Shipyards Archives - Americans for a Stronger Navy

April 7, 2026April 7, 2026

The Golden Fleet Needs a Funding Engine. We Built One.

Brent Sadler at The Heritage Foundation just published one of the most comprehensive naval shipbuilding blueprints in recent memory. The 40-page Special Report, To Build the Golden Fleet, released March 25, 2026, is required reading for anyone serious about what it will actually take to rebuild American sea power. We’ve read every page. Sadler gets it right.

But the report has a gap. And we’ve spent two and a half years building the mechanism to fill it.

First, the numbers that should stop every American cold.

As of March 2026, China’s fleet stands at 474 warships. Ours stands at 291. Since September 2016 — when Congress set a goal of 355 ships — China’s fleet has grown by more than 100 warships. We added 17. [1]

The 2016 Force Structure Assessment identified the real requirement as 459 warships. Budget pressure compressed that to 355. And 325 ships was assessed as “maximum acceptable risk” — a floor, not a goal. We are operating below that floor today.

Submarine production currently runs at 1.1 boats per year. The requirement is 2.33 per year — and above 3.0 per year once AUKUS demand kicks in. [1]

Secretary Phelan has said 250,000 new shipyard workers will be needed over the next decade. And according to the Navy’s own acquisition executive, 50 to 60 percent of new industrial base hires quit within their first year. [1]

There are eight U.S. shipyards capable of building vessels over 400 feet in length. Eight. For a nation that needs to build a generational fleet larger than the Reagan-era 600-ship buildup.

These are not advocacy numbers. These are Sadler’s numbers, sourced from the Pentagon, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Navy’s own planning documents.

What the Golden Fleet Report Gets Right

Sadler’s blueprint is built around two simultaneous imperatives that most naval commentary treats as separate problems. He holds them together correctly.

The first is getting firepower to sea now. The bridge fleet — largely unmanned platforms deploying existing weapons like Tomahawk cruise missiles and SM-6 missiles, built faster at smaller shipyards — addresses the 2027 Davidson Window without waiting for the industrial base to catch up. The USV Ranger’s successful SM-6 launch in September 2021 is the proof of concept. This is executable today.

The second is the generational industrial revival. New public shipyards in the Pacific. Design sprint teams collocated with shipbuilders. Vessel Construction Manager models that consolidate accountability. Modular construction techniques. Robotic welding systems that South Korean and Japanese shipyards have shown increase productivity by 20 percent. Block buys that give industry the funding predictability to invest in workforce and infrastructure rather than managing quarter-to-quarter. [1]

Sadler is particularly sharp on a point that rarely gets named directly: budgets must not predetermine the size or delivery schedule of the Golden Fleet. The threat informs the requirement. The requirement informs the budget. Not the other way around. Budget-led planning is how we got from a real requirement of 459 ships to a compromise of 355 to an actual fleet of 291 — while China added 100 warships.

The Gap the Report Doesn’t Fill

Sadler calls for novel contracting mechanisms — specifically SAWS, the Shipyard Accountability and Workforce Support contracting approach — matched with reformed tax structures that incentivize capital investment in shipbuilding capacity over pleasing Wall Street. He calls for a Naval Act with block buy authority. He calls for a fifth public shipyard in the Pacific at an estimated cost of $20 billion, with Congress appropriating initial funding now. [1]

These are the right prescriptions. But they share a structural dependency that the report doesn’t fully resolve: they all require sustained, predictable, mandatory funding that the annual appropriations process has consistently failed to deliver.

The White House Maritime Action Plan, released February 13, 2026, directed OMB to propose a legislative mechanism for a Maritime Security Trust Fund — a dedicated, mandatory funding stream. The directive was clear. The mechanism was left unspecified.

That mechanism is the Strategic SEAS Act.

The Funding Engine

The Strategic SEAS Act — the Shipbuilding Economic Acceleration and Security Act — proposes a sector-based defense reinvestment framework. Companies whose global operations depend on the maritime security the U.S. Navy provides contribute to a Maritime Security Trust Fund dedicated to shipbuilding capacity, fleet expansion, and maritime workforce development.

The logic is direct. American technology, developed with public investment and deployed at global scale, enabled the commercial operations that now depend on open sea lanes. China’s own shipbuilding capacity — the one producing more tonnage annually than the entire U.S. fleet — relies on logistics networks and advanced manufacturing that trace lineage to American innovation. The companies that benefit most from maritime security should have a structural stake in sustaining it.

