US Naval Posture and Operations in the Wake of Strikes on Iran’s Nuclear Program


At sea with USS The Sullivans (DDG 68)

US Naval Posture and Operations in the Wake of Strikes on Iran’s Nuclear Program on June 21, 2025, marked a significant shift in Operations in the Wake of Strikes on Iran’s Nuclear Program..

Washington’s regional posture, moving beyond indirect support to direct offensive action against Iranian sovereign territory. The primary objective, as articulated by President Donald Trump, was to “completely and fully obliterate” Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities, thereby neutralizing its capacity to develop nuclear weapons.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth further clarified that the mission, codenamed “Operation Midnight Hammer,” was not aimed at regime change but constituted a “precision operation to neutralize the threats… posed by the Iranian nuclear program”. This decisive action followed over a week of intense Israeli strikes targeting Iran’s air defenses, offensive missile capabilities, and nuclear infrastructure. Notably, the US intervention came swiftly after President Trump’s publicly stated “two-week deadline” for a decision, with strikes commencing just two days later. This swift action, following a period of apparent deliberation, suggests a deliberate strategic deception, a “ruse to lull the Iranians into a sense of complacency,” as speculated by retired Navy Admiral James G. Stavridis. The detailed execution of Operation Midnight Hammer, which involved decoys and extensive misdirection, further substantiates this approach, highlighting a sophisticated military strategy that prioritizes surprise and operational security. This tactical maneuver underscores a willingness to integrate psychological warfare into strategic planning, potentially setting a precedent for future engagements and demonstrating a keen understanding of Iranian strategic calculations.

Operation Midnight Hammer: The US Strikes on Iran’s Nuclear Program

The US military operation, officially designated “Operation Midnight Hammer,” was a meticulously planned and executed series of precision strikes against critical components of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. The targets included three of Iran’s most significant nuclear facilities: Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. Fordo, notably, is recognized as Iran’s most fortified nuclear site, constructed deep within a mountain, approximately 80 to 90 meters underground.

Initial assessments of the damage varied significantly. While President Trump asserted that the facilities were “completely and totally obliterated” , Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan Caine, offered a more cautious evaluation, stating that the sites sustained “severe damage” and that a “final battle damage assessment would take time”. Conversely, Iran’s National Nuclear Safety System Center and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported “no signs of contamination” or “no increase in off-site radiation levels” at the affected locations. An Al Jazeera official further claimed that the US Iran conflict, US Navy, Iran nuclear program, Operation Midnight Hammer, submarine strikes, Tomahawk missiles, GBU-57 MOPs, Strait of Hormuz, Middle East security, Iranian retaliation, Carrier Strike Group, US military presence, geopolitical implications, naval strategy, expert analysis, General Kenneth McKenzie, General Michael Kurilla, Admiral James Stavridis, Admiral Robert Natter, Bryan Clark, Seth G. Jones, Michael Eisenstadt, Mohammed Albasha, Jonathan Schanzer, Andrea Stricker, Captain Brent Sadler, Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Fordo, Natanz, Isfahan, asymmetric warfare, global oil markets, deterrence, US foreign policy, international relations, regional stability.

Weaponry and Operational Sophistication
The operation showcased the deployment of highly advanced weaponry, marking a significant milestone in military capabilities
. The primary ordnance used were GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs), 30,000-pound (13,500-kilogram) bunker-buster bombs, which saw their first combat deployment during Operation Midnight Hammer. Reports indicated that six B-2 Spirit bombers were responsible for dropping up to 12 MOPs on the Fordo facility.
Complementing the aerial assault, approximately 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched from US Navy submarines, targeting the Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites. These missiles, known for their long-range precision and deep land attack capabilities, travel at high subsonic speeds and extremely low altitudes, employing mission-tailored guidance systems for evasive flight paths. The coordinated strike sequence involved submarine-launched Tomahawks hitting surface infrastructure at Isfahan before the B-2 bombers delivered their MOP payloads on Fordo and Natanz, demonstrating a multi-layered and synchronized attack strategy.
The execution of “Operation Midnight Hammer” was characterized by extreme secrecy and elaborate deception tactics. Seven B-2 Spirit bombers initiated the mission from Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, embarking on an 18-hour flight. A decoy formation of B-2s was dispatched westward into the Pacific, while the actual strike package proceeded quietly eastward with minimal communications, a strategy designed to maintain surprise. The operation involved a vast array of over 125 US aircraft, including fourth and fifth-generation fighters and dozens of aerial refueling tankers, all contributing to the complex maneuver. High-speed suppression weapons were employed to ensure the safe passage of the strike package. Remarkably, no US aircraft were reportedly fired upon during the mission, and Iran’s air defense systems failed to detect the incoming bombers, a testament to the effectiveness of the stealth and deception tactics employed. The strikes were conducted in full coordination with Israel, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu commending President Trump’s decision, asserting that the US “has done what no other country on earth could do”.

This operation serves as a powerful demonstration of the US’s unique “deep strike” capability. The emphasis on MOPs and their capacity to penetrate deeply buried, heavily fortified targets underscores a military advantage that few, if any, other nations possess. As Bryan Clark of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) asserted, “Only the US Has the Capabilities to Take Out Iran’s Nuclear Program”. This capability reshapes the strategic calculus for states pursuing clandestine nuclear programs, indicating that even deeply buried facilities are not invulnerable. The operation also highlights a sophisticated integration of multi-domain warfare and deception. The detailed accounts of “Operation Midnight Hammer” reveal a seamless coordination of air, naval, cyber, and space assets. This multi-domain integration, coupled with advanced operational security and strategic deception, suggests that future high-value strikes will likely involve similar complex planning, making them exceedingly difficult for adversaries to predict or counter.

The effectiveness of the strikes and their long-term implications for Iran’s nuclear program remain a subject of debate. While President Trump declared “obliteration,” the more cautious language from Pentagon officials, referring to “severe damage” , and Iran’s insistence that its nuclear work would not be stopped , point to differing interpretations. Experts like Jonathan Schanzer believe “the nuclear program is no longer” , yet Andrea Stricker cautions that “Tehran’s program is likely set back by years… which means more work ahead”. Michael Eisenstadt of The Washington Institute similarly suggests that a preventive attack “likely won’t be a one-off but rather the opening round of a lengthy campaign”. This divergence in assessments indicates that while the physical infrastructure may be severely damaged, the “knowledge gain” and human capital of Iran’s nuclear program likely persist. Consequently, the long-term success of “prevention” will necessitate sustained pressure, continuous intelligence gathering, and the credible threat of further action, potentially leading to a prolonged period of both overt and covert operations rather than a singular, decisive blow.

The US Navy’s Role and Force Posture
The United States Navy played a pivotal and multifaceted role in the recent strikes and continues to maintain a robust and adaptive posture in the Middle East,
responding to heightened regional tensions.

Submarine Operations

A critical, covert component of Operation Midnight Hammer involved US Navy submarines launching approximately 30 Tomahawk land-attack missiles. These missiles specifically targeted the Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites. Although the specific submarine was not publicly identified, the USS Georgia (SSGN-729), an Ohio-class guided-missile submarine capable of fielding over 150 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs), had entered the region in September. Speculation points strongly to an Ohio-class submarine being involved in these strikes. The timing of these submarine-launched Tomahawks was strategically significant, striking surface infrastructure targets at Isfahan before the B-2 bombers dropped their payloads on Fordo and Natanz, indicating a precisely coordinated, multi-layered attack sequence designed to maximize impact and surprise.
The deployment of submarines for these strikes underscores their unique advantage as covert, high-impact strike platforms. Unlike manned bomber aircraft, submarines can approach targets undetected, providing a crucial element of surprise and significantly reducing the risk to personnel. This strategic preference for leveraging stealth and underwater capabilities for initial or complementary strikes against high-value targets reinforces the submarine fleet’s role as a potent and survivable component of the US’s global power projection. This capability complicates adversary defense planning by introducing an unpredictable vector of attack, potentially leading to increased investment in and reliance on such platforms for future conflicts.

Surface Fleet Presence and Strategic Deployments

Beyond the covert submarine operations, the US Navy maintains a substantial and strategically positioned surface fleet presence across the Middle East. Reports indicate that American warships are actively engaged in shooting down Iranian ballistic missiles targeting Israel, with vessels like the USS The Sullivans and USS Arleigh Burke having launched defensive strikes. The USS Thomas Hudner has since joined The Sullivans for continued defensive operations.
Table 1: Key US Navy Assets and Locations (Post-Strike)

