A Quarter Millennium of Service On October 13, 1775, the Continental Congress resolved to establish a swift sailing vessel armed with carriage guns to defend American commerce from British forces. From that moment, the United States Navy was born. Two and a half centuries later, the Navy remains at the heart of American security and prosperity.
This week, despite a government shutdown that has paused some ceremonies, the Navy will celebrate its 250th birthday in Philadelphia — the city where both the Navy and Marine Corps trace their roots. Ships will parade on the Delaware River, bands will play, and the public will tour vessels new and old, from USS Arlington to the historic battleship New Jersey. Flyovers, displays, football, and fireworks will honor the sailors who have stood the watch in times of peace, crisis, and war.
Heritage and Resilience The Navy’s legacy is rich with examples of ingenuity and determination. We’ve told the story of USS R-14, whose crew in 1921 literally sailed their submarine home when fuel ran out. We’ve revisited Midway, where pilots flew through chaos and confusion to deliver a decisive victory. We’ve remembered Cold War destroyer sailors who carried out missions day after day with little fanfare but enormous consequences.
These stories remind us that the Navy’s strength lies not only in steel, but in sailors — their resilience, creativity, and courage.
Doing More With Less Today, we ask much of those sailors. The U.S. Navy remains the most powerful in the world by tonnage and capability, but it is no longer the largest by sheer numbers. Our adversaries are building at speed, while we face strained shipyards, aging infrastructure, and stretched resources.
As Vice Adm. John Gumbleton said ahead of the 250th celebrations, the heritage of “mighty warships and service members who sailed proudly at sea” continues today. But heritage and resilience are not enough without investment. Our sailors are doing more with less — and that cannot remain the strategy for America’s future.
Why Americans Should Care The oceans are lifelines of trade, energy, and security. A strong Navy keeps those lifelines secure and deters those who would threaten them. Philadelphia may be the birthplace of the Navy, but the mission it carries belongs to all Americans.
A Call to Action Happy 250th, U.S. Navy. We honor your past, salute your sailors, and celebrate your legacy. But the best way to mark this anniversary is to ensure the next 250 years are just as strong. That means supporting shipbuilding, revitalizing industry, and giving our sailors the tools they need to prevail.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
The nuclear-powered guided-missile submarine USS Ohio recently arrived at Subic Bay in the Philippines, underscoring America’s commitment to allies and to a free and open Indo-Pacific. Capable of launching up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles, Ohio is one of the most formidable strike platforms in the U.S. arsenal. Its appearance follows the deployment of China’s newest aircraft carrier, CNS Fujian, which has been conducting tests near Hainan Island.
The port call at Subic Bay—once the U.S. Navy’s largest overseas base—comes at a time when maritime disputes between China and the Philippines have escalated, especially around contested waters in the South China Sea.
Why This Matters The U.S. Navy’s submarine force remains one of the most credible deterrents against Chinese naval ambitions. Analysts note that American submarine capability is seen as the primary threat vector for the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). While China invests heavily in anti-submarine warfare, the U.S. maintains the advantage in stealth, firepower, and global reach.
By positioning Ohio at Subic Bay, the U.S. highlights the strategic role of the Philippines within the First Island Chain—a defensive line stretching from Japan through Taiwan and the Philippines into the South China Sea. This network of alliances forms the geographic anchor of American naval strategy in the Pacific.
Implications for the Navy For the U.S. Navy, forward deployment of submarines in contested waters provides:
Flexible strike capability: Rapid response to crises with precision-guided weapons.
Special operations support: Stealth platforms for insertion of SEALs or Marine units.
Strategic messaging: Visible reassurance to allies and a reminder to Beijing that the U.S. retains unmatched undersea dominance.
The routine but highly symbolic visit to Subic Bay reflects a balance between operational necessity and diplomatic signaling. Whether or not Ohio conducts exercises with the Philippine Navy, its very presence strengthens deterrence.
Implications for Our Allies For the Philippines, hosting Ohio marks another step in strengthening defense ties with Washington after years of uncertainty. For Australia—where Ohio also made a port call earlier this year—the deployment aligns with AUKUS ambitions to enhance collective submarine capability. Together, these moves demonstrate that the U.S. Navy is not acting alone, but rather as part of a broader coalition determined to counter coercion and preserve maritime freedom.
Why Americans Should Care The South China Sea is not a distant problem—it is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. Roughly one-third of global trade, including vital energy supplies and consumer goods bound for American shores, flows through these waters. If China were to dominate or restrict access, the ripple effects would hit American families and industries directly.