This is not a new tax. It is a reinvestment framework — the same principle Sadler invokes when he calls for incentive structures that reward capital investment in shipbuilding over short-term financial returns.

The SEAS Act provides what SAWS and block buys cannot provide on their own: a funding stream that does not depend on annual appropriations decisions, does not compete with other defense priorities in the FYDP, and does not evaporate when political priorities shift between administrations.

Sadler’s Golden Fleet blueprint is the architecture. The SEAS Act is the funding engine that makes it executable across budget cycles.

The full framework has been published by the Center for Maritime Strategy as “Defense Reinvestment as Naval Strategy.” [2]

One More Data Point Worth Naming

In the comments section of Sadler’s September 2025 Washington Times piece, a reader identifying himself as the leader of the 2016 Force Structure Assessment study team wrote the following:

“I led the study team that developed the 2016 force structure assessment and just wanted to point out that the different numbers were based on assessed risk. CNO chose the 355-ship force that we assessed as ‘moderate risk’ while the 459 was minimal risk. We even had a 325-ship ‘maximum acceptable risk’ — which should say something about our current force level.”

Read that carefully. Three hundred twenty-five ships was the floor — the maximum acceptable risk threshold established by the people who ran the assessment. We have 291. We are not below the goal. We are below the floor.

That is not a readiness problem. That is a national security emergency dressed in budget language.

What Comes Next

Secretary of the Navy John Phelan confirmed this week that the Golden Fleet is no longer a blueprint — it is an active program. In a public statement, Phelan outlined decisive action already underway: canceled programs not delivering results, new Portfolio Acquisition Executives with accountability for integrated capabilities, a Rapid Capabilities Office to accelerate technology delivery, and Ship OS now scaled to two major shipbuilders, four public shipyards, and 100 suppliers. Most significantly for the funding argument, Phelan stated plainly that “the era of free money is over — industry now has skin in the game and investing in their own expansion.” That is the SEAS Act’s core logic stated from the highest level of Navy civilian leadership. The reinvestment principle is no longer outside advocacy. It is official policy direction waiting for a legislative mechanism.

The Golden Fleet details will emerge in the coming days as the Navy’s budget and 30-year shipbuilding plan follow the report. Sadler’s three metrics for judging whether it’s worthy remain the right standard: firepower to sea, new operational concepts to deter China, and maritime industrial revival.

The third metric — industrial revival — cannot be sustained by legislative authorization alone. It requires a funding architecture that outlasts administrations and survives budget cycles. The SEAS Act is that architecture.

Americans for a Stronger Navy has been building toward this moment for two and a half years. Eight hundred published posts. A nonpartisan record. A framework developed in consultation with naval policy experts, constitutional scholars, and defense industry stakeholders.

The blueprint exists. The funding mechanism exists. What remains is the political will to connect them.

That is what we are working on. And we are not going anywhere.

References

[1] Brent Sadler, “To Build the Golden Fleet,” The Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 328, March 25, 2026. https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/build-the-golden-fleet

[2] Bill Cullifer, “Defense Reinvestment as Naval Strategy: The Strategic SEAS Act and Industrial Base Competition,” Center for Maritime Strategy, 2026. https://centerformaritimestrategy.org/publications/defense-reinvestment-as-naval-strategy-the-strategic-seas-act-and-industrial-base-competition/

[3] White House Maritime Action Plan, February 13, 2026.

Bill Cullifer is the founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy and a former blue-water destroyer sailor who served aboard USS Henry B. Wilson (DDG-7). StrongerNavy.org.

March 8, 2026March 8, 2026

Understanding the U.S. Navy’s Industrial Challenge

The Questions Americans Deserve Answered (Part 1 of 8)

I served as a blue-water destroyer sailor in the 1970s, and like many veterans, I’ve spent the years since trying to understand how America maintains the naval strength that protects our country, our allies, and the global sea lanes we all depend on.

The charts and analysis below help tell part of that story.

This article is part of Charting the Course: Voices That Matter, our ongoing educational series exploring the future of American sea power and the policies, people, and industrial strength that sustain the U.S. Navy.

If you’re new to the series, you can start with the introduction here:
Inside the Navy’s Future: The Questions Americans Deserve Answered.

