Category: Shipbuilding News

The Americans for a Stronger Navy Fleet Forward initiative aims to support a stronger and more capable Navy. The Shipbuilding NewsWatch will provide subscribers with up-to-date news, analysis, and commentary on the latest developments in the shipbuilding industry, including new contracts, technological advances, and trends. This information will help subscribers stay informed and engaged in efforts to build a modern and effective Navy.

Posted on

USS John F. Kennedy Goes to Sea — And Why That Matters to Every American

USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) 
Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

The future USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) has begun shipbuilder sea trials.

That sentence sounds technical. Routine. Almost boring.

It is anything but.

I still remember the first time I saw USS Enterprise (CVN-65).

Not in a book. Not in a documentary. But in person — a city of steel at sea that didn’t just float… it projected presence. You didn’t need anyone to explain what it meant. You felt it.

Eight reactors. A flat deck that seemed to stretch to the horizon. Sailors moving with purpose. Aircraft launching into the sky like it was routine business for a nation that understood the oceans mattered.

Enterprise wasn’t just a ship. She was a statement.

She told the world that the United States knew how to build big things, maintain them, crew them, and keep them forward where they mattered most.

That memory came rushing back this week as the future USS John F. Kennedy began sea trials.

Different era. Different technology. Same message trying to break through the noise:

America still knows how to build ships like this.

But here’s the part that concerns me.

When I saw Enterprise, there was no question we had the industrial base, the shipyards, the workforce, and the national will to keep ships like her coming. Today, every new carrier feels like a minor miracle of coordination, learning curves, delays, and hard-won progress.

Sea trials for Kennedy are more than a shipbuilder milestone. They’re a reminder of what we used to do routinely — and what we now must work very hard to preserve.

And that’s why this moment matters far more than most Americans realize..

For the first time, America’s next nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is operating in open water, testing the systems that will carry U.S. power, deterrence, and stability across the world’s oceans for the next 50 years.

This is not just a shipyard milestone.
This is a strategic milestone for the United States.

What Sea Trials Really Mean

Sea trials are where theory meets reality.

This is where:

  • the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System is proven at sea
  • the Advanced Arresting Gear is tested in real conditions
  • the new SPY-6 radar begins to show what modern naval sensing looks like
  • and lessons learned from USS Gerald R. Ford are put into practice

This is the Navy and the shipyard proving that American industrial capability still works.

But There’s A Catch Most People Miss

USS John F. Kennedy won’t join the fleet until 2027.

In that time:

  • USS Nimitz retires this spring
  • USS Harry S. Truman begins a long overhaul
  • USS John C. Stennis is already over a year behind schedule in overhaul

That means for the next two years, the Navy will be operating with fewer carriers than planned during a period when China is expanding its fleet, its shipyards, and its maritime presence at record speed.

This is the readiness gap Americans don’t see.

Why Americans Should Care

Aircraft carriers are not symbols. They are mobile sovereign territory.

They protect:

  • global trade routes
  • allies in Europe, the Middle East, and the Pacific
  • undersea cables and energy lanes
  • the economic system Americans rely on every day

When carriers are in overhaul and replacements are delayed, coverage shrinks.
And when coverage shrinks, deterrence weakens.

Implications for the Navy

The Navy is doing what it can with what it has.
Shipbuilders are learning from past mistakes and improving delivery.

But the industrial timeline is unforgiving. You cannot rush nuclear carriers.
You cannot surge shipyards overnight.
You cannot rebuild lost capacity in a crisis.

This is why shipbuilding, maintenance, and industrial capacity are national security issues — not procurement trivia.

Implications for Our Allies

Allies don’t measure American commitment by speeches.
They measure it by hulls at sea.

Sea trials for John F. Kennedy signal that more hulls are coming.
But the gap between now and 2027 is where risk lives.

The Bigger Picture

This story isn’t about one carrier.

It’s about whether America remembers how to build, maintain, and sustain the fleet that keeps the world’s oceans stable.

That’s why this matters.

That’s why Americans should care.

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 roll.

Posted on

The Silent Guardians: Why the US Navy’s New Unmanned Fleet is a Game-Changer

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

As the founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy, my mission is to advocate for the naval power our nation needs to secure its interests, project influence, and deter aggression in an increasingly complex world. For too long, discussions about naval strength have focused almost exclusively on traditional, crewed warships. While these mighty vessels remain the backbone of our fleet, a silent revolution is underway—one that promises to redefine naval warfare as we know it.

