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
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.
Welcome Back to Our Series on the F-35: A Closer Look at Defense Planning
Bill Cullifer, Founder
In the first article of this series, we explored the intense debate surrounding the F-35 program, diving into its groundbreaking capabilities, its criticisms, and its significance for the U.S. Navy. If you missed it, we encourage you to catch up by clicking here—it sets the stage for the deeper dive we’re taking today.
In this second installment, we’re peeling back the layers of what goes into planning and sustaining a program as complex as the F-35. From long-term strategic considerations to the technological, geopolitical, and logistical hurdles faced by planners and engineers, this article offers a behind-the-scenes look at the monumental efforts required to develop and maintain advanced military technology.
Here’s what you’ll find inside:
Strategic Planning: How the Navy balances current operational needs with future threats.
Technological Challenges: The complexities of integrating cutting-edge features into a carrier-based fighter.
Economic and Geopolitical Factors: The program’s impact on global alliances, jobs, and military readiness.
Transparency and Accountability: Why oversight and public engagement are critical to sustaining programs like the F-35.
This journey isn’t just about understanding the aircraft—it’s about appreciating the intricate process that ensures the U.S. Navy remains a global leader. So, let’s dive into the complexities of defense planning and explore why it’s so important for all Americans to stay informed and engaged.
Behind the Scenes of Defense Planning
Strategic Long-Term Planning
Planning for advanced defense technologies like the F-35C involves decades of conceptualization, funding, and rigorous testing. For the U.S. Navy, the decision to adopt the F-35C reflects a commitment to maintaining carrier-based air superiority in a rapidly evolving security environment. Designed specifically for aircraft carrier operations, the F-35C integrates seamlessly into the Navy’s long-term strategy, ensuring that its forces remain capable of operating in contested environments.
The Navy’s investment in the F-35C stems from a broader strategic need to modernize its air fleet while phasing out aging fourth-generation aircraft. This decision underscores the complexity of defense planning, which requires balancing current operational needs with anticipated future threats. As adversaries like China and Russia rapidly develop their military capabilities, platforms like the F-35C are essential to preserving the U.S.’s global dominance.
Technological Integration Challenges
The F-35C showcases the challenges of integrating cutting-edge technology into military operations. Unlike its Air Force and Marine counterparts, the Navy’s F-35 variant required extensive modifications to meet the unique demands of carrier-based operations. These include larger wings, foldable wingtips, and a sturdier undercarriage to withstand the harsh conditions of catapult launches and arrested landings. Additionally, the F-35C incorporates enhanced resistance to saltwater corrosion, a necessity for sustained operations at sea.
Despite its technological advancements, the F-35C program has faced significant hurdles, including cost overruns and delays. For example, the Technology Refresh-3 (TR-3) upgrade, intended to enhance the aircraft’s computing power, has been a source of frustration for the Navy. These challenges illustrate the iterative nature of developing and refining advanced military systems.
Geopolitical Considerations
The F-35C’s capabilities extend beyond its technical specifications. As a multi-role platform, it serves as a powerful deterrent to adversaries. The Navy’s reliance on the F-35C signals to nations like China that the U.S. is committed to maintaining its edge in contested regions, such as the South China Sea. The aircraft’s stealth, speed, and ability to conduct precision strikes make it an invaluable tool in both conventional and high-tech warfare scenarios.
Geopolitically, the F-35 program also strengthens alliances. With several allied nations incorporating F-35 variants into their air forces, interoperability becomes a strategic advantage. This network of F-35 operators ensures coordinated responses to shared threats, reinforcing collective security.
Economic and Logistical Complexities
The F-35 program’s economic impact is vast, supporting over 250,000 jobs in the United States alone. For the Navy, the decision to standardize on the F-35C reduces logistical burdens by consolidating multiple roles—air superiority, strike missions, ISR, and electronic warfare—into a single platform. However, this consolidation comes with risks, including higher upfront costs and the potential for system-wide vulnerabilities if issues arise.
Lockheed Martin, the primary contractor, has faced scrutiny over the program’s ballooning costs, now estimated at over $1 trillion for the lifecycle of the aircraft. Yet, these investments are seen as critical to maintaining the U.S.’s technological edge. The challenges of balancing cost-efficiency with operational effectiveness are central to the debate surrounding the F-35C.
Accountability and Oversight
Programs like the F-35 require robust oversight to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent effectively. The Navy’s commitment to transparency in addressing technical challenges and cost overruns reflects its dedication to accountability. Congressional involvement and independent audits play a crucial role in maintaining checks and balances.
Critics, including prominent figures like Elon Musk, have questioned the value of manned fighter jets in the age of drones and artificial intelligence. While such critiques highlight valid concerns, they often overlook the nuanced planning and strategic imperatives that shape programs like the F-35C.
Conclusion
The F-35C is more than just an aircraft—it is a testament to the complexity and ambition of modern defense planning. From its advanced technological features to its role in deterring adversaries and strengthening alliances, the F-35C embodies the challenges and opportunities of 21st-century warfare. By peeling back the layers of this program, we gain a deeper appreciation for the intricate decisions that ensure the U.S. Navy remains a global leader. As Americans, it is vital to stay informed and engaged in these conversations, recognizing the stakes involved in shaping the future of our national defense.
Enhancing Insights with Industry Expertise
Adding context to this discussion, Booz Allen Hamilton’s contributions to the F-35 program highlight the depth of planning involved. By delivering innovative cost-reduction strategies and boosting readiness, Booz Allen’s work underscores the collaborative efforts required to optimize complex defense systems. Their introduction of advanced analytics tools like the Opus lifecycle management suite has driven $5 billion in cost savings, exemplifying how public-private partnerships can refine the program’s efficiency without compromising mission capability.
For example, Booz Allen played a pivotal role in implementing new external coatings and canopy improvements to reduce sustainment costs. These enhancements, coupled with advanced maintenance protocols, are projected to save billions over the program’s lifecycle while boosting readiness.
The integration of technical advancements, such as the F-35’s new external coatings and streamlined maintenance protocols, further demonstrates the ongoing evolution of the platform. These efforts ensure the F-35 remains a cornerstone of U.S. military airpower while addressing concerns about affordability and sustainability.
Public Engagement and Advocacy
At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we believe an informed public is essential to ensuring a strong, transparent, and cost-effective Navy. By highlighting the complexities and achievements of the F-35C program, we aim to empower citizens to engage in discussions about defense priorities. Together, we can advocate for a Navy that reflects the values and vision of the American people while ensuring fiscal responsibility and strategic effectiveness.