Navy leaders look to expand munitions options as supplies run low
Navy leaders are looking for brand-new types of munitions to ensure they have enough firepower for future conflicts.
During testimony before the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday, Acting Chief of Naval Operations Adm. James Kilby acknowledged recent operations in the Red Sea 'have highlighted the strain on our munitions industrial base.' Officials are working to close that gap, but current production lines may not be sufficient for that resupply.
'Precision-guided, long-range munitions like Tomahawk, Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, the heavyweight torpedo, all those ammunitions we need to increase production on,' he said.
'But I'm also of the mind that we need to look at other vendors. They may not be able to produce the same exact specifications, but they might be able to produce a missile that's effective, which is more effective than no missile.'
Trump requests $892.6 billion base defense budget, a real-terms cut
Kilby's comments come as lawmakers review the service's budget needs for fiscal 2026. Committee members expressed concerns with gaps in the country's shipbuilding industrial base, delays in submarine production and fleet readiness.
But the munitions shortfalls drew extra attention, given recent military operations against Houthi forces in the Red Sea. U.S. forces carried out more than 1,100 strikes over roughly five weeks, using an estimated $1 billion in weapons.
Last fall, before the recent operations, a report from the Heritage Foundation warned military efforts to resupply those types of munitions were already too slow.
For example, the report noted that in fiscal 2023, industry suppliers produced fewer than 70 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles. During a few months of skirmishes with Houthi forces in fall 2024, the service fired more than 125 of those missiles.
'God forbid, if we were in a short-term conflict, it would be short-term because we don't have enough munitions to sustain a long-term fight,' Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., chairman of the appropriations committee, warned during Wednesday's hearing.
'We need to do what we can to accelerate that [munitions replacement] process, because we're all very, very concerned.'
Both Kilby and Navy Secretary John Phelan said they are working with traditional vendors on ways to speed replacements. Kilby did not specify which other companies he is interested in contacting for new munitions, or what the timeline for those purchases will be.
'If we go to war with China, it's going to be bloody and there's going to be casualties and it's going to take plenty of munitions,' he said. 'So our stocks need to be full.'
White House officials have not offered specifics of the Navy's budget for fiscal 2026 yet, but have promised broad increases in spending to deal with emerging global threats.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Verge
7 hours ago
- The Verge
Republicans are barreling toward remaking the internet
For years, protecting kids online has been touted as one of the only issues Republicans and Democrats could agree on. Last year, nearly the entire Senate voted to pass a substantive kids online safety bill in an exceedingly rare show of bipartisanship. Right before the vote to pass the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), then-Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) praised the joint effort, saying, 'It shows the chamber can work on something important, that no one let partisanship get in the way of passing this important legislation.' But an event this week in Washington previewed how that conversation may take a different tone under President Donald Trump's second term — one where anti-porn rules, conservative family values, and a push for parents' rights take center stage. The Federal Trade Commission workshop held on Wednesday — billed as 'The Attention Economy: How Big Tech Firms Exploit Children and Hurt Families' — was more aggressively partisan than past tech-focused events. Originally announced with the milder tagline 'Monopolizing Kids' Time Online' at the end of the Biden administration, the Trump-era event deprioritized the academics and industry stakeholders found at similar FTC workshops. In their place was a string of Republican regulators and lawmakers, alongside analysts from 'family values' groups and conservative think tanks, including the Heritage Foundation, organizer of Project 2025. Remarks were delivered by Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Katie Britt (R-AL), FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson, and the agency's other two Republican commissioners (the ones that remained after Trump broke Supreme Court precedent to attempt to fire their Democratic counterparts.) Blackburn and Britt have both co-sponsored what are billed as bipartisan online safety rules: the KOSA for Blackburn and the Kids Off Social Media Act (KOSMA) for Britt. For years, these bills have been described as addressing common-sense problems with social media, like cyberbullying and addictive features that keep teens reaching for their phones. Both their Republican and Democratic backers constantly downplayed concerns that, for instance, KOSA might be used to make web platforms censor LGBTQ content. And many remarks at the FTC panel echoed common bipartisan talking points — FTC Commissioner Mark Meador, for example, riffed on the common comparison of the social media industry's lobbying and marketing efforts to those of Big Tobacco. Alongside calls for things like stronger privacy protections, Ferguson mentioned 'cancel culture' in his opening remarks But that earlier, bipartisan framing came together under Democratic President Joe Biden and a split Congress. With Republicans in control of all three branches of government, the tone has shifted. Alongside calls for things like stronger privacy protections, Ferguson mentioned 'cancel culture' in his opening remarks, saying that 'no parent wants their child canceled or exposed to public humiliation for some youthful indiscretion online.' The framing of his comments and those from other participants focused on giving parents more 'control' and tools to monitor their children — a proposal that has bipartisan support but is a particular concern of the Republican 'parents' rights' movement. Throughout the day, other speakers — several of whom have worked on efforts to exclude trans girls from sports or prevent the use of puberty blockers or other gender-affirming treatment — referenced Christian or family values in their remarks. Joseph Kohm, director of public policy at the Family