Category: Opinion Piece

Posted on

Leadership in the U.S. Navy: Lessons from History and the Stakes Today

The Royal Navy’s execution of Admiral Byng in 1757 reminds us: indecision in war is deadly.
Introduction: The Reality We Face Today
 
The U.S. Navy is undergoing major leadership changes. Reports indicate that the incoming administration’s new Secretary of Defense, Pete Hedgeseth, is making sweeping moves by dismissing top admirals. Whether this signals a strategic reset or a political maneuver, one thing is clear: leadership in the military is under a microscope.
Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

In the private sector, where I have spent much of my career, leadership changes are routine—CEOs get fired, boards demand accountability, and shareholders expect results. But in the military, leadership turnover carries far greater consequences—it affects national security, operational readiness, and the morale of those who serve. In a time of rising threats from China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, America cannot afford indecision or mismanagement at the highest levels of command.

To understand the stakes, we need to examine a historical case of military accountability—one that was as brutal as it was instructive. The execution of Royal Navy Admiral John Byng in 1757 sent a chilling message: failure to act decisively in war could cost you everything. The question for us today is: Are we ensuring accountability, or are we risking unnecessary instability in our naval leadership?

A Harsh Lesson from History: The Execution of Admiral Byng
 
In 1757, Admiral John Byng faced one of the most severe forms of accountability in British naval history. Tasked with defending British interests during the Seven Years’ War, Byng was sent to relieve a besieged British garrison at Minorca. But he was set up for failure—his fleet was under-resourced, and his enemy was well-prepared.
 
Byng engaged the French in battle, but when his fleet suffered heavy damage, he chose to withdraw rather than risk total destruction. His decision, while arguably pragmatic, was viewed as a failure to act decisively in war.
 
The British government, eager to shift blame away from its own missteps, made an example of Byng. He was court-martialed, found guilty under the strict new Articles of War, and sentenced to death by firing squad. His execution was meant to send a message: indecision in battle would not be tolerated.
 
Voltaire, an 18th-century French writer, philosopher, and satirist, famously wrote, “In this country, it is wise to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others.” Byng’s fate, while tragic, reinforced a culture of accountability and decisive action in the Royal Navy that lasted for decades.
 
Why This Matters Today: The Cost of Indecision
 
Today, the world is entering a new era of great power competition. The challenges we face are different from those of Admiral Byng’s time, but the stakes are even higher:
 
China is rapidly expanding its navy, militarizing the South China Sea, and challenging U.S. dominance in the Pacific.
Russia is testing Western resolve, using hybrid warfare and maritime brinkmanship to threaten U.S. and allied interests.
Iran continues to harass U.S. forces in the Middle East, while North Korea remains an unpredictable nuclear threat.
 
In this environment, the U.S. Navy must embody decisive leadership at every level—on the bridge, in the boardroom, and in Washington. Hesitation, bureaucratic missteps, or weak decision-making will embolden our adversaries and put American lives at risk.
 
Implications for Americans
 
National Security: A Navy that acts with precision and decisiveness ensures the safety of our nation, our allies, and global trade routes.
Confidence in Leadership: When naval leaders are empowered to act boldly, it strengthens trust between the military and the American public.
Economic Stability: A strong Navy deters conflict, reducing the likelihood of costly, prolonged engagements that drain our national resources.
 
Implications for the U.S. Navy
 
Operational Readiness: Future conflicts will be won by those who can think and act quickly. Our Navy must train, equip, and empower its officers to make bold, effective decisions in real time.
Balanced Accountability: Leadership should be held accountable, but not used as political scapegoats or subject to constant upheaval that weakens continuity and strategy.
Better Strategic Execution: We need faster decision-making at the highest levels to ensure that shipbuilding, force readiness, and modernization efforts align with the evolving threats we face.
 
Message to Our Adversaries: Peace Through Strength—But Make No Mistake
 
Let there be no misunderstanding: Americans for a Stronger Navy is committed to peace through strength.
 
We believe in deterrence, in maintaining stability through overwhelming force, and in ensuring that war remains the last resort, not the first option. But make no mistake—if conflict comes, we do not hesitate.
 
To China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, we send this message:
 
* We do not hesitate. Our forces are trained to act with aggression and clarity when the situation demands it.
* We hold our leaders accountable—but we stand behind them when they make tough calls. Our commanders must have the authority to act decisively, without fear of political scapegoating or bureaucratic hand-wringing.
* We are prepared. We recognize that war is a dirty business, and we are willing to fight and win on our terms. We do not seek conflict, but we will never back down from defending our nation, our allies, and our interests.
 
Strength is what ensures peace. Weakness invites aggression. The U.S. Navy has been, and will remain, the ultimate deterrent to those who wish to challenge American resolve.
 
Final Thought: The Future of American Naval Power
 
The U.S. Navy is at a crossroads. We face real threats, and we cannot afford indecisiveness or internal instability.
 
History teaches us that leaders must be both decisive and supported. Americans for a Stronger Navy will continue advocating for policies that keep our fleet at peak readiness, hold leaders accountable without undermining stability, and ensure that we project strength at sea and beyond.
 