Vessel/Group NameTypeCurrent/Recent LocationPrimary Role in Conflict
USS Carl Vinson CSGAircraft Carrier Strike GroupNorth Arabian SeaSecurity for US troops/bases in Gulf of Oman/Persian Gulf
USS Nimitz CSGAircraft Carrier Strike GroupHeading west from Indo-Pacific, arriving soonScheduled to relieve Carl Vinson, potential overlap
USS The Sullivans (DDG-68)Guided-Missile DestroyerEastern MediterraneanShooting down Iranian ballistic missiles for Israel
USS Thomas Hudner (DDG-116)Guided-Missile DestroyerEastern MediterraneanJoined The Sullivans for defense strikes
USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51)Guided-Missile DestroyerEastern Mediterranean (moved away)Shooting down Iranian ballistic missiles for Israel
USS Forrest Sherman (DDG-98)Guided-Missile DestroyerRed SeaGeneral presence, maritime security
USS Truxtun (DDG-103)Guided-Missile DestroyerRed SeaGeneral presence, maritime security
USS Paul Ignatius (DDG-117)Guided-Missile DestroyerMediterranean SeaBallistic missile defense
USS Oscar Austin (DDG-79)Guided-Missile DestroyerMediterranean SeaBallistic missile defense
Ohio-class guided-missile submarine (e.g., USS Georgia SSGN-729)Guided-Missile SubmarineUS Central Command AORTomahawk missile launch platform
The USS Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group (CSG) has been operating in the North Arabian Sea, strategically positioned to provide security for US troops and bases along the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf. Concurrently, the USS Nimitz CSG, long scheduled to relieve the Carl Vinson, is transiting from the Indo-Pacific and is expected to arrive in the region by the end of the month, potentially leading to a temporary overlap of the two carrier groups. This marks a rare occurrence, with two carriers operating simultaneously in the region for the second time this year.
In terms of guided-missile destroyers, the USS The Sullivans (DDG-68) and USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) have been actively engaged in shooting down Iranian ballistic missiles targeting Israel in the Eastern Mediterranean. The USS Thomas Hudner (DDG-116) has since joined The Sullivans for continued defensive strikes, while the Arleigh Burke has repositioned. Additionally, the USS Forrest Sherman (DDG-98) and USS Truxtun (DDG-103) are positioned in the Red Sea , and five ballistic missile defense ships, including USS Arleigh Burke, USS Thomas Hudner, USS The Sullivans, USS Paul Ignatius (DDG-117), and USS Oscar Austin (DDG-79), are stationed in the Mediterranean Sea. Overall, the US has increased its troop presence in the Middle East to approximately 40,000, up from a typical 30,000, with bases on heightened alert.
This significant re-prioritization of Middle East naval assets is evident in the deployment of a second aircraft carrier and the movement of naval vessels from potentially vulnerable locations like Bahrain. Bahrain, in particular, is home to the U.S. Navy’s Mideast-based 5th Fleet and has long been identified as a potential target for Iran. This shift occurs despite previous Pentagon efforts to focus on countering China in the Indo-Pacific. The increased naval presence signals a clear commitment to deterring Iranian aggression and protecting US interests in the Middle East, even if it entails potentially diluting focus on other strategic theaters. This could lead to a sustained, elevated naval presence, increasing operational tempo and potentially straining resources in the long term.
The strategic implications of these naval deployments are profound. The increased presence restricts operational flexibility for Iran and necessitates a greater US naval presence in critical strategic waterways. The US 5th Fleet, headquartered in Bahrain, serves as a vital command center for naval operations across the Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea, and Red Sea, playing a crucial role in safeguarding the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb. This headquarters is now considered among the most likely Iranian targets. Bryan Clark has observed that US carriers have been operating less frequently within the confined waters of the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz, instead spending more time in the broader Arabian Sea, a tactical adjustment in response to Iran’s increased capability to attack large surface ships. This adjustment highlights the enhanced maritime security challenges in these critical chokepoints, where the US Navy faces simultaneous and complex threats. The risk of multi-theater conflicts with significant economic consequences for global energy and trade is thus heightened, demanding continuous adaptation of naval strategy and force protection measures.
Iranian Response and Retaliation Threats
Iran has reacted with strong condemnation and explicit threats of retaliation following the US strikes, signaling potential repercussions for regional stability and global maritime security.
Official Iranian Statements and Damage Assessment Claims
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi vehemently condemned the strikes as a “grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and the NPT,” warning of “everlasting consequences” and asserting that Iran “reserves all options” to retaliate. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian echoed this sentiment, condemning the US as the “primary instigator of the Zionist regime’s hostile actions”. While Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization confirmed the attacks on Fordo, Isfahan, and Natanz, it insisted that its nuclear work would not be halted.
In a counter-narrative to US claims of “obliteration,” Iran’s National Nuclear Safety System Center and the IAEA reported “no signs of contamination” or “no increase in off-site radiation levels” at the targeted sites. An Al Jazeera official further claimed that the Fordo facility had been “long evacuated” and sustained no irreversible damage. This information warfare component underscores the regime’s efforts to manage both domestic and international perceptions of the strikes’ impact.
Threats of Retaliation Against US Interests
Tehran has overtly threatened retaliation against US interests in the region , with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warning of “irreparable damage”. Iran has explicitly named at least 19 US bases across the Gulf as potential targets, including the critical 5th Fleet Headquarters in Bahrain.
A significant concern revolves around Iran’s potential disruption of critical global shipping lanes. Iran’s Parliament reportedly approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint through which approximately 20% of global oil and gas demand flows. The final decision, however, rests with Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. Iran has previously threatened to deploy up to 6,000 naval mines and speedboats in the Strait of Hormuz, demonstrating a clear intent to disrupt maritime traffic. The multinational, US-led Combined Maritime Forces’ JMIC information center has categorized the threat to US-associated commercial shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden as “high” following the strikes.
Proxy Group Activities
Iranian-backed proxy groups pose a significant threat to US interests. Houthi forces in Yemen have explicitly warned they would resume attacks on US ships in the Red Sea if Washington joined the bombing campaign against Iran. Their military has unequivocally stated its intent to attack US ships. Similarly, Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq has issued warnings of attacks on US interests and military bases in the region. Mohammed Albasha, an expert on Yemen, noted that “Now that the U.S. has struck Iran, I believe the Houthis, Kataib Hezbollah, and other Iranian-backed armed groups are most likely to attack U.S. interests”. He cautioned that “We have entered uncharted territory tonight, and nothing can be ruled out”. General Michael “Erik” Kurilla also highlighted that Iranian-backed militias had conducted approximately 200 attacks targeting US positions in Iraq and Syria between October 2023 and November 2024.
Iran’s strategic dilemma becomes apparent in its response. While its rhetoric signals a strong intent to retaliate, assessments from figures like Gen. McKenzie suggest that Iran’s conventional ballistic missile and drone force “has been exposed as hollow” , and its primary proxy, Lebanese Hezbollah, has been “decapitated”. This indicates a degraded conventional capability, implying Iran will likely rely on asymmetric warfare and its proxy networks for retaliation, as emphasized by Albasha. This means the immediate threat to US naval assets and personnel in the region is less from a direct, conventional military confrontation and more from diffuse, non-state actor attacks, cyber operations, or maritime harassment in critical chokepoints. This necessitates a shift in US force protection and deterrence strategies to counter actors operating in the “gray zone” between peace and war, a concept explored by Michael Eisenstadt.
The threats to close the Strait of Hormuz are not merely military but primarily economic. As 20-30% of global seaborne oil passes through this waterway, any disruption would trigger significant global economic shockwaves, impacting oil prices and shipping costs. Iran understands that its most potent leverage against the US and its allies may not be direct military confrontation but economic disruption. This places immense pressure on the US Navy’s 5th Fleet, whose primary mission includes safeguarding freedom of navigation in these waters. The potential for simultaneous maritime threats in both the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz further complicates US naval strategy and could necessitate difficult choices regarding resource allocation and escalation management.
Finally, Iran’s immediate downplaying of damage and claims of “no contamination” , coupled with efforts to control information internally through internet blackouts and the detention of journalists’ family members , reflect a strong internal narrative control effort. This aligns with Seth G. Jones’ analysis of Iran’s “soft war” and information campaigns. This internal vulnerability could become a target for future “gray zone” operations, aiming to destabilize the regime through information warfare or by exacerbating internal frustrations.
Expert Perspectives on the Conflict and Naval Implications
Leading military and strategic experts offer diverse and often nuanced insights into the recent US strikes, Iran’s capabilities, and the broader implications for naval strategy and regional stability.
Table 2: Notable Expert Commentary on US-Iran Naval Dynamics
Expert NameAffiliationKey Statement/InsightSource
Gen. Kenneth “Frank” McKenzie (Ret.)Former CENTCOM CommanderTrump’s previous actions taught Iranians he “was not afraid to employ military power.” Threatening the nuclear program is key to threatening the regime. Iran’s missile/drone force “exposed as hollow.” Underground launch facilities are easier targets than deep nuclear sites. US basing strategy “outdated.” Iranians are “master negotiators.”
Gen. Michael “Erik” KurillaCENTCOM HeadProvided “wide range of options” for strikes. Continuously assesses US posture and risk. Iran’s regional domination cannot be realized if regional states integrate with US. US is “transitioning from security guarantor to security integrator.”
Adm. James G. Stavridis (Ret.)Former Supreme US Commander in EuropeTrump’s two-week deadline might be a “very clever ruse to lull the Iranians into a sense of complacency.”
Adm. Robert Natter (Ret.)Retired US Navy AdmiralIran has mines in Strait of Hormuz and missiles for US ships/sites; expects asymmetric response.
Bryan ClarkCenter for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA)“Only the US Has the Capabilities to Take Out Iran’s Nuclear Program.” Iran is “weaker and more vulnerable than it has been in decades.” US carriers operate less in Persian Gulf due to Iranian anti-ship capabilities. Iran could pull off “complex attack” causing damage/casualties.
Seth G. JonesCenter for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)Focuses on defense strategy, military operations, irregular warfare. Authored “Three Dangerous Men: Russia, China, Iran, and the Rise of Irregular Warfare.” US unprepared for irregular warfare, needs to leverage commercial sector. Iran engages in “soft war” and information campaigns.
Michael EisenstadtThe Washington InstitutePreventive attack likely “opening round of a lengthy campaign.” Iran would prioritize ballistic missiles for nuclear delivery. Believes Iran would use nuclear weapons only in extremis.
Mohammed AlbashaBasha Report (Yemen expert)Houthis, Kataib Hezbollah, and other Iranian-backed groups are “most likely to attack U.S. interests.” Expects “symbolic retaliation rather than full-scale escalation,” but “nothing can be ruled out.”
Jonathan SchanzerFoundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD)“The nuclear program is no longer.”
Andrea StrickerFDDIran’s program “likely set back by years… which means more work ahead.” US/Israel need to ensure uranium stockpiles/centrifuges are recovered/destroyed.
Captain Brent SadlerHeritage Foundation“Iran’s regime seems unable to change its tact, and is driving headlong into even more punishing attacks from USA. It is in fact a clear demonstration (if one needed) of the bloodthirsty worldview of the mullahs running Iran. The people of Iran have long been dissatisfied with the religious fanatics and its IRGC muscle, any crack in the regime’s brutality could rapidly see its demise – not regime change from outside but by Iranian people power.”
Perspectives from Former CENTCOM Commanders
General Kenneth “Frank” McKenzie (Ret.), who commanded US Central Command (CENTCOM) from 2019 to 2022, possesses deep familiarity with the Iranian threat. He posits that President Trump’s previous forceful actions have instilled in Iranians the understanding that he “was not afraid to employ military power”. McKenzie maintains that “threatening the nuclear program is a key element of any threat to the regime”. He assessed Iran’s ballistic missile and drone force as “exposed as hollow” following its unsuccessful attacks on Israel. McKenzie also suggested that “underground launch facilities are much easier to target than the deep nuclear sites”. He cautioned that the “window” for effective strikes “will not stay open forever,” as Iran will eventually replace air defenses and further harden its nuclear sites. Furthermore, McKenzie criticized the current US basing strategy in the Middle East as “outdated and poorly positioned to meet the central threat in the region: Iran,” advocating for a more flexible western basing network. He also noted that while “the Iranians aren’t particularly effective fighters, they are master negotiators”.
General Michael “Erik” Kurilla, the current head of CENTCOM, is known for his hardline stance on Iran and his advocacy for aggressive military action. He confirmed having provided “a wide range of options” to the administration for strikes on Iran’s nuclear program. Kurilla emphasized the continuous assessment and adjustment of US posture and risk, stating that Iran’s goal of regional domination “cannot be realized if the region’s states continue to expand integration with each other and deepen partnership with the United States”. He also highlighted the US’s transition “from security guarantor to security integrator” in the Middle East.
Commentary from Retired US Navy Admirals
Retired Navy Admiral James G. Stavridis, former Supreme US Commander in Europe, speculated prior to the strikes that President Trump’s two-week deadline might have been a “very clever ruse to lull the Iranians into a sense of complacency”. Retired US Navy Admiral Robert Natter, commenting on the strikes, discussed Iran’s military capabilities, including its capacity to plant mines in the Strait of Hormuz and fire missiles at US ships and land sites, generally acknowledging Iran’s potential for asymmetric responses.
