U.S. Shipbuilding, Maritime Dominance Requires a New Ecosystem
With all the Legislative fanfare, Executive Orders, Committee meetings, lobbying efforts and media announcements concerning American Shipbuilding, Naval Warfare and Maritime Dominance, it is no surprise that the result of the uproar is shear confusion within the maritime industrial base (MIB).
The April 9, 2025 Executive Order Restoring America’s Maritime Dominance lists more than several reports to the President due within 90 days. Following those initial updates other reports are due at 180 and 210 days. The industry as a whole has not seen references to any of the reports being completed. That said, over the years we have seen many Federal transportation programs with good intentions end up with only reports and little to no investment. To support that opinion, the latest GAO report on shipbuilding described the industry as a “perpetual stage of triage.”
As shipbuilders and operators, we are simply confused about the path forward. Is the support and funding commercial or is it governmental? Is the revitalization of the Industrial base based upon legislation, public-private partnerships, private investment, or government subsidy? With those questions coming from many different Federal and private sources, we ask if a “shipbuilding” rebirth is an attempt to satisfy the status quo or is it better served organically by providing new technology, deregulation, programs and private investment to reach new capacity and services.
- In nature Ecology defines the interrelations among organisms and their environments.
With those relations nature builds populations and those populations develop into communities. The result in many natural environments is a sustainable and supportive ecosystem. U.S. Maritime needs to combine its Naval components with its global commercial requirements. It needs a new ecosystem. Major changes are required if the MIB is looking to compete globally and reclaim its former reputation and position in both geopolitical circles and commodity markets.
Is the “eco” comparison a little too “Jurassic Park”?
Maybe not.
An ecosystem engineer in nature is any species that is capable of changing its environment. An “allogenic” engineer changes the habitats around them while an “autogenic” engineer alters its own structure. Think US Navy and a military industrial base as “allogenic” and commercial shipping and markets as “autogenic”. In our opinion the new “ecosystem” in U.S shipping must move beyond a request for “dual use” tonnage and look to combine funding, procedure and technology of both military and commercial vessels to move forward as a sustainable community.
Our reputation and strengths are not only based on our military capability. The respect from our international partners and allies has also been based on our historical humanitarian aid and service. With the current geopolitical events in the Middle East, Ukraine and the Indo-Pacific the sight of an American merchant vessel, fully loaded with cargo and flying the stars and stripes would be a welcome sign in those theatres and can easily assist in rebuilding U.S. manufacturing and agriculture. With that injection of US assets and seafarers, National Security and Force protection follows. We extend our Naval power by providing protection of those commercial assets with new services and applications.
The recent One Big Beautiful Bill includes significant funding for the Navy, particularly in shipbuilding, and autonomous systems. The bill allocates roughly $40 billion dollars for the procurement of new ships, unmanned vessels, and the development of modernizing naval shipyards. All of this funding is outside of the normal defense budget legislation request for 2026 at $292.2 billion. The new law also includes a significant funding for the U.S. Coast Guard, totaling nearly $25 billion, reported as the largest single commitment of funding in the Service's history. This funding will also be used for shipbuilding, shore facilities, and maintenance. Again, this is specific funding for shipbuilding outside of the normal Coast Guard Authorization legislation, Homeland Security or Defense.
U.S. Flag Asks: Where’s Our Money?
While the new law has many successful components and will increase economic growth, it ignores U.S. Flag commercial shipping or shipbuilding. We wait on trust fund allocation from Chinese tariffs and development of Prosperity Zones in the Ships for Americas Act or as referenced in the EO. Pending legislation that is absent of any true government funding to complete the huge task of rebuilding America’s commercial shipbuilding capability. Make no mistake, existing shipyards, greenfield start-ups and recent foreign purchases of U.S. facilities will follow the defense funding.
It is our opinion that few if any of the “start-ups” understand the enormous task at hand while they “pitch” future facilities. Our existing shipyard capacity will be booked and backlogged with Navy and USCG work at cost levels that do not take into account the availability of private investment or the cost savings that commercial involvement can bring to the table. Our new foreign partners will follow the defense money and well they should if their initial entrance into the system will be successful. The reallocation of even “table scrap” funding provided outside any MarAd or Transportation budget allocation as large as these would move commercial shipyards into a new era and put new bottoms both on the water and under the water.
The ecosystem can move beyond the actual ship building initiative as there are many examples of adopting commercial inspection, contracting, purchasing procedures and services that can work to alleviate the Navy’s & USCG maintenance and ship construction delays and costs. Recent analysis out of Ukraine indicates that the government bureaucracy was the lead problem to move procedures and manufacturing forward and the digital adoption of commercial applications was the single element that accelerated funding and startup of the war effort. The collaborative effort goes beyond existing design, performance and operation. Moving certain Navy and USCG tasks into commercial services can take us past “dual use” recommendations and into ship types and design that not only move government and private cargo but are also immediately applied to military logistics and support operations. Establishing a new ecosystem combining military systems and commercial applications should be our first priority towards reaching a “dominance” goal.
The issues of cost over run and bureaucratic delay are most visible in the submarine industry. Taxpayers have poured billions of dollars into achieving the delivery goal of 2 Virginia plus 1 Columbia class submarine per year, yet production and maintenance schedules remain years behind. Our allies in South Korea have a thriving submarine industry that was built on their proven success in on-time, on-budget delivery of commercial vessels. How can we take advantage of this spill over from commercial to military “ecosystems”?
In a very positive step, the recently released 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, contains direct reporting requirements for the Department of Defense to analysis the “as a service” model for undersea application. Specifically, it calls for assessing the incorporation of commercial diesel-electric submarines as a service for the DoD that would function like successful programs in other domains to alleviate current delays and cost overruns.
- “The committee notes that "as a service" approaches have been successfully implemented in other domains, such as the U.S. Air Force’s use of contractor-owned, contractor-operated adversary air training services. These models have demonstrated the ability to provide cost-effective and flexible support to military operations while preserving high-end platforms for their most critical missions
The Honorable Tim Sheehy, Senator from Montana in a recent letter of support to Secretary of the Navy Phelan also states:
- “I urge the Department to consider novel approaches to supporting critical training, research & development, and other undersea mission needs through the development of a “submarines as a service” model “
There is only one company pursuing an "as a service" model for submarines that is thoroughly grounded in reality: Maritime Operations Group. Their concept for putting more players on the field to augment the nuclear submarine force — by leveraging experienced foreign shipyards and private capital — creates exactly the kind of blended shipbuilding ecosystem and operational pressure relief valve the nation needs. This model provides immediate operational capacity while maintaining the accountability and results-driven approach that private industry demands, offering a practical bridge between commercial efficiency and military requirements that exemplifies the collaborative ecosystem described throughout this analysis.
The model replicates portions of the Ships for America Act where the construction and interaction with a foreign shipbuilding group leads to a “reflag” of the initial tonnage and in turn develops commercial building opportunities in a U.S. shipyard to build the new fleet.
Amtech has been working closely with Maritime Operations Group through their Hyundai, South Korea relationships and several U.S shipyard locations to bring that new ecosystem to fruition. It is a single example of how the new model can work to return the Nation to Maritime Dominance.