The time for hand-wringing is over. The time for banging on the table and demanding decisive action is now.
 
We either lead the seas—or someone else will.
 
Join us in this fight. Share this message, support a stronger Navy, and ensure that America’s maritime power remains second to none.
 
Editor’s Note: The status quo isn’t cutting it, and the Navy can’t afford to operate on autopilot. From both an Americans for a Stronger Navy perspective and my personal stance, I want leaders who demand action—admirals who bang on tables, challenge complacency, and push for real solutions. Right now, the Navy is stretched thin, threats are mounting, and bureaucracy is slowing us down. We don’t have the luxury of time. We need decisive leadership, real investment, and a serious commitment to strengthening the fleet—not just rhetoric or incremental tweaks. America’s naval power isn’t guaranteed unless we fight for it. That means confronting tough truths, challenging leadership where necessary, and making it impossible for decision-makers to ignore the urgency of the situation. No more waiting, no more excuses—we need action.
Posted on

An Open Letter: Forward Presence is Not the Problem—Fleet Size Is

An Open Letter: Forward Presence is Not the Problem—Fleet Size Is

To the Editors of War on the Rocks and Dr. Jonathan Panter,

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

Your recent commentary argues that naval forward presence is to blame for the U.S. Navy’s inability to deter China and sustain high-end warfighting capacity. While your article correctly identifies the exhaustion and strain imposed by relentless deployments, it misdiagnoses the cause and proposes a dangerous solution.

The problem is not forward presence—it’s fleet size, maintenance shortfalls, and a lack of leadership advocacy for real change.

“It is both realistic and very necessary to maintain forward presence while preparing for high-end conflict.”
— Captain Brent D. Sadler, USN (Ret.), Senior Fellow, Heritage Foundation

“The U.S. fleet size to support that deployment has significantly decreased since 1990.”
— Captain Steven Wills, USN (Ret.), Senior Advisor, Center for Maritime Strategy

A Shrinking Navy, An Expanding Mission

The numbers tell the real story:

  • ✅ In 1991: The U.S. Navy had 550 ships. Today, it has fewer than 290—a nearly 50% decline.
  • ✅ During the Cold War: Only one-fifth of the fleet was forward deployed. Today, it’s one-third, meaning fewer ships are doing more work.
  • ✅ Maintenance Shortfalls: The Navy has lost critical shore-based infrastructure, making it difficult to sustain current commitments—let alone expand.

Meanwhile, China’s threat has grown, not receded:

  • ✅ China’s Navy: Surpassed 340 ships in 2023 and continues expanding.
  • ✅ Indo-Pacific: Now the primary theater of strategic competition—where U.S. presence is more critical than ever.

The Wrong Solution: Scaling Back Presence

The argument that pulling back from forward deployment would somehow strengthen the Navy by reducing strain is not just wrong—it’s dangerous.

A reduced forward presence does not deter China—it emboldens it.

Beijing is already testing U.S. resolve in the South China Sea, Taiwan Strait, and beyond. A withdrawal would send a clear signal:

America is retreating.

That is not a path to deterrence—it’s a path to ceding maritime dominance to an adversary actively working to reshape the global order.

The Right Solution: A Bigger, More Sustainable Navy

Rather than abandoning forward presence, we must fix the real problem: our shrinking, overstretched fleet.

That means:

  • ✅ Growing the Fleet: Expand to at least 355 ships—endorsed repeatedly by military leaders.
  • ✅ Rebuilding Shore Support: Reinvest in shipyards, dry docks, and logistics infrastructure.
  • ✅ Leadership Advocacy: Navy leaders must demand either more ships or fewer assignments, not accept the status quo.
  • ✅ Congressional Action: Congress must prioritize fleet expansion over short-term cuts.

Conclusion: We Need More Ships, Not Fewer Commitments

Your commentary correctly highlights that the U.S. Navy is stretched thin and struggling to sustain global operations. But forward presence is not the problem. The real issue is that we are trying to maintain it with a fleet too small to sustain the mission.

For more than 75 years, forward-deployed U.S. naval forces have prevented conflict, reassured allies, and ensured maritime security. Scaling back presence does not fix the strain—it accelerates decline and weakens deterrence at the worst possible moment.

“If the United States is serious about deterring China, protecting global stability, and upholding its commitments, the answer is clear: Build a larger, more capable, and better-supported Navy.”

Educating the Public: Our Responsibility

The problem is not just military—it’s political and public awareness.

Too many Americans don’t realize how naval power secures our national and economic security. Without public pressure, there will be no political will to rebuild the fleet.

That’s why we at Americans for a Stronger Navy are launching:

“China, Russia, and America: Navigating Global Rivalries and Naval Challenges”

In our upcoming educational series, we will tackle the most pressing issues facing U.S. naval power, including:

  • ✅ The Role of Naval Power in Preventing Global Conflict
  • ✅ Economic & Strategic Impact of a Shrinking Fleet
  • ✅ China & Russia’s Naval Expansion and the Strategic Threat
  • ✅ U.S. Shipbuilding Crisis: Causes and Solutions
  • ✅ Congressional Accountability: Who’s Responsible for the Shrinking Fleet?