More Than Just Boats: The Brains Behind the Brawn

What makes these vessels so transformative isn’t just their ability to operate without a crew, but the sophisticated artificial intelligence that empowers them. Both the Sea Hunter and Seahawk were designed and built by Leidos, and they are powered by an advanced software ecosystem called LAVA (Leidos Autonomous Vessel Architecture).

Forget remote-control toys; LAVA provides true mission autonomy:

  • Self-Correction & Resilience: If a system fails or damage occurs, LAVA can reconfigure its mission in real-time. It’s like having a captain who can rewrite the playbook mid-battle without human intervention.
  • Intelligent Navigation: LAVA constantly processes data from radar, lidar, AIS, and cameras to execute collision avoidance maneuvers in full compliance with international “Rules of the Road” (COLREGS).
  • Modular Versatility: The same “brain” can be installed across a wide range of vessels, from high-speed interceptors to specialized sub-hunters.

A Fleet of Ghost Ships: The Strategic Advantages

  • Persistence & Endurance: Without a crew, these ships can operate for extended periods without the need for rotation or resupply.
  • Reduced Risk to Personnel: Deploying unmanned vessels for dangerous missions like anti-submarine warfare (ASW) preserves our most valuable asset: our sailors.
  • Cost-Effectiveness: Long-term operational costs are significantly lower than traditional warships, offering an affordable way to expand global presence.
  • Scalability & Swarming: LAVA enables “swarms” of USVs to coordinate and search vast ocean areas for threats simultaneously.

Looking Ahead: The Future is Unmanned

The US Navy’s commitment is clear. With an expansion from just four small USVs to hundreds projected within a single year, the shift is undeniable. The Seahawk and Sea Hunter have already logged over 140,000 autonomous nautical miles—more than five times the Earth’s circumference.

For Americans for a Stronger Navy, this represents a crucial step forward. Investing in these innovative, autonomous systems ensures that our Navy remains at the forefront of global naval power, ready to face the challenges of tomorrow’s maritime domain with unparalleled strength.

Join the Mission for a Modern Fleet

The transition to an autonomous-integrated fleet is a generational shift that requires steady advocacy and public support. At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we are dedicated to ensuring our sailors have the most advanced technology on the planet to keep our seas free and our nation secure.

Support our efforts today:

  • Stay Informed: Subscribe to our newsletter for deep dives into naval tech like LAVA and the Ghost Fleet.
  • Spread the Word: Share this article with your network to highlight the innovation happening in our shipyards.
  • Advocate: Join our community of maritime supporters and help us champion the 21st-century fleet.

Posted on

When Sanctions Need Ships: How Two U.S. Destroyers Chased a Dark Fleet Tanker Across the Atlantic

Introduction

Two U.S. Navy destroyers just spent weeks tracking, shadowing, and supporting the seizure of a runaway oil tanker in the North Atlantic.

This was not a combat mission.
It was not a press event.
It was not symbolic.

It was enforcement.

USS Bulkeley (DDG-84) and USS Paul Ignatius (DDG-117) helped support an operation that ultimately boarded and seized a Russian-flagged tanker that had been actively evading authorities across thousands of miles of open ocean.

This is what maritime power looks like in 2026. And most Americans never see it.

What Happened
The vessel—initially named Bella 1—was operating as part of what U.S. officials describe as a “dark fleet,” a network of tankers designed to evade sanctions through deceptive practices.

Over the course of its escape, the tanker:
• Changed its name
• Reflagged as Russian
• Painted a new national tricolor on its hull
• Altered its identity
• Evaded a U.S. naval blockade
• Attempted to disappear into the Atlantic

After weeks of pursuit, U.S. forces—supported by Navy destroyers, Coast Guard assets, special operations forces, and allied surveillance—seized the vessel in waters between the UK and Iceland.

The UK provided support. NATO was not involved.

This was a multinational, multi-domain enforcement operation.

Not war. Not peace. Enforcement.

Why This Matters
Sanctions do not enforce themselves.

Every time a government announces new sanctions, it implies something most people never think about:

Someone has to physically enforce them.

That means:
• Ships
• Crews
• Surveillance
• Boarding teams
• Legal frameworks
• Sustainment
• Allies
• Weeks of continuous presence

Sanctions without maritime power are just words on paper.

The Rise of the Dark Fleet
So-called “dark fleet” vessels use identity laundering to move oil, weapons, and sanctioned goods across the world.

They:
• Reflag repeatedly
• Change names
• Operate under shell companies
• Transmit false data
• Disable tracking systems
• Exploit legal gray zones

This is modern maritime gray-zone warfare.