Analysis from Leading Defense Think Tanks
Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), asserts that “Only the US Has the Capabilities to Take Out Iran’s Nuclear Program”. He believes Iran is “weaker and more vulnerable than it has been in decades”. Clark noted that US carriers have been operating less frequently in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz, spending more time in the Arabian Sea, as a direct response to Iran’s increased capability to attack large ships. He cautioned that Iran “might be able to pull off a complex attack that could degrade U.S. air defenses enough to get a couple of missiles through. It might not sink a ship, but it would certainly cause a lot damage and casualties and be a big public relations coup for the Iranians”.
Seth G. Jones, President of the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), focuses on defense strategy, military operations, and irregular warfare. He authored “Three Dangerous Men: Russia, China, Iran, and the Rise of Irregular Warfare”. Jones highlights the US’s unpreparedness for the evolving nature of irregular warfare and the necessity of leveraging the commercial sector for capabilities such as battlefield awareness, unmanned systems, and influence operations against adversaries like Iran. He also points to Iran’s engagement in “soft war” tactics and information campaigns.
Michael Eisenstadt, the Kahn Senior Fellow and director of The Washington Institute’s Military and Security Studies Program, specializes in Persian Gulf and Arab-Israeli security affairs and nuclear proliferation. In his work “Attacking Iran’s Nuclear Program: The Complex Calculus of Preventive Action,” he argues that a preventive attack will likely be “the opening round of a lengthy campaign” rather than a one-off event. Eisenstadt suggests that if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it would prioritize ballistic missiles as its primary delivery system due to their survivability and penetration capabilities. He believes Iran would only use nuclear weapons in extremis, if the survival of the Islamic Republic were directly threatened.
Captain Brent Sadler, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, has weighed in on the strategic importance of targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities. He noted that Fordo, being “roughly 80 to 90 meters inside of a mountain,” is the “hardest target to hit” and requires American strikes with specialized weaponry like the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, delivered by heavy bombers such as the B-2. Sadler also expressed hope for a peaceful resolution, suggesting that if the Iranian people “enact a regime change,” Fordo could be “taken peacefully and disbanded with the IAEA on the ground watching it happen in real time”.
The collective expert commentary reveals an enduring debate regarding whether the recent strikes constitute a “decisive blow” or merely the beginning of a “protracted campaign.” While President Trump and some analysts like Jonathan Schanzer suggest the nuclear program is “obliterated” or “over” , more nuanced perspectives from Pentagon officials and think tank experts like Andrea Stricker and Michael Eisenstadt indicate a significant setback, not a definitive end. Eisenstadt’s framing of the attack as the “opening round of a lengthy campaign” underscores the strategic uncertainty surrounding the long-term impact. This implies that policymakers must prepare for a sustained effort to counter Iran’s nuclear ambitions, requiring ongoing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) to detect rebuilding efforts , continuous diplomatic pressure, and the credible threat of further action. The “decisive blow” narrative, while politically appealing, may obscure the need for a more enduring and complex strategy.
Furthermore, these expert analyses illuminate the evolving nature of deterrence in the Middle East. General McKenzie’s observations on Trump’s willingness to use military power and General Kurilla’s focus on “security integration” suggest a shift in US deterrence strategy. However, the persistent threats from Iranian proxies and Bryan Clark’s warnings about complex asymmetric attacks indicate that traditional military deterrence against a state actor may not fully address the “gray zone” tactics employed by Iran and its proxies. This necessitates that the US Navy and broader military adapt its deterrence posture to address both conventional and asymmetric threats. This involves not only maintaining superior firepower but also developing capabilities to counter drones, mines, and missile attacks from non-state actors, as well as enhancing regional partnerships for integrated defense. The vulnerability of US bases and naval assets to such attacks requires a re-evaluation of force protection and basing strategies.
Finally, the interplay of military action and diplomatic leverage is a recurring theme. Vice President JD Vance’s statements about the strikes creating an environment for a “reset” of relations and an “opportunity for the Iranians to take the smart path” towards talks directly contrast with Iran’s Foreign Minister Araghchi’s assertion that the strikes have “blown up any possibility of diplomacy”. This highlights a fundamental disagreement on the role of military force in facilitating diplomacy. General McKenzie’s observation that Iranians are “master negotiators” who will “play for time” adds another layer of complexity. The military action, while intended to degrade Iran’s capabilities, simultaneously complicates diplomatic pathways. The US appears to be operating from a position of “peace through strength” , attempting to compel Iran back to the negotiating table from a weakened position. However, Iran’s strong condemnation and threats suggest a hardening of its stance, potentially making a diplomatic resolution more elusive in the short term. The long-term outcome will depend on whether military pressure can genuinely compel a shift in Iranian strategic calculus or merely entrench defiance.
Broader Geopolitical and Economic Implications
The US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities have generated ripple effects that extend far beyond immediate military engagements, impacting global markets and the strategic balance across the Middle East.
Impact on Global Oil Markets and Maritime Security
The intensifying hostilities are poised to significantly affect global oil markets. Iran’s repeated threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping corridor, would have profound consequences, leading to substantial increases in insurance premiums and costlier rerouting of oil shipments. Concurrently, the ongoing threat of Houthi attacks in the Red Sea could further disrupt shipping, elevate costs for global logistics companies, and diminish the strategic impact of Western naval forces in the region. The US thus faces simultaneous maritime threats in two strategically vital waterways: the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea. Beyond maritime trade, the conflict has already impacted air travel, with British Airways canceling flights to the UAE and Qatar and diverting a Dubai-bound airliner. Israel also responded by closing its airspace.
This situation heralds a “new normal” of regional instability and supply chain vulnerability. The direct US intervention and Iranian threats to critical chokepoints indicate that the Middle East is entering a prolonged period of elevated instability. The rerouting of maritime traffic around the Cape of Good Hope and flight cancellations are immediate indicators of this new reality. Global energy and trade markets will likely experience sustained volatility and increased costs. Businesses and governments reliant on these routes will need to factor in higher insurance premiums, longer transit times, and potential disruptions, leading to a re-evaluation of global supply chain resilience and diversification strategies. This conflict, therefore, has far-reaching economic consequences that extend well beyond the immediate region.
Evolving Strategic Balance and Deterrence Posture
The direct involvement of the US signals a significant shift in Washington’s posture, increasing the likelihood of sustained Iranian retaliation against US personnel, assets, and allies in the region. In response, the US military has deployed additional fighter jets and refueling tankers to the region, and bases are on heightened alert. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated that the operation’s scope was “intentionally limited,” intended to send a specific message. General Kurilla emphasized that the US is “transitioning from security guarantor to security integrator” in the Middle East, necessitating a “sufficient and a sustainable posture” and improved foreign military sales to partners. Bryan Clark notes that Iran is “weaker and more vulnerable than it has been in decades,” with its proxies suffering major losses and expended missile inventories. The conflict presents significant geopolitical and economic risks, particularly in the energy, shipping, and security sectors, requiring ongoing monitoring and readiness for unforeseen circumstances.
Outlook for De-escalation or Further Conflict
The prospects for de-escalation remain precarious. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expressed grave alarm, warning of a “dangerous escalation” and a “growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control — with catastrophic consequences”. While UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer emphasized de-escalation and negotiating a solution, simultaneously moving military equipment to protect UK interests , US Vice President JD Vance stated that America has “no interest in boots on the ground” and does not fear a “protracted conflict,” viewing the attacks as an “opportunity for the Iranians to take the smart path” towards talks. However, Iran’s Foreign Minister Araghchi countered that the US attacks “will have everlasting consequences” and have “blown up any possibility of diplomacy”. Regional security experts like Mohammed Albasha anticipate “symbolic retaliation rather than full-scale escalation,” but also caution that “nothing can be ruled out”.
The challenge of de-escalation in this multi-actor conflict is substantial. Despite US assurances of “limited scope” and “no interest in protracted conflict” , and calls for de-escalation from international bodies, Iran’s strong rhetoric and its proxy network capabilities make rapid de-escalation difficult. The involvement of multiple state and non-state actors (Israel, US, UK, Iran, Houthis, Hezbollah) creates a complex web of interests and potential triggers. This conflict is highly susceptible to miscalculation and unintended escalation, where even “symbolic retaliation” could trigger further responses, leading to a tit-for-tat dynamic. The absence of direct communication channels between the US and Iran, coupled with differing interpretations of “deterrence” and “peace,” exacerbates this risk. International diplomacy remains crucial but faces significant hurdles in bridging the chasm created by direct military action.
Furthermore, the situation presents a paradox of Iranian weakness and asymmetric strength. While experts like Bryan Clark and General McKenzie assert that Iran is “weaker and more vulnerable than it has been in decades” in terms of conventional military capabilities , its capacity for asymmetric warfare through proxies and disruption of maritime chokepoints remains a significant threat. This creates a scenario where conventional military superiority does not guarantee security. Consequently, the US and its allies cannot rely solely on conventional military might to achieve their objectives or ensure regional stability. A comprehensive strategy must address Iran’s asymmetric capabilities, its proxy networks, and its willingness to leverage economic chokepoints. This requires not only military readiness but also robust intelligence, cyber defense, and diplomatic efforts to counter malign influence and de-escalate proxy conflicts.
Conclusion and Strategic Considerations
The US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities represent a critical juncture in Middle East security, marked by direct US military intervention and a heightened risk of regional escalation. The operation, “Midnight Hammer,” saw the US directly join Israel’s campaign against Iran’s nuclear program, employing advanced bunker-busting bombs and submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles against Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. The US Navy’s submarine force played a critical, covert role in these precision strikes, demonstrating deep-strike capabilities. This, coupled with significant surface fleet deployments, including two Carrier Strike Groups and multiple destroyers, underscores a substantial increase in US naval presence and strategic focus on the Middle East.
In response, Iran has vowed retaliation against US interests and threatened to disrupt critical global shipping lanes, particularly the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea, through its own capabilities and proxy networks. Expert assessments regarding the long-term effectiveness of the strikes are mixed; while the facilities are severely damaged, analysts differ on whether this constitutes a definitive end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions or merely a significant setback that necessitates a protracted containment strategy.
Based on this analysis, several strategic considerations emerge:
  • Sustained Deterrence and Force Protection: The US must maintain a robust and adaptable force posture in the region, particularly for naval assets, to deter both conventional and asymmetric Iranian retaliation. This includes enhanced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) to detect proxy activities and potential maritime threats. General Kurilla’s emphasis on continuous posture assessments and adjustments is crucial for mitigating risks to US forces and allies.
  • Navigating Maritime Chokepoints: The US Navy’s 5th Fleet must remain vigilant and prepared to ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb. This may necessitate the development of new operational concepts and reinforced international cooperation to counter Iran’s potential use of naval mines and fast boats, as well as Houthi missile and drone threats. The economic implications of any disruption must be thoroughly integrated into strategic planning.
  • Long-Term Nuclear Containment Strategy: The strikes have likely set back Iran’s nuclear program by years, but they do not eliminate the “knowledge gain”. A sustained, multi-pronged strategy involving persistent intelligence gathering, diplomatic isolation, and strict multilateral sanctions will be necessary to prevent Iran from rebuilding or dispersing its nuclear infrastructure. Michael Eisenstadt’s view of a “lengthy campaign” should guide this enduring effort.
  • Managing Escalation Pathways: Given the high risk of unintended escalation in a multi-actor environment, clear de-escalation pathways and communication channels, even indirect ones, should be explored. The US should continue to emphasize the limited scope of its actions and its non-regime change objective to prevent miscalculation and unintended responses from Tehran.
  • Strengthening Regional Partnerships: Continued efforts to integrate regional partners into a collective security framework, as advocated by General Kurilla , are vital for shared defense and burden-sharing against Iranian aggression and its proxies. This collaborative approach enhances regional stability and distributes the burden of maintaining security in a volatile environment.