Policy Alliance, said it's not just Big Tech standing in the way of protections for kids online, but also the broader 'sex industry,' which he says includes 'prostitution, sex trafficking,' and porn. Kohm charged that this industry wraps itself in the banner of free speech but really is trying to ensure unfettered access to addictive porn sites to protect 'a business model built on taking advantage of kids without parental consent and leaving them broken.' (Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee recently introduced a plan to wholesale ban online porn.) Matthew Mehan, associate dean at the conservative Christian Hillsdale College, criticized teens' constant need to track their friends' locations as a sort of 'mob mentality,' comparing the practice to 'a bunch of orca whales' constantly locating each other 'because you don't know how to orient yourself. It's because you don't have relationships with God, your family, your work, your school, your community.' The lineup could be taken as a targeted message at the very people who have previously stood in the way of kids online safety reform: fellow Republicans. Last year, the main roadblock to passing KOSA was House Republican leadership, which failed to put the bill to a vote after the Senate passed it 91-3. While Congress managed to speedily pass the Take It Down Act this year after first lady Melania Trump's endorsement, the future of KOSA and other bills remains uncertain. At this point, Republicans, who control both chambers of Congress, don't necessarily need to convince Democrats to support online regulation. But locking out industry-aligned groups — not just conventional Big Tech companies but the tech world more broadly — could inspire pushback. The Cato Institute called the event 'a one-sided airing of grievances against tech companies' 'Small tech innovators like our members can offer essential, real-world expertise on policy implementation, technical feasibility, and the operational requirements of maintaining user privacy and safety,' ACT | The App Association, a trade group for small and medium-sized tech companies, wrote in a letter to Ferguson. 'A balanced, inclusive dialogue would better equip the Commission to craft more effective policies to protect children online and avoid implementation challenges seen in recent policy proposals.' Even the Cato Institute, the Koch-founded libertarian think tank, called the event 'a one-sided airing of grievances against tech companies' in a blog post ahead of the workshop. Cato free expression and technology fellow David Inserra wrote that he was initially invited to participate, but that 'the real disappointment is that we lost the chance to have a fruitful discussion featuring different perspectives on an important policy issue.' Amid the shift in tone, though, the FTC event still turned out parents who lost their kids after struggling with online harms. For those parents, passing reforms that they believe could save kids like their own is still the top priority, regardless of which party currently controls the agenda. 'Parents aren't asking for a pass. They're asking for help,' said Maurine Molak, a parent advocate whose teen son, David, died by suicide after experiencing cyberbullying. 'This is a collective action problem, and it takes all of us working together to find common ground.'
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Transgender troops face ‘crushing' decision as Trump ban deadline looms
Transgender active-duty service members must decide whether to leave the military on their own or be forced out by Friday under the 30-day deadline announced last month by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a life-altering decision that those interviewed by The Hill said is nearly impossible to make. 'It's crushing,' said Cmdr. Emily 'Hawking' Shilling, who has served in the Navy for almost two decades. 'It's heartbreaking.' A naval aviator with 60 combat missions under her belt, Shilling oversaw a staff of about 200 people before she requested voluntary separation last month and was placed on administrative leave. In her latest fitness report, Shilling's commander described her as an 'inspiring leader' with 'boundless energy' and 'unmatched enthusiasm.' 'People excel under Hawking's leadership,' they wrote, referring to Shilling by her callsign. The report and Shilling's own experiences contradict how President Trump and administration officials have sought to frame her and other transgender troops' service. Trump's Jan. 27 executive order to boot transgender people from the military states they cannot satisfy the 'rigorous standards' needed to serve, and that allowing their participation threatens military readiness and unit cohesion, an argument long used to keep marginalized groups — including Black, gay or female Americans — from serving. A 2016 RAND Corp. study commissioned by the Pentagon found that allowing trans people to serve had no negative impact on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness or readiness. Shilling, who currently serves as president of SPARTA Pride, an advocacy group for transgender service members, said she is complying with the Trump administration's policy despite believing it to be unlawful and challenging it in court. She stressed that her views do not reflect those of the Department of Defense or the Navy. Shilling's lawsuit, filed in February with six other trans service members, argues that 'banning ready, willing, and able service members does not further the objectives of the United States Armed Forces.' A federal judge in Washington state, where the suit was filed, sided with the service members in a March ruling that temporarily blocked the administration from enforcing Trump's order. But after an emergency application from the Justice Department, the Supreme Court ruled in May that the Trump administration could begin enforcing its ban on trans military service. 'My oath is to the Constitution and to obey all lawful orders,' Shilling said in an interview. 'The only way that I can challenge whether or not something is lawful is through the courts, and so I actually see this as an extension of my duty, of my oath.' 'I believe this is unlawful, and in the meantime, while I challenge it, I'm going to obey the orders,' she added. 'I'm out-processing; I'm doing all my paperwork; I'm doing everything I'm being told to do, and I'm also challenging it, saying, 'I don't think that this is lawful. Courts, please make a verdict on it.' And I will honor whatever they decide.' Cmdr. Blake Dremann, another plaintiff in Shilling's lawsuit, has also begun the voluntary separation process, though he said it hasn't felt like much of a choice. He requested his separation start at the end of December, when he will hit 20 years of service and be eligible for regular retirement. 