This isn’t just a discussion—it’s a call to action.

To naval leadership, policymakers, and media: Stop pretending all is well. Demand action before the Navy reaches a breaking point.

To the American public: Get informed. Get involved. A strong Navy is not just for the military—it’s for every American who benefits from global stability.

The U.S. Navy’s forward presence is not a luxury—it’s a necessity.

The problem is not the strategy—it’s the lack of resources to sustain it.

If the U.S. wants to deter China, protect its interests, and maintain global stability, the answer is clear: Build a stronger, larger, better-supported, and more capable Navy.

We urge the administration, Congress, and military leadership to acknowledge reality:

Our commitments are not too big—our Navy is too small.

Sincerely,  Bill Cullifer
Founder, Americans for a Stronger Navy

Posted on

Sealab and the Silent Frontier: Why Undersea Exploration Still Matters for America

SEALAB I was lowered off the coast of Bermuda in 1964
Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

In the 1960s, while the world marveled at NASA’s race to the moon, the U.S. Navy was quietly conducting its own groundbreaking experiments in the depths of the ocean. Capt. George Bond, a visionary Navy medical officer, saw the ocean floor as humanity’s next frontier. Through the Sealab program, Bond and his team pioneered technologies and techniques that pushed the boundaries of what was possible underwater.

Why this matters

Though it lacked the glory and attention of space exploration, Sealab revealed the untapped potential of the ocean and laid the groundwork for advancements that still benefit us today. But the real question remains: Why should Americans care about undersea exploration now, decades after the Sealab program ended?

The answer lies in what the oceans represent—security, resources, and innovation. In an increasingly competitive and interconnected world, America’s ability to operate and protect its interests underwater is more critical than ever.

The Vision of Sealab

The Sealab program was nothing short of audacious. In an era when divers could barely spend 30 minutes underwater using compressed air, Capt. Bond and his team envisioned a future where humans could live and work on the ocean floor for weeks or even months. Through Sealab I, II, and III, they developed and tested the revolutionary concept of saturation diving, which allowed divers to stay submerged for extended periods without suffering from decompression sickness.

Sealab II, in particular, demonstrated the viability of underwater living. Teams of aquanauts conducted scientific experiments, tested tools for underwater construction, and explored how the human body coped with prolonged exposure to the deep sea. The program even incorporated whimsical innovations, like a trained dolphin named Tuffy, to deliver supplies.

Despite its promise, the program ended tragically with the death of aquanaut Berry Cannon during the Sealab III mission. But the legacy of Sealab lived on, influencing both naval operations and the oil industry’s offshore drilling advancements.

The Ocean’s Strategic and Economic Importance

While Sealab was ahead of its time, its lessons are more relevant today than ever. The oceans cover 71% of the Earth’s surface and hold the key to global trade, communication, and resources. Undersea cables, for instance, carry 95% of the world’s internet traffic—making them critical to both commerce and national security.

Moreover, the ocean floor contains vast reserves of minerals, rare earth elements, and other resources essential for modern technologies. Nations like China are actively pursuing undersea mining and infrastructure projects to secure these resources, positioning themselves as dominant players in the maritime domain.

The U.S. Navy plays a vital role in safeguarding these interests. From protecting shipping lanes to monitoring underwater activity, the Navy’s ability to operate in the undersea domain is essential to America’s security and economic stability. Sealab’s pioneering spirit reminds us that exploration and innovation are necessary to maintain this edge.

The Lessons of Sealab for Today

The Sealab program was a testament to human ingenuity and resilience. The aquanauts’ willingness to push physical and technological limits paved the way for modern advancements in undersea exploration. Technologies developed during Sealab, such as saturation diving, are still used by the Navy and commercial industries today.

But the program also underscores the importance of readiness and adaptability. The challenges faced by the Sealab teams—equipment malfunctions, extreme cold, and life-threatening situations—are reminders that operating underwater requires constant vigilance and innovation.

As competition for undersea resources intensifies and adversaries like China and Russia expand their capabilities, the U.S. cannot afford to fall behind. Investing in undersea technologies, such as autonomous underwater vehicles and advanced submarines, is critical to maintaining America’s strategic advantage.

Why America Should Care

The oceans may not capture the public’s imagination like space, but they are no less important. Sealab showed us that the ocean floor is not just a mysterious expanse—it’s a frontier of opportunity and strategic importance. The Navy’s ability to operate effectively underwater is essential for protecting our economy, ensuring global stability, and deterring aggression.

And let me add this—while Elon Musk is busy dreaming of Mars, I think we can start a little closer to home. We live here. This planet is our home, and the ocean is a wealth of untapped opportunity. Supporting our Navy’s efforts to explore and protect the undersea domain isn’t just about national security; it’s about investing in the place where humanity will continue to thrive. Sorry, Elon, but this sailor would rather stay right here, on Earth.

A Call to Action

Sealab may be a forgotten chapter in America’s history, but its lessons remain vital. The program was a bold attempt to explore the unknown and push the limits of human potential. Today, we face new challenges and opportunities in the undersea domain, and we must rise to meet them with the same spirit of innovation and determination.

