Breathing new life into US naval shipbuilding

The US Navy has set a 355-ship target by the 2030s, which became law under the National Defense Authorization Act (2018).

This forms part of a “distributed lethality” philosophy, which, according to Nick Danby — an intelligence officer in the US Navy — focuses on enhancing the offensive and defensive capability of individual warships, deploying vessels in dispersed formations across a wide expanse of geography, and “generating distributed fires”.

This comes as the US’ foremost rival, China, continues to rapidly accelerate its shipbuilding program.

However, US ambitions have been curtailed, as outlined in a recent Congressional Research Services report.

The Virginia Class Attack submarine procurement program is among the projects disrupted, with the report flagging issues relating to the force-level goal and procurement rate, industrial-base challenges, and cost and schedule risks.

According to Brent Sadler — senior research fellow, Center for National Defense at the Heritage Foundation — the US is a “far cry from its former status as a major shipbuilder”.

He outlines three factors contributing to the decline in the US’ shipping and shipbuilding endeavour — the first of which is “foreign dependency”.

VIEW ALL

“Foreign sources provide the US maritime industrial base with strategic materials critical to constructing vessels, such as precision machine tools, aluminium, and microelectronics,” he observes in a piece originally published by The Daily Signal.

Among the nations the US is relying upon for critical materials is China.

“In 2020, China was the third-largest source of microelectronics for the US, and in 2021 was the second-largest source of aluminium for the US,” he adds.

“Regarding precision machine tools, the theme continues: In 2021, by a wide margin, China topped the charts of machine tools production. It’s concerning that America’s top strategic competitor consistently appears to have a presence in vital supply chains.”

The second contributing favour, Sadler explains, is the dwindling number of US shipbuilding firms.  

“Since the 1970s, 14 ‘defence-related shipyards’ have shut down, and only one new shipyard has opened. And all the firms still in the shipbuilding sector have dwindled into an oligopoly serving virtually one customer, the US Navy,” he adds.

“To make matters worse, the seven shipyards constructing large and deep-draft ships are only responding to specific ship requirements of the Navy and Coast Guard.

“As such, shipbuilders are encouraged to service a limited market — exacerbated by the Jones Act, a 100-year-old law intended to ensure the nation has a minimum shipping capacity.”

This dynamic, Sadler argues, has distorted the sector into “uncompletedness and the death of American shipping”.

He continues: “In August, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Mike Gilday recognised the Navy’s contribution to this slow death of American shipbuilding by not providing any shipbuilding predictability and spoke of the need to give industry a ‘clear aim point’ of needs with a ‘higher degree of confidence’ going forward.”  

The third and final factor contributing to the decline in the US’ shipbuilding capability is “attracting, training, and retaining skilled labour”.

Sadler cites recent remarks from the manager of a major US shipbuilder, which said the labour shortage was the “biggest challenge” facing the industry.  

“Often, there are not enough workers to replace those who are retiring, and the industry is failing to attract new, young employees,” Sadler writes.

“The Department of Defense recognises that problem, too. In response to the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, the Pentagon released a report stating that the shipbuilding ‘industrial base today lacks the resiliency and bench strength to meet required demand’ and stressed the need for long-term, prioritised workforce investments.”

He also notes issues relating to the supply of mariners, claiming if a “sustained crisis” were to occur, the number of required US mariners (whose average age is 46) would fall short by 15 per cent.

“For too long, the nation has tried to build the Navy needed while neglecting the fundamentals for building and sustaining it. The result is obvious: namely, too few ships and shipyards unable to meet demand,” he observes.

“To those familiar with Alfred Thayer Mahan’s famous maritime writing, it’s no surprise that without a vibrant competitive shipping and shipbuilding industry, the Navy withers.”

So, what must the US do to “effectively compete” with China?

Sadler stresses the United States must “revive” its shipping and shipbuilding capability by leveraging “novel technologies” capable of addressing “obvious supply chain weaknesses”.

“Such innovation speaks to American strengths,” he adds.

To achieve this, the US must employ a “market bridge” — developing “revolutionary” shipping and shipbuilding to “meet urgent military logistic needs with commercial utility”.

This could include addressing Navy’s operational challenges with weapons reloading at sea, small modular nuclear reactors for vessel propulsion, and unmanned shipping.

“Already, additive manufacturing is being embraced with the Department of Defense’s road map, as well as commercial sectors to alleviate delivery delays, reduce costs, and reduce capital investments for transportation,” he writes.

“And the global delivery drone services market was expected to grow from $2.37 billion in 2021 to $3.49 billion in 2022 and is expected to reach $18.77 billion in 2026.

“These are just two of several key promising technologies, which if synchronised, can restore American global competitiveness in shipping.”

Sadler concludes by stressing that the revival of the United States’ naval shipbuilding endeavour is “pivotal to American security and prosperity”.

“If done well, fostering an American revolution in shipping can energise a lethargic industrial sector critical to the nation’s defence and sustain a wartime economy,” he writes.

“As such, a stronger and globally competitive maritime sector serves as a deterrent against Chinese economic coercion and military adventures, which could result in a long war over Taiwan.”

Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia's political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch with This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., or at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..