Charting the Course Archives - Page 6 of 8 - Americans for a Stronger Navy

September 26, 2024September 26, 2024

Distributed Command and Control: Integrating Unmanned Systems for a Future-Ready Navy

Introduction

As we continue our deep dive into Project 33, we’ve seen how the Navy is actively investing in cutting-edge technologies like autonomous vehicles. We are fortunate to have insights from Dr. Steven Wills, Navalist at the Center for Maritime Strategy at the Navy League of the United States and Senior Advisor to Americans for a Stronger Navy. Dr. Wills, author of “Strategy Shelved: The Collapse of Cold War Naval Strategic Planning,” is an expert in U.S. Navy strategy and policy, particularly in surface warfare programs and platforms. Drawing from his extensive experience and research, Dr. Wills shared his thoughts on the progress and challenges of integrating unmanned systems into the Navy’s operations.

The Importance of Distributed Command and Control

At the heart of Project 33 is the concept of enabling our fleets to operate as a cohesive, yet dispersed, force capable of adapting to dynamic and complex threat environments. Command centers, such as Maritime Operations Centers (MOCs), play a crucial role in this distributed approach, serving as the nerve centers that link together various platforms, assets, and capabilities. To succeed in a high-end conflict, the Navy must have the ability to control and coordinate forces across vast distances, making use of both manned and unmanned systems.

Dr. Steven Wills’ Expert Insights on Unmanned Systems Integration

As Dr. Wills points out, “The MQ-25A is expected to be the basis for an unmanned strike aircraft to be fielded in the near future as the Navy seeks to make the carrier air wing 60% unmanned by 2035-2040.”

This development is a clear example of how the Navy is moving toward a more distributed, networked approach, where unmanned systems not only extend the reach of manned assets but also enhance their effectiveness.

Practical Impacts: The MQ-25A and Uncrewed Surface Ships

The introduction of the MQ-25A next year marks a pivotal step forward in Project 33’s implementation. This unmanned aerial refueling aircraft will eliminate the inefficient practice of “buddy tanking,” where F/A-18s are used as tankers, freeing them up for their primary combat missions. As Dr. Wills highlights, the MQ-25A’s deployment will significantly enhance the operational efficiency of carrier air wings, allowing for extended range and strike capabilities.

Similarly, the Navy’s uncrewed surface ship project is progressing, with plans to field uncrewed ships as additional missile magazines for our destroyers. This not only increases the fleet’s offensive and defensive capabilities but also reduces the risk to personnel, demonstrating how unmanned systems are seamlessly integrated into distributed operations.

The Human Element: Training and Maintenance

Dr. Steven Wills also offers an essential reminder that the adoption of unmanned systems doesn’t diminish the need for skilled sailors. Instead, it shifts the focus toward training personnel to maintain and repair these advanced systems. The Navy’s robotics initiative under Project 33 will require recruiting and training a new generation of sailors adept at operating and sustaining unmanned technologies, ensuring that we remain at the forefront of maritime innovation.

“The adoption of unmanned systems doesn’t diminish the need for skilled sailors. Instead, it shifts the focus toward training personnel to maintain and repair these advanced systems.” – Dr. Steven Wills

Why This Matters for Distributed Operations

The integration of unmanned systems is more than just adding new tools to the fleet—it’s about building a networked, adaptable force capable of responding to threats quickly and decisively. By incorporating autonomous vehicles into distributed command structures, the Navy gains flexibility, increased reach, and the ability to execute missions with greater precision and efficiency.

As Dr. Steven Wills rightly emphasizes, these advancements represent the future of naval warfare, where manned and unmanned assets work in concert to achieve strategic objectives.

Conclusion

Project 33’s emphasis on distributed command and control is a testament to the Navy’s commitment to preparing for future conflicts. By integrating unmanned systems like the MQ-25A and uncrewed surface ships, we’re not just enhancing the Navy’s capabilities—we’re fundamentally changing how we operate, ensuring that our fleets remain agile, adaptable, and ready for any challenge.