Maintaining a credible U.S. Navy presence in the Indo-Pacific is about more than military balance—it is about protecting the lifelines of our economy and ensuring peace through strength.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
Overview The United States is increasing its forward military presence near China by deploying Marine forces aboard the expeditionary sea base ship USS Miguel Keith. This afloat platform extends the reach of the Marine Rotational Force-Darwin (MRF-D), based in northern Australia, across the contested island chains of the western Pacific. This move underscores Washington’s commitment to countering Beijing’s growing influence and military footprint in the Indo-Pacific.
The Island Chain Strategy At the heart of this deployment lies the U.S. island chain strategy: three north-south defensive lines stretching across the Pacific. By leveraging allied territory and naval access points, the U.S. can project power, deter aggression, and defend against potential Chinese military action. The second island chain, where the USS Miguel Keith is homeported in Saipan, plays a pivotal role in supporting operations deeper into the Pacific.
Why This Matters Operating from a sea base offers the Marines flexibility and unpredictability. Unlike fixed land bases, the Miguel Keith allows U.S. forces to maneuver rapidly across archipelagic terrain and forward locations ashore, complicating adversary planning. This is especially important at a time when Chinese forces are building out anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities designed to push U.S. forces farther from contested waters.
Recent Exercises The deployment follows recent exercises across the first and second island chains:
Exercise Alon 25 in the Philippines (August 15–29).
Exercise Super Garuda Shield 25 in Indonesia (August 25–September 4).
These multinational drills reinforced cooperation with allies, improved readiness, and signaled a unified front in the region.
Implications for the Navy The Navy’s role in enabling sea-based expeditionary operations is central. With amphibious ships like the USS New Orleans temporarily out of service due to fire damage, expeditionary sea bases provide a critical stopgap. They allow Marines and sailors to continue distributed operations, demonstrating the Navy’s adaptability in keeping forward presence credible.
Implications for Our Allies For Australia, the Philippines, and Indonesia, U.S. deployments reinforce security guarantees. The Marines’ message, as articulated by Colonel Jason Armas, was clear: America and its allies “stand ready to maneuver, sustain and fight as one force.” This is reassurance at a time of rising Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea and beyond.
Why Americans Should Care This is not simply a faraway deployment. The Pacific is a lifeline for U.S. trade, energy, and global communications infrastructure. Securing these waters ensures that Americans at home continue to benefit from stable supply chains and open sea lanes. A failure to hold the line in the Pacific would ripple into our economy and national security alike.
Closing Call As the U.S. strengthens its presence in the Indo-Pacific, the question is not whether we can afford to maintain this posture, but whether we can afford not to. A stronger Navy and Marine Corps presence ensures deterrence, protects trade, and preserves peace.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
How a 2012 Diplomatic Misfire Sparked a Decade of Chinese Defiance
The Current Flashpoint
Scarborough Shoal is back in the headlines — and with it, so are the warnings.
In September 2025, a Chinese vessel rammed a Philippine resupply boat near the shoal. In response, the U.S. Navy sailed a destroyer directly through the contested waters. The confrontation was brief, but the message was unmistakable: tensions are rising, and the risks are multiplying.
For many Americans, this reef barely registers. But this isn’t just a dust-up between distant nations. It’s a test of American resolve — and a moment that traces directly back to 2012.
2012: A Standoff Mishandled
That year, China and the Philippines faced off at Scarborough Shoal in a tense maritime standoff over fishing rights and territorial claims. The United States stepped in as a broker, aiming to de-escalate. Both nations were expected to withdraw their vessels.
Only one did.
The Philippines pulled back. China did not. And the United States — despite brokering the deal — failed to enforce the agreement or respond meaningfully.
To this day, Chinese ships remain at Scarborough Shoal, effectively taking control. This incident became a turning point in Beijing’s maritime aggression — and a chilling message to U.S. allies in Asia.
Why It Mattered Then — And Still Does
The 2012 failure sent a signal: U.S. guarantees could be questioned.
Philippine public trust eroded. Within a few years, President Duterte pivoted toward China, prioritizing economic deals over alignment with the U.S.
Meanwhile, China accelerated its militarization of the South China Sea — building artificial islands, expanding its maritime militia, and flexing its growing naval power.
What started as a fishing rights dispute became a global credibility crisis.