And the U.S. Navy is now its primary counterforce.

Attrition Isn’t Just Combat
A Navy captain once wrote: “Wars at sea are wars of attrition.”

What most people miss is that attrition doesn’t only happen during wars.

It happens during:
• Blockades
• Sanctions enforcement
• Freedom of navigation patrols
• Counter-smuggling missions
• Persistent surveillance
• Shadowing operations

Weeks of pursuit burn:
• Fuel
• Maintenance cycles
• Crew endurance
• Parts
• Readiness margins

Every ship tied up on one mission is unavailable for another. Presence has a cost.

Why Americans Should Care
This mission protected more than a legal principle.

It protected:
• The credibility of sanctions
• The integrity of maritime law
• The security of global trade routes
• The idea that rules still matter

If the U.S. Navy cannot enforce order at sea, someone else will rewrite the rules. And they will not do it in our favor.

This Is What Presence Looks Like
Destroyers aren’t just warfighting platforms.

They are:
• Law enforcement tools
• Diplomatic signals
• Deterrence mechanisms
• Economic stabilizers
• Crisis responders

This mission never trended. But it kept the system from breaking.

The Bigger Picture
The Navy is being asked to do more:
• With fewer ships
• With aging hulls
• With shrinking margins
• With rising global demand

This operation was a success. But success should not blind us to strain.

Posted on

A Subscriber Asked: How Do the Jones Act, SHIPS Act, and Strategic Seas Act Actually Fit Together?

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

A reader recently reached out with a thoughtful question. After seeing renewed debate around the Jones Act — including critiques from respected analysts and commentators — they wanted to understand how that debate fits with our advocacy for the SHIPS Act and the recently proposed Strategic Seas Act.

It’s a fair question. And it reflects a broader challenge: America’s maritime conversation has become fragmented, emotional, and often disconnected from strategic reality.

Here’s the clearest way to understand it.

The Core Issue Isn’t One Law — It’s the System

America’s maritime problem did not emerge because of one bad law or one bad decision. It emerged because policy, industry, workforce, logistics, and security drifted out of alignment over decades.

The Jones Act, the SHIPS Act, and the Strategic Seas Act each address different layers of that system. Confusing them — or pitting them against one another — obscures the real challenge.

What the Jones Act Actually Does (and Does Not Do)

The Jones Act governs domestic coastwise and inland shipping — cargo moved between U.S. ports along rivers, coasts, and internal waterways.

Its intent is to preserve:

    • A U.S. maritime workforce
    • Domestic shipbuilding and repair capacity
    • U.S. control over domestic trade routes

It does not regulate international or blue-water shipping.

Critics are right about one thing: the Jones Act did not prevent the collapse of America’s international commercial fleet. That collapse happened outside its scope — driven by tax policy, financing disadvantages, flag-of-convenience practices, and long-term neglect.

That critique is legitimate. But it’s also incomplete.

Why the Jones Act Debate Isn’t Decisive

For years, serious naval professionals and analysts have debated whether the Jones Act is a national security asset or a liability. That debate is not new, and it has often been conducted in good faith.

What has changed is the strategic environment.

Recent analysis has reminded us of a hard truth: wars at sea are wars of attrition. Losses come fast. Ships, crews, and shipyards lost early in a conflict cannot be replaced in time to affect the outcome.

That means no maritime policy — Jones Act included — can be judged solely by cost or efficiency in peacetime. The real question is whether the overall system can absorb loss and sustain combat before a war begins.

What the SHIPS Act Is Designed to Fix

The SHIPS Act addresses a failure the Jones Act was never designed to solve: the collapse of U.S.-flag international shipping and sealift capacity.

Its focus includes:

    • Rebuilding a viable U.S.-flag fleet in international trade
    • Expanding and stabilizing the pool of credentialed U.S. mariners
    • Strengthening sealift capacity the Navy depends on in wartim
    • Restoring American relevance in global maritime commerce

This is where America’s absence has become a strategic vulnerability — and where reform is long overdue.

Why We Proposed the Strategic Seas Act

Even rebuilding ships and mariners is no longer enough.

Modern global commerce and advanced technologies create maritime security risks at scale — from congested sea lanes and port dependencies to undersea cables and logistics chokepoints. When those risks materialize, the burden falls almost entirely on the U.S. Navy and the American taxpayer.

The Strategic Seas Act starts from a simple principle: strategic risk should be managed and shared, not externalized.