The road ahead will require continued investment, innovation, and the support of the American public. Together, we can ensure that the Navy remains a dominant force in an increasingly complex world. Please support the Navy and the Americans for Stronger Navy by following us on Facebook or by completing the contact us page by clicking here.

Dr. Wills, author of “Strategy Shelved: The Collapse of Cold War Naval Strategic Planning,” is available on Amazon. For details click here.

September 23, 2024September 23, 2024

Innovation at Sea: How Project 33 is Integrating Robotics and Autonomous Systems for a Stronger Navy

Introduction

In last week’s blog post, we introduced Project 33 as the U.S. Navy’s ambitious plan to prepare for the challenges of the future. This initiative, laid out in Admiral Franchetti’s Navigation Plan, is not just a strategy for modernization—it’s a call to action for all Americans to support our Navy in remaining the world’s leading maritime force. In this first installment of our series, we’ll explore one of the most exciting aspects of Project 33: the integration of robotic and autonomous systems, which promises to transform naval operations and maintain our edge in an ever-evolving threat landscape.

The Role of Robotics and Autonomous Systems in Modern Warfare

The integration of robotics and autonomous systems represents a game-changer for naval operations. These technologies will allow the Navy to extend its reach, increase efficiency, and reduce risks to personnel. As we face increasingly complex and multi-domain threats, the ability to leverage unmanned platforms is no longer a luxury—it’s a necessity.

Project 33 aims to transition from experimentation to the full operationalization of these systems, moving beyond mere testing to implementing them in real-world missions. This means that by 2027, robotic and autonomous systems will be routine assets in every deploying Carrier and Expeditionary Strike Group, expanding our capabilities and ensuring we remain a formidable force.

Examples of Robotics and Autonomous Systems in Action

Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs): These advanced underwater drones can perform a variety of missions, such as mine detection, surveillance, and reconnaissance, without putting sailors in harm’s way. Their ability to operate stealthily and for extended periods makes them invaluable in contested environments.
Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs): USVs can conduct patrols, surveillance, and even act as decoys in combat scenarios. By augmenting manned ships, they help extend the Navy’s operational reach and provide real-time data, giving commanders a clearer picture of the battlespace.
Autonomous Aerial Systems: From unmanned helicopters to drones that can refuel fighter jets mid-air, autonomous aerial systems offer a level of flexibility and adaptability that enhances the Navy’s ability to respond to emerging threats. These systems are already being tested in refueling operations, demonstrating how they can extend the operational range of manned aircraft.

Why This Matters for Our Navy and Nation

The integration of robotic and autonomous systems isn’t just about adding new technology—it’s about fundamentally changing how we fight and win. These systems allow the Navy to:

Operate in high-risk environments without endangering personnel.
Extend mission endurance and reach, providing more extensive surveillance and intelligence-gathering capabilities.
Multiply the effectiveness of our manned forces, enabling a single ship or aircraft to have a far greater impact on the battlespace.

Project 33’s Vision: Leading with Innovation

Admiral Franchetti’s vision for Project 33 is clear: by embracing cutting-edge technologies like robotics and autonomous systems, the Navy will maintain its advantage in an increasingly contested maritime environment. This is not just about keeping up with our adversaries—it’s about outpacing them.

Project 33 recognizes that technological superiority is a critical component of naval readiness. The ability to leverage AI-driven platforms and autonomous systems will ensure that our Navy remains agile, responsive, and capable of meeting any threat, anywhere in the world.

How You Can Support This Effort

It’s easy to see robotics and autonomous systems as distant or futuristic, but their successful integration into our Navy depends on the support of every American. Whether it’s advocating for necessary funding, educating others about the importance of naval readiness, or simply taking pride in the incredible innovation happening within our armed forces, your support is crucial.

Conclusion

The integration of robotics and autonomous systems under Project 33 represents the cutting edge of naval warfare. It’s a testament to the Navy’s commitment to remaining a leader in technological innovation and its readiness to face the challenges of the future. As we continue this series, we’ll explore other aspects of Project 33 and how they collectively contribute to building a stronger, more capable Navy.