Now, a Decade Later…
Today’s confrontation is more than a replay. It’s a test of whether the U.S. has learned anything since 2012.
This time, the U.S. Navy showed up. But questions linger:
Will American resolve hold under pressure?
Can alliances like AUKUS and the U.S.-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty deter escalation?
And do Americans even understand how this reef connects to larger global stakes?
We’ve been here before. We got it wrong then. The consequences are still unfolding.
Why Americans Should Care
Scarborough Shoal isn’t just a reef. It’s a litmus test — for American credibility, regional stability, and the rule of law at sea.
If the U.S. fails to hold the line here, what message does that send to Taiwan, our allies, or our adversaries?
This series breaks it down in plain language — so Americans understand what’s at stake before it’s too late.
What’s Next in the Series
In the next post, we’ll dive into the 2016 international tribunal ruling, how China ignored it, and why this defiance matters not just for the Philippines, but for the future of international order.
We’re connecting the dots between today’s maritime flashpoints and tomorrow’s strategic risks — and making the case for a stronger Navy, an informed public, and a unified voice.
Visit StrongerNavy.org to follow the series and learn more.
China and Russia are pushing closer to our northern doorstep — and Alaska is the front line.
Introduction
Over the past year, U.S. Coast Guard cutters have repeatedly intercepted foreign “research” ships operating just beyond the 200-mile line off Alaska’s Arctic coast. At the same time, the U.S. Navy has kept up under-ice submarine operations, while Russian aircraft test our air defense zone and Sino-Russian flotillas sail through the Bering Strait.
Map Legend Dashed Red Lines – Patrol routes and foreign vessel tracks monitored by the U.S. Coast Guard near Alaska’s Arctic coast. Solid Blue Lines – Projected Arctic shipping lanes, including the Northern Sea Route (along Russia) and emerging trans-Arctic corridors. Shaded Blue Zone – Exercise Northern Edge 2025 training areas, where U.S. and allied forces conducted joint, multi-domain operations. Black Ship Icons – Locations of recent intercepts of foreign “research” vessels near Utqiaġvik. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) – U.S. waters extending 200 nautical miles from Alaska’s coast, where America exercises sovereign rights over resources.
The takeaway is simple: America’s Arctic is no longer quiet. It’s contested.
Why Americans Should Care Alaska is not a remote outpost. It is our Arctic front yard, rich in resources, with thousands of miles of shoreline and a narrow strait that connects the Pacific to the Arctic. When Chinese “research” vessels map our seabeds or Russian aircraft enter the Air Defense Identification Zone, they’re probing how close they can get to our homeland. What happens off Alaska affects energy security, trade routes, and even the protection of undersea cables that carry the world’s internet traffic.
RAND’s latest study underscores this point. In The Future of Maritime Presence in the Central Arctic Ocean (July 2025), RAND concludes that as sea ice retreats, the Arctic will draw in both Arctic and non-Arctic actors for economic, political, and military gain. They warn that competition will intensify in phases: first commercial, then political, and ultimately strategic. For the U.S., that means maritime presence is not optional — it is essential to prevent rivals from dictating the rules of the Arctic.
Implications for the Navy Day-to-day patrols fall to the Coast Guard, which provides the only regular surface presence in the Arctic. But the Navy’s role is no less critical. Its submarines operate beneath the ice, practicing for deterrence and warfighting in a domain where rivals are gaining ground. The Navy also views Alaska as part of the defense-in-depth of the United States — the first line of detection and deterrence against missile submarines, long-range bombers, and other threats moving south from the Arctic.
This year’s Northern Edge 2025 exercise made that point clear. More than 6,400 U.S. and Canadian service members, 100 aircraft, and seven warships, including USS Abraham Lincoln and her carrier strike group, trained across Alaska. Running alongside Arctic Edge, the exercises brought together INDOPACOM and NORTHCOM to practice joint, multi-domain operations — from the Aleutians to Adak. In other words: Alaska is not just about defending the homeland, it is a launchpad for projecting U.S. power into the Indo-Pacific.
The challenge remains that America’s icebreaker fleet is thin, while Russia operates dozens and China fields new polar-capable vessels. Without recapitalization and greater presence, the U.S. risks falling behind in its own backyard. RAND echoes this warning: presence and infrastructure — from icebreakers to domain awareness — are key to avoiding strategic surprise.