An Open Letter: Strengthening America’s Maritime Future

Dear Captains Hendrix and Sadler,

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

Thank you for your recent article, Restoring Our Maritime Strength, which provides a compelling blueprint for addressing the urgent challenges facing the U.S. Navy and the broader maritime industry. Your insights underline the critical need for immediate, decisive action to secure America’s maritime future. As a former U.S. Destroyer Navy sailor and the founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy, I wholeheartedly support many of the recommendations outlined in your piece, though I believe there is room to expand and refine the conversation further.

Recognizing the Threats

Your framing of the maritime challenges posed by China’s growing naval and economic dominance is sobering and accurate. The convergence of military, commercial, and strategic threats from adversaries like China and Russia requires a holistic approach to maritime security. However, these challenges are not just Navy problems; they are American problems. As you noted, the decline in U.S. shipbuilding capacity and the neglect of our maritime industrial base have left us vulnerable. This is where public understanding and support become crucial.

Mobilizing Public Engagement

While your article rightly focuses on policy and institutional reform, the broader American public must be engaged in this conversation. Without public buy-in, even the most robust plans risk losing momentum. We must explain to Americans why our maritime strength is foundational to national security, economic stability, and global leadership. Initiatives like the “Ships for America Act” are a good starting point, but they need champions who can connect these policies to everyday American interests—from jobs in the shipbuilding industry to the safety of international trade routes.

Expanding the Workforce and Industrial Base

Your call to revitalize the maritime industrial base is vital, but it must also include targeted efforts to expand and diversify the workforce. Career Technical Education (CTE) programs, apprenticeships, and incentives for careers in shipbuilding and repair can rejuvenate a sector that has been overlooked for too long. Creating “maritime prosperity zones” could serve as a model for incentivizing investment in these industries while offering opportunities to underfunded high school and community college communities.

Addressing Maintenance and Readiness

The maintenance backlog you describe is a glaring vulnerability. Your suggestion of public-private partnerships to expand dry dock capacity is pragmatic and actionable. However, we must also address inefficiencies within existing shipyards. Streamlining repair processes, modernizing facilities, and investing in advanced technologies like AI and robotics can accelerate maintenance timelines and reduce costs.

Leadership and Culture

The emphasis on cultivating warfighting leaders is critical. As you noted, the Navy must identify and elevate officers who can think and act decisively in high-stakes environments. However, this cultural shift should also extend beyond leadership to include every sailor, including those with an interest in peace through strength. A Navy ready to face 21st-century challenges must foster innovation and adaptability at all levels.

Dale A. Jenkins, distinguished Staff Director of the Council on Foreign Relations, Senior Advisor for Americans for a Stronger Navy, and author of Diplomats and Admirals, has noted, “Leadership within the Navy must not only prioritize operational readiness but also inspire a culture of innovation and strategic foresight at every level of command.” His extensive experience underscores the necessity of aligning leadership reforms with strategic imperatives.

Dr. Steven Wills, Senior Advisor at the NAVALIST Center for Maritime Strategy and Senior Advisor for Americans for a Stronger Navy, reinforces this sentiment: “To meet the multifaceted challenges of the modern maritime domain, the Navy must embrace technological innovation and cultivate a culture prepared for high-intensity conflict.” His expertise highlights the importance of integrating advanced strategies with a focus on readiness.

Cybersecurity and Emerging Technologies

While your article focuses primarily on traditional maritime strategies, the increasing threat of cyber warfare cannot be ignored. My decades of experience in telecommunications and web technologies have demonstrated how adversaries exploit vulnerabilities in telecommunications and critical infrastructure to gain strategic advantages. A robust cybersecurity framework must be integrated into the Navy’s modernization plans, ensuring that new ships and systems are protected from digital threats. Additionally, emerging technologies like uncrewed systems and quantum sensing should play a prominent role in our maritime strategy.

Conclusion

I understand that many Americans feel overwhelmed by calls for urgent action on numerous fronts and are skeptical of government programs that promise change but fail to deliver. That is why it is essential to approach these efforts with a focus on accountability, transparency, and tangible benefits for the American people. By demonstrating clear progress and measurable outcomes, we can rebuild trust and show that investing in our maritime strength is an investment in our shared future.

Your article provides a vital roadmap for reinvigorating America’s maritime strength, but the implementation of these ideas will require a unified effort from policymakers, the Navy, industry leaders, and the American public. At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we are committed to fostering the public understanding and support necessary to drive these changes. Together, we can chart a course toward a stronger, more resilient Navy that is prepared to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow.

Strengthening Our Naval Future: The Importance of Staying Combat Ready

Sailors on USS Chosin (CG-65) load a Mk.41 cell during an underway replenishment demonstration of the Transferrable Rearming Mechanism. Photo from Secretary of the Navy, Carlos Del Toro.

Ensuring Naval Readiness in the 21st Century: A Call to Action
From Americans for a Stronger Navy

In today’s rapidly changing world, America’s naval forces face unprecedented challenges. Global powers are racing to modernize their fleets and develop advanced weapons systems, while the U.S. Navy must continue to uphold its long-standing mission: to defend freedom of the seas and protect American interests around the globe.

