At SNA, CNO Discusses Ships, Lasers, and Finally Addresses the Merchant Marine Issue
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Surface Navy Association conference is typically an internal event where the U.S. Navy discusses destroyers, readiness, and budgets, reassuring each other that challenges are manageable. However, the surface fleet is increasingly struggling due to inadequate investment in support vessels and a significant shortage of U.S. merchant mariners to crew them.
This year, gCaptain got the chance to attend a private media breakfast with members of the Pentagon Press Corps, where we met Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Daryl Caudle.
While discussions covered shipbuilding, foreign shipyards, lasers, readiness, and finances, Admiral Caudle addressed a long-standing question from the maritime industry:
Who is protecting the ships that make naval power feasible? Why are the crews still overlooked? Is the century-old Jones Act still safe, or are changes on the table?
The morning began with questions from Sam LaGrone of USNI News regarding shipbuilding capacity and the potential use of foreign shipyards as a temporary solution. Caudle was straightforward.
He stated that the U.S. can't just "push a button" to mass-produce ships and that enhancing capacity takes years, not just budget cycles. In this light, he referred to foreign shipyards as a “bridging strategy” not a substitute for U.S. shipbuilding.
What stood out was his readiness to challenge long-held beliefs about U.S. maritime law.
Caudle explained that legislation like the Jones Act was created for specific reasons which he believes may not be valid today due to current threats and industrial realities. He argued these assumptions deserve reevaluation.
He mentioned that the Navy is considering purchasing auxiliary and logistics ships from other countries and even importing ship sections from allies like South Korea.
This type of openness about the Jones Act and the gradual reduction of specialized MSC vessels is not typical language from a sitting CNO.
Regarding the “Golden Fleet” vision, Caudle pushed back against the notion that it’s just an optimistic goal. However, he emphasized it cannot be realized with the Navy's current operational model.
He identified the core issue as not merely funding, but also the processes involved.
He pointed to modular construction as a clear path forward, citing submarine modules built in Gulf Coast shipyards. He believes shipyards need to transition from being custom builders to interconnected production hubs.
If this change doesn't happen, he warned, the Golden Fleet will remain just a slogan.
“We aren't replacing the existing Navy with the Golden Fleet,” he stated during his keynote address later that day. “The Golden Fleet is an 'and' initiative, not an 'or' wish list.”
When asked about extending aircraft carrier deployments — specifically if the USS Gerald R. Ford could return to the Middle East — Caudle provided one of the most straightforward answers of the morning.
“I’m not a fan of extensions,” he said.
His reasoning was clear: disrupted family life, broken maintenance schedules, chaos in shipyard contracts, and compromised readiness when ships are overextended.
Caudle stressed that extensions negatively impact sailors first and foremost, undermining the very readiness the Navy claims to protect.
While discussing warships, he also touched on the difficulties U.S. merchant mariners face in finding relief crews on MSC ships. He pointed out that retaining senior officers is particularly challenging due to better pay opportunities in lower-risk areas.
Discussing working conditions, he mentioned he’s tasked the Supply Corps to learn from cruise ship operations, which have far more passengers and crew than an aircraft carrier.
When it was my turn, I simply introduced myself as a U.S. Merchant Marine captain first and a reporter second.
I shared insights familiar to gCaptain readers.
Military Sealift Command operates the largest fleet under Navy control but is often marginalized, both structurally and culturally. Merchant mariners serve in combat zones while being labeled as “civilian mariners,” creating a divide rather than honoring our title, “Merchant Mariners.”
I highlighted that a significant portion of the Navy’s workforce, from seamen on MSC oilers to naval architects, consists of Merchant Mariners, but our contributions are often unrecognized.
Then I posed a more challenging question.
Logistics vessels will likely be targets in future conflicts. Many currently lack sufficient defensive capabilities, port protections, and adequate support if attacked. How does the Navy plan to ensure their safety when conflict arises? Senior officers might take risks—as seen last year during carrier support in the Red Sea—but against a stronger navy like China, simple resupply missions could become deadly. How many fathers and husbands would agree to that duty in wartime?
Caudle didn't dodge the question.
He admitted the Navy struggles to communicate how vital its logistics fleet and the Merchant Marine are. Although he initially referred to us as "Civilian Mariners," he quickly corrected himself.
The admiral acknowledged that many, both outside and inside the service, don’t grasp the critical role of the Merchant Marine in the Navy’s functions.
He spoke candidly about the shortage of licensed mariners and noted that competition from commercial shipping makes retaining them increasingly difficult. He expressed surprise at how many mariners MSC manages to keep, given the pay and conditions in commercial shipping.
Then came the most significant admission of the morning.
Caudle stated he believes it was a mistake to reduce Military Sealift Command to a two-star command and that he is working to rectify this. He described MSC as needing more command authority given its pivotal role in the Navy.
This acknowledgment carries weight for the Merchant Marine and signals a long-overdue structural recognition.
Caudle emphasized that MSC has had strong leaders in the past and present, but the command requires more attention in both the Pentagon and Congress.
On ship defense, Caudle noted that logistics ships carry small arms and security teams, with additional protective measures available as needed. However, he argued that protection should be seen more broadly.
The real challenge lies in addressing adversaries' targeting capabilities—through deception and control—rather than just enhancing ships’ armor and firepower.
While this answer might not satisfy everyone, it clarifies the Navy’s strategy: logistics vessels will be integrated into the same anti-targeting approach as combat ships.
He also mentioned that upgrading outdated communication systems to modern secure command-and-control systems is a priority. MSC ships must effectively understand and communicate in battle zones, even against enemy electronic warfare. He added that blinding the enemy to protect logistics ships is a top priority he could not detail in an unclassified setting.
Caudle did not cover the needs for fireboats, salvage ships, and support crews in the event of damaged vessels during warfare.
Later in the session, Caudle was asked about directed energy and the Navy’s interest in laser-equipped surface combatants, including future battleship concepts.
He was clear: laser capability is not the issue; engineering, integration, and targeting are.
He claimed that powerful lasers are achievable and should be standard for point defense, allowing for more space for offensive weapons. In his view, the volume of payload is crucial, and lasers change the calculations.
He mentioned that such systems might be added to auxiliary vessels in the future.
After his remarks, he was asked why the future battleships aren’t nuclear-powered considering their energy needs. He confirmed that they had considered this option, but it would have delayed the delivery of the first ships.
A senior Pentagon official recently indicated that while the first ships in the Trump class will be powered by gas turbines, nuclear options are being considered for later vessels. Caudle did not comment on this.
Caudle was also asked about President Trump’s statement on increasing defense spending by around 50% to $1.5 trillion annually and how much would be allocated to the Navy.
He pushed for maintaining defense spending at over 4% of GDP, warning about the historical trend of post-war “peace dividends” leading to unexpected conflicts and unprepared military.
While unrepentant about the cost, calling it an investment in jobs and security, he recognized the challenge: readiness demands are increasing alongside shipbuilding expenses without anything being removed from the list.
The Surface Navy Association breakfast with the Navy’s leading admiral didn’t produce any major announcements but provided something rarer: clarity.
The CNO openly recognized that:
These are significant admissions.
The next conflict won’t be won solely by destroyers; it will depend on fuel, ammunition, spare parts, and the merchant mariners delivering these supplies under fire.
For the first time in a long while, the Navy's top officer seemed willing to express this openly.
Now the key question is whether the institution will act on his statements.
One memorable remark from the entire event was Admiral Caudle's declaration that “Battleships are badass,” and his private acknowledgement that Merchant Mariners are badass as well.