Implications for Our Allies The Arctic is no longer an American issue alone. NATO allies — Canada, Denmark, Norway — all face the same northern pressure. China brands itself a “near-Arctic state” and seeks influence in waters that directly border allied territory. Coordinated exercises like Northern Edge and Arctic Edge are proof that alliances matter. Shared domain awareness and investment in icebreaking and seabed security will be vital. If America steps back, allies are left exposed — and adversaries will fill the gap.
The Bottom Line Alaska’s Arctic waters are an overlooked but critical front in U.S. homeland defense. The Coast Guard may be on point, but the Navy’s presence under the ice and in the chokepoints is just as important. Together, they demonstrate that the U.S. is watching, ready, and committed to protecting its northern approaches.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
A Cautionary Tale for U.S. Naval Planners and Taxpayers
Bill Cullifer, Founder
Introduction
For decades, America chased profits by partnering with China — transferring technology and know-how that supercharged Beijing’s rise. Today, we could risk repeating that same mistake: putting quick Silicon Valley paydays ahead of America’s long-term security.
This is not about scoring points against Silicon Valley. It’s about ensuring America does not repeat the mistakes of the past — short-term profits and quick fixes that left China stronger and our Navy weaker — as someone who has seen these dynamics firsthand.
For those who have followed our work at Americans for a Stronger Navy, you know we believe America’s security, economy, and way of life depend on having the most capable fleet in the world. But capability isn’t measured in dollars spent or headlines about “innovation” — it’s measured in performance, reliability, and the safety of our sailors.
The latest reporting from Reuters makes clear we are falling catastrophically short, and that should alarm every American. Yes, bad news sells — but in this case, the bad news matters, because it reveals deeper failures in how America develops and fields naval technology — failures with life-and-death consequences.
When “Move Fast and Break Things” Breaks Lives
Recent tests off the California coast read like a Silicon Valley nightmare at sea. In one, a drone vessel stalled dead in the water while another smashed into its side, vaulting over the deck before crashing back into the sea. In another, a support boat capsized when the autonomous craft it was towing suddenly accelerated, throwing its captain into the ocean.
These aren’t beta test glitches. They’re life-threatening failures happening while China builds the largest navy in the world — and they’re funded by your tax dollars.
Testing vs. Accountability
Some will argue that testing is supposed to reveal problems — that dramatic failures are part of the process. They’re absolutely right that we need aggressive testing, not risk-aversion that slows innovation. But there’s a crucial difference between finding software bugs and throwing captains into the ocean. The same Silicon Valley companies that conduct exhaustive beta testing and gradual rollouts for consumer apps seem content to discover basic safety flaws during live Navy tests with human crews.
We’re not calling for less testing or slower innovation — we’re calling for the same rigorous pre-deployment standards these companies apply to their consumer products. If they can test a new iPhone feature through multiple phases before it reaches users, they can ensure autonomous boats won’t suddenly accelerate and capsize support vessels.
The Billion-Dollar Boondoggle
Defense startups with multi-billion-dollar valuations churn out drones by the dozen. Contractors take in hundreds of millions for autonomy software and systems that still stall, crash, and misfire. The culture of “fail fast” has migrated from app stores to the high seas — and our sailors are paying the price.
Bottom line: venture capitalists and defense contractors are getting rich while the Navy struggles to field systems that won’t sink, crash, or kill our crews.
History’s Warning — Don’t Hand China the Keys
We’ve been here before. In the late Cold War, the Navy realized that simply matching the Soviets ship-for-ship in Europe wasn’t enough. Leaders like John Lehman pushed a bold maritime strategy — using U.S. carrier groups to threaten the Soviet flanks, forcing Moscow to defend everywhere at once. That clarity of purpose built political support for a 600-ship Navy and helped secure the peace.
Today, by contrast, we risk drifting into the opposite: building expensive systems without a clear strategy, while China launches warships at breakneck pace. If Taiwan falls, Beijing won’t just seize an island — it will gain a springboard into the Central Pacific, threatening the Philippines, Guam, Hawaii, and the global sea lanes our prosperity depends on. That is the equivalent of handing China the keys to the Pacific.
The Tech Transfer Trap
For decades, Silicon Valley helped fuel China’s rise — chasing profits through partnerships, supply chains, and research deals that handed Beijing advanced technologies. That short-sightedness supercharged the very military now challenging America at sea. And today, the same ecosystem is cashing Pentagon checks while delivering half-finished products to the U.S. Navy.