As supporters of a strong and capable Navy, we at Americans for a Stronger Navy understand that maintaining naval superiority requires not only cutting-edge technology but also the operational readiness of our fleet. One critical area that has seen major advancements is how our warships sustain themselves in combat.

The Importance of Staying in the Fight

For decades, the need to leave the battle zone to resupply or rearm has created a tactical challenge for the U.S. Navy. Every moment a ship spends away from the fight is a moment when our forces are vulnerable, and our operational effectiveness is compromised. As the former Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Arleigh Burke, once said, “All time spent in replenishing was time lost in combat.”

That sentiment rings true today. The pace of modern warfare has only accelerated, and our Navy must keep pace. In the event of a conflict, especially with global adversaries like China, there may be little time to spare. That’s why rearming and resupplying at sea is no longer just an operational convenience—it’s a strategic necessity.

A Breakthrough in Naval Replenishment: TRAM

Enter the Transferrable Rearming Mechanism (TRAM)—a revolutionary new technology that allows ships to reload their vertical launch systems (VLS) at sea. This innovation, which was recently tested aboard the USS Chosin (CG 65), could dramatically enhance the Navy’s ability to sustain long-range combat operations.

“This is a long-sought breakthrough by our Navy that will be an enormous boost to our ability to endure and conduct successive strikes on the battlefield.” – Captain Dave Lennon, USNR (Ret).

Developed by the engineers at Naval Surface Warfare Center in Port Hueneme, California, TRAM enables cruisers, destroyers, and eventually frigates to resupply their missile systems without leaving the theater of operations. This capability allows our warfighters to stay in the fight longer, delivering sustained firepower where and when it’s needed most.

Why This Matters for America’s Future

In a potential conflict, the ability to rapidly resupply and rearm could be a game-changer. Studies have shown that in a high-intensity conflict with a near-peer adversary, the Navy could expend thousands of missiles in a matter of weeks. Traditionally, U.S. warships would need to sail back to a friendly port—potentially hundreds of miles away—to reload, costing valuable time.

TRAM changes that. By allowing the U.S. Navy to resupply its warships while still at sea, we not only save time but also maintain the operational tempo necessary to overwhelm our adversaries. This kind of forward-thinking innovation is precisely what will ensure that our Navy remains the world’s dominant maritime force.

Our Commitment to a Stronger Navy

At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we believe that our country’s naval strength is foundational to our security. Innovations like TRAM represent the future of naval warfare, but they are just one piece of the larger puzzle. Continued investment in technology, training, and shipbuilding is essential to maintaining our edge in an increasingly competitive global arena.

We encourage all Americans to stay informed about the challenges facing our Navy and the solutions that are being developed to meet those challenges. It is through understanding and advocacy that we can ensure our Navy remains ready to protect and defend—both today and in the years to come.

Stay tuned for our next post, where we’ll dive deeper into the technical aspects of TRAM and how it promises to revolutionize naval operations.

Please support the Navy and the Americans for Stronger Navy by following us on Facebook or by completing the contact us page by clicking here.

For previously published  reports click here

Why the U.S. Navy Should Raise the Enlistment Age: Insights from Navy Veterans

Introduction

As the Coast Guard recently raised its enlistment age to 42, the conversation has sparked renewed interest among Navy veterans about whether the Navy should follow suit. In a recent survey conducted by Americans for a Stronger Navy, many former Navy veterans agreed that raising the enlistment age would be a step in the right direction to address recruitment shortfalls while filling critical technical and leadership roles.

The Need for Broader Recruitment
In an era of increasingly complex military operations, the Navy is faced with the dual challenge of recruiting more personnel while maintaining readiness. Raising the enlistment age could help the Navy reach a wider pool of potential recruits who bring not only maturity and discipline but also valuable civilian expertise, particularly in fields like cybersecurity, aviation, and engineering. This would allow the Navy to meet its manpower needs without compromising on the quality of recruits.

Insights from Veterans: Why Raising the Age Matters

Our survey of former Navy veterans revealed a strong consensus that the Navy should increase its enlistment age from 41 to at least 45. Veterans cited several reasons for their support, including:

  • Experience and Expertise: Many roles in today’s Navy require not just physical capability but technical expertise and life experience. Older recruits often bring a wealth of knowledge from their civilian careers that could be immediately applied in highly specialized areas.
  • Retention and Return of Prior Service Members: Former sailors are more likely to return if the Navy makes it easier for them to reenlist later in life. This ensures the Navy retains institutional knowledge and leadership capabilities that take years to develop.
  • Physical and Technical Balance: While physical fitness is important for all military branches, not every role in the Navy demands the same level of physical rigor as in ground combat. Older recruits can excel in areas like logistics, command and control, and technical maintenance roles, where mental acuity and decision-making are paramount.

Visualizing the Benefits

To further illustrate the insights gathered from veterans, below is a breakdown of the benefits of raising the enlistment age based on survey responses.

As the chart shows, the primary benefits cited by veterans include the recruitment of more experienced individuals, improved retention, and the ability to fill technical roles that are critical to modern naval operations.

Addressing Concerns About Physical Standards

One challenge often brought up in discussions about raising the enlistment age is whether older recruits can meet the Navy’s physical fitness standards. However, many veterans believe the Navy could adjust fitness standards based on the role being filled. While roles requiring peak physical fitness, such as Navy SEALs or shipboard operations, would maintain strict standards, technical and administrative positions could afford to prioritize experience over physical endurance.

Veterans’ Reasons for Supporting a Higher Enlistment Age

The following chart highlights the main reasons veterans support raising the enlistment age, emphasizing the importance of technical expertise and leadership experience.

Looking to the Future: Aligning with Modern Needs

By raising the enlistment age, the Navy would be tapping into a broader talent pool at a time when recruiting has become increasingly difficult. Other branches, like the Army and now the Coast Guard, have already adapted their recruiting strategies to reflect this reality. The Navy should lead in utilizing older, experienced recruits to help bridge the gap in technical skills, fill critical positions, and ensure our fleet is ready to face 21st-century challenges.

Conclusion: Veterans Support the Change

As the conversation continues around recruitment in the U.S. military, it’s clear that raising the enlistment age for the Navy would be a strategic move to address both immediate and long-term needs. The survey of former Navy veterans shows strong support for this change, and it could significantly benefit both the Navy and the nation it protects. By adapting its recruitment strategies, the Navy can continue to grow as a force that combines both physical readiness and the intellectual rigor needed to lead in an ever-evolving geopolitical landscape.


U.S. Naval News Wednesday – August 14, 2024

USS Idaho

Welcome to this week’s edition of U.S. Naval News Wednesday, bringing you the latest and most significant updates from the naval front.


Operational Updates

USS Abraham Lincoln Accelerates Transit to Middle East
Location: Middle East
In response to increasing tensions, particularly in relation to threats from Iran, the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) has been ordered to accelerate its transit to the Middle East. The carrier strike group’s deployment is part of a broader U.S. strategy to strengthen its military presence in the region.

U.S. Military Destroys Two Houthi Vessels in the Red Sea
Location: Red Sea
The U.S. military has taken decisive action against Iranian-backed Houthi forces by destroying two of their vessels in the Red Sea. This operation underscores the U.S. Navy’s commitment to ensuring the safety and freedom of navigation in this strategically critical maritime region.

USS Idaho Launched
Location: Thames River
The future USS Idaho (SSN 799), a Virginia-class fast attack submarine, was successfully launched into the Thames River. This marks a significant milestone as the submarine moves closer to being fully operational, enhancing U.S. undersea capabilities.

USS Blue Ridge Arrives in Koror, Palau
Location: Koror, Palau
The USS Blue Ridge (LCC 19), the flagship of the U.S. 7th Fleet, has arrived in Koror, Palau, for a routine port visit. This visit aims to strengthen ties between the U.S. and Palau, emphasizing the strategic importance of the Indo-Pacific region in maintaining regional stability.

Navy SEALs recently conducted a high-stakes training exercise with the USS Greeneville, highlighting the U.S. Navy’s readiness for potential conflicts in contested waters. This joint training reflects the rising tensions with China and Russia and showcases our fleet’s unmatched lethality and strategic depth.


Technological and Strategic Developments

U.S. Navy’s New AIM-174B Missile Deployed in Indo-Pacific
Location: South China Sea
The U.S. Navy has deployed the AIM-174B, an extremely long-range air-to-air missile, in the Indo-Pacific. With a range of up to 400 km, this missile significantly enhances U.S. aerial capabilities and shifts the balance of power in the region, particularly in relation to China’s PL-15 missile.

Navy Medicine’s Top Researcher Tours Southeast Asia
Location: Southeast Asia
Capt. Franca Jones, commander of the Naval Medical Research Command (NMRC), recently concluded a tour across Southeast Asia. Her visit highlights the Navy’s commitment to global health security and collaboration with regional partners to combat infectious diseases.

U.S.-Italy Joint Operations in the Indo-Pacific
Location: Indo-Pacific
The Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group and Italy’s Cavour Carrier Strike Group successfully concluded the first-ever bilateral Multi-Large Deck Event (MLDE) in the Indo-Pacific. This exercise, which focused on maritime communication and air warfare operations, reinforces NATO alliances and promotes a free and open Indo-Pacific region.

Littoral Operations Tactical Decision Aid Showcased at Marine Expo
Location: Washington, D.C.
The U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) and Office of Naval Research-Global (ONR-Global) demonstrated the LittoralLens imaging system at the Modern Day Marine Expo. This innovative system supports Marine Corps littoral operations, enhancing decision-making in complex coastal environments.