Together, let’s rally behind our sailors and ensure they have the tools they need to protect our nation and defend freedom on the world’s oceans.

September 21, 2024September 21, 2024

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

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

A Strategic Focus on China

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

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

Project 33: Preparing for the Future

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

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

Facing Financial Constraints

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

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

The Broader Threat Landscape

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

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

A Call to Action

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

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

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

September 19, 2024September 19, 2024

Why the U.S. Navy Should Raise the Enlistment Age: Insights from Navy Veterans

Introduction

As the Coast Guard recently raised its enlistment age to 42, the conversation has sparked renewed interest among Navy veterans about whether the Navy should follow suit. In a recent survey conducted by Americans for a Stronger Navy, many former Navy veterans agreed that raising the enlistment age would be a step in the right direction to address recruitment shortfalls while filling critical technical and leadership roles.

The Need for Broader Recruitment
In an era of increasingly complex military operations, the Navy is faced with the dual challenge of recruiting more personnel while maintaining readiness. Raising the enlistment age could help the Navy reach a wider pool of potential recruits who bring not only maturity and discipline but also valuable civilian expertise, particularly in fields like cybersecurity, aviation, and engineering. This would allow the Navy to meet its manpower needs without compromising on the quality of recruits.

Insights from Veterans: Why Raising the Age Matters

Our survey of former Navy veterans revealed a strong consensus that the Navy should increase its enlistment age from 41 to at least 45. Veterans cited several reasons for their support, including:

Experience and Expertise: Many roles in today’s Navy require not just physical capability but technical expertise and life experience. Older recruits often bring a wealth of knowledge from their civilian careers that could be immediately applied in highly specialized areas.
Retention and Return of Prior Service Members: Former sailors are more likely to return if the Navy makes it easier for them to reenlist later in life. This ensures the Navy retains institutional knowledge and leadership capabilities that take years to develop.
Physical and Technical Balance: While physical fitness is important for all military branches, not every role in the Navy demands the same level of physical rigor as in ground combat. Older recruits can excel in areas like logistics, command and control, and technical maintenance roles, where mental acuity and decision-making are paramount.

Visualizing the Benefits

To further illustrate the insights gathered from veterans, below is a breakdown of the benefits of raising the enlistment age based on survey responses.

As the chart shows, the primary benefits cited by veterans include the recruitment of more experienced individuals, improved retention, and the ability to fill technical roles that are critical to modern naval operations.

Addressing Concerns About Physical Standards

One challenge often brought up in discussions about raising the enlistment age is whether older recruits can meet the Navy’s physical fitness standards. However, many veterans believe the Navy could adjust fitness standards based on the role being filled. While roles requiring peak physical fitness, such as Navy SEALs or shipboard operations, would maintain strict standards, technical and administrative positions could afford to prioritize experience over physical endurance.

Veterans’ Reasons for Supporting a Higher Enlistment Age

The following chart highlights the main reasons veterans support raising the enlistment age, emphasizing the importance of technical expertise and leadership experience.

Looking to the Future: Aligning with Modern Needs

By raising the enlistment age, the Navy would be tapping into a broader talent pool at a time when recruiting has become increasingly difficult. Other branches, like the Army and now the Coast Guard, have already adapted their recruiting strategies to reflect this reality. The Navy should lead in utilizing older, experienced recruits to help bridge the gap in technical skills, fill critical positions, and ensure our fleet is ready to face 21st-century challenges.

Conclusion: Veterans Support the Change

As the conversation continues around recruitment in the U.S. military, it’s clear that raising the enlistment age for the Navy would be a strategic move to address both immediate and long-term needs. The survey of former Navy veterans shows strong support for this change, and it could significantly benefit both the Navy and the nation it protects. By adapting its recruitment strategies, the Navy can continue to grow as a force that combines both physical readiness and the intellectual rigor needed to lead in an ever-evolving geopolitical landscape.