As Americans, we have a responsibility to support the Navy and ensure it has the resources and technologies needed to protect our interests. The oceans are a silent frontier, but their importance to our security and prosperity cannot be overstated. Let’s honor the legacy of Sealab by championing the Navy’s mission and investing in the future of undersea exploration.

The U.S. Navy’s commitment to undersea exploration and innovation lives on through the work of institutions like the Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), and the Naval Postgraduate School. These organizations, alongside collaborations like the National Institute for Undersea Vehicle Technology (NIUVT), continue to push the boundaries of what is possible beneath the waves. Their efforts ensure that America remains at the forefront of undersea research, protecting vital resources and advancing technology in ways that honor the legacy of Sealab and its pioneers.

Posted on

Reflections on the U.S.-China Science and Technology Agreement: A Legacy of Neglect

On Jan. 31, 1979, Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping and President Jimmy Carter sign historic diplomatic agreements between the United States and China. (Photos: Jimmy Carter Library

Introduction: A Decision Made in Haste

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

The December 2024 renewal of the U.S.-China Science and Technology Agreement (STA) has left some Americans questioning its timing and rationale. While the original 1979 agreement aimed to foster collaboration and mutual respect, today’s geopolitical realities demand a more cautious approach. As an American deeply concerned about our nation’s security and technological leadership, I share the frustration of Senators Marco Rubio, Bill Hagerty, and Jim Risch, who criticized this rushed decision. Senator Risch aptly noted, “The era when this agreement made sense is long gone,” a sentiment that reflects the growing consensus among those wary of China’s strategic ambitions.

Historical Context: Cooperation vs. Competition

The STA, first signed under President Jimmy Carter and Premier Deng Xiaoping, symbolized a hopeful era of collaboration. It was a landmark moment in U.S.-China relations, with industries and policymakers believing that shared knowledge could lead to mutual prosperity. However, over the decades, successive administrations—Republican and Democratic alike—failed to reassess the agreement’s implications. Instead, they allowed industries to prioritize market access over national security, kicking the proverbial can down the road.

Now, as the stakes grow higher, the optics of renewing this agreement without public scrutiny are troubling. Worse, the decision was made just before a presidential transition, effectively denying the incoming administration an opportunity to weigh in. This lack of transparency is a glaring issue, especially given how previous agreements with China have often left the U.S. vulnerable.

The Costs of Neglect: Knowledge Shared, Power Shifted

The consequences of this complacency are clear:

Industrial Espionage: Cases like Motorola and Micron Technology illustrate how China has systematically exploited intellectual property to advance its technological and military capabilities.

Military Implications: From stealth fighters to missile technology, stolen innovations have directly bolstered China’s ability to challenge U.S. military dominance.

A Navy Left Holding the Line

While industries reaped profits, the Navy was left to address the fallout:

Countering Advanced Threats: The Navy now faces adversaries equipped with technologies once exclusive to the U.S., making global readiness more challenging.

Strategic Vulnerabilities: Decades of neglect have created gaps in naval capabilities, leaving our sailors to pick up the pieces without the tools they need.

A Call for Accountability and Action

The renewal of the STA should have been an opportunity for reevaluation, not a rushed decision made behind closed doors. While the updated agreement includes some safeguards, such as excluding critical technologies like AI and quantum computing, these measures fall short of addressing the broader risks.

As Dr. Steven T. Wills, Ph.D., Captain (USN Retired), author of Strategy Shelved: The Collapse of Cold War Naval Strategic Planning and Senior Advisor for American for a Stronger Navy, explains: “The renewal of the U.S.-China Science and Technology Agreement must be viewed with a critical eye, especially given China’s consistent exploitation of open collaborations to advance its military and technological objectives. As a former U.S. Navy officer and author focused on strategic naval planning, I’ve seen firsthand how seemingly innocuous decisions can have long-term implications for national security. This agreement, while framed as a step forward in modernizing cooperation, risks overlooking the broader strategic context. If we fail to adopt a comprehensive approach that aligns scientific collaboration with national security, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past—leaving our Navy and national defense community to address the consequences without adequate tools or support. The time for a unified, forward-looking strategy is now.”

Dr. Wills’ perspective highlights a critical point: this isn’t just about protecting intellectual property—it’s about ensuring that strategic decisions today don’t leave the Navy and the broader defense community vulnerable tomorrow.

The renewal of the STA should have been an opportunity for reevaluation, not a rushed decision made behind closed doors. While the updated agreement includes some safeguards, such as excluding critical technologies like AI and quantum computing, these measures fall short of addressing the broader risks.

It’s time to demand:

Comprehensive Evaluation: Policymakers, industry leaders, and defense experts must scrutinize agreements like the STA to ensure they align with national security interests.

Support for the Navy: Our sailors deserve the resources and tools necessary to address the consequences of decades of neglect.

A Unified National Strategy: The U.S. must adopt a cohesive approach to balancing innovation with security, ensuring industries that benefited from globalization contribute to safeguarding national interests.

