News

Because companies won't hire excess workers in advance, they will have a huge challenge in expanding their workforces rapidly if a shipbuilding boom materializes, said Bryan Clark, who led strategic planning for the Navy as special assistant to the chief of Naval Operations until 2013.

Dealing with problems associated with operating and building a fleet can be so self-absorbing that one could miss how changes in the strategic environment are increasing the need for maritime thinking and sea power in general. Unfortunately, Western navies are not well disposed to understand and relate the broader implications of those changes to naval purpose – which of course must be defined before embarking on efforts to redesign and recapitalize the fleet. In terms of time and talent, the focus is on finding high-tech solutions to operational-level problems. In these naval institutions, that which is learned and inculcated is limited to that which is useful in the context of naval operations. While strategic and economic history is not thought to be of much use, it is precisely the kind of knowledge needed to understand such implications and think in maritime terms

"The administration can be pushed back on with some of these priorities that are important to congressional representatives," said Katherine Blakely of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, has released its new Fleet Architecture Study, which includes recommendations for what kinds of ships should make up the future U.S. Navy fleet, and how it should be organized. CSBA’s report is one of three separate Fleet Architecture studies that were ordered to inform decisions, design, and procurement for the future fleet. Part I looked at the new fleet organization and operating concepts CSBA proposed. Here, I examine their recommended fleet composition, the numbers and types of ships that should make up the future fleet.

Donald Trump’s favorite crutch to lean on these days is the idea that he “inherited a mess.” But with respect to the ongoing U.S.-led war against the Islamic State, Trump actually inherited a campaign that is approaching military success.

Mark Gunzinger of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) has no qualms about walking away. China, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, India and Saudi Arabia possess various types of ballistic missiles with ranges of 500-5,500 km; some also have ground-launched cruise missiles. War-game exercises supported by the CSBA show the precarious situation of NATO members Poland, Lithuania and Latvia. These countries are bracketed by compliant, offensive Russian weaponry based in Kalingrad, Belarus and along Moscow’s border, says Gunzinger.  He says future ground-based strike systems could help the U.S. suppress Russia’s advanced integrated air defense systems and freedom of action in the event of a conflict. Those same weapons could also help the Pentagon overcome some of the military roadblocks put up by China and North Korea in the Western Pacific. China has fielded many types of conventional and nuclear medium-range missiles to restrict U.S. forces, and it appears that some of those missiles have recently been emplaced in silos in the South China Sea.