June 27, 2024June 27, 2024

Ocean Shipping Disruptions and Their Economic Impact on Americans

Introduction

As the founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy, I have encountered a few pushback from those who believe that the need for a stronger Navy is overstated and that current global situations are someone else’s problem. This perspective overlooks the critical role that a robust Navy plays in safeguarding our economic interests and national security. In light of recent disruptions in ocean shipping, it is crucial to understand why the vast majority of Americans support a stronger Navy and how it impacts our daily lives.

Why This Matters

Global supply chains are intricately connected, and disruptions in one part of the world can have far-reaching impacts. The Red Sea, a critical maritime route, has recently seen increased attacks, forcing vessels to divert and causing gridlock at key ports such as Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea, China, and parts of Europe. This congestion is reminiscent of the chaos experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the repercussions are already being felt across the logistics and shipping industries.

Key Takeaways

Rising Shipping Costs: The diversions and delays are leading to increased shipping costs. With vessels stuck waiting for berths and navigating longer routes, the cost of transporting goods is climbing rapidly.
Port Congestion: Ports are struggling to manage the influx of containers, leading to long wait times and operational inefficiencies. This congestion exacerbates delays and adds to the overall costs of shipping goods.
Supply Chain Delays: As ports become bottlenecks, the timely delivery of goods is compromised. This affects the availability of products on store shelves, especially as we head into the holiday season, traditionally a peak period for consumer spending.Implications for the U.S. Navy

Implications for the U. S. Navy

Drawing from Alfred Mahan’s principles of sea power, the current instability in the Red Sea underscores the importance of maintaining control over critical maritime routes. The U.S. Navy’s presence in these regions ensures the security of trade routes, thereby safeguarding the global economy and national interests. Mahan emphasized that control of the seas, especially through a formidable navy, is crucial not only for wartime dominance but also for peacetime economic influence.

Implications for America

The economic implications of these disruptions are multifaceted:

Increased Consumer Prices: The rising costs of shipping are often passed down to consumers. Whether it’s electronics, clothing, or everyday household items, Americans will likely see higher prices at the checkout counter.
Inflationary Pressures: As transportation costs rise, so do the prices of goods. This can contribute to broader inflationary pressures, impacting the overall cost of living.
Business Costs: Companies that rely on imported goods face higher operational costs. These businesses may need to increase prices to maintain margins, further affecting consumer prices.
Supply Chain Reliability: The reliability of supply chains is crucial for economic stability. Persistent delays and disruptions can lead to stock shortages, affecting businesses’ ability to meet consumer demand and potentially leading to lost sales and revenue.

Lessons from Alfred Mahan

Nicholas Lambert’s book, “The Neptune Factor,” reexamines Mahan’s theories, arguing that sea power is not just about military might but also economic influence. Alfred Thayer Mahan, a prominent American naval officer and historian, is best known for his influential book, “The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783.” Mahan’s groundbreaking ideas emphasized the strategic importance of a formidable naval presence to deter potential adversaries and ensure economic prosperity through control of maritime trade routes. Lambert emphasizes the need to integrate new technologies, such as cybersecurity and unmanned vehicles, and address environmental threats to maintain maritime dominance and economic security.

What Can Be Done?

To mitigate these impacts, several measures can be taken:

Diversifying Supply Chains: Companies can explore alternative routes and suppliers to reduce dependency on any single shipping lane.
Investing in Infrastructure: Enhancing port infrastructure and technology can improve efficiency and reduce congestion.
Policy Measures: Governments can play a role in ensuring maritime security and supporting international efforts to stabilize regions like the Red Sea.

Conclusion

Current disruptions in ocean shipping underscore the vulnerability of global supply chains to geopolitical events. As Americans, understanding these connections is crucial. The economic ripple effects—from increased consumer prices to broader inflationary pressures—highlight the importance of resilient and adaptive strategies in both business and policy.

By addressing these challenges proactively, we can better navigate the complexities of a globalized economy and ensure stability and prosperity for all.

Drawing from Mahan’s insights, we must recognize that sea power encompasses both military strength and economic influence. Maintaining a robust naval presence and addressing modern challenges is essential for safeguarding our economic security and way of life.