China Watch:

Military Drills Near Taiwan: China recently conducted a significant military exercise, named “Joint Sword,” near Taiwan. This drill involved a show of force with advanced weaponry, including J-20 and J-16 fighter aircraft, Type 052D destroyers, and ballistic missiles. The exercises were likely a response to Taiwan’s new President Lai Ching-te’s inauguration speech, which emphasized Taiwan’s commitment to democracy and freedom. This situation underscores the ongoing tension in the Taiwan Strait and China’s assertive military posture​

U.S. and Philippine Joint Patrols: The U.S. Navy and the Philippine Navy recently conducted joint patrols in the South China Sea, emphasizing the strength of their alliance amid rising tensions with China over territorial disputes. This patrol was part of ongoing efforts to demonstrate a united front and maintain stability in the Indo-Pacific region​.


    Russia Watch:

    While the recent focus has been heavily on China, Russia continues to play a significant role in global naval dynamics. Although specific recent events were not highlighted in the sources reviewed this week, Russia’s ongoing military activities in the Arctic and Mediterranean, as well as its partnership with China in joint naval exercises, remain critical areas of concern.

    Community and Leadership News

    USS Ronald Reagan Arrives in Bremerton
    Location: Bremerton, Washington
    After serving as the U.S. Navy’s only forward-deployed aircraft carrier in Japan, the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) has returned to the United States. The ship’s arrival at Naval Base Kitsap marks the beginning of its maintenance and upgrade period, while the crew enjoys some well-deserved time stateside.

    NAVWAR Change of Command
    Location: San Diego, California
    Rear Adm. Seiko Okano has taken command of Naval Information Warfare Systems Command (NAVWAR), succeeding Rear Adm. Doug Small. The change of command ceremony, held on August 9, 2024, marks a new leadership chapter for NAVWAR.

    USNS Point Loma Christened
    Location: San Diego, California
    The U.S. Navy has christened the USNS Point Loma, a new medical ship named in honor of the San Diego community. This ship, equipped with two operating rooms and the capacity to support 147 patients, will play a vital role in medical response efforts.

    U.S. Navy Band Country Current Tour
    Location: Maine
    The Navy’s Country Current ensemble is set to tour Maine starting on August 25, connecting with communities and inspiring national pride through music.


    Stay tuned for more updates and insights in next week’s edition of U.S. Naval News Wednesday!


    Ocean Shipping Disruptions and Their Economic Impact on Americans

    Bill Cullifer, Founder
    Bill Cullifer, Founder

    Introduction

    As the founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy, I have encountered a few pushback from those who believe that the need for a stronger Navy is overstated and that current global situations are someone else’s problem. This perspective overlooks the critical role that a robust Navy plays in safeguarding our economic interests and national security. In light of recent disruptions in ocean shipping, it is crucial to understand why the vast majority of Americans support a stronger Navy and how it impacts our daily lives.

    Why This Matters

    Global supply chains are intricately connected, and disruptions in one part of the world can have far-reaching impacts. The Red Sea, a critical maritime route, has recently seen increased attacks, forcing vessels to divert and causing gridlock at key ports such as Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea, China, and parts of Europe. This congestion is reminiscent of the chaos experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the repercussions are already being felt across the logistics and shipping industries.

    Key Takeaways

    1. Rising Shipping Costs: The diversions and delays are leading to increased shipping costs. With vessels stuck waiting for berths and navigating longer routes, the cost of transporting goods is climbing rapidly.
    2. Port Congestion: Ports are struggling to manage the influx of containers, leading to long wait times and operational inefficiencies. This congestion exacerbates delays and adds to the overall costs of shipping goods.
    3. Supply Chain Delays: As ports become bottlenecks, the timely delivery of goods is compromised. This affects the availability of products on store shelves, especially as we head into the holiday season, traditionally a peak period for consumer spending.Implications for the U.S. Navy

    Implications for the U. S. Navy

    Drawing from Alfred Mahan’s principles of sea power, the current instability in the Red Sea underscores the importance of maintaining control over critical maritime routes. The U.S. Navy’s presence in these regions ensures the security of trade routes, thereby safeguarding the global economy and national interests. Mahan emphasized that control of the seas, especially through a formidable navy, is crucial not only for wartime dominance but also for peacetime economic influence.

    Implications for America

    The economic implications of these disruptions are multifaceted:

    1. Increased Consumer Prices: The rising costs of shipping are often passed down to consumers. Whether it’s electronics, clothing, or everyday household items, Americans will likely see higher prices at the checkout counter.
    2. Inflationary Pressures: As transportation costs rise, so do the prices of goods. This can contribute to broader inflationary pressures, impacting the overall cost of living.
    3. Business Costs: Companies that rely on imported goods face higher operational costs. These businesses may need to increase prices to maintain margins, further affecting consumer prices.
    4. Supply Chain Reliability: The reliability of supply chains is crucial for economic stability. Persistent delays and disruptions can lead to stock shortages, affecting businesses’ ability to meet consumer demand and potentially leading to lost sales and revenue.

    Lessons from Alfred Mahan

    Nicholas Lambert’s book, “The Neptune Factor,” reexamines Mahan’s theories, arguing that sea power is not just about military might but also economic influence. Alfred Thayer Mahan, a prominent American naval officer and historian, is best known for his influential book, “The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783.” Mahan’s groundbreaking ideas emphasized the strategic importance of a formidable naval presence to deter potential adversaries and ensure economic prosperity through control of maritime trade routes. Lambert emphasizes the need to integrate new technologies, such as cybersecurity and unmanned vehicles, and address environmental threats to maintain maritime dominance and economic security.

    What Can Be Done?

    To mitigate these impacts, several measures can be taken:

    1. Diversifying Supply Chains: Companies can explore alternative routes and suppliers to reduce dependency on any single shipping lane.
    2. Investing in Infrastructure: Enhancing port infrastructure and technology can improve efficiency and reduce congestion.
    3. Policy Measures: Governments can play a role in ensuring maritime security and supporting international efforts to stabilize regions like the Red Sea.

    Conclusion

    Current disruptions in ocean shipping underscore the vulnerability of global supply chains to geopolitical events. As Americans, understanding these connections is crucial. The economic ripple effects—from increased consumer prices to broader inflationary pressures—highlight the importance of resilient and adaptive strategies in both business and policy.

    By addressing these challenges proactively, we can better navigate the complexities of a globalized economy and ensure stability and prosperity for all.

    Drawing from Mahan’s insights, we must recognize that sea power encompasses both military strength and economic influence. Maintaining a robust naval presence and addressing modern challenges is essential for safeguarding our economic security and way of life.


    Navigating the Waters: The U.S. Navy’s Divest-to-Invest Strategy and Its Implications

    Bill Cullifer
    Bill Cullifer, Founder

    Introduction

    As we continue charting the course of the U.S. Navy’s future, we set sail into a sea of critical decisions. Well, today we focus on – the contentious debated divest-to-invest strategy. The Navy proposes to decommission certain vessels to free up resources for advanced capabilities, but Congress has its own course to chart. Let’s navigate these turbulent waters and explore the implications for the Navy, potential challenges, and the long-term impact on U.S. naval power.

    What You Need to Know

    At the heart of the debate is the Navy’s proposal to decommission 19 ships, including 10 before reaching their expected service lives. These ships may include cruisers, dock landing ships, and littoral combat ships (specific details are still being verified with Navy contacts). The Navy argues that divesting from older vessels will free up resources for investments in newer technologies and capabilities, better positioning the Navy to address evolving global threats. This divest-to-invest strategy, however, has faced opposition from some members of Congress.

    Several lawmakers have voiced concerns about specific aspects of the plan. For instance, Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT) expressed worries about reducing the number of Virginia-class attack submarines, emphasizing the need for a larger submarine fleet in the face of a growing Chinese navy. Sen. Angus King (I-ME) highlighted the importance of icebreakers for operating in the Arctic Ocean.

    Lawmakers have also been critical of the proposed decommissioning of cruisers and other vessels, citing their combat capabilities and missile power. These concerns have sparked debates between Navy officials and Congress, highlighting the complexities of balancing fiscal constraints with the need for a modern and effective fleet.

    We are reaching out to Navy contacts to verify the complete list of proposed decommissionings and will update this post with any further information.

    Why This Matters

    The divest-to-invest strategy is not merely a budgetary concern; it’s a reflection of the Navy’s vision for future warfare readiness. The Navy argues that investing in newer, more capable vessels is essential to address evolving global threats, particularly a rising China, effectively. While the Navy’s proposal is part of the Fiscal Year 2025 budget plan, Congress has yet to decide on its implementation.

    Implications for the Navy

    For the Navy, the proposed decommissioning represents a shift towards a leaner, more technologically advanced fleet. It’s a move that could enhance the Navy’s combat power and operational agility but also requires careful consideration of the costs associated with maintaining older ships versus investing in new ones. Additionally, recent reports indicate delays in the construction of new ships, which could further complicate the implementation of the divest-to-invest strategy.

    Implications for Congress

    Congress faces the challenge of balancing the strategic needs of a larger fleet with the economic impact of decommissioning on shipyards and communities. Lawmakers must weigh the Navy’s arguments against the potential loss of jobs and the broader economic repercussions.

    Challenges in Implementing the Divest-to-Invest Strategy

    While the divest-to-invest strategy offers a potential path towards a modernized fleet, challenges remain in its implementation. A recent article from Breaking Defense highlights concerns from Congress about the divestment of ships exceeding the number of new ships being built. This raises questions about the Navy’s ability to maintain a sufficiently sized fleet in the short term.

    The article also mentions the Navy’s request for only one Virginia-class submarine in FY25, despite previously planned purchases of two. This points to broader challenges in shipbuilding, potentially impacting the Navy’s ability to deliver on its long-term goals.