Conclusion: Enough Is Enough

The optics of this renewal are undeniably poor. It sends the wrong message at a time when China has consistently exploited partnerships for strategic gain. Americans for a Stronger Navy stands for transparency, accountability, and vigilance. We cannot afford to be naïve or complacent when the stakes are so high.

As someone who served in the U.S. Navy during the Cold War, I’ve had enough of watching decision-makers prioritize short-term gains over long-term security. In upcoming podcasts, we will examine this agreement and its implications in greater detail, bringing together experts to discuss how America can reclaim its leadership in science and technology while safeguarding its future.

It’s time for all Americans—especially industries that have profited most—to step up and support the Navy and national security. This isn’t just about science; it’s about our freedom, our future, and our ability to stand strong in the face of growing challenges.

Posted on

An Open Letter: Strengthening America’s Maritime Future

Dear Captains Hendrix and Sadler,

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

Thank you for your recent article, Restoring Our Maritime Strength, which provides a compelling blueprint for addressing the urgent challenges facing the U.S. Navy and the broader maritime industry. Your insights underline the critical need for immediate, decisive action to secure America’s maritime future. As a former U.S. Destroyer Navy sailor and the founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy, I wholeheartedly support many of the recommendations outlined in your piece, though I believe there is room to expand and refine the conversation further.

Recognizing the Threats

Your framing of the maritime challenges posed by China’s growing naval and economic dominance is sobering and accurate. The convergence of military, commercial, and strategic threats from adversaries like China and Russia requires a holistic approach to maritime security. However, these challenges are not just Navy problems; they are American problems. As you noted, the decline in U.S. shipbuilding capacity and the neglect of our maritime industrial base have left us vulnerable. This is where public understanding and support become crucial.

Mobilizing Public Engagement

While your article rightly focuses on policy and institutional reform, the broader American public must be engaged in this conversation. Without public buy-in, even the most robust plans risk losing momentum. We must explain to Americans why our maritime strength is foundational to national security, economic stability, and global leadership. Initiatives like the “Ships for America Act” are a good starting point, but they need champions who can connect these policies to everyday American interests—from jobs in the shipbuilding industry to the safety of international trade routes.

Expanding the Workforce and Industrial Base

Your call to revitalize the maritime industrial base is vital, but it must also include targeted efforts to expand and diversify the workforce. Career Technical Education (CTE) programs, apprenticeships, and incentives for careers in shipbuilding and repair can rejuvenate a sector that has been overlooked for too long. Creating “maritime prosperity zones” could serve as a model for incentivizing investment in these industries while offering opportunities to underfunded high school and community college communities.

Addressing Maintenance and Readiness

The maintenance backlog you describe is a glaring vulnerability. Your suggestion of public-private partnerships to expand dry dock capacity is pragmatic and actionable. However, we must also address inefficiencies within existing shipyards. Streamlining repair processes, modernizing facilities, and investing in advanced technologies like AI and robotics can accelerate maintenance timelines and reduce costs.

Leadership and Culture

The emphasis on cultivating warfighting leaders is critical. As you noted, the Navy must identify and elevate officers who can think and act decisively in high-stakes environments. However, this cultural shift should also extend beyond leadership to include every sailor, including those with an interest in peace through strength. A Navy ready to face 21st-century challenges must foster innovation and adaptability at all levels.

Dale A. Jenkins, distinguished Staff Director of the Council on Foreign Relations, Senior Advisor for Americans for a Stronger Navy, and author of Diplomats and Admirals, has noted, “Leadership within the Navy must not only prioritize operational readiness but also inspire a culture of innovation and strategic foresight at every level of command.” His extensive experience underscores the necessity of aligning leadership reforms with strategic imperatives.

Dr. Steven Wills, Senior Advisor at the NAVALIST Center for Maritime Strategy and Senior Advisor for Americans for a Stronger Navy, reinforces this sentiment: “To meet the multifaceted challenges of the modern maritime domain, the Navy must embrace technological innovation and cultivate a culture prepared for high-intensity conflict.” His expertise highlights the importance of integrating advanced strategies with a focus on readiness.

Cybersecurity and Emerging Technologies

While your article focuses primarily on traditional maritime strategies, the increasing threat of cyber warfare cannot be ignored. My decades of experience in telecommunications and web technologies have demonstrated how adversaries exploit vulnerabilities in telecommunications and critical infrastructure to gain strategic advantages. A robust cybersecurity framework must be integrated into the Navy’s modernization plans, ensuring that new ships and systems are protected from digital threats. Additionally, emerging technologies like uncrewed systems and quantum sensing should play a prominent role in our maritime strategy.

Conclusion

I understand that many Americans feel overwhelmed by calls for urgent action on numerous fronts and are skeptical of government programs that promise change but fail to deliver. That is why it is essential to approach these efforts with a focus on accountability, transparency, and tangible benefits for the American people. By demonstrating clear progress and measurable outcomes, we can rebuild trust and show that investing in our maritime strength is an investment in our shared future.

Your article provides a vital roadmap for reinvigorating America’s maritime strength, but the implementation of these ideas will require a unified effort from policymakers, the Navy, industry leaders, and the American public. At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we are committed to fostering the public understanding and support necessary to drive these changes. Together, we can chart a course toward a stronger, more resilient Navy that is prepared to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow.