May 8, 2024May 10, 2024

Americans for a Stronger Navy Charts a Course to Enhance U.S. Navy Recruitment and Rekindle Civic Duty

The U.S. Navy faces a critical challenge: attracting the next generation of sailors. Americans for a Stronger Navy, a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting a robust U.S. Navy, today released a comprehensive study titled “Charting the Course: Navigating the Future of Naval Power – A Comprehensive Study on Enhancing U.S. Navy Recruitment and Civic Duty.”

The study investigates the challenges hindering naval recruitment and proposes a collaborative strategy to strengthen recruitment efforts and foster a national culture of service.

“The U.S. Navy has a long and distinguished tradition of safeguarding our nation’s security”, stated Dale A. Jenkins, Senior Advisor of Americans for a Stronger Navy and Author of Diplomats and Admirals. “However, a complex landscape of societal shifts, evolving public perceptions, and administrative hurdles is creating challenges in attracting the next generation of sailors.”

The six-month study, conducted by Americans for a Stronger Navy, employed a multifaceted approach, including data analysis, surveys, and engagement with Navy personnel. The findings highlight several key challenges:

Shifting Eligibility Landscape: Our study identifies a shift in youth eligibility for Navy service due to evolving physical and mental health standards. The Navy is committed to maintaining a strong and qualified applicant pool while adapting to these changes. While solutions like a thorough review process exist, these adaptations may impact processing timelines. The full report offers a detailed analysis of these trends and the Navy’s ongoing efforts to ensure a smooth and efficient recruitment experience.

Competitive Landscape: A strong economy with attractive civilian opportunities, coupled with competition from other branches of the military, presents a significant challenge. A detailed breakdown of this concerning trend and its contributing factors can be found in the full report.

Civic Duty: A Cornerstone of Naval Service Revealed by the Study

The essence of naval service transcends the boundaries of mere duty; it embodies a profound commitment to the nation and its values, as highlighted by our study. Emphasizing civic duty within our recruitment narrative is crucial in inspiring a sense of responsibility and pride among potential recruits.

Negative Public Image: Media portrayals and public misconceptions about Navy service can be discouraging for potential recruits. A detailed breakdown of this concerning trend and its contributing factors can be found in the full report.

Engagement and Collaboration:

Fostering Support from Business, Industry, and Education: By partnering with business, industry, and education centers, we amplify our message and showcase the Navy’s pivotal role in humanitarian missions and national defense.

Pride of Serving: The Heart of Our Navy

Pride in serving within the Navy is fueled by the honor, courage, and commitment that define our sailors. To cultivate and communicate this pride, we recommend sharing personal stories and testimonials from current and former sailors that reflect the pride and fulfillment derived from naval service.

Rekindling a Spirit of Service

The study proposes a multi-pronged approach to address these challenges and enhance U.S. Navy recruitment:

Rekindle Pride in Service: Cultivate a national narrative emphasizing the Navy’s vital role in national security and the honor of serving. Counteract negativity through targeted messaging and showcasing success stories.
Streamline Pre-MEPS Processing: Implement process improvements and technology solutions to expedite the transition between recruitment offices and MEPS, enhancing the candidate experience and reducing wait times.

Ongoing Considerations:

As part of our commitment to continuously adapt and enhance recruitment strategies, we are conducting an exploratory survey on the feasibility of raising the enlistment age to 45. This initiative, driven by feedback from our veteran community, aims to gather diverse perspectives and assess how this change could further enrich our recruitment pool and address the evolving needs of naval service. This survey reflects our proactive approach to exploring all avenues that may contribute to a resilient and dynamic naval force.

By working together, we can ensure the U.S. Navy remains a powerful and resilient force. We invite all Americans to join us in this critical endeavor. By reigniting pride in service and implementing these strategic recommendations, we can build a strong and diverse naval force for the future.

Join us in this pivotal mission to strengthen the U.S. Navy and reshape Navy recruitment and civic duty. Become an active part of our community by getting involved, sharing your unique story, or deepening your understanding through our dedicated campaign. Subscribe today to stay informed and connected. Together, we can build a resilient and vibrant future for our naval forces, ensuring they continue to excel in serving and protecting our nation.