Silicon Valley’s Responsibility
Palantir CEO Alex Karp recently said Silicon Valley must “fight for America.” We agree. But fighting for America means more than signing billion-dollar contracts — it means delivering technology that works, that protects sailors’ lives, and that strengthens deterrence in the Pacific. Anything less is not fighting for America; it’s profiting while our fleet falls behind.
We’ve seen how this plays out before: decades of short-sighted deals and technology transfers helped supercharge China’s rise. The result? Beijing got stronger, American taxpayers footed the bill, and now our Navy struggles with half-finished systems at sea. If Silicon Valley truly wants to defend America, it must also own its share of responsibility — and prove it by getting this right.
More Than Money — Lives and Liberty
This isn’t some procurement squabble over cost overruns. Every software glitch puts crews in mortal danger. Every failed deployment leaves the Pacific more vulnerable and our allies questioning American resolve. Every wasted dollar is one not spent on the ships, submarines, and systems actually needed to secure trade routes, defend allies, and deter Beijing.
Just look at Scarborough Shoal, where Chinese vessels recently rammed and water-cannoned Philippine boats in defiance of international law. Or the swarms of “maritime militia” Beijing deploys daily to choke off its neighbors’ fishing grounds and shipping routes. These are not distant hypotheticals — they are live-fire tests of American resolve. While our drones crash into each other off California, China is rewriting the rules of the Pacific, one confrontation at a time.
While executives celebrate unicorn valuations in Silicon Valley, Chinese naval forces are conducting increasingly aggressive patrols in the South China Sea. While venture capitalists debate which startup deserves their next hundred million, China launches new warships at a pace that would have impressed World War II shipbuilders.
Demand Better — Or Lose Everything
America doesn’t need more press releases about “revolutionary defense innovation.” It needs results. Innovation is vital — America must harness Silicon Valley’s ingenuity — but innovation without accountability isn’t strength, it’s surrender. We are not calling for less innovation — we are calling for better innovation that delivers results worthy of the stakes.
We need accountability that goes beyond pausing contracts after people nearly die. We need a defense industrial base that prioritizes mission success over market valuations.
Don’t expect the mainstream press to frame this correctly — they’ll blame the Navy. But this isn’t on the sailors, the admirals, or the Navy’s acquisition officers working with the systems they’re given. This is on the defense contractors and tech companies who took taxpayer money promising cutting-edge capability and delivered dangerous prototypes instead.
America’s Naval Advantage — If We Seize It
Make no mistake: America still holds the cards to dominate the seas for decades to come. We have the world’s most innovative tech sector, the deepest capital markets, and the most experienced naval force on the planet. What we need is to stop letting Silicon Valley treat the U.S. Navy like a beta testing ground while they perfect their systems.
The same ecosystem that built the internet, revolutionized computing, and put rovers on Mars can absolutely build the world’s most capable autonomous naval fleet — if we demand they bring their A-game instead of their rough drafts. When SpaceX decided to take astronauts seriously, they revolutionized spaceflight. When Silicon Valley takes sailors seriously, they’ll revolutionize naval warfare.
This isn’t about stifling innovation — it’s about unleashing it properly. The companies cashing these Pentagon checks have proven they can build reliable, game-changing technology when their reputation depends on it. Now their reputation should depend on keeping our sailors safe and our Navy superior.
Most of all, we need Americans to demand better — because the alternative to demanding excellence isn’t just wasted money or embarrassing headlines. It’s watching China’s growing fleet face no credible opposition in the waters that secure our prosperity. But that’s not inevitable. America can still build the world’s most dominant navy — we just need to stop accepting second-rate work from first-rate companies.
The stakes are nothing less than our security, our economy, and our future. It’s time to make waves.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter—a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
The U.S. Navy has quietly achieved a significant milestone in maritime defense with the operational deployment of cutting-edge counter-drone systems aboard the USS Bainbridge. Recent photographs taken on July 27, 2025, during NATO’s Neptune Strike exercise in the Ionian Sea, show the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer equipped with new Raytheon Coyote interceptor launchers—marking the first confirmed installation of these advanced systems on a U.S. Navy destroyer.
A Strategic Response to Evolving Threats
This development represents more than just a technological upgrade; it’s a direct response to the changing nature of maritime warfare. The Navy’s decision to equip destroyers with Coyote and Anduril Roadrunner-M counter-drone systems stems from harsh lessons learned in recent conflicts, particularly the Red Sea operations against Houthi drone attacks.