This article also launches a focused 8-part series within Charting the Course examining some of the most important questions facing the Navy today — from shipbuilding capacity and fleet readiness to workforce challenges and the future of maritime deterrence.

We’re calling it The Questions Americans Deserve Answered.

For most Americans, the Navy is something we think about only in moments of crisis. A conflict erupts, a carrier group deploys, or a headline mentions tensions in the Pacific or the Middle East.

But the strength of the U.S. Navy is not decided during those moments. It is determined years — sometimes decades — earlier in shipyards, classrooms, industrial plants, research labs, and congressional hearings.

Today the United States faces serious questions about shipbuilding capacity, industrial readiness, and long-term naval strategy. China is building ships at a pace the world has not seen in generations. Russia continues to challenge Western stability at sea. Critical maritime infrastructure and supply chains are increasingly vulnerable to disruption.

And yet many Americans remain understandably disconnected from the decisions shaping the future of our fleet.

The strength of the U.S. Navy is determined long before ships sail into crisis—it is built in shipyards, sustained by skilled workers, and shaped by decisions made years earlier in industry, technology, and national policy.

Why Americans Should Care

America is, and has always been, a maritime nation.

Nearly 90 percent of global trade moves by sea. The global economy depends on secure shipping lanes. Energy markets, supply chains, and the stability of democratic alliances all rely on freedom of navigation.

The U.S. Navy has quietly safeguarded those sea lanes for generations.

But maintaining that advantage requires more than ships — it requires people, industry, technology, and public understanding.

Chart: Global Operational Demand on the U.S. Navy

This Heritage Foundation chart illustrates the geographic reach of U.S. naval operations across multiple regions. Carrier Strike Groups and Amphibious Ready Groups are routinely deployed worldwide, highlighting the constant global demand placed on the fleet.

The Questions Americans Deserve Answered

Over the coming weeks, this series will explore several critical questions about the future of U.S. sea power.

Can America rebuild the shipbuilding capacity required to compete in a new era of great power competition?

Do we have enough skilled workers — engineers, welders, and naval architects — to sustain fleet growth?

How serious is the maintenance backlog affecting submarines and surface ships?

Are current procurement processes helping or hurting the Navy’s ability to modernize?

How should the United States balance aircraft carriers, submarines, uncrewed systems, and logistics platforms?

What role do civilian shipyards and maritime infrastructure play in national security?

Can the United States scale submarine production fast enough to match emerging threats?

And perhaps most importantly: how do we ensure the American public remains engaged in decisions that affect the future of the fleet?

These are not partisan questions. They are national questions.

Understanding the Industrial Challenge

Much of the discussion about naval power focuses on ships already at sea. But the true story begins on land — in America’s shipyards and industrial base.

Chart: Age Distribution of Chinese and U.S. Naval Fleets

This chart compares the age distribution of Chinese and U.S. naval fleets. China’s fleet contains a larger number of relatively new ships, reflecting rapid shipbuilding expansion in recent years.

China now possesses the world’s largest shipbuilding industry by a wide margin.

Meanwhile, American shipyards face workforce shortages, supply chain constraints, and unpredictable funding cycles.

Chart: U.S. Navy Ships Nearing or Exceeding Service Life

This chart shows the growing number of U.S. Navy ships approaching — or exceeding — their expected service life, placing additional strain on fleet readiness and modernization timelines.

The Human Factor

Ships and technology matter — but ultimately the Navy is built on people.

From sailors standing watch at sea tonight to the skilled workers building submarines and carriers at home, the strength of the fleet depends on the dedication and expertise of thousands of Americans.

Implications for Our Allies

America does not operate alone at sea.

Alliances with countries such as Japan, Australia, the Philippines, and NATO partners form a critical part of global maritime stability.

These partnerships reinforce an important truth: deterrence is strongest when democracies stand together.

Public Engagement Matters

The U.S. Navy ultimately belongs to the American people.

Yet the complexity of defense planning can make it difficult for citizens to understand how decisions about shipbuilding, budgets, and strategy affect national security.

That is one of the reasons we created StrongerNavy.org.

Our goal is simple: help Americans better understand the challenges facing the fleet, the industrial base that supports it, and the people who serve at sea and in shipyards across the country.