It focuses on:

    • Accountability for maritime risk creation
    • Protection of ports, shipyards, sea lanes, and undersea infrastructure
    • Aligning commercial innovation with maritime and naval security
    • Closing the gap between private gain and public security cost

  • This is not about shipping rates. It’s about national responsibility in a contested maritime world.

Why We Don’t Lead With the Jones Act Debate

The Jones Act debate often becomes ideological. The most urgent maritime failures today are strategic and systemic.

Our priority is:

    • Whether America can move and sustain forces at scale
    • Whether we have the mariners to crew ships in crisis
    • Whether our industrial base can repair and regenerate under pressure
    • Whether commercial success carries shared security responsibility

That doesn’t make the Jones Act irrelevant. It makes it one part of a much larger system.

Why Americans Should Care

Most Americans never see ships — but their food, fuel, medicine, data, and livelihoods move by sea. When maritime policy fails, the consequences show up quietly: fragile supply chains, higher prices, longer crises, and greater military risk.

Maritime strength is not abstract. It shapes daily life.

Implications for the Navy

The Navy cannot surge ships, mariners, or shipyards after a war starts. Civilian maritime capacity is not separate from naval readiness — it underpins it. Planning without industrial and workforce reality invites failure.

Implications for Our Allies

Allies measure credibility by endurance. A stronger U.S. maritime system reduces dangerous dependence on adversaries and turns alliances into real, usable capacity — not just promises.

Closing Thought

The real question isn’t whether one maritime law should be defended or repealed.

The question is whether the United States intends to remain a serious maritime nation — prepared before the first shot is fired, not scrambling after ships are lost.

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 roll.

Posted on

Year-End Message: The Pentagon’s China Report and What It Means for 2025

The 2027 Countdown: What the Pentagon’s Delayed China Report Reveals

2025 U.S. Navy Year in Review Report Cover
Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

Hello friends, and fellow supporters of America’s Navy. Bill Cullifer here with Americans for a Stronger Navy.

On December 23rd, the Pentagon released its annual China Military Power Report. This assessment had been missing all year while Congress debated budgets. Now that it’s here, we understand the delay. The report contains the most direct warning yet: China expects to be able to fight and win a war over Taiwan by the end of 2027. That’s less than three years away.

Why Taiwan Matters to You

As Elbridge Colby, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, wrote in TIME Magazine:

“Defending far-off Taiwan and our allies… is rooted in a practical, hard-nosed assessment of what is in Americans’ concrete economic and political interests. It is about defending Americans’ security, liberties, and prosperity from a very real, and in terms of China’s gigantic scale, unprecedented danger.”

Your Phone. Your Car. Your Hospital Equipment.

Taiwan produces 60% of the world’s advanced semiconductors. A Chinese blockade or invasion would cost the global economy at least one trillion dollars per year.

What the Pentagon Report Reveals

  • Nuclear Expansion: Stockpile reached 600+ in 2024, on track to exceed 1,000 by 2030.
  • Space Surveillance: 359+ satellites now track U.S. ships in near real-time.
  • Cyber Weapons: Operations like Volt Typhoon have burrowed into U.S. power grids for wartime sabotage.
  • Taiwan Pressure: 3,067 air incursions in 2024—nearly double the previous year.

The Timeline Should Terrify You

The Western Pacific is becoming a “Kill Zone.” As one naval officer put it: “We no longer build the Navy the Navy needs. We build the Navy the accountants will tolerate.”

America is not outmatched; we are under-mobilized. The decisions we make in 2025 determine whether deterrence holds in 2027. Visit StrongerNavy.org to request your copy of our 2025 U.S. Navy Year in Review.

Thank you for caring about America’s maritime strength.

Fair winds and following seas,

Bill Cullifer
Founder, Americans for a Stronger Navy
StrongerNavy.org

Posted on

America’s Next Generation of Warships: Drones Built for the Pacific Fight

In Response to the Call for a Stronger Navy

A major announcement this week marks a breakthrough in naval innovation. Blue Water Autonomy, a Boston-based defense startup, confirmed on November 5 that it has successfully tested its long-range autonomous ship technology on the waters off Massachusetts — a first for U.S. industry.

The company shared new images and data from sea trials, demonstrating that its medium-sized drone warship systems can operate reliably in open-ocean conditions, a critical milestone as the Navy looks to expand its reach in the Pacific. A full-scale 150-foot prototype is planned for 2026, advancing the goal of deploying uncrewed ships capable of long-range operations alongside traditional fleets.