    Conclusion

    The debate over the Navy’s divest-to-invest strategy is more than a fiscal discussion; it’s a strategic deliberation that will shape the future of U.S. naval power. As the Navy and Congress navigate these turbulent waters, the decisions made today will have long-lasting implications for national security, economic stability, and the Navy’s ability to fulfill its mission in an ever-changing global landscape.

    Call to Action

    We encourage our readers to stay informed about this important issue. Follow along for updates on the budget proposal and Congressional hearings as continue . We also invite you to share your thoughts and questions about the divest-to-invest strategy by joining the discussion on our social channels by clicking here for Facebook.

    Empowering the Future of America’s Navy through Science and Technology

    Bill Cullifer
    Bill Cullifer, Founder

    Introduction

    In an era where technological innovation underpins maritime dominance, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps are charting a course towards a future where scientific prowess and technological superiority define their operational capabilities. The unveiling of the 2024 Naval Science and Technology Strategy by the Honorable Carlos Del Toro, Secretary of the Navy, presents a visionary framework aimed at propelling the naval forces into a new era of technological advancements and strategic superiority.

    As someone who served in the Navy during the 70s, this announcement resonates with me on a deeply personal level. I recall the thrill of working with Loran-C, a navigation system that, despite its limitations compared to today’s satellite technologies, was pretty cool for the time. It was a fascinating piece of technology that could triangulate radio signals from towers across the globe to provide a general location. Although it wasn’t perect, it was an aid in navigation and a marvel for a young man fascinated by gadgets. This early exposure to naval technology not only sparked my lifelong interest in innovation but also paved the way for my subsequent career in communications and technology.

    Key Takeaways

    The strategy emphasizes an accelerated path towards technological innovations, focusing on leveraging cutting-edge fields such as Artificial Intelligence, Quantum Computing, and Biotechnology. It underscores the importance of maintaining maritime technological dominance, fostering a culture of S&T excellence, and enhancing naval scientific diplomacy.

    Why This Matters

    The ever-evolving global security dynamics demand a Navy and Marine Corps equipped for both traditional and modern conflicts. This strategy is pivotal in ensuring that the United States retains its edge in maritime competition by making technological advancement a core pillar of its maritime strategy.

    Implications for the Navy

    Adopting this strategy signifies a transformative shift towards a more integrated and innovative approach to technology within the Navy. It calls for enhanced collaboration with the scientific and engineering communities, industry, and academia to create an ecosystem where technological breakthroughs rapidly transition into operational capabilities.

    Why America Should Care

    America’s prosperity and security are deeply intertwined with its maritime supremacy. This strategy extends beyond equipping the Navy and Marine Corps with advanced technologies; it’s about securing America’s ability to maintain its global leadership and strategic advantages.

    Conclusions

    The 2024 Naval Science and Technology Strategy sets forth a bold vision for a future where the fusion of science, technology, and naval warfare forms an unbeatable force. It’s a call to action for all stakeholders to contribute towards a future where technological superiority is a reality that secures national interests and maintains America’s global standing.

    Reflecting on my own naval experience, it’s clear that the most powerful and successful navies have always been those at the forefront of technological innovation. This strategy not only honors that tradition but also points towards an exciting future of endless possibilities. For young individuals considering a career in the Navy, this is a testament to the myriad opportunities that lie in military service – opportunities that not only serve the nation but also lay the groundwork for a fulfilling career. My time with the Loran-C system was just the beginning of a journey enriched by technological exploration, and I firmly believe this strategy will inspire many more to embark on similar paths.

     

     

    Happy New Year – A look back and into 2024

    Introduction: A Year of Advocacy and Progress

    Bill Cullifer, Founder

    A year ago, this month, the Americans for a Stronger Navy was launched with the goal of advocating for a stronger US Navy. 

    Recognizing the threats facing our nation, from system infiltrations to challenges in global maritime dominance, I launched this initiative not just as a response, but as a proactive movement towards fortifying our Naval capabilities.

    My Motivation:

    • China. I’m not going to lie. 
    • Instead of just looking back at past achievements or complaining about current issues, or even just sitting back in complacency, I decided to take action. This meant using my skills in web technologies, tapping into available resources, and bringing my community-building experience to the forefront. I reached out to others who shared this vision for a stronger navy, essential for our national defense, economic stability, and maintaining global influence. The response? It’s been super positive, confirming that there’s a wide belief in the importance of a powerful US Naval force.
    • Expansion Needs: Our navy requires more ships to meet growing global challenges.
    • Innovation and Technology: The navy needs to invest in research and development of new technologies, such as unmanned systems, hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence, and cyber warfare, to maintain its edge over potential adversaries and enhance its warfighting effectiveness.
    • Infrastructure Development: There’s a critical need for more and improved shipyards to support our expanding fleet.
    • Personnel Growth: Recruiting more sailors is essential to man our growing fleet and maintain operational readiness.
    • Partnerships and Alliances: The navy needs to strengthen its partnerships and alliances with other countries and organizations that share its interests and values, such as NATO, Japan, Australia, India, and others. Partnerships and alliances enhance the navy’s global presence, deterrence, and interoperability, and provide access to critical resources and infrastructure.
    • Education and Training Enhancement: Emphasizing STEM and Career Technical Education to equip our personnel with the necessary skills for future challenges.
    • To reconnect with old friends and acquaint myself with new ones.
    • To be a part of a community of like minded individuals.

    In all of these efforts, the underlying drive is a deep-seated belief in service and dedication to our nation’s maritime strength. 

    This sentiment is perfectly encapsulated by President John F. Kennedy, who once said, ‘I can imagine no more rewarding a career. And any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction: ‘I served in the United States Navy. 

    Peace through Strength

    • National Defense: A formidable navy is essential for defending our nation and deterring adversaries.
    • Economic Security: Protecting sea lanes ensures uninterrupted trade and access to global resources.
    • Global Influence: A strong Navy is crucial for humanitarian aid and maintaining our status as a global superpower.

    If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War.” – George Washington​

    Community-Driven and Member-Supported:

    Americans for a Stronger Navy is more than a movement; it’s a community of dedicated individuals advocating for policies and resources to bolster the Navy’s capabilities.

    In our first year, we’ve made significant strides towards these goals, driven by the philosophy of “peace through strength.” Our initiatives, supported by our esteemed advisors, members, supporters and friends reflect our commitment to a future where a strong and capable Navy safeguards America’s interests and contributes to a peaceful, stable world.

    Rich Content and Interactive Engagement

    In 2023, our website continued its advocacy for a formidable Navy, covering a range of topics from and enriching our community’s knowledge:  

    China News Watch, Russia News Watch, Cybersecurity, Global News Watch, In Memoriam, Industry Watch, Naval Aviation, Naval History, Naval Technology, Navy Family, Navy Specialties, Navy Weeks, Newsletter, U.S Navy New, Service Excellence, Shipbuilding News, U.S. Naval  Shipyards, Tell Us Your Story, This Day in Navy History, This Week in Naval History,, U.S. Navy News, U.S. Submarine Watch, Unsung Navy Heros, “Who’s Who” Directory, Why Join the Navy.

    Over 585 blog posts were published, covering diverse aspects of Navy life, news, Naval technology, strategy and global ship related  news.  We valued the engaging dialogues with our 385 plus subscribers, which have been fundamental in shaping our approach and content.

    Personalized Engagement

    Anticipating 2024, we are excited to introduce a customized user experience on our website, allowing subscribers to tailor their information flow, thereby enhancing their engagement and knowledge to include any one or more of these categories and your choice of daily, weekly, monthly or quarterly delivery to their email box. 

    A few blogpost examples:  

    US Navy Receives First Orca Unmanned Submarine from Boeing
    How the Navy Just Passed a Major Test for Unmanned Surface Vessels
    A Stronger Navy, a Peaceful World: This Christmas, We Honor the Keepers of the Peace
    How the US Navy is facing new challenges in the Red Sea and the Suez Canal

    In-Depth Analysis Spotlight Analysis: Why Taiwan Matters for America and Its Navy

    In 2023, Americans for a Stronger Navy launched the ‘Analysis’ category on StrongerNavy.org, providing a platform for comprehensive analysis and insights on critical developments in naval strategy and global security. This initiative aims to offer our members and subscribers in-depth commentary and perspectives on a wide array of topics, from warfighting and modernization to the broader mission and goals of the U.S. Navy.

    Why Taiwan Matters for America and Its Navy

    A standout piece in our Analysis section this year was the examination of Taiwan’s geopolitical significance, particularly its relevance to America and it’s Navy. The analysis delved into Taiwan’s complex history, its contentious relationship with China, and its importance as a democratically and strategic partner for the United States.

    • The focus on Taiwan highlighted its critical role in U.S. naval strategy.
    • With over $100 billion in bilateral trade and shared democratic values, Taiwan is not just a key economic partner but also a strategic asset in balancing China’s influence in the Asia-Pacific region.
    • For the U.S. Navy, which has a long-standing presence in the western Pacific, Taiwan’s stability is essential for regional security, freedom of navigation, and access to global commons.

    The analysis also offered recommendations on maintaining stability and avoiding a crisis over Taiwan. Emphasizing the need for strategic ambiguity, enhanced military deterrence, and diplomatic engagement, the article underscored the importance of supporting Taiwan’s security and democratic values.

    ‘Who’s Who’ Directory: Celebrating Service

    The ‘Who’s Who’ Directory has been a significant addition, acknowledging the dedication and achievements of individual sailors and units. “The Lone Sailor” series has brought these stories to life, deepening our community’s connection with Naval heritage.

