Tag: military readiness

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The Pentagon’s Outdated Approach to Modern Warfare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

Australia’s Naval Reality Check—America Should Take Notes

If Australia is vulnerable, what does that mean for America?

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

In a recent article for The Australian, Jennifer Parker—an expert associate at the National Security College, Australian National University, and an adjunct fellow in naval studies at the University of New South Wales Canberra—examined China’s latest naval maneuvers near Australia. Her analysis sheds light on vulnerabilities that should concern not just Australia, but the United States as well.

A stark reality: China’s naval task force is actively testing Australia’s response—militarily, politically, and diplomatically. A Chinese fleet operating near Australia’s waters isn’t just a message to Canberra; it’s a signal to the world that Beijing is expanding its reach.

For Americans, this should be a wake-up call. Australia, a key U.S. ally, has long enjoyed security from major conflicts. Yet, China’s maneuvers off its coast expose vulnerabilities in a way that should concern every nation reliant on maritime security, global trade, and naval power.

If China can challenge Australia’s sovereignty at sea today, what stops it from doing the same to America and its allies tomorrow?

China’s Strategy: Testing and Expanding

The deployment of a Chinese naval task group so close to Australia is no accident. It follows a pattern:

  • Probing reactions. Just as it has done in the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, and Latin American ports, China is assessing how the world will respond to its growing military presence.
  • Disrupting global security norms. Conducting live-fire drills near civilian air routes, refusing to issue proper warnings, and testing defense response times all serve a greater goal—normalizing an expanded Chinese naval footprint.
  • Challenging the free world. This is about more than Australia. China is signaling that it has the capability—and the intent—to pressure democratic nations and reshape global power structures in its favor.

This matters to the United States because we rely on the same global shipping lanes, trade networks, and security partnerships that China is testing right now.

Lessons for the U.S. Navy and America

Jennifer Parker’s article points out an uncomfortable truth: Australia’s navy is struggling to meet growing demands. Its limited number of warships, outdated replenishment capabilities, and defense spending shortfalls are now under the spotlight.

But let’s not pretend this problem is unique to Australia.

  • The U.S. Navy is stretched thin. With growing commitments in the Indo-Pacific, Middle East, and beyond, America is already balancing a smaller fleet against greater global threats.
  • Shipbuilding capacity is a bottleneck. While China launches warships at record speed, the U.S. struggles to maintain its current fleet.
  • Defense funding debates mirror Australia’s. At just 2% of GDP, U.S. defense spending is below Cold War levels, and ship procurement continues to face budgetary and political hurdles.

Australia’s vulnerabilities should be a case study for the United States. If a key U.S. ally is struggling to keep pace with China’s naval expansion, America cannot afford to take its own naval dominance for granted.

What Needs to Happen Next?

The right response is not panic—it’s preparation. America must learn from Australia’s situation and take the following steps:

  1. Increase Naval Readiness
    • The U.S. must expand and modernize its fleet, ensuring it has the ships, submarines, and logistical support needed to deter threats.
    • Fleet maintenance and shipyard infrastructure must be prioritized so that existing assets remain operational.
  2. Strengthen Strategic Alliances
    • The U.S.-Australia partnership is critical—joint naval exercises, intelligence sharing, and strategic basing agreements must be expanded.
    • Coordination with Japan, the Philippines, India, and other Indo-Pacific allies must also be reinforced.
  3. Engage the American Public
    • Most Americans aren’t aware of how dependent the U.S. economy and security are on naval power.
    • China isn’t just flexing its military strength—it’s waging a long-term strategic contest to control global trade, technology, and resources.
    • If we don’t educate and rally support for a stronger Navy now, we risk falling behind when it matters most.

Final Thought: A Call to Action

Australia is waking up to the reality that it must invest in naval power to protect its interests. America should take this moment to do the same.

We don’t need alarmism. We need action.

The choice is simple: Invest in a stronger Navy today, or risk facing a crisis tomorrow.

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

Why the Gulf (of America) Matters: A Maritime Powerhouse & Naval Stronghold

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

The renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America has sparked discussions, but names aside, this region has long been one of the most strategic waterways in the world. The U.S. Navy has played a critical role in securing these waters, ensuring trade routes remain open, energy supplies are protected, and national security is upheld.

Renaming bodies of water is nothing new. According to the Associated Press (AP), in 2015, President Barack Obama renamed Mount McKinley to Denali, recognizing its indigenous heritage. In 2013, Hillary Clinton remarked that if China could claim nearly the entire South China Sea, the U.S. could have labeled the Pacific Ocean the ‘American Sea’ after World War II. Even earlier, Mississippi legislators proposed renaming their portion of the Gulf as the “Gulf of America” in 2012, though it was largely symbolic.