Posted on

Introducing Our Three-Part Series: Shaping the Future of Aerial Combat

Are Spaceships in the U.S. Navy’s future?
Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

F-35 vs. Drones in U.S. Defense Strategy

Why This Matters to All Americans

As technology evolves and global security challenges intensify, the conversation about the future of aerial combat grows increasingly critical. At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we believe this debate is not just for defense experts and policymakers—it’s a conversation that impacts every American. The decisions we make today about our military capabilities will shape the safety, security, and strategic posture of the United States for decades to come.

The stakes are monumental. From the taxpayer dollars funding advanced fighter programs to the geopolitical implications of maintaining air superiority, this is a topic that demands both transparency and public engagement. That’s why we’re launching a comprehensive three-part series to explore this issue from every angle.

What We Plan to Cover

Part 1: The Debate Over the F-35 Program

  • We will present the current arguments surrounding the F-35 program, including Elon Musk’s critiques of manned fighter jets, Lockheed Martin’s defense of the aircraft, and the U.S. Navy’s position on its strategic importance. This installment will provide a clear and balanced view of the differing perspectives.

Part 2: Behind the Scenes of Defense Planning

  • This segment will peel back the layers of what goes into planning programs like the F-35. From research and development to operational strategies, we’ll dive into the complexity of balancing current needs with future threats. This part will highlight the challenges faced by military planners and strategists, giving Americans a deeper appreciation of the decisions at hand.

Part 3: The Future of Aerial Combat and Public Involvement

  • In our final piece, we’ll explore how advancements in technology and evolving geopolitical dynamics will shape the future of aerial combat. This installment will conclude with a call to action, inviting the American public to engage with this issue and weigh in on the path forward.

Why This Topic Is Significant

The F-35 program has been a cornerstone of U.S. airpower, but it is also a lightning rod for criticism. High costs, technical challenges, and emerging alternatives like drone swarms have sparked intense debate. At the same time, the world is witnessing rapid advancements in hypersonics, artificial intelligence, and unmanned systems—technologies that could redefine the very nature of warfare.

This is about more than aircraft. It’s about maintaining America’s technological edge, ensuring national security, and spending taxpayer dollars responsibly. The choices we make today will determine whether the U.S. remains a global leader in military innovation or cedes ground to competitors like China and Russia.

Why Americans Should Care

At its heart, this is a conversation about priorities. Should the U.S. continue investing in programs like the F-35, or pivot to emerging technologies? How can we ensure our military remains strong while being fiscally responsible? These are questions that affect every American, and they deserve thoughtful, informed discussion.

We encourage you to follow this series, engage with the content, and share your thoughts. As citizens, we have a vital role to play in shaping the future of our nation’s defense. Together, we can ensure that America’s Navy remains not only stronger but also smarter and more efficient.

Stay tuned for Part 1 of our series, where we dive into the debate over the F-35 program and explore the arguments from all sides. Let’s navigate this complex topic together.

Posted on

Closing a Dark Chapter: Reflections on the ‘Fat Leonard’ Scandal and the U.S. Navy’s Call for Integrity

Introduction

Today, with the sentencing of Leonard “Fat Leonard” Francis to 15 years in prison, the U.S. Navy closes a painful chapter in its history—a chapter that has left a lasting black eye on an institution known for its honor and commitment. Francis’s decade-long bribery scheme, which ensnared dozens of high-ranking officers, stained the Navy’s reputation and highlighted vulnerabilities in military contracting that few would have imagined possible. This editorial is a reminder of both the need for accountability and the resilience of the honest, dedicated men and women who serve our Navy with integrity.

A Scandal of Unimaginable Scale
The revelations around the Fat Leonard scandal have been shocking: lavish parties, Kobe beef, fine cigars, and cash exchanged for critical classified information and special favors. This wasn’t just a case of bribery; it was a breach of trust that exposed Navy operations to corruption and mismanagement at an unimaginable scale. The scandal reached as high as the first active-duty admiral to be convicted of a federal crime, creating deep and lasting implications for the Navy’s image.

A Call for Accountability
Francis’s sentencing may seem like justice served, but the journey to accountability is far from over. Though some officers have faced consequences, we know that the ripple effects of this scandal have impacted thousands of sailors who honorably serve every day, distancing themselves from this dark episode and instead focusing on the Navy’s mission. For these sailors and those of us who believe in a stronger, more accountable Navy, Leonard’s sentencing underscores a broader mission: to reinforce integrity, transparency, and accountability within Navy procurement and beyond.

Americans for a Stronger Navy: A Mission of Integrity
At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we’ve communicated over the last few years about the importance of maintaining rigorous standards in Navy operations and procurement practices. Our Navy deserves the resources it needs to safeguard our nation, but it also deserves to operate within systems of integrity and transparency. We call for continued reform and vigilance in military contracting, not merely to avoid another scandal but to ensure that taxpayer dollars go toward strengthening our fleet and supporting those who serve.

