the next CNO.
We also ask you, our readers and supporters, to join us in this cause.
Introduction U.S. Senator Roger Wicker stressed the urgency for the U.S. to bolster its naval capabilities, given China’s growing naval threat. This issue isn’t merely military; it’s pivotal for our nation’s global standing.
Significance of a Strong U.S. Navy:
Historical Influence: America’s global prominence has long been linked to naval power.
Strategic Importance: A dominant Navy is crucial for deterrence, especially in the Western Pacific.
Lindsey Ford, deputy assistant secretary of defense for South and Southeast Asia, speaks with Navy Rear Adm. Mark Melson, commander, Logistics Group Western Pacific/Task Force 73, and Navy Capt. Frank Okata, Singapore Area Coordinator, about the amphibious transport dock ship USS John P. Murtha during a scheduled visit to Singapore Naval Installation, Jan. 17.
Dear Members and Subscribers,
We are excited to reach out to you today as Americans for a Stronger Navy, an organization dedicated to advocating for a robust and capable United States Navy. We believe that a strong navy is not only vital to our nation’s security but also plays a crucial role in safeguarding global stability and prosperity. Recent events have underscored the importance of our mission, and we want to share with you why this matters to each of us, our organization, the Navy, and the rest of the world.
The Changing Landscape:
The Indo-Pacific region, spanning vast territories and diverse nations, is at the forefront of global geopolitical challenges. We cannot ignore the rapid rise of China, which actively seeks to challenge the international rules-based order established after World War II. The United States, together with our allies and partners, must respond decisively to protect our interests, ensure regional stability, and uphold the principles that have guided us for decades.
The Role of the United States Navy:
The United States Navy has long been the cornerstone of American power projection and influence in the Indo-Pacific. It has played a pivotal role in maintaining peace and stability throughout the region. However, as the security environment evolves, so too must our naval capabilities and strategies. We need a strong and modern navy that can deter potential threats, protect our national interests, and respond effectively to emerging challenges.
What Just Took Place:
Recent developments have highlighted the urgency of this mission. The Center of Strategic and International Studies 2023 Indo-Pacific Conference shed light on the significance of our network of allies and friends in the region. It emphasized that our military presence has been a force for stability and prosperity, countering notions that it is destabilizing or provocative. Our allies and partners have expressed a keen interest in a more robust U.S. presence, reinforcing the importance of our role in the Indo-Pacific.
Our Advocacy and Your Support:
At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we are committed to advocating for a stronger United States Navy and a comprehensive strategy tailored to the Indo-Pacific. We believe that by strengthening our naval capabilities, enhancing alliances, and engaging with regional partners, we can effectively address the evolving challenges in the region. Our advocacy extends beyond military strength, as we recognize the significance of a multilateral approach that promotes dialogue, cooperation, and collective security.
Your support is crucial to our mission. By joining our cause, you contribute to the effort to bolster America’s naval capabilities and advance our nation’s strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific. Together, we can make a difference and ensure a secure future for ourselves, our allies, and the entire world.
Conclusion:
As we navigate an ever-changing world, a strong United States Navy remains essential to protect our interests, promote stability, and uphold the values we hold dear. Through our advocacy efforts, we aim to reinforce the significance of a robust naval presence in the Indo-Pacific and engage with our allies and partners to build a resilient security network. We invite you to join us in this critical endeavor and help shape a future where a stronger navy contributes to a safer and more prosperous world.
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy – D.r. Colin Kahl
Introduction
As the waves of change surge through the geopolitical landscape, America’s naval strength stands as an unyielding bulwark safeguarding peace and freedom. The recent journey undertaken by Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Dr. Colin Kahl to the Indo-Pacific, Republic of Korea, and Japan embodies a chapter in the tireless endeavor to reinforce maritime security. This article will unfurl the sails of Dr. Kahl’s voyage, underlining its crucial aspects and how it interlocks with the mission of Americans for a Stronger Navy – fostering a robust and dynamic U.S. naval force that secures American shores and maintains stability in international waters.
Summary
Dr. Colin Kahl’s diplomatic expedition across the Indo-Pacific, Republic of Korea, and Japan serves as a testament to the U.S. commitment in fortifying its naval capabilities and alliances. This article navigates through the key engagements and discussions that have set sail for an era of increased defense cooperation, regional stability, and an unwavering commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific.
Strengthening Ties with Indo-Pacific Command
In Hawaii, Under Secretary Kahl dived into significant engagements with senior officials at the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command. These discussions and site visits with U.S. military personnel are essential in gaining first-hand insights into the strategic challenges and triumphs in the region, setting the stage for future collaboration and maritime defense augmentation.
