Tag: Naval History

Posted on

Americans for a Stronger Navy Response to Battle of Savo Island Anniversary

Chart of the disposition of ships the night of 8 August
Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

Introduction

On this solemn anniversary of the Battle of Savo Island, Americans for a Stronger Navy joins our Australian allies in remembering the courage and sacrifice of those who gave their lives in the dark waters off Guadalcanal on August 9, 1942.

The loss of HMAS Canberra and her 84 brave sailors, alongside over 900 American naval personnel, represents more than numbers—it represents the ultimate sacrifice made by free nations standing together against tyranny. This battle, while tactically a defeat, demonstrated the unbreakable bond between Australian and American naval forces that continues to secure the Pacific today.

The lessons of Savo Island—the critical importance of naval readiness, advanced training, and technological superiority—remain as relevant now as they were 82 years ago. As we face new challenges in the Pacific, from contested sea lanes to emerging threats, we honor these fallen heroes by ensuring our Navy maintains the strength, capability, and resolve they died defending.

Their sacrifice reminds us that freedom of navigation and maritime security are not abstract concepts, but principles worth defending with our lives. Today, as then, a strong Navy remains America’s first line of defense and our greatest tool for preserving peace through strength.

We stand with Australia in remembering these heroes and recommit ourselves to the naval strength that protects both our nations.

A Salute to Those Who Remember

To all who pause today to honor these fallen sailors—veterans, families, historians, students, and citizens both American and Australian—thank you. Your remembrance keeps their sacrifice alive and their lessons relevant. Whether you’re a descendant of a Savo Island survivor, a naval history enthusiast, or simply someone who understands that freedom isn’t free, your attention to this anniversary matters.

Special recognition goes to our Australian friends, military historians, naval societies, and educators who ensure these stories continue to be told. In an age of shortened attention spans, those who preserve and share naval history perform a vital service to both our nations.

Why Average Americans Should Care About the Battle of Savo Island

Economic Security The Pacific carries over $1.4 trillion in annual trade vital to American prosperity. These are the same trade routes where sailors died in 1942. Today, 40% of America’s imports cross these waters, along with critical shipping lanes for oil, gas, and renewable energy components that power our economy.

Historical Lessons for Today Savo Island showed the cost of being caught unprepared—a lesson directly applicable to current Pacific tensions. The battle demonstrated why strong allies like Australia are essential to American security, and how technological superiority matters. Japanese superiority in night-fighting capabilities led to their victory; today’s tech gaps could prove equally costly.

Personal Connection Many American families have ancestors who served in the Pacific Theater. Understanding what military service truly costs helps inform decisions about defense spending and foreign policy. The battle reminds us that the freedoms Americans enjoy came at tremendous cost and weren’t guaranteed by geography alone.

Current Relevance The same strategic waterways remain crucial to American interests today. Modern tensions in the South China Sea echo the naval competition of WWII, and historical battles like Savo Island inform current debates about naval funding and capabilities.

Strengthening Allied Partnerships

The Battle of Savo Island reminds us that America’s security depends not just on our own naval strength, but on the strength of our alliances. Today, this means:

The AUKUS Partnership with Australia and the UK builds on the naval cooperation forged in battles like Savo Island, sharing submarine technology that strengthens all three nations. Joint training exercises with Australian, Japanese, and other Pacific allies ensure we won’t repeat the communication failures of 1942 that contributed to the defeat.

Shared intelligence networks and integrated defense relationships born from WWII sacrifices now provide early warning and coordinated responses to regional threats. Allied shipbuilding and defense manufacturing strengthen both nations’ naval capabilities, creating an industrial base that supports deterrence.

The Battle of Savo Island isn’t just history—it’s a reminder that American prosperity and security depend on naval strength and strong alliances. The sailors who died there died protecting the world we live in today. Their legacy lives on not just in our memory, but in the enduring partnerships their sacrifice helped forge.

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

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

That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter—a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.

Let’s roll.

Posted on

The Autonomous Revolution: Naval Warfare’s Exponential Leap

Rendering of a Blue Water Autonomous ship

Introduction

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

Personal Reflection

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

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

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

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

From Science Fiction to Sea Trials

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

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

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

The Compound Effect of Convergent Technologies

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

AI Decision-Making at Machine Speed

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

Swarm Coordination Beyond Human Capability

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

New Physical Designs, New Possibilities

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

The Multiplication Factor

Each of these capabilities amplifies the others:

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

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

The MASC Paradigm: Speed Over Paperwork

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

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

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

Beyond the Horizon

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

What’s next?

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

The Inflection Point

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

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

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

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

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

The Legacy Challenge

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

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

The Future Is Now

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

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

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

And we’ve only just left the pier.

Why Americans Should Care

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

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

Implications for the Navy

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

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

A Final Word

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

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

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

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

That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter—a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.

Let’s roll.

Posted on

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.