Turning a New Page
As this chapter closes, let us reflect on the millions of honorable sailors who uphold our Navy’s values despite scandals like these. The dedicated men and women of the U.S. Navy are not defined by the actions of a few but by their collective commitment to duty, honor, and country. With the Fat Leonard scandal behind us, it’s time to turn a new page—one that reaffirms our Navy’s values and strengthens its foundation for the future.

Conclusion
In closing, we hope that this unfortunate episode serves as a rallying point, a reminder of the Navy’s resilience, and a call for enduring integrity in all facets of military service. As citizens, let us continue to support a Navy that stands by its values and remains steadfast in its mission.

Posted on

Open Letter to gCaptain: Rallying Americans for a Stronger Navy and Maritime Future

Americans Must Rally: A Call for Accountability, Transparency, Action, and Sustainability in Protecting Our Maritime Future

Dear gCaptain Team, Officers, and Readers,

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

Your recent article, “Could Trump Rebuild and Repair The U.S. Navy?”, has sparked crucial questions about the future of our Navy and maritime security. We find ourselves in strong agreement with the article’s urgent call for action within the first 100 days of the next administration. While leadership may change, our commitment to a stronger Navy and secure maritime future must remain constant. The need for a comprehensive fleet readiness review, a revitalized industrial base, and a stronger Navy and civilian maritime workforce are clear. These steps underscore the essential measures needed to sustain and fortify our national maritime capabilities.

This mission, however, extends beyond any one administration—it requires enduring bipartisan support and a commitment from all Americans to ensure the resilience and strength of our Navy. As Dale A. Jenkins, Senior Advisor to Americans for a Stronger Navy, Staff Director of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, and author of Diplomats and Admirals, reminds us,

“True strength isn’t built overnight or through short-term gains. It’s a sustained commitment—one rooted in strategic thinking and a shared vision of America’s future on the world stage.” – Dale A. Jenkins

By fostering a united approach, we can address the challenges our Navy faces and secure a sustainable, long-term future for America’s maritime security.

The Need for Public Trust and Involvement

As the founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy, I share your sense of urgency. Our Navy is underfunded and overstretched, struggling to maintain basic readiness in the face of rising global instability. Yet, the solutions to these challenges lie not only within government circles but also in greater public accountability. To that end, we must actively strengthen trust by engaging informed community who bring credibility and understanding to the table, rather than overwhelming the Navy with generalized public input.

Heightened Threats: Cybersecurity and Misinformation Campaigns

The threats we face today are more immediate and serious than many realize. Adversaries like China, Russia, and Iran have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to hack critical infrastructure and disrupt telecommunications networks. Recent breaches—such as the infiltration of presidential cell phones and sustained attacks targeting U.S. energy, transportation, and communication systems—highlight the vulnerabilities at our nation’s strategic chokepoints. These adversaries are also engaged in misinformation campaigns aimed at disrupting our elections and undermining public discourse. In these volatile times, protecting the Navy also means protecting the commerce and infrastructure that support our economic security. Our readiness to secure these critical pathways is essential to maintaining both national stability and global trade.

Communicating Threats with Clarity

It’s no secret that Americans are weary of “sky-is-falling” rhetoric. Recent messaging around foreign threats and national security has met with mixed reactions, with figures like Senator Rand Paul raising questions about threat exaggeration and others comparing current concerns to past overhyped crises like Y2K. Yet today’s threats are uniquely layered and immediate; they extend beyond traditional warfare into digital, economic, and strategic domains that impact every American. As Reagan wisely put it,

“Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will. When action is required to preserve our national security, we will act.”  – Ronald Reagan 

Overreactions and misdeeds by bad actors have eroded trust, making it crucial that these real and present dangers are communicated with clarity and restraint. Our task, then, is to educate Americans with transparency, balance, and practical information. To do this effectively, we must break out of our silos and work together across organizations, agencies, and forums to foster the lasting support needed for a stronger Navy and a resilient maritime sector.

Building a Sustainable, Long-Term Impact

At Americans for a Stronger Navy, our mission is to educate, engage, and rally Americans around the critical importance of maritime security to national stability and prosperity. We believe the key to lasting impact lies in building a “groundswell of support” from the American people. History shows us the importance of such buy-in; Reagan’s successful naval expansion during the Cold War was driven by bipartisan support and public backing, creating a sustainable, long-term defense initiative. As Reagan once said,

“Strength is the most persuasive argument we have to convince our adversaries to negotiate seriously and to cease bullying other nations.”-  Ronald Reagan

While the president undoubtedly influences these decisions, we know from experience that initiatives without public buy-in and congressional support are destined to struggle. Americans also need a clearer understanding of what’s at stake and why these actions matter.

