Tag: Americans for a Stronger Navy

Posted on

America’s Navy Needs a Course Correction—The Pentagon’s ‘D’ Grade is a National Security Failure

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

The latest National Security Innovation Base Summit gave the Pentagon a D grade for modernization. A D—not just in shipbuilding, but across the board in weapons innovation, procurement, and efficiency. This isn’t just a bureaucratic failure; it’s a direct threat to America’s national security.

My friend and shipmate from the ‘70s, Captain David Lennon, USNR (Retired), sent me this Fox News article, saying, “This echoes what you and I have been saying.” He’s right. We’ve been warning for years that America’s defense strategy is moving too slowly to keep up with global threats

The Pentagon’s Outdated Approach to Modern Warfare

According to House Armed Services Committee Vice Chair Rob Wittman, the Pentagon operates like the Ford Motor Company in the 1950s—slow, bureaucratic, and resistant to change.

“The Pentagon is the Ford Motor Company of the 1950s. I mean, the way they operate—slow, stoic. ‘Let’s spend years to write a requirement, then let’s spend years to go to a program or record, let’s spend years to acquire.’ By the time we acquire something, guess what? The threat’s way ahead of us.” – Rep. Wittman

That’s the fundamental problem—our enemies aren’t waiting for us to figure things out. China is churning out warships at breakneck speed, modernizing its naval capabilities, and outpacing us in cybersecurity and artificial intelligence. Meanwhile, the U.S. is stuck in a procurement cycle that takes decades.

Captain Lennon put it bluntly:

“America once built a navy that could fight and win a world war. Today, we struggle to maintain 295 deployable ships while our adversaries launch vessels at breakneck speed. This is not just a shipbuilding problem—it’s a national security crisis.”

Shipbuilding: A Slow-Motion Disaster

The U.S. Navy currently has 295 deployable ships. The plan calls for 390 by 2054, but at this rate, we won’t even keep up with ship retirements.

The Maritime Security Program, which maintains a fleet of privately owned, military-useful ships, is down to just 60 vessels. If a major conflict broke out in the Pacific tomorrow, we wouldn’t have the sealift capability to respond effectively.

And while China expands its navy at an alarming rate, the U.S. struggles with:

    • Delayed procurement cycles that take years just to approve new ships.

    • Budget cuts and shifting priorities that prevent consistent progress.

    • Shipyard bottlenecks due to a weakened industrial base.

Cyber Warfare: The Unseen Battlefield

Another major concern raised in the Fox News report is China’s superiority in cybersecurity. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA) stated:

“China specifically is better at cybersecurity than we are. It only takes one or two incursions that we don’t see coming or that we aren’t responsive to, to make an enormous difference here.”

Captain Lennon underscored this growing threat:

“China and Russia don’t just challenge us at sea—they challenge us in cyberspace, in supply chains, and in economic warfare. The Navy can’t just be stronger; it has to be smarter, faster, and ready for an entirely new battlespace.”

The Pentagon’s inability to keep pace in cybersecurity makes America vulnerable. China is hacking into critical infrastructure, stealing defense blueprints, and gaining access to classified information. The next war may not begin with missiles—it may start with an attack on our power grid, financial systems, or military networks.

A White House Office of Shipbuilding? What Comes Next?

The Fox News report also revealed that President Trump is taking a direct interest in shipbuilding. His nominee for Navy Secretary, John Phelan, stated that Trump regularly texts him late at night, asking about the state of the fleet.

Trump announced the creation of a White House Office of Shipbuilding, promising to revitalize ship production. While this sounds promising, the real test will be whether it cuts through the bureaucracy and actually delivers results.

Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO) described how slow innovation is killing our ability to compete:

“We’re operating off of an innovation cycle right now that, you know, used to be a decade, and it used to be five years. Then it used to be three years, and now it’s a year or less innovation cycle. In Ukraine, they’re actually operating off of week-long innovation cycles.”

Where Do We Go From Here?

This isn’t just a military problem—it’s an economic and strategic problem that affects every American. If we fail to modernize, we risk losing control of key shipping lanes, economic stability, and military deterrence.

Captain Lennon and I both agree:

“Our nation faces an inflection point. Will we modernize our Navy to meet the challenges ahead, or will we let slow processes and outdated thinking leave us vulnerable? The choice is ours—but the clock is ticking.”

This is Why I’m Launching Our Educational Series

This conversation is exactly why I’m launching the China, Russia, and America: Navigating Global Rivalries and Naval Challenges series.

This 23-episode educational initiative will break down how history, economics, and military strategy shape today’s global threats—and why America must rally behind its Navy.

    • We’ll dive deeper into shipbuilding, looking at past successes and today’s failures.