While names may change, the Gulf’s importance remains the same—it is a lifeline for trade, military operations, and energy security. This article focuses on the facts—why the Gulf matters to America’s security, economy, and the strength of the U.S. Navy.

The Gulf’s Strategic History and Naval Legacy

The Gulf has been a key maritime battlefield in U.S. history, from the War of 1812 to World War II. The U.S. Navy has played a central role in defending American interests and maintaining stability in these waters.

  • The Battle of Mobile Bay (1864) – A defining moment in the Civil War.
  • The Gulf Blockade in WWII – Preventing German U-boats from disrupting supply chains.
  • The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) – A tense naval standoff that highlighted the Gulf’s strategic importance.

Today, the Navy remains the dominant force in the Gulf, ensuring stability and security in the region.

The U.S. Navy’s Role in the Gulf of America

The Navy conducts daily operations to protect trade, energy, and national security. Key missions include:

  • Patrolling shipping lanes to ensure free trade.
  • Securing oil and gas infrastructure from cyber and physical attacks.
  • Countering drug smuggling and trafficking networks.
  • Responding to hurricanes and natural disasters.

Key U.S. Naval Bases in the Gulf

  • Naval Air Station Pensacola (FL) – Aviation training.
  • Naval Air Station Corpus Christi (TX) – Aircraft support.
  • Naval Station Mayport (FL) – Destroyer and amphibious fleet.
  • Naval Air Station Key West (FL) – Counter-drug operations.

As threats increase globally, is the U.S. Navy stretched too thin to secure the Gulf effectively?

Is the U.S. Navy Strong Enough to Secure the Gulf?

With rising global tensions, cyber vulnerabilities, and shipbuilding challenges, the Navy’s presence in the Gulf faces new pressures.

  • The Navy is spread across the Pacific, Arctic, and Middle East, requiring more ships and personnel.
  • Shipbuilding delays mean the U.S. Navy is shrinking rather than growing.
  • Older ships are being retired faster than new ones are being built, creating fleet gaps.

Cybersecurity Threats in the Gulf

The biggest future threats may not come from warships—but from cyberattacks.

  • Hackers have already targeted U.S. energy infrastructure, shutting down pipelines and refineries.
  • China, Russia, and Iran have cyber units capable of disrupting U.S. ports and energy grids.
  • The Gulf’s 4,000+ offshore oil platforms and refineries are vulnerable to hacking.

A successful cyberattack on a major port like Houston or New Orleans could cripple U.S. exports, disrupt global trade, and weaken naval operations.

U.S. Response: Strengthening Cyber Defense

  • The Navy and U.S. Cyber Command are expanding maritime cybersecurity operations.
  • AI-driven threat detection is being tested for oil rigs and naval vessels.
  • Private industries are working with the military to protect infrastructure.

Military-Commercial Overlap: The Jones Act & Shipbuilding

The Jones Act (1920) requires that only U.S.-built, U.S.-crewed ships can transport goods between U.S. ports. This protects American shipbuilders and maritime workers, but there’s a problem:

  • American shipbuilding is lagging behind China, South Korea, and Japan.
  • The U.S. fleet of commercial ships has shrunk, making supply chains vulnerable in wartime.

A weaker shipbuilding industry means a weaker Navy. If war broke out, the U.S. would rely on foreign-built commercial ships for logistics.

Revitalizing U.S. shipbuilding would strengthen both military and commercial fleets, ensuring the U.S. remains competitive and secure.

Economic & Strategic Impact of the Gulf of America

The Gulf isn’t just a naval stronghold—it’s an economic powerhouse.

  • 15% of U.S. crude oil production comes from the Gulf.
  • Over 50% of all U.S. maritime commerce moves through the Gulf.
  • 40% of U.S. seafood (shrimp, oysters) is sourced from the Gulf.

Economic Vulnerabilities

  • A hurricane, cyberattack, or naval conflict could cripple energy exports and supply chains.
  • A strong U.S. Navy presence ensures stability, preventing disruptions that could impact millions of Americans.

The Gulf of America Needs a Strong Navy

The renaming of the Gulf is symbolic, but the real issue is whether the U.S. has the naval power to secure it.

  • The Navy must remain strong in the Gulf to protect trade, energy, and security.
  • Cyber defense is as important as naval defense.
  • Revitalizing U.S. shipbuilding would strengthen both the Navy and the economy.

A Call to Action

Supporting a Stronger Navy means:

✔ More investment in fleet modernization.
✔ Better cybersecurity for ports and oil infrastructure.
✔ Reviving American shipbuilding to ensure a strong commercial-military fleet.