The cost-effectiveness issue has been stark: Navy ships were using multimillion-dollar Standard Missiles to intercept drones costing mere thousands of dollars. As one defense analyst noted, this created an unsustainable economic equation that threatened to drain naval missile magazines against relatively inexpensive threats.
Technical Capabilities and Advantages
The Coyote system brings several key advantages to naval defense:
Loitering Capability: Unlike traditional missiles that follow a direct intercept path, Coyote interceptors can loiter in designated areas, providing persistent coverage and the ability to engage multiple threats dynamically.
Cost-Effective Defense: Each Coyote interceptor costs significantly less than traditional surface-to-air missiles, making them ideal for countering low-cost drone swarms.
Flexible Deployment: The system’s ability to be launched from standard sonobuoy canisters provides installation flexibility across various naval platforms.
The companion Roadrunner-M system offers additional capabilities, including the revolutionary ability to return to base for reuse if not deployed against a target—a feature that further improves cost-effectiveness.
Operational Context and Deployment
The USS Bainbridge is one of three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers currently assigned to the Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group, alongside the USS Winston S. Churchill and USS Mitscher. This strike group represents a testing ground for these new defensive capabilities, with the Churchill serving as the air defense commander—a role increasingly important as the Navy’s aging Ticonderoga-class cruisers are phased out.
The timing of this deployment is significant. The photograph was taken during a helicopter, board, search, and seizure drill as part of NATO exercises, demonstrating that these systems are being tested in realistic, multilateral maritime scenarios.
Broader Strategic Implications
This development signals several important shifts in U.S. naval strategy:
Magazine Depth Enhancement: These systems provide destroyers with additional interceptor capacity without consuming precious missile magazine space reserved for larger threats.
Scalable Defense Architecture: The ability to deploy both expendable (Coyote) and reusable (Roadrunner) interceptors provides commanders with flexible response options based on threat assessment.
Rapid Fielding Priority: The Navy’s decision to rush these systems to operational deployment indicates the urgency with which they view the drone threat
Technology Partners and Innovation
The partnership between established defense contractors and newer companies is noteworthy. While Raytheon provides the proven Coyote platform with its track record in hurricane research and military applications, Anduril Industries brings innovation with the Roadrunner series, representing a new generation of autonomous air defense systems.
Anduril’s Roadrunner platform introduces concepts like vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) capability and high-G maneuverability, features that could revolutionize ship-based air defense by enabling interceptors to engage threats from multiple vectors.
Looking Forward
The USS Bainbridge installation represents just the beginning of what appears to be a broader transformation of naval air defense. With the Army already planning to purchase thousands of Coyote interceptors and the Navy moving to equip multiple destroyer platforms, we’re witnessing the emergence of a new defensive paradigm.
This evolution reflects the reality of modern naval warfare, where traditional high-end threats coexist with asymmetric challenges from inexpensive but numerous drone platforms. The success of these systems in operational deployment will likely influence similar adaptations across allied navies facing comparable threats.
As maritime operations continue to evolve, the integration of these counter-drone systems aboard frontline destroyers like the Bainbridge marks a critical adaptation—one that balances technological sophistication with economic sustainability in an era of emerging threats.
Illustration of the AIRCAT Bengal MC, the world’s most advanced autonomous naval vessel.
Introduction
The recent unveiling of the AIRCAT Bengal MC marks one of the most significant leaps in naval technology in recent years. Developed by Eureka Naval Craft in collaboration with Greenroom Robotics and ESNA Naval Architects, this 36-meter Surface Effect Ship (SES) blends cutting-edge speed, payload capacity, modularity, and autonomous operation. Capable of operating both crewed and uncrewed, the Bengal MC is designed to execute a wide range of missions—from launching Tomahawk cruise missiles to serving as a drone mothership—at a fraction of the cost of traditional warships. For a Navy seeking to maximize agility and lethality while controlling costs, the Bengal MC may represent a new model for maritime dominance.
Advanced Design and Capabilities
At the heart of the Bengal MC’s innovation is its SES hull, a hybrid between a hovercraft and a catamaran, which reduces drag and allows speeds exceeding 50 knots. It can carry up to 44 tons—enough for two 40-foot ISO modules—while maintaining a 1,000 nautical-mile operational range. This enables deployment to distant theaters without frequent refueling.