Why It Matters

China’s shipyards continue to outproduce America’s by wide margins, while U.S. shipbuilding struggles with delays, labor shortages, and cost overruns. Blue Water Autonomy’s success offers a glimpse of what’s possible when innovation meets urgency. These modular vessels are designed to carry sensors, radars, and missile payloads across more than 6,000 nautical miles, from California to Taiwan and back — a range that redefines how the U.S. could project power across the Indo-Pacific.

Implications for the Navy

The Navy’s future battle force calls for 381 crewed ships and 134 uncrewed vessels, but reaching those numbers requires new approaches. By designing ships that can be mass-produced quickly at smaller shipyards, Blue Water Autonomy’s model could help offset the strain on America’s overstretched industrial base. With a Navy contract already in hand and potential full-scale production in Louisiana shipyards next year, the company’s success represents a tangible step toward restoring U.S. maritime advantage through technology and industrial reform.

Why Americans Should Care

Every advancement in autonomy brings the same truth into sharper focus: deterrence is cheaper than war. Building smarter, more flexible fleets keeps sailors safe, strengthens deterrence, and ensures America remains a global maritime leader. Blue Water Autonomy’s announcement isn’t just about a new vessel — it’s about rebuilding the capacity and confidence of a nation that must once again lead at sea.

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 roll.

Posted on

The Autonomous Revolution: Naval Warfare’s Exponential Leap

Rendering of a Blue Water Autonomous ship

Introduction

The future isn’t coming—it’s already here, patrolling our oceans with no human hands on the wheel.

Personal Reflection

Bill Cullifer, onboard USS Henry B. Wilson -DDG 7 1976
Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

As someone who stood watch on a destroyer’s deck for years, I’d love nothing more than for every young American to feel the salt air, a wooden helm at their fingertips, the roll of the ship beneath their feet and the breathtaking vastness of the sea. That experience shaped my life and the life of many others that I respect and admire.

But sentiment won’t secure the future. The world has changed—and it’s time we face some hard facts.

We’re now witnessing the dawn of a radically new era in warfare. One that demands we embrace and invest in the technologies that will define the next generation of naval power.

From Science Fiction to Sea Trials

Less than a decade ago, the idea of fully autonomous warships seemed like the stuff of sci-fi. Today, the U.S. Navy’s USX-1 Defiant—a 180-foot, 240-ton vessel designed without a single human accommodation—is conducting sea trials off Washington state.

No bunks. No heads. No mess halls. Just a steel-clad, AI-powered war machine optimized purely for mission.

This isn’t incremental change. It’s an exponential leap.

The Compound Effect of Convergent Technologies

What’s driving this revolution isn’t just a single breakthrough. It’s convergence.

AI Decision-Making at Machine Speed

Ships like USS Ranger and Mariner aren’t just autonomous—they’re operational. They’ve logged thousands of miles, fired missiles, and executed missions without direct human control. Real-time, tactical adaptation is already replacing human-triggered decision trees.

Swarm Coordination Beyond Human Capability

With programs like Ghost Fleet Overlord, we’re moving toward fully integrated autonomous networks—surface, subsurface, aerial. Swarms of unmanned systems coordinating at machine speed, executing joint missions across domains.

New Physical Designs, New Possibilities

When you remove the human factor, new design freedom emerges. The NOMARS program optimizes for function over form—rapid payload reconfiguration, longer endurance, fewer constraints. Defiant doesn’t compromise. It adapts.

The Multiplication Factor

Each of these capabilities amplifies the others:

  • AI enables swarm tactics
  • Swarms generate operational data
  • That data trains the next-gen AI
  • Which enables even more sophisticated missions

The cycle is accelerating. Consider DARPA’s Manta Ray, an autonomous glider designed to “hibernate” on the seabed for months. Now picture that working in tandem with unmanned surface vessels like Defiant, and traditional submarines—all coordinating without a single sailor onboard.

The MASC Paradigm: Speed Over Paperwork

The Navy’s new Modular Attack Surface Craft (MASC) program exemplifies this exponential thinking. Instead of designing ships around specific missions, MASC creates standardized platforms that gain capabilities through containerized payloads—like naval smartphones that become powerful through modular “apps.”

With an aggressive 18-month delivery timeline and emphasis on commercial standards over “exquisite” platforms, MASC represents a fundamental shift in how the Navy acquires capability. As Austin Gray, Navy Reserve Intelligence Officer & Co-founder/CSO, Blue Water Autonomy observed: “The way Navy is approaching MASC—procuring fast, iteratively, and with focus on speed over paperwork—should offer us hope that the future of U.S. seapower is not so dim.”