Solidifying the U.S.-ROK Alliance
Under Secretary Kahl’s rendezvous in the Republic of Korea (ROK) underscores the immense progress made in reinforcing extended deterrence through the U.S.-ROK Alliance. Visiting the Joint Security Area within the Demilitarized Zone, and attending a U.S.-ROK combined exercise, his journey illustrates the U.S.’s unwavering commitment to the defense of the ROK.
Historic Engagements in Japan
Japan, a vital ally, hosted Under Secretary Kahl as they discussed historic steps to strengthen and modernize the U.S.-Japan Alliance. This partnership has been the cornerstone of peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region, and his visit exemplifies the U.S.’s dedication to cementing this bond further.
Networking Alliances for Mutual Security
Under Secretary Kahl’s planned engagements addressed mutual security challenges, providing avenues to escalate defense cooperation and networking with like-minded partners. This is a key step in establishing a cohesive front against any maritime threats.
Key Takeaways
Under Secretary Kahl’s trip underlines the importance of strong alliances in maintaining naval strength and regional stability.
Engagements with Indo-Pacific Command, Republic of Korea, and Japan emphasize the U.S.’s commitment to safeguarding peace and security.
Networking of alliances paves the way for a united front in maritime defense.
Conclusion
As the tides of uncertainty ebb and flow, a resolute and formidable U.S. naval force remains paramount. Dr. Colin Kahl’s diplomatic mission paints a vivid picture of America’s resolve to strengthen its alliances and maritime defense. The Americans for a Stronger Navy organization is steadfast in its mission, and this recent development embodies the very essence of what we stand for. We call upon our fellow Americans to hoist the flag of support and subscribe to be part of this noble cause. Together, as guardians of freedom and peace, let us chart a course for a secure and prosperous future.
Fort Liberty, North Carolina – In a significant move to support military and veteran spouses, caregivers, and survivors, President Biden signed a new executive order today at Fort Liberty, North Carolina. The executive order, one of the “most consequential” actions taken by the Biden administration, aims to strengthen economic opportunities for these individuals and ensure their inclusion in the workforce.
Accompanied by First Lady Dr. Jill Biden, President Biden emphasized the far-reaching impact of military service on families and commended the resilience and dedication of military spouses. The executive order’s provisions extend beyond military spouses of active service members to include veterans’ spouses, caregivers, and survivors, recognizing their unique challenges and contributions.
“We’re asking agencies to make it easier for spouses employed by the federal government to take administrative leave, telework, and move offices,” stated Dr. Jill Biden. “We’re creating resources to support entrepreneurs. And the executive order helps agencies and companies retain military spouses through telework or when they move abroad.”
The executive order, which has been in the works for over a year, encompasses various initiatives to enhance the hiring and retention of military and veterans’ spouses in federal government roles. Additionally, it promotes employment opportunities for these individuals outside the federal government, improves access to childcare for military families, and facilitates remote work options for military spouses stationed overseas.
Cara Abercrombie, deputy assistant to the president and the National Security Council’s coordinator for defense policy and arms control, outlined key components of the executive order. One of the primary actions is the development of a governmentwide strategic plan focused on the hiring and retention of military and veteran spouses, caregivers, and survivors. The plan will leverage the talents, experiences, and diversity of these individuals, emphasizing performance benchmarks and accountability.
Furthermore, federal agencies will include military spouse non-competitive appointment authority in their job postings. This streamlines the hiring process and enables expedited employment of qualified military spouses.
To address the challenges faced by military spouses, especially when their service members are deployed overseas, the executive order emphasizes the importance of telework options. It mandates agencies to establish governmentwide standards that facilitate remote work accessibility for military spouses residing with their service members stationed abroad.
Recognizing the significance of childcare for military families, the executive order calls for the implementation of dependent care flexible saving accounts for service members and the expansion of pathways for military spouses to provide home-based childcare on military installations.
Education for hiring managers is another crucial aspect of the executive order. It ensures that those responsible for hiring understand the unique circumstances and obstacles encountered by military and veterans’ spouses, caregivers, and survivors.
The executive order’s content was heavily influenced by the Joining Forces initiative, spearheaded by Dr. Jill Biden and former First Lady Michelle Obama in 2011. Joining Forces has engaged with military spouses nationwide over the past two years, actively seeking their input on the support needed to secure and maintain employment while caring for their families. The insights gained from these conversations have directly informed the provisions of the executive order.
“Filled with solutions inspired directly by the conversations Joining Forces had with the military-connected spouses and children because these families know what they need,” said Dr. Jill Biden.
The executive order marks a significant step toward providing better economic opportunities for military and veteran spouses, caregivers, and survivors. It highlights the administration’s commitment to supporting military families and seeks to engage employers across the country in recruiting and retaining this skilled and passionate community. Through flexible and portable opportunities, the executive order aims to empower these individuals and ensure their contributions are valued and recognized in the workforce.⁹