Mission versatility is a hallmark of the Bengal MC. Configurable for troop transport, landing support, electronic warfare, mine-laying or counter-mine operations, reconnaissance, and high-speed logistics, its modular construction allows the ship to be tailored for the task at hand. It’s equipped to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles and Naval Strike Missiles, providing a level of firepower that traditionally required much larger, more expensive ships.
Autonomy and Operational Flexibility
Powered by Greenroom Robotics’ Advanced Maritime Autonomy Software (GAMA), the Bengal MC is fully capable of autonomous operation, while still offering human-in-the-loop oversight. This system was validated through the Patrol Boat Autonomy Trial, ensuring reliability in complex maritime environments. Its ability to operate autonomously means it can be deployed into high-risk zones without putting sailors directly in harm’s way, while crewed missions remain an option for complex operations.
Efficiency and Strategic Value
The Bengal MC is also designed for fuel efficiency and reduced operating costs, making it an attractive option for navies needing maximum capability per dollar spent. Its ability to replace or augment larger surface combatants with smaller, faster, more adaptable ships could reshape the way the U.S. Navy and allied forces plan their fleets. This is particularly critical in the Indo-Pacific, where speed, reach, and survivability are vital.
Why Americans Should The Bengal MC
represents a shift toward a leaner, faster, more lethal Navy—one that can respond quickly to threats without waiting for a carrier strike group to arrive. In an era where peer adversaries like China are rapidly expanding and modernizing their fleets, the U.S. must adopt innovative solutions to maintain maritime dominance. This is about more than ships; it’s about safeguarding trade routes, deterring aggression, and ensuring that America retains freedom of movement on the seas.
Implications for the Navy
For the U.S. Navy, the Bengal MC offers an opportunity to expand distributed maritime operations with high-speed, missile-capable platforms that are less expensive to build and operate. The autonomy package reduces crew demands, freeing personnel for other critical missions. In contested environments, these vessels can serve as fast-moving strike platforms, reconnaissance nodes, or logistic links—roles that support and extend the reach of larger fleet assets.
Implications for Our Allies
For U.S. allies in AUKUS, NATO, and key Indo-Pacific partnerships, the Bengal MC offers an interoperable, high-performance platform that can be rapidly integrated into joint operations. Nations like Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, and the Philippines—facing their own maritime security challenges—could use this vessel to augment their fleets without the heavy investment required for traditional destroyers or frigates. Greater allied adoption would strengthen collective maritime defense and create a shared technological advantage over adversaries.
Conclusion
The AIRCAT Bengal MC is more than a new ship—it’s a potential blueprint for the future of naval warfare. Fast, flexible, and autonomous, it demonstrates how advanced engineering and smart design can produce a strategic asset that meets the demands of modern maritime security. If the U.S. and its allies choose to embrace this model, it could mark a turning point in the race for naval superiority in the 21st century.
Learn More and Get Involved
At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we believe in highlighting technologies and strategies that strengthen our maritime advantage. Our mission is to educate, engage, and rally support for a Navy that can meet tomorrow’s challenges head-on. Sign up for the FREE newsletter and join our educational series.
If you’ve been following along, you know we’ve been sounding the alarm for some time now—raising concerns not out of fear, but out of duty. At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we don’t profit from defense contracts or feed the industrial complex. We’re here because the facts are in: the Navy is falling short of the readiness our nation demands—and we must do better.
The U.S. Navy is aiming for 80% surge readiness by 2027—but it’s stuck at 60%. That 20% gap could determine whether America deters conflict—or invites one.
Brent Sadler, Senior Fellow for Naval Warfare and Advanced Technology at The Heritage Foundation and author of U.S. Naval Power in the 21st Century: A New Strategy for Facing the Chinese and Russian Threat, put it bluntly:
“It won’t happen until more ships enter the fleet to drive operational tempo down to 30%.”
Top Navy leaders have echoed this urgency. As one Navy official said plainly:
“We must increase our fleet readiness to 80% by 2027 to meet global security demands and deter peer-level threats.”
That’s the heart of the problem—and a major reason we’re sounding the alarm.
From the Indo-Pacific to the U.S. Southern border, the Navy is being stretched dangerously thin. The ships we have are aging, overworked, and under-maintained. Meanwhile, new construction is lagging—leaving sailors to shoulder an impossible burden, and the nation exposed.
At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we don’t advocate fear—we advocate responsibility. We believe war is preventable, but only if America wakes up and acts.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter—a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
Let’s move beyond slogans. Let’s build understanding, accountability, and strength—before the next crisis comes knocking.