The Questions Americans Deserve Answered — Series Guide

Part 1 – Understanding the Industrial Challenge (this article)

Part 2 – Can America Rebuild Shipbuilding Capacity?

Part 3 – The Submarine Production Challenge

Part 4 – Maintenance and Fleet Readiness

Part 5 – Workforce and the Maritime Industrial Base

Part 6 – The Role of Allies in Sea Power

Part 7 – Procurement, Policy, and the Future Fleet

Part 8 – Why Public Engagement Matters

That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — an ongoing
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.

January 20, 2026January 20, 2026

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

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.

January 13, 2026January 13, 2026

Why Battleships Still Matter—Even If We Never Build One Again

Naval historian Trent Hone recently published a thoughtful piece explaining why the U.S. Navy no longer builds battleships—and why, from a warfighting standpoint, it probably shouldn’t.

Hone’s argument is straightforward: the operational logic that once justified battleships has been obsolete for decades. Big guns gave way to aircraft. Aircraft gave way to missiles. Today’s naval combat rewards dispersion, networking, and numbers—not massive armored hulls.

That assessment is widely shared among naval professionals.

But Hone makes a second, more subtle point that deserves more attention: battleships have always carried symbolic power far beyond their military utility. They were never just weapons. They were national statements—about strength, reach, prestige, and ambition.

That symbolic role has not disappeared.

And that’s where the conversation gets interesting.

Two Serious Perspectives, One Shared Conclusion

Hone is a respected scholar and strategist. He holds the Marine Corps University Foundation Chair of Strategic Studies and has written extensively about how naval doctrine evolves with technology and threat environments. His view is clear: building a new battleship today would produce a smaller, less resilient, less lethal fleet than the alternatives.

Others, however, approach the issue from a different angle.

Defense analyst Brent Sadler, for example, has argued that what matters most is not any specific platform but the urgent need to rebuild American sea power at scale. His emphasis is on fleet size, industrial capacity, and the ability to sustain combat operations over time. For Sadler, bold ideas—even controversial ones—are useful if they force the public to confront how far the Navy has fallen behind its global responsibilities.

These two views may differ on specifics, but they converge on something essential:

America needs a stronger Navy.

Not symbolically. Not nostalgically. Structurally.

The Real Problem Isn’t Battleships—It’s Public Understanding

The deeper issue raised by this debate is not whether we should build a new class of battleships. It’s that the American public has lost touch with what sea power actually means.

Most Americans don’t see the Navy at work.
They don’t see trade routes.
They don’t see chokepoints.
They don’t see logistics.
They don’t see undersea cables.
They don’t see maintenance backlogs.
They don’t see shipyard fragility.
They don’t see attrition math.

But they do recognize symbols.

Battleships, like aircraft carriers, are easy to understand. They look powerful. They feel powerful. They communicate strength in a way spreadsheets and logistics diagrams do not.

That doesn’t make them good warfighting solutions—but it does make them powerful communication tools.

And the Navy has a communication problem.

A stronger Navy is not only a military challenge. It is a civic one—requiring public understanding, long-term commitment, and new thinking about how we fund and sustain national security.

Why Americans Should Care

The U.S. Navy is not just a military force. It is the invisible foundation of modern American life.

It protects global trade.
It stabilizes energy flows.
It keeps shipping lanes open.
It reassures allies.
It deters coercion.
It underwrites economic stability.

When the Navy weakens, these systems become fragile.

That fragility doesn’t show up overnight—but it shows up eventually.

Implications for the Navy

Modern naval power is no longer about a few dominant platforms. It is about:

Numbers
Redundancy
Repairability
Sustainment
Resilience
Industrial depth
Networked operations

A stronger Navy is not just a bigger Navy—it is a Navy that can take losses and keep fighting.

That requires more ships, more shipyards, more trained sailors, and more public support.

Implications for Our Allies

Allies do not just look at U.S. statements. They look at U.S. capacity.

They ask:
Can America show up?
Can America stay?
Can America sustain?
Can America adapt?

A strong Navy reassures allies.
A hollow Navy invites testing.

Where We Stand

At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we are not here to pick winners in platform debates. Reasonable people will disagree about hulls, missiles, drones, and fleet composition.

But most serious voices agree on one thing:

The Navy is stretched too thin.
The industrial base is fragile.
The fleet is too small for its mission set.
And the public does not understand what’s at stake.