    A Sailor’s Tale: Dan Maloney and the Essence of U.S. Navy Service

    Naval Historian Dale A. Jenkins Joins Americans for A Stronger Navy as Advisory Board Member – Americans for a Stronger Navy

    The Americans for A Stronger Navy organization proudly welcomes renowned naval historian, author, and former US Navy officer, Dale A. Jenkins, to its Advisory Board. As a distinguished Staff Director of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, and author of “Diplomats and Admirals,” Dale, a former US Naval officer holds positions on the Samuel Eliot Morison Committee of the Naval Order of the United States, New York, and as a Regional Director of the Naval War College Foundation. Jenkins contributes immense knowledge and expertise to the organization.

    Community Outreach: Connecting Worlds

    Americans for a Stronger Navy is a proud supporter of “Fleet Week ” and “Navy Week”, events that have been instrumental in diminishing the divide between military and civilian realms. Americans for a Stronger Navy volunteered media support increasing awareness and attendance to the event nationwide.

    These events, deeply rooted in tradition, have played a crucial role in educating the public about the Navy, enhancing support involving interviews with Farewell to FleetWeekLA: An Insightful Conversation with Captain Victor B. Sheldon and the USS Princeton.

    In Memoriam: Honoring Heroes

    Our dedicated efforts to remember fallen heroes through the ‘In Memoriam’ page and the “Medal of Honor Monday” series have been a solemn tribute, highlighting the importance of remembrance and support for our service members of all rates and rank. 

    Medal of Honor Monday: Navy Rear Adm. Daniel J. Callaghan

    Maritime Outreach and Engagement

    We’ve embraced the digital era, leveraging social media to amplify our message. Through Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, we’ve engaged a wider audience, sharing the valor of our Navy and sparking conversations on crucial naval operations.

    Our social media growth has been remarkable, with our Facebook and Twitter communities thriving with over 1000 subscribers respectfully. These platforms have been crucial in fostering discussions and enhancing our advocacy efforts. 

    Facebook: Americans for a Stronger Navy | Folsom CA | Facebook

    Twitter: StrongerNavy (@StrongerNavy) / X (twitter.com)

    Virtual Community Building

    As supporters of the Army-Navy games. We hosted a virtual tailgate party for the Army-Navy game as a celebration of camaraderie and naval appreciation, drawing in enthusiastic participants and fostering a sense of shared pride. 

    When the Army and Navy Plays Footvall America Wins

    Introducing ‘Charting the Course’: Navigating American Naval Power

    A Year of Engaging and Enlightening Conversations

    Our ongoing podcast series, ‘Charting the Course: Navigating the Future of American Naval Power,’ has been pivotal in delving into challenges faced by the U.S. Navy, featuring expert insights and forward-looking strategies. 

    ‘Charting the Course’ has been a cornerstone of our 2023 initiatives, offering our members and the wider public valuable insights into naval strategies and global maritime affairs. 

    As we reflect on the series’ success, we look forward to continuing this journey of exploration and understanding in the complex world of naval power and strategy,

    We are proud of what we have accomplished in 2023, and we are confident that we have made a positive impact and difference in advancing and promoting the Navy and its interests and values.

    Free Access to Crucial Insights

    Offered free of cost, this 8-episode series transcends typical reporting, providing in-depth analysis and  light on the implications of strategic decisions shaping the future of American naval power.

    The series underscores the U.S. Navy’s role not just as a symbol of national strength but as a pivotal force in maintaining global stability.

    Episode Highlights

    • Episode 1 with Dr. Steven Wills: This session delves into the anatomy of naval strategy, discussing its development, challenges, and the integration of naval capabilities.
    • Episode 2 with Dr. Bruce Jones: Gain historical and global insights into maritime power, exploring the influence of trade, climate change, and geopolitical shifts.
    • Episode 3 with Dr. Sam Tangredi: Focused on the integration of AI in naval warfare, addressing ethical, legal, and strategic aspects.
    • Episode 4 with Dr. Scott Savitz: Discussing innovations in non-lethal weapons and uncrewed platforms, and their impact on naval strategy.
    • Episode 5 with Bryan Clark: Exploring the technological horizon of naval warfare, including AI, big data, and machine learning.
    • Episode 6 with Seth Cropsey: A deep dive into the complexities of modern naval power and the strategic insights needed for understanding contemporary naval dynamics.

    For additional information and to follow along click here for full details.

    Gratitude and Looking Ahead

    As we step boldly into 2024, our journey together continues to shape a more secure and influential future for our Navy and our nation.

    Your support regardless how small or incremental fuels our mission, and together, we can confront the evolving challenges that lie ahead. Join us in this ongoing endeavor—share your thoughts, get involved, and help us spread the word.

    Every voice, every action counts towards building a stronger Navy and a stronger America.

    Join Our Team: We’re Looking for Dedicated Volunteers

    “Americans for a Stronger Navy” is expanding its team as we continue to grow and advocate for a stronger naval presence. We are seeking:

    • Advisors: Experts in naval affairs, strategy, or public policy to guide our initiatives.
    • Content Creators: Writers, bloggers, and social media experts to help spread our message.
    • Audio and Video Engineers: Talented individuals for high-quality multimedia content creation.
    • Outreach Coordinators: Energetic and organized individuals to manage our community engagements and events.

    Be a part of a movement that’s making a real impact. To join us or for more information, visit or email us at the email provided on our contact page.

    Together, we can build a stronger Navy and a stronger America!

    Happy New Year, and thank you for being a vital part of this journey. Here’s to a year of impactful achievements and shared successes in 2024!

    Medal of Honor Monday: Navy Rear Adm. Daniel J. Callaghan

    Rear Adm. Daniel J. Callaghan

    “Any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction: ‘I served in the United States Navy.'” JFK

    Hello, members and friends of the Americans For a Stronger Navy. Today, we take a break from our podcast series to honor those who have served our nation with extraordinary bravery and sacrifice.

    As part of our Medal of Honor Monday series, we will feature a different Navy hero every week, and share their stories of valor and service with you. We hope that by doing so, we can inspire you to appreciate and support the Navy and its mission, and to learn from the examples of courage and patriotism that these heroes have set in times of war and peace.

    This week, we are proud to present Navy Rear Adm. Daniel Judson Callaghan, who commanded ships fighting against a massive enemy force during one of the deadliest battles of World War II. Callaghan did not survive the ordeal, but his leadership, foresight and courage helped lead his sailors to victory. That earned him a posthumous Medal of Honor.

    Callaghan was born on 26 July 1890 in Oakland, California. He graduated from the Naval Academy in 1911, and served as an engineering officer, an executive officer, and a naval aid to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. By April 1942, he was promoted to rear admiral while commanding the cruiser USS San Francisco.

    By November, he was in the middle of the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, where the Allies had retaken the island from the Japanese, who were desperately trying to take it back. On the night of 12 November, Callaghan learned that a large Japanese naval force was heading toward his position, which was in Iron Bottom Sound between Guadalcanal and Savo Island.

    The Japanese ships were superior in numbers and in power, but Callaghan decided to engage them with his task force, which consisted of three light cruisers, eight destroyers and two heavy cruisers, including the San Francisco, the task force’s flagship. Hedevised a plan of attack, and led his forces into battle against tremendous odds.

    The battle was chaotic and fierce, and the San Francisco was the first to face enemy ships by taking on the Hiei, a Japanese battleship, in a head-on duel. Callaghan and the San Francisco’s commanding officer, Capt. Cassin Young, were both on the ship’s bridge wing directing close-range operations. They were both killed by a shell from the Hiei, but not before they inflicted heavy damage on the enemy ship.

    The blast also knocked the ship’s communications officer, Lt. Cmdr. Bruce McCandless, unconscious. When he woke up, he realized Callaghan and Young were gone, so he took command of the ship and the task force, and ordered them to continue their bombardment. He also managed to sink a destroyer and damage two other Japanese vessels.

    Eventually, the Japanese admiral, who was commanding the enemy ships, lost his nerve and ordered his crews to withdraw and regroup. The battle was over, and the Allies had won a decisive victory. They had prevented the Japanese from bombarding Henderson Field, the airfield on Guadalcanal, and from delivering troops to the island’s shores. The battle was the last in a series that forced the Japanese to surrender Guadalcanal for good, handing the Allies a strategic victory.

    The win came at a heavy price for the Allies, too. Nine U.S. ships were sunk while about a dozen more were damaged. More than 1,700 Americans lost their lives, including Callaghan. He was buried at sea, and his name is listed on the Wall of the Missing at the Manila Cemetery in the Philippines.

    On 9 December 1942, his son, Navy Lt. j.g. Daniel J. Callaghan Jr., received the Medal of Honor on his father’s behalf from President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His citation read:

    “For extraordinary heroism and conspicuous intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty during action against enemy Japanese forces off Savo Island on the night of 12-13 November 1942. Although out-balanced in strength and numbers by a desperate and determined enemy, Rear Adm. Callaghan, with ingenious tactical skill and superb coordination of the units under his command, led his forces into battle against tremendous odds, thereby contributing decisively to the rout of a powerful invasion fleet, and to the consequent frustration of a formidable Japanese offensive. While faithfully directing close-range operations in the face of furious bombardment by superior enemy fire power, he was killed on the bridge of his flagship.”

    Callaghan is a true Navy hero, who exemplified the values of courage, honor, and commitment. He showed us what it means to defend our country and our freedom, even in the face of overwhelming odds and danger. He also showed us what it means to lead and inspire our fellow sailors and our Navy family, even in the midst of chaos and pain. He is a role model and an inspiration for all of us, and we are grateful for his service and his legacy.

    We hope that you enjoyed this week’s Medal of Honor Monday, and that you learned something new and valuable from Callaghan’s story. Please join us next week, as we feature another Navy hero who earned the Medal of Honor. Thank you for your attention and your support. Stay safe and stay strong. This is Bill, signing off.