This isn’t just about new ships—it’s about new thinking. MASC vessels can be missile shooters one day, submarine hunters the next, simply by swapping standardized containers. The high-capacity variant could carry 64 missiles—more firepower than many destroyers, at a fraction of the cost.

Beyond the Horizon

In 2016, Sea Hunter launched with basic navigation. By 2021, converted vessels were firing missiles. In 2025, purpose-built unmanned warships are conducting sea trials. By 2026, MASC prototypes will be delivered for fleet operations.

What’s next?

The Pentagon is backing this future with a $179 billion R&D investment focused on AI, drone swarms, and autonomous systems. The revolution isn’t limited to ships—it extends to autonomous aircraft, land vehicles, and space-based platforms.

The Inflection Point

This may be the most transformative shift in warfare since the atomic age.

But unlike nuclear weapons, which stagnated under treaties and deterrence doctrines, autonomous systems evolve constantly—learning, adapting, improving. The next five years will likely deliver breakthroughs we can’t yet fully comprehend.

We’re not just upgrading platforms. We’re creating entire ecosystems of autonomous coordination that outpace human decision-making and redefine how wars are fought—and deterred.

Welcome to U.S. Navy 3.0—a new era defined not by bigger ships, but by smarter ones.

We’ve discussed this evolution before: Navy 1.0 was sail and steel; Navy 2.0 brought nuclear power and carrier dominance. Navy 3.0 marks a transformational leap driven by artificial intelligence, autonomy, and multi-domain integration. It’s not just about replacing crewed vessels with unmanned ones—it’s about rethinking naval power from the keel up. From swarming tactics to predictive logistics and machine-speed decision-making, Navy 3.0 is our opportunity to regain the edge in a world where adversaries are building faster, cheaper, and without rules.

The Legacy Challenge

This transformation faces significant resistance. Naval culture, built around centuries of seamanship and command tradition, doesn’t easily embrace unmanned systems. The defense industrial base, optimized for billion-dollar platforms with decades-long production cycles, struggles with MASC’s 18-month timelines and commercial standards.

But operational necessity is forcing evolution. When China builds ships faster than we can afford traditional platforms, alternatives become imperatives. The question isn’t whether to change—it’s whether we can change fast enough.

The Future Is Now

This isn’t a concept. It’s not theory. It’s happening:

  • Autonomous vessels are already patrolling the Pacific
  • Underwater gliders are proving months-long endurance
  • Unmanned surface warships are rewriting the rules of naval architecture
  • Containerized missile systems are operational
  • MASC solicitations are active with near-term delivery requirements

The revolution is not ahead of us. It’s around us.

And we’ve only just left the pier.

Why Americans Should Care

Autonomous warfare isn’t just a military story—it’s a national security imperative. Adversaries like China are racing to seize the advantage in unmanned systems. Falling behind means more than losing battles—it risks losing deterrence, freedom of navigation, and geopolitical influence.

The economic implications are equally significant. Navy 3.0’s emphasis on commercial standards and distributed production could revitalize American shipbuilding, creating jobs while strengthening national security.

Implications for the Navy

To remain dominant, the U.S. Navy must rethink everything: shipbuilding timelines, training paradigms, procurement processes, and alliances. Naval power in this new era will favor speed, adaptability, and distributed lethality.

Officer career paths built around commanding ships must evolve to managing autonomous swarms. Training programs must balance traditional seamanship with algorithmic warfare. Most critically, the Navy must maintain its warrior ethos while embracing radical technological change.

A Final Word

Let’s not confuse nostalgia with readiness. The romance of the sea will always have a place in our hearts—but it won’t protect our shores.

The wooden helm and salt air that shaped naval officers for generations remain valuable experiences. But future naval leaders will find meaning in different challenges: commanding autonomous fleets, coordinating multi-domain operations, and outthinking adversaries at machine speed.

If we want peace, we must master this new domain.

It’s time to embrace it. It’s time to invest. It’s time to lead.

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 roll.

Posted on

MASGA Marks a Critical Milestone—But the U.S. Navy Still Needs Urgent Industrial Surge

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

Introduction

From Waltz’s Warning to MASGA’s Launch

On September 27, 2023, Congressman Mike Waltz published “America Needs a National Maritime Strategy,” warning that the United States lacked the shipbuilding capacity and strategic alignment needed to counter China and sustain a maritime advantage.