    • We’ll unpack cybersecurity threats, explaining why China and Russia view cyber warfare as a battlefield as real as the Pacific or the South China Sea.

    • We’ll break down public policy, exposing how red tape and slow procurement cripple our defense efforts.

This series isn’t just about the Navy—it’s about why the Navy matters to you.

We need Americans engaged in this conversation because without public support, we won’t get the changes we need.

Captain Lennon and I will continue speaking out, but we need more voices in this fight.

Join Us. Stay Informed. Take Action.

Follow along at StrongerNavy.org as we roll out this critical series. It’s time to wake up America—before it’s too late.

Posted on

People Powering Progress: The U.S. Navy’s Smart Approach to Modernization

For years, America’s Navy has been a punching bag for criticism, often seen as slow to modernize or inefficient in spending. While scrutiny is necessary, it’s time to tell the other side of the story—the one about the thousands of dedicated Navy personnel and industry professionals working relentlessly to ensure the fleet remains strong, cost-effective, and mission-ready.

One of the best examples of this commitment is the Navy’s rapid deployment of Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System (C-UAS) capabilities aboard USS Indianapolis (LCS 17). Instead of developing an entirely new system at great expense, the Navy and its partners took a smarter approach—upgrading the existing Surface-to-Surface Missile Module (SSMM) to counter drone threats in contested environments.

Real People, Real Impact

This isn’t just about technology—it’s about people.

  • Navy officers and sailors who are actively testing and deploying these systems in real-world operations.
  • Engineers and defense contractors working behind the scenes to ensure the technology is reliable, cost-effective, and adaptable.
  • Strategists and policymakers balancing modernization with budget efficiency, ensuring that America’s Navy is both powerful and financially responsible.

Capt. Matthew Lehmann, program manager for LCS Mission Modules, highlighted this teamwork:
“By leveraging the adaptability of proven technologies in partnership with the Integrated Warfare Systems 80 program office, we were able to deliver on a critical need to the Fleet. This accomplishment showcases the ingenuity and resourcefulness of the Littoral Combat Ship Mission Module Program.”

Smart Spending in a Scrutinized Budget

At a time when leaders like former President Trump and business mogul Elon Musk are calling for greater accountability in defense spending, the Navy is proving that modernization doesn’t have to mean runaway costs.

  • The SSMM upgrade shows that the Navy is reusing and improving existing systems rather than building from scratch.
  • By integrating AI-driven detection, modular sensors, and open-architecture systems, upgrades remain adaptable and cost-efficient.
  • Industry partnerships with Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and General Atomics ensure that new technology is integrated without unnecessary government overhead.

Rear Adm. Kevin Smith summed it up best:
“This rapid integration of C-UAS capabilities enhances our ability to project power and maintain freedom of maneuver in contested environments. We are not only addressing immediate threats but also strengthening the Navy’s overall strategy for operational agility, deterrence, and sustained dominance.”

Industry & Navy Partnership Driving Innovation

Modernizing the U.S. Navy isn’t just a military effort—it’s a collaborative mission between dedicated sailors and some of the most advanced technology companies in the country. Industry leaders like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and General Atomics are bringing cutting-edge AI, automation, and drone defense solutions to the fleet. These partnerships ensure that modernization is not just about spending money—it’s about getting the best value for every dollar spent while equipping our Navy with the tools needed to stay ahead of emerging threats.

Key industry players include:

  1. Lockheed Martin – Developing scalable counter-unmanned aerial systems (C-UAS) with AI-driven detection, modular sensors, and command-and-control systems.
  2. Northrop Grumman – Contracted to develop C-UAS solutions for the Navy.
  3. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) – Testing government-provided autonomy software aboard the MQ-20 Avenger, demonstrating potential advances in Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAVs).
  4. uAvionix – Developed Casia G, enabling 24/7 Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) drone operations.
  5. Volatus Aerospace & Draganfly – Enhancing geospatial and automation capabilities.
  6. Pierce Aerospace – Working on Remote ID detection technology to identify unauthorized drones.

A Message from Americans for a Stronger Navy

“This isn’t just about hardware—it’s about the people who believe in a stronger, more cost-effective Navy. From the sailors aboard the USS Indianapolis to the engineers at Lockheed Martin, thousands of Americans are working every day to ensure the Navy remains a force to be reckoned with—without wasting taxpayer dollars.

We at Americans for a Stronger Navy believe this is the kind of smart, strategic modernization that deserves recognition. Our Navy isn’t just adapting to today’s threats—it’s building a foundation for a stronger, smarter future. This is what peace through strength looks like.”

Final Call to Action: Join the Conversation

At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we believe in supporting the hardworking sailors, engineers, and industry partners who are ensuring the Navy remains strong, modern, and cost-effective. But we can’t do it alone.