For a detailed copy of the study including an executive summary, please contact us. We’re ready to provide you with comprehensive insights into our findings and recommendations.

April 10, 2024April 12, 2024

Navigating the Waters: The U.S. Navy’s Divest-to-Invest Strategy and Its Implications

Introduction

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.

April 8, 2024April 8, 2024

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

Introduction

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

The Heart of the Matter

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

The Delays Unpacked:

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

Implications for Strategic Readiness:

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

Charting a Course Forward

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

A Call to Action

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

Conclusion

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

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

April 6, 2024April 8, 2024

Navigating the Waves: A Realistic Approach to Strengthening Our Navy

As the founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy, I’ve always believed in the power of informed dialogue and unbiased facts to guide our advocacy.

With each post, we peel back another layer of the complexities surrounding our Navy’s readiness and capabilities. Today, more than ever, we stand at a critical juncture where our collective understanding and action can significantly impact the future of American naval power.

I’m committed to this journey and invite you to join me in this crucial dialogue for our nation’s security and prosperity.

In our ongoing exploration of the U.S. Navy’s budgetary landscape, a recent development has surfaced that underscores the intricate balance between strategic imperatives and fiscal realities. The decision to request funding for only one Virginia-class submarine in the fiscal 2025 budget is a stark reminder of the challenges we face in maintaining a formidable and ready fleet.

Understanding the Budgetary Landscape

Reflecting on our previous discussions, we recognize the imperative of clear requirements and strategic foresight in navigating the Navy’s budget allocations. The geopolitical landscape is ever-evolving, and with it, the demands on our naval forces. This backdrop sets the stage for our analysis of the latest budgetary decision and its implications for the future of American naval power.

The Virginia-Class Submarine Decision: A Case Study

Russell Rumbaugh, the Navy’s senior civilian overseeing financial management, emphasizes that the budget cut was not a political maneuver but a decision grounded in operational realities. This move is not about playing budgetary games but about facing the hard truths of our current capabilities and industrial limitations.

The implications of such decisions ripple through our defense ecosystem, affecting suppliers, manufacturers, and the broader defense industrial base. It highlights the perennial challenge of planning and scaling in an environment of fiscal uncertainty—a theme we’ve touched upon and that resonates deeply within the defense community.

Evaluating Strengthening Plans in Light of New Developments

Our commitment to evaluating the Navy’s strengthening plans through a multi-faceted lens remains unwavering. The recent submarine budget decision brings to light the critical balance between innovation and fiscal discipline. How does this decision impact fleet capabilities, cost-effectiveness, and alignment with our strategic objectives? These are questions we must ponder and debate.

Moreover, this decision must be contextualized within the broader tapestry of naval modernization efforts, including the DDG(X) program and the advent of unmanned systems. Each initiative, each program carries its weight in shaping the contours of our future fleet.

Seeking Balanced Perspectives and Moving Forward

In keeping with our ethos, we strive for a balanced and comprehensive discourse, drawing from a wide spectrum of perspectives. The dialogue around the Navy’s force structure and shipbuilding cadence is complex, with varying viewpoints on the path forward. As we dissect these decisions and their broader implications, we remain anchored in our mission to foster an informed and engaged community.

Conclusion and Call to Action

The journey toward a stronger Navy is fraught with challenges, but it is a journey we must undertake with resolve and insight. The decisions we scrutinize today will shape the maritime landscape of tomorrow. Let us continue this conversation with openness and a commitment to understanding the depth of these strategic decisions.

I encourage you to share your thoughts, feedback, and insights on this topic. Engage with us on our social media platforms and become an active voice in this vital dialogue. Together, we can navigate through the complexities and champion a stronger, more resilient Navy for our future.

March 25, 2024March 25, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

Building a Stronger Navy

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

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

Evaluating Strengthening Plans

This framework focuses on several key criteria:

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

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

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

Examining Existing Programs

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

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

Seeking Balanced Perspectives

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

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

Moving Forward

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

Call to Action

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