If you’ve been following us over the past couple of years, you already know—we’ve been sounding the alarm.
Bill Cullifer, Founder
Introduction
This week’s news confirms it: Microsoft allowed China-based engineers to support U.S. military cloud systems, including infrastructure tied to the Navy. It took a journalistic exposé, a senator’s inquiry, and finally a directive from the Secretary of Defense to shut it down.
Let’s be clear—this is systemic.
This wasn’t one company’s mistake. It reflects a broader failure—where critical defense infrastructure is entangled with adversarial regimes, our tech workforce has been hollowed out, and profit has been prioritized over patriotism.
This Is My Journey—and My Shout: From Destroyer Sailor to Digital Sentinel
My early days as a U.S. Navy destroyer sailor in the 1970s gave me a global perspective that’s stayed with me ever since. I saw firsthand how the world’s most critical maritime trade routes—from the Malacca Strait to the South China Sea—could quickly become flashpoints when adversaries or their proxies seized control. I came to understand just how vital the U.S. Navy’s role in freedom of navigation is—not only in defending democracy abroad, but in protecting our economic and strategic interests here at home.
After a career in telecommunications, I turned my focus to education. In 1997, I founded a national association committed to building America’s digital workforce. We trained web developers, server administrators, and IT professionals—because I believed then, as I still do, that digital strength is national strength.
Even back then, the writing was on the wall: rising dependence on China, fragile supply chains, and a dangerous complacency about safeguarding America’s digital and strategic backbone.
What I Saw Coming
I could see where this was headed. The decisions being made in boardrooms and bureaucracies—about outsourcing, offshoring, and chasing short-term profits—were creating long-term risks. And I knew exactly who would be left to deal with the fallout: our Navy and the sons and daughters of those I served with.
They’d be the ones sent to navigate hostile waters, defend contested choke points, and hold the line during crises that began far from the sea.
Why I Launched Americans for a Stronger Navy
I couldn’t sit back and hope it would all work itself out. I’ve seen too much. And frankly, it pains me to see the Navy have to grovel for support in an era where threats are multiplying—not receding.
That’s why I founded Americans for a Stronger Navy—to push for the readiness, resources, and respect our Navy needs. Because I know what’s at stake—not just for this country’s future, but for the safety of our allies and the stability of the global order.
This is just the beginning. In the weeks ahead, I’ll be breaking down what went wrong—and how we fight back.
More Than Microsoft: A National Security Crisis
The Navy—and the rest of our armed forces—now depends on cloud systems for everything from warfighting logistics to operational readiness. But when those systems are built or maintained by foreign nationals under weak supervision, our adversaries don’t need to hack their way in. They’re already inside.
This Microsoft scandal is just the latest proof point. Behind it lies:
* A depleted domestic technical base
* A defense industry over-leveraged to foreign subcontractors
* Big Tech firms chasing margins—not national security
And at the center of it all? A Navy that’s being asked to do more with less—and too often, without the tools it needs.
What Comes Next: Charting the Course
That’s why we’re launching Charting the Course: Voices That Matter—a comprehensive 24-session educational series designed to peel back the layers of how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next.
Each session will tackle a specific facet of the crisis—from the outsourcing of digital infrastructure and the hollowing out of our industrial base, to the cybersecurity vulnerabilities inside the Navy’s digital backbone. We’ll examine the influence of adversarial regimes, the failure of public-private accountability, and the high-stakes strategic chokepoints where our forces may soon be tested.
But this isn’t just about understanding the problem. It’s about charting a path forward.
We’ll offer concrete proposals to revitalize American shipbuilding, retrain our tech workforce, and rebalance the defense-industrial ecosystem to serve national—not corporate—interests. And yes—we’ll ask the tough question: how do we pay for it?
Because the days of bloated, inefficient spending are over. We need what Navy leadership is already calling for: a leaner, more lethal, and more disciplined force. As Acting CNO Admiral James Kilby put it, the Navy must:
“Exercise strategic discipline… while increasing surge readiness… without sacrificing scheduled maintenance,” with a goal of achieving “an 80% combat‑surge ready posture by 2027.”
We’ll explore potential solutions ranging from public-private innovation partnerships and industrial reinvestment incentives, to reallocating wasteful spending and rethinking procurement models that reward results—not red tape.
These sessions are designed to educate the public, inform policymakers, and mobilize everyday Americans—because this is not just a military issue.