✅ Engage with us—Share your thoughts on what a stronger, smarter Navy looks like.
✅ Spread the word—Help shift the narrative to recognize the real efforts behind modernization.
✅ Stay informed—Follow us for updates on how the Navy is adapting to new challenges.

💬 What do you think? Let us know in the comments or visit StrongerNavy.org to learn more. Join the discussion on X.

Join the movement.

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

Strengthening America’s Maritime Future: A Wake-Up Call for Action

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we have long advocated for a robust maritime strategy that includes both a stronger U.S. Navy and a revitalized civilian maritime industry. Our commitment to this cause is rooted in a belief that America’s strength at sea is indispensable to its national security, economic stability, and global leadership.

Recently, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) released findings from an investigation into China’s dominance in the shipbuilding, maritime, and logistics sectors, revealing practices that undermine fair competition and threaten American interests. This news reaffirms the urgency of revitalizing our shipbuilding industry—a call echoed by U.S. legislators like Senator John Garamendi and others who are leading efforts to rebuild our maritime capabilities.

What the Investigation Found

The USTR investigation, launched in response to petitions by five unions, highlights how China’s aggressive industrial policies have positioned it as a global leader in shipbuilding. According to USTR Katherine Tai, China builds over 1,700 ships annually—dwarfing the fewer than five built by the United States. The report emphasizes that Beijing’s practices displace foreign firms, foster dependencies, and create significant economic and security risks for the U.S.

Quoting Katherine Tai:
“Beijing’s targeted dominance of these sectors undermines fair, market-oriented competition, increases economic security risks, and is the greatest barrier to revitalization of U.S. industries.”

Why This Matters

America’s maritime industry was once the backbone of our global influence and security. Today, it is a shadow of its former self, leaving us vulnerable to external dependencies. The decline of U.S. shipbuilding not only erodes our military readiness but also jeopardizes our economic security, particularly in the face of escalating geopolitical tensions with China.

The implications extend beyond shipbuilding. Logistics, supply chains, and the broader maritime ecosystem are critical to ensuring that America can sustain its global commitments and respond to crises effectively. As Alliance for American Manufacturing President Scott Paul aptly noted:
“Failing to take decisive action will leave our shipbuilding capabilities at the mercy of Beijing’s persistent predatory market distortions.”

Legislative Efforts to Revitalize U.S. Shipbuilding

Amid these challenges, leaders like Senator John Garamendi are working to reverse the tide. Garamendi, alongside Senators Mark Kelly and Todd Young, recently introduced the SHIPS for America Act—a comprehensive, bipartisan effort to rebuild the U.S. shipbuilding industry and expand the U.S.-flagged fleet. Key provisions of this legislation include:

  • Establishing a national maritime strategy and a White House Maritime Security Advisor.
  • Expanding the U.S.-flagged fleet by 250 ships over the next decade.
  • Rebuilding the shipyard industrial base with tax credits, financial incentives, and funding for workforce development.
  • Strengthening regulations to ensure government-funded cargo is transported on U.S.-flagged vessels.

These efforts align closely with our own calls for a balanced strategy that integrates the needs of both the Navy and civilian maritime industries.

What Needs to Be Done

The USTR’s findings, combined with the SHIPS for America Act and related initiatives, offer a roadmap to reclaim America’s maritime leadership. However, this will require decisive action from policymakers, industry leaders, and the American public. We need to:

  • Invest in shipbuilding infrastructure and workforce development.
  • Expand the U.S.-flagged fleet to reduce dependence on foreign shipping.
  • Foster innovation in shipbuilding technologies to compete globally.
  • Unite bipartisan support for maritime legislation that prioritizes national security and economic resilience.

A Call to Action: Wake Up, America!

The stakes have never been higher. As we outlined in our recent open letter, the decline of America’s maritime capabilities is not just an industry problem—it’s a national security crisis. For too long, we have allowed complacency to erode our standing as a maritime power. It’s time to wake up.

We urge you to contact your representatives and demand support for legislation like the SHIPS for America Act. Share this message with your community, and join us in advocating for a stronger Navy and a revitalized civilian maritime industry.

America’s future at sea depends on it. Let’s make it happen.

Credit to AFP for their reporting on the USTR investigation and to the Alliance for American Manufacturing for their continued advocacy.

“`

Posted on

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

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

Introduction: A Decision Made in Haste

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

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

Historical Context: Cooperation vs. Competition

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

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

The Costs of Neglect: Knowledge Shared, Power Shifted

The consequences of this complacency are clear:

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

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

A Navy Left Holding the Line

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

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

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

A Call for Accountability and Action

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

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

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

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

It’s time to demand:

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

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

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

Conclusion: Enough Is Enough

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

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

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