That is the gap we exist to close.

Not through nostalgia.
Not through fear.
But through education.

Because a democracy cannot sustain a strong Navy if it does not understand why it needs one.

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.

January 9, 2026January 9, 2026

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.

August 5, 2025August 5, 2025

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

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.

August 2, 2025August 3, 2025

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

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.

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.

July 24, 2025July 24, 2025

America’s Fleet Readiness Crisis: What 80% Really Means

Introduction

If you’ve been following along, you know we’ve been sounding the alarm for some time now—raising concerns not out of fear, but out of duty. At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we don’t profit from defense contracts or feed the industrial complex. We’re here because the facts are in: the Navy is falling short of the readiness our nation demands—and we must do better.

The U.S. Navy is aiming for 80% surge readiness by 2027—but it’s stuck at 60%. That 20% gap could determine whether America deters conflict—or invites one.

Brent Sadler, Senior Fellow for Naval Warfare and Advanced Technology at The Heritage Foundation and author of U.S. Naval Power in the 21st Century: A New Strategy for Facing the Chinese and Russian Threat, put it bluntly:

“It won’t happen until more ships enter the fleet to drive operational tempo down to 30%.”

Top Navy leaders have echoed this urgency. As one Navy official said plainly:

“We must increase our fleet readiness to 80% by 2027 to meet global security demands and deter peer-level threats.”

That’s the heart of the problem—and a major reason we’re sounding the alarm.

From the Indo-Pacific to the U.S. Southern border, the Navy is being stretched dangerously thin. The ships we have are aging, overworked, and under-maintained. Meanwhile, new construction is lagging—leaving sailors to shoulder an impossible burden, and the nation exposed.

At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we don’t advocate fear—we advocate responsibility. We believe war is preventable, but only if America wakes up and acts.

Let’s move beyond slogans. Let’s build understanding, accountability, and strength—before the next crisis comes knocking.

April 13, 2025April 13, 2025

Open Letter: Give the Navy the Tools—And Stop Leaving Us to Pick Up the Pieces

By Bill Cullifer
Founder, Americans for a Stronger Navy
Former U.S. Navy Destroyer Sailor (1970s)

There’s been a lively debate online between economic giants Larry Summers and David Sacks about tariffs, trade policy, and the consequences of decades of globalization. But while they spar over markets and presidential strategies, a bigger question goes largely unspoken:

Who picks up the pieces when economic policy becomes a national vulnerability?

As someone who served in the U.S. Navy in the 1970s and now leads Americans for a Stronger Navy, I’ve watched closely as the Navy quietly shoulders the consequences of decisions made far from the sea. While economists argue over the stock market’s reaction to tariffs, the Navy secures global trade routes, deters adversaries, and absorbs the burden of an offshored industrial base.

But the Navy isn’t alone. Entire sectors of American life—logistics, agriculture, energy, pharmaceuticals, entertainment, finance, and technology—depend on the smooth flow of global trade. From major ports and retailers to family farms and Fortune 500 companies, virtually every modern American business benefits from the stability the Navy helps provide.

The American economy is global because the U.S. Navy keeps it that way.

Yet in the recent debate, while Summers described trillions lost in market volatility and economic fallout, no one mentioned the ripple effects on military readiness, deterrence, or strategic capability. That absence reflects a dangerous blind spot.

When Wall Street stumbles, the Navy sails.
When diplomacy falters or trade routes are threatened, the Navy deploys.
But today it’s doing so with fewer ships, aging platforms, and underinvested shipyards—while our adversaries build, modernize, and maneuver.

This isn’t just a Navy issue. It’s a business issue. A national issue.

If your industry touches global trade—if you depend on international logistics, rare earth minerals, undersea cables, satellite access, shipping lanes, or simply consumer confidence—then you depend on a ready and capable Navy.

This is a message to American industry: You benefit. You must engage. You must contribute.

We need your voice—and your leadership—in support of:

Rebuilding our shipbuilding and repair base
Investing in drones, AI, and technologies that give our fleet an edge
Modernizing infrastructure and dry docks that sustain readiness
Funding advocacy and education to spark public awareness

The economic world order your industry thrives in exists because American sea power has kept the global commons safe for decades. That foundation is eroding—and silence is no longer an option.

At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we’re connecting the dots between civic awareness, economic strategy, and maritime strength. We’ve launched a 24-part educational initiative to help Americans understand what’s at stake and how to act.