Nearly two years later, that warning has materialized into policy.

On April 9–10, 2025, the White House issued the executive order “Restoring America’s Maritime Dominance,” launching the Maritime Action Plan and creating the new Office of Shipbuilding under the National Security Council.

Then, on July 31, 2025, South Korea’s Finance Minister confirmed the formal launch of Make America Shipbuilding Great Again (MASGA)—a $150 billion industrial partnership investing in U.S. shipyards, workforce development, and dual-use naval-commercial platforms.

What MASGA Does

MASGA is the largest public-private shipbuilding effort since the Cold War and includes:

  • Investment from South Korean giants like Hanwha Group into American yards (including the acquisition of Philly Shipyard)
  • Joint U.S.–ROK workforce training programs to close skilled labor gaps
  • New production of replenishment, patrol, and logistics vessels for both Navy and commercial use
  • Maintenance and drydock support for U.S. Navy ships on U.S. soil

It’s a big step forward—but one that must be matched with urgency.

Admiral Caudle’s Stark Warning: “We Need a 100% Industrial Surge”

On July 29, 2025, during his confirmation hearing for Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Daryl Caudle delivered a sobering message to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

To meet U.S. obligations under the AUKUS agreement—selling up to five Virginia-class submarines to Australia while sustaining our own fleet—the Navy must double its submarine output:

  • Current production: ~1.3 Virginia-class submarines per year
  • Required output: 2.3 per year

“We need a transformational improvement,” Caudle testified. “Not a 10 percent improvement, not a 20 percent—a 100 percent improvement.”

He added that international partnerships would be essential as the U.S. works to rebuild its organic capacity:

“There are no magic beans to that. The solution space must open up. We need ships today.”

Committee Chairman Roger Wicker stressed creativity, outsourcing, and urgency. Admiral Caudle agreed, calling for “an all-hands-on-deck approach.”

This is precisely where MASGA comes in.

Why MASGA Matters for the Navy

MASGA’s structure provides the kind of foreign capacity support and workforce relief Caudle explicitly called for. It aligns directly with the Navy’s urgent need for:

  • Surge production of submarines and surface combatants
  • Expanded maintenance infrastructure
  • Shipyard partnerships to relieve domestic pressure

Congressman Waltz anticipated this crisis in 2023. MASGA is the first large-scale step toward solving it.

The Broader Navy Production Challenge

Submarines aren’t the only problem. The Navy’s broader industrial needs remain acute:

  • Destroyer production has slipped behind plan; the Navy aims to buy 51 new destroyers over the next 30 years, but current yards are falling short.
  • Aircraft carriers like the USS John F. Kennedy (CVN‑79) are years behind schedule.
  • The Navy’s long-term fleet goal of 381 ships by 2042 will remain aspirational without massive industrial acceleration.

And even with MASGA, the Navy is still contending with an aging Military Sealift Command, an undersized Merchant Marine, and shipyard repair backlogs.

Modernization Means Autonomy—And We’re Behind

Modernizing the fleet doesn’t just mean more hulls—it means smarter platforms. The future of naval warfare will be shaped by autonomous surface and undersea vehicles, from uncrewed missile boats to AI-enabled minehunters and refueling drones. China is already fielding swarms of semi-autonomous systems in contested waters. Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy’s efforts under programs like the Medium and Large Unmanned Surface Vessel (MUSV/LUSV) remain limited by slow procurement and industrial bottlenecks. MASGA can accelerate the integration of autonomous systems by expanding modular shipbuilding capacity, repurposing civilian infrastructure, and enabling faster tech deployment across the fleet. Without autonomy, we fall behind—not just in numbers, but in survivability and battlefield adaptability.

What Must Come Next

MASGA is a launchpad, not a destination. To restore maritime power, the U.S. must:

Expand submarine production
Reach 2.3 attack subs/year by 2030. This requires labor, capital, and process modernization on a scale not seen in decades.

Accelerate surface fleet output
Ramp up destroyers, amphibious vessels, and support ships. Congress must deliver multi-year procurement and budget certainty.

Fix regulation and finance
Incentivize private capital to flow into U.S. shipyards, not Chinese ones. Close loopholes and create new maritime investment channels for Americans.

Grow the skilled workforce
Welders, naval architects, systems engineers—we need tens of thousands more. Joint international training must be paired with U.S. educational investments.

Modernize the Merchant Marine
We once had over 5,000 ships. Today, we have fewer than 80 engaged in international trade. This is a critical national vulnerability.