Our Path Forward

  • Engaging Veteran Groups and Nonprofit Organizations: We propose enlisting veteran groups, nonprofits, and civic organizations to help bridge the gap between the Navy and the American public. These groups offer credibility and firsthand experience, helping Americans understand the Navy’s role beyond headlines and defense budgets. Their connection to local communities is invaluable in turning national support into local action.
  • A Smarter, More Comprehensive Public Strategy: Rather than working in silos, we must consider the taxpayer in every recommendation. Americans are fatigued with crisis messaging, so our approach must be nuanced, practical, and respectful of their investment. Taxpayers need to see where their support goes, with a clear view of how a stronger Navy directly contributes to national and economic security.
  • Fostering Long-Term, Congressional Support and Collaboration: Rallying Americans for a stronger Navy isn’t about party lines—it’s about protecting our nation’s future. To achieve this, we must create a platform that prioritizes transparency, accountability, and citizen engagement. Such a united approach can help avoid politicizing the Navy, reinforcing that naval readiness is a shared national responsibility that resonates beyond any one administration.
  • Expanding on gCaptain’s Key Recommendations:
    • Comprehensive Fleet Readiness Review: We support a thorough review of our fleet, shipyards, and industrial base, with an eye toward transparency. Bringing in a volunteer committee of former Navy personnel could lend critical insights, ensuring the review captures both strategic needs and firsthand realities.
    • Halting Early Decommissioning: Rather than prematurely retiring ships, we need creative, cost-effective solutions to extend their service. Involving experienced veterans and industry experts can provide valuable perspectives on this approach, minimizing strategic gaps.
    • Building a Stronger Maritime Workforce: We echo the call for a revitalized maritime workforce but stress that this must come with taxpayer accountability and public support.

An American Imperative

This is not a left or right initiative—it is an American imperative. As John F. Kennedy wisely said, “Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer.” Today, we echo that call for unity. The threats we face are larger than many realize, and we cannot afford to let partisan divisions stand in the way of building the Navy we need. We call for community leaders to unite under a common voice, advocating for a stronger Navy, greater accountability, and a sustainable foundation for our maritime security. By fostering long-term resilience and preparedness, together, we can protect our maritime future for generations to come.

Sincerely,
Bill Cullifer
Founder, Americans for a Stronger Navy

Posted on

Open Letter to Dov S. Zakheim: Addressing the U.S. Navy’s Submarine Shortage

USS Idaho (SSN-799)

From the desk of Bill Cullifer, Founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy

Dear Mr. Zakheim,

I recently read your opinion piece in The Hill on October 18, 2024, titled “How the Navy Can Solve Its Submarine Shortage,” with great interest. Dov S. Zakheim, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute, brings unparalleled expertise to this discussion. As a former undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004, as well as deputy undersecretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987, your insights on defense spending, strategic planning, and military capabilities are invaluable in understanding the complexities of the U.S. Navy’s submarine deficit. 

The challenges the Navy faces in maintaining and expanding its submarine force are central to the security and operational effectiveness of the United States and its allies. At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we have long advocated for solutions to bolster our naval capabilities in light of growing global threats.

Your analysis of the potential for non-nuclear alternatives, including unmanned submarines and diesel-electric options, highlights viable paths for supplementing our fleet. However, after discussing these ideas with Captain Brent Sadler, U.S. Navy (Retired), Senior Fellow for Naval Warfare and Advanced Technology at The Heritage Foundation, a 26-year Navy veteran with extensive operational experience on nuclear-powered submarines and author of U.S. Naval Power in the 21st Century: A New Strategy for Facing the Chinese and Russian Threat, we are convinced that while these alternatives may fill certain gaps, they fall short of meeting the United States’ broader strategic needs. As Captain Sadler pointed out, “only nuclear-powered submarines possess the range, endurance, and strategic capabilities necessary to project power and safeguard the distant maritime choke points critical to both American and Australian interests.” This reality remains just as pertinent today as it was when Australia evaluated its own submarine needs decades ago.

The U.S. Navy’s dependence on nuclear-powered submarines stems not just from their superior endurance but from their ability to maintain forward presence in vital regions like the Indo-Pacific, where distances and operational demands far exceed the capabilities of diesel-electric subs. While unmanned systems like the Manta Ray and smaller ISR variants may enhance the fleet’s flexibility, they cannot replace the strategic depth provided by manned, nuclear-powered vessels.

Moreover, the capital infusion from Australia under the AUKUS agreement is a critical step toward increasing the production rates of Virginia-class submarines. Yet, as you astutely noted, even with this funding, workforce and industrial base shortages present formidable hurdles. The U.S. Navy must prioritize workforce development and shipyard modernization to accelerate production timelines and meet both our own force requirements and our commitments to allies like Australia.

At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we believe in advocating for a multifaceted approach—one that includes continued investments in nuclear-powered submarines, increased collaboration with our allies, and targeted support for the U.S. industrial base to reduce delays in production. This will allow us to respond effectively to the twin challenges posed by China and Russia, while also maintaining readiness in other volatile regions like the Middle East.

In conclusion, while unmanned and non-nuclear options can and should play a role in the future of undersea warfare, nuclear submarines remain the backbone of our strategy. We must remain steadfast in building and maintaining a fleet capable of meeting the global challenges of the 21st century.

Thank you again for your insightful analysis, and I look forward to further discussions on this critical topic.

Sincerely,
Bill Cullifer
Founder, Americans for a Stronger Navy

Note: I am not a paid spokesperson for any organization. My statements reflect my personal commitment to strengthening the U.S. Navy and advocating on behalf of those who serve.

Posted on

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.