Explore the series: Charting the Course – For Country. For Unity. For a Stronger Navy.

Whether you’re a CEO, policymaker, investor, teacher, or neighbor—this affects you. Now is the time to link economic resilience with strategic defense. To give the Navy the tools—not just praise—before the next storm arrives.

This is your moment to lead. Not from the sidelines—but from the front.

Use your platform. Leverage your influence. Show the next generation that prosperity is earned—and defended.

Because a secure economy doesn’t start with policy.
It starts with power. And power starts at sea.

Learn more at StrongerNavy.org and join the movement to educate, equip, and engage.

A stronger Navy requires a stronger America behind it. Let’s get to work.

April 9, 2025April 17, 2025

Trump Signs Executive Order to Revitalize U.S. Shipbuilding

A Turning Point for America’s Maritime Strength

In a bold move aimed at restoring America’s maritime edge, President Donald Trump signed an executive order today (April 9, 2025) designed to revitalize the U.S. shipbuilding industry and reduce China’s growing control over the global shipping supply chain. The order calls for sweeping changes across trade, industry investment, and national security infrastructure—setting the stage for long-term renewal of America’s commercial and naval shipping capabilities.

What the Executive Order Includes

The new executive order establishes:

Maritime Security Trust Fund
A dedicated fund to provide stable, long-term investment in shipbuilding, shipyards, dry docks, and repair facilities. Potential funding sources include tariffs, fines, port fees, and other federal revenue streams.

Port Fees on Chinese-Linked Ships
Ships flagged by China or built in Chinese shipyards may soon face significant docking fees at U.S. ports. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is expected to finalize this remedy by mid-April. Allies will also be encouraged to implement similar restrictions.

Tariffs on Chinese-Made Cargo Equipment
The order directs the USTR to consider imposing tariffs on ship-to-shore cranes and cargo handling gear manufactured or assembled in China—or made with Chinese-controlled components anywhere in the world.

Enforcement of Harbor Maintenance Fees
To prevent workarounds, Homeland Security will crack down on companies trying to avoid U.S. fees by routing shipments through Mexico and Canada before transporting them across land borders.

Incentives for U.S. Shipyard Investment
The executive order includes provisions for incentivizing private sector investment in new or revitalized U.S. shipyards, commercial ship components, and critical maritime infrastructure.

Why Americans Should Care

The United States currently produces less than 1% of the world’s commercial ships—while China builds about 50%. In 1999, China’s share was just 5%. This trend has massive implications not just for economic competitiveness, but for national security and maritime logistics.

As President Trump put it:
“We used to build a ship a day, and now we don’t build a ship a year, practically. We have the capacity to do it.”

This executive order is more than policy—it’s a call to action.

Implications for the Navy

While the executive order does not explicitly mention the U.S. Navy, its impact on naval readiness and strategic capability is unmistakable. Revitalizing America’s commercial shipbuilding infrastructure strengthens the industrial base the Navy relies on for new construction, maintenance, and repairs. Investments in dry docks, skilled labor, and cargo handling capabilities bolster our ability to support fleet operations—especially in times of crisis.

Moreover, reducing reliance on Chinese-built shipping equipment and infrastructure directly supports U.S. naval strategy. It limits vulnerabilities in ports and logistics chains, while reinforcing America’s control over critical maritime assets. A stronger shipbuilding sector means a stronger Navy, even if it’s not named in the order.

Implications for Our Allies

The executive order sends a message to America’s allies: We are serious about maritime strength and expect partners to do the same. With Chinese-built vessels operating across global supply chains, coordinated action could limit strategic vulnerabilities and encourage diversified, allied-aligned shipping infrastructure.

A Statement from Americans for a Stronger Navy

“This executive order is a long-overdue step toward restoring our nation’s ability to build and maintain the ships we depend on for both commerce and defense. The Navy does not operate in a vacuum—it needs a healthy, resilient industrial base. America must lead again on the seas, not just militarily, but commercially. This is how we secure freedom of navigation, economic stability, and peace through strength.”
— Bill Cullifer, founder, Americans for a Stronger Navy

Your Voice Matters

This is our moment. Let’s celebrate the executive order—but keep pushing until America leads on the seas again. Congress must act, industry must respond, and Americans must stay engaged.