'As far as navigating anything else, it has been really just trying to figure out, 'OK, where do I want to live? What do I want to do? How am I going to handle this?'' said Dremann, a naval supply officer. 'I thought I had another 10 years to figure out what I was going to do afterwards.' Dremann recently returned to the U.S. from Guam, where he had supervised a team of sailors and junior officers repairing submarines for forward deployment on the USS Frank Cable. The assignment, he said, was part of a milestone tour that would have set him on a path to becoming a Navy captain. Under the Trump administration's new policy, 'That's been taken away from me,' he said. A member of the Navy since the early aughts, Dremann served under the Pentagon's long-standing ban on trans service members that was lifted in 2016 under former President Obama, as well as under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' which prevented gays, lesbians and bisexuals from openly serving, Trump's 2017 trans military restrictions and now, the more stringent 2025 ban. 'This is the fourth time the military has had a policy that requires me to leave the service,' he said. 'This will probably be the one that gets me.' Dremann said he would be open to returning to the Navy once he separates if the Trump administration's policy were reversed in the near future. 'I even took my physical readiness test for the year,' he said. Others hesitated to say whether they would return. 'Unless there were specific policies put in place to prevent, like, what's going on now from happening in the future, having that being a case where let's say, everyone's offered a way back through the next administration, four to eight years later, you can run into this entire situation again,' said Abi, a member of the Air Force based in Alaska who asked that her last name be withheld over privacy and safety concerns. Her wife, Elizabeth, said she would be similarly uneasy with Abi someday returning to the military. The Trump administration's policy, she said, had betrayed their trust. Trump's 2017 policy barring transgender troops from serving made an exception for some who had already started to transition. The latest policy makes no such exception, deeming any service member with a current diagnosis, history or symptoms of gender dysphoria unfit for military service. 'To turn around and say, 'I know we said that you could do that, but now that you have, we are choosing to punish you for it.' It's like, what else could they do that with?' Elizabeth asked. With just under five years of service, Abi said there is no real incentive to opt for voluntary separation. A Pentagon memo issued in February said some trans service members could receive separation pay at double the rate of those who were involuntarily removed, but eligibility requires at least five years of continuous active-duty service. For now, Abi and Elizabeth are biding their time. They are looking to relocate, possibly to California, where Elizabeth has family, but cannot make concrete plans — including finding work — until they know when Abi will be discharged. 'It's very scary to be in such an unknown position,' Abi said. Army Reserve 2nd Lt. Nicolas Talbott said he similarly has no plans to voluntarily separate, a decision that, as a reservist, he must make by July 6. 'Most of the incentives for voluntary separation are geared toward folks who have more time and service than I do,' he said. 'So, for me personally, I'm watching to see if any new guidance or any new policies come out. But really, we're just kind of preparing to see what the involuntary separation process is going to look like.' 'I hate the verbiage being used as voluntary versus involuntary,' he added, 'because this isn't really voluntary for any of us. This is not what we wanted.' Talbott said he's hopeful the policy will again be blocked in court. Like Shilling, he is the lead plaintiff in a challenge to Trump's executive order. A district judge sided with Talbott and more than a dozen other plaintiffs in March, blocking the administration from implementing Trump's order, describing it as 'soaked in animus.' An appeals court temporarily halted the order as it weighs whether to grant a longer pause. 'I'm kind of trying to do my best to hold down the fort for everyone,' Talbott said. 'That's what I try to stay focused on. I have a job in the military, I have my civilian job as well, and things need to get done. You know, the world does not revolve around this case; the world does not revolve around me by any shape of the imagination, and I have jobs to do, and I have responsibilities, and that's what I try to stay focused on.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Yahoo
DOD is investigating Hegseth's staffers over Houthi-strikes chats
June 7 (UPI) -- The Defense Department's Inspector General is investigating Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's March 13 Signal chat ahead of the U.S. military's extended aerial strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen. The IG's office initiated the investigation weeks ago and has interviewed current and former Hegseth staffers to learn how the chat and one other that occurred on the Signal encrypted mobile messaging app included civilians, ABC News reported. A DOD IG spokesperson declined to comment on the investigation because it is ongoing. Signal supports encrypted group messaging chats, but at least two chats discussed the onset of U.S. military action against the Houthis that started on March 15. The first erroneously included The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, while a second Signal chat included Hegseth's wife and brother. Hegseth in April blamed "disgruntled" former employees and media for the controversy over the Signalchat mishaps that many have dubbed "Signalgate." "This is what media does," Hegseth told media during the annual Easter Egg Roll event at the White House on April 21. "They take anonymous sources from disgruntled former employees and they try to slash and burn people and ruin their reputations," he said. "We're changing the Defense Department and putting the Pentagon back in the hands of warfighters," Hegseth said. "Anonymous smears from disgruntled former employees on old news don't matter." The aerial attacks continued from March 15 until May 6, when President Donald Trump announced the Houthis agreed to stop attacking U.S.-flagged vessels. The Houthis did not stop attacking Israel or commercial shipping in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.