Closing Message: MASGA Is a Start, Not a Solution

MASGA validates the vision Mike Waltz articulated in 2023. It meets Admiral Caudle’s call for relief through allied partnerships. It aligns with the Navy’s production and readiness needs.

But China is still building. Delays persist. And the decision space for national security continues to shrink.

Let’s not wait another decade to act like a maritime power. Let’s build, now.

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.

Join us at StrongerNavy.org
Let’s roll.

Posted on

An Open Letter to America: The Future of U.S. Shipbuilding and Naval Strength

Dear Fellow Americans,

We stand at a crossroads in our nation’s history—one that will determine the future of our Navy, our national security, and the very strength of our industrial base. The question before us is clear: Should we rebuild our naval shipbuilding capabilities here at home, seek foreign assistance, or attempt a hybrid approach?

This is not just a debate about policy. It’s a decision that affects every American—from those who serve at sea to the workers who build our ships, to the families and businesses that rely on safe and open trade routes secured by the U.S. Navy.

A Crisis Decades in the Making

The United States Navy, once unrivaled, now finds itself struggling to maintain a fleet large enough to meet global threats. At the same time, our domestic shipbuilding industry has shrunk to a fraction of its former strength.

  • Fewer Shipyards: During World War II, the U.S. built a ship a day. Now, we are lucky to produce a handful of warships per year due to limited shipyard capacity.
  • Aging Repair Facilities: The few remaining naval repair yards are overburdened and outdated, leading to costly maintenance delays.
  • Worker Shortages: The skilled workforce needed to build and maintain ships has dwindled, leaving shipyards struggling to meet demand.
  • Rising Threats: China now produces more naval tonnage every year than the U.S. does in a decade. Russia and other adversaries are also modernizing their fleets.

The urgency is real. The Navy’s shipbuilding plan is behind schedule, over budget, and falling short of strategic needs. Simply put, we need more ships, more shipyards, and more skilled workers to build and sustain them.

The Debate: Build Here, Look Abroad, or Both?

President-elect Donald Trump recently suggested leaning on allies to help build U.S. Navy ships. His words have sparked a debate with far-reaching consequences.

There are three paths forward:

1. Fully Rebuild U.S. Shipbuilding Capacity (America First Approach)

  • Invest in more shipyards and repair facilities to increase production.
  • Expand apprenticeship and workforce training programs to address skilled labor shortages.
  • Modernize naval infrastructure to improve efficiency and speed of delivery.

✅ Pros: Strengthens U.S. industry, creates jobs, ensures security.
❌ Cons: Takes time, requires significant investment.

2. Use Allied Shipyards for Basic Infrastructure (Hybrid Approach)

  • Partner with allies (e.g., Japan, South Korea, Italy) to build less complex vessels while reserving warship production for U.S. yards.
  • Temporarily relieve the burden on U.S. shipyards while domestic capacity is rebuilt.

✅ Pros: Speeds up production, allows time for U.S. shipbuilding expansion.
❌ Cons: Security risks, reliance on foreign suppliers, potential job losses.

3. Fully Outsource Basic Infrastructure (Foreign Assistance Approach)

  • Contract allied nations to build support ships and basic naval infrastructure abroad.
  • Focus U.S. shipyards solely on high-end warship production.

✅ Pros: Short-term boost in fleet numbers, cost savings.
❌ Cons: Weakens U.S. shipbuilding industry, risks foreign dependency.

What’s at Stake?

No matter which path we take, one fact remains: The U.S. Navy needs more ships—and we need them faster. The growing threats on the world stage do not wait for political debates or bureaucratic delays.

America must decide:

  • Do we commit to fully restoring our shipbuilding industry, investing in shipyards, repair facilities, and workforce training?
  • Do we pursue a temporary partnership with allies to fill immediate gaps?
  • Do we accept foreign-built support ships, potentially at the cost of domestic industry?

This is not just a decision for policymakers—it is a choice for every American. The strength of our Navy is the strength of our nation.

A Call to Action

We need a national shipbuilding strategy that prioritizes American security, economic resilience, and industrial strength.

  • Expand our domestic shipbuilding capacity.
  • Modernize and build more repair facilities.
  • Train and recruit more American workers to sustain naval readiness.
  • Ensure the Navy has the fleet it needs to protect global commerce and national security.

History shows us that when America builds, America wins. The decision before us will shape the Navy for generations to come. Let’s make sure it’s a future built on strength.
Americans for a Stronger Navy
StrongerNavy.org. Join the discussion on X.com/strongernavy