A Sea Change: Can the Unted States Maintain Maritime Dominance?
A Sea Change: Can the Unted States Maintain Maritime Dominance?
The MOC
By Dr. Jeff Harley
February 25, 2026
For over seventy-five years, United States maritime dominance has been one of the central pillars of the international order. It has enabled global trade, deterred major-power war, reassured allies, and allowed the United States to project power without permanently occupying territory. Control of the seas has provided the strategic depth necessary for economic growth and global engagement. In fact, Alfred Thayer Mahan argued that sea power was not merely a military asset, but a foundation of national greatness. Today, that insight remains true, but the conditions under which maritime superiority is achieved have changed dramatically. The oceans remain the primary arteries of global commerce, carrying nearly eighty percent of all international trade by volume. Whoever controls access to these sea lanes wields extraordinary influence over global stability.
Maritime dominance, however, does not mean uncontested dominance everywhere at all times. Rather, it means the ability to control critical sea lines of communication, deny adversaries their strategic objectives, and sustain combat power over extended periods. The true test of maritime power is not in the opening moments of conflict, but in the weeks and months that follow, when logistics, industrial production, and political cohesion determine the outcome.
Unfortunately, American maritime dominance now faces unprecedented challenges seen in China’s growth, the decline of the U.S. industrial base, American munitions shortfalls, and sheer transit distances. China has emerged as the world’s largest naval power by number of ships, operating more than three hundred and seventy vessels. More significantly, China possesses the world’s largest shipbuilding industry, capable of producing warships and commercial vessels at a scale unmatched by any other nation. In contrast, the United States struggles to maintain a fleet of approximately two hundred and ninety deployable ships, far below its stated requirement of three hundred and eighty-one ships.
This industrial imbalance also matters because maritime superiority is ultimately a contest of endurance. War at sea consumes platforms, munitions, and fuel at extraordinary rates. A nation that cannot replace losses or replenish stockpiles rapidly will see its power erode, regardless of initial technological advantages. The industrial imbalance includes munitions shortfalls which represent one of the most severe vulnerabilities. In a high-intensity conflict, U.S. forces could expend hundreds of precision weapons per day. Yet many of these systems are produced at rates measured in dozens or hundreds per year. This mismatch between consumption and production creates a structural risk: stockpiles could be depleted faster than they can be replenished. Logistics remains the decisive domain. Without logistics, even the most powerful fleet becomes irrelevant.
Geography further exacerbates these challenges. China operates close to home, while the United States must project power across the Pacific Ocean. This “tyranny of distance” multiplies fuel consumption, maintenance demands, and vulnerability to attack. Logistics endurance, not tactical brilliance, becomes the limiting factor.
Given these challenges, the question is whether maritime superiority can be sustained. The answer is yes, but only conditionally. It requires deliberate investment in shipbuilding and repair capacity, expansion of munitions stockpiles, modernization of logistics forces, integration of allied planning, and political discipline in alliance management. At the end of the day, maritime superiority is produced through sustained choices. The United States does not require dominance everywhere forever. It requires decisive superiority where it matters, for as long as it takes.
Ships win battles, logistics wins wars. We must make the right investments now and sustain them to ensure future maritime dominance.
Dr. Jeff Harleyis a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Center for Maritime Strategy. He is a retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral with more than three decades of service who specializes in alliance partnerships, maritime strategy, and the Global Competition. This article is derived from a presentation at the 2026 AFCEA West conference on February 11, 2026.
The views expressed in this piece are the sole opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Center for Maritime Strategy or other institutions listed.
By Dr. Jeff Harley
For over seventy-five years, United States maritime dominance has been one of the central pillars of the international order. It has enabled global trade, deterred major-power war, reassured allies, and allowed the United States to project power without permanently occupying territory. Control of the seas has provided the strategic depth necessary for economic growth and global engagement. In fact, Alfred Thayer Mahan argued that sea power was not merely a military asset, but a foundation of national greatness. Today, that insight remains true, but the conditions under which maritime superiority is achieved have changed dramatically. The oceans remain the primary arteries of global commerce, carrying nearly eighty percent of all international trade by volume. Whoever controls access to these sea lanes wields extraordinary influence over global stability.
Maritime dominance, however, does not mean uncontested dominance everywhere at all times. Rather, it means the ability to control critical sea lines of communication, deny adversaries their strategic objectives, and sustain combat power over extended periods. The true test of maritime power is not in the opening moments of conflict, but in the weeks and months that follow, when logistics, industrial production, and political cohesion determine the outcome.
Unfortunately, American maritime dominance now faces unprecedented challenges seen in China’s growth, the decline of the U.S. industrial base, American munitions shortfalls, and sheer transit distances. China has emerged as the world’s largest naval power by number of ships, operating more than three hundred and seventy vessels. More significantly, China possesses the world’s largest shipbuilding industry, capable of producing warships and commercial vessels at a scale unmatched by any other nation. In contrast, the United States struggles to maintain a fleet of approximately two hundred and ninety deployable ships, far below its stated requirement of three hundred and eighty-one ships.
This industrial imbalance also matters because maritime superiority is ultimately a contest of endurance. War at sea consumes platforms, munitions, and fuel at extraordinary rates. A nation that cannot replace losses or replenish stockpiles rapidly will see its power erode, regardless of initial technological advantages. The industrial imbalance includes munitions shortfalls which represent one of the most severe vulnerabilities. In a high-intensity conflict, U.S. forces could expend hundreds of precision weapons per day. Yet many of these systems are produced at rates measured in dozens or hundreds per year. This mismatch between consumption and production creates a structural risk: stockpiles could be depleted faster than they can be replenished. Logistics remains the decisive domain. Without logistics, even the most powerful fleet becomes irrelevant.
Geography further exacerbates these challenges. China operates close to home, while the United States must project power across the Pacific Ocean. This “tyranny of distance” multiplies fuel consumption, maintenance demands, and vulnerability to attack. Logistics endurance, not tactical brilliance, becomes the limiting factor.
Given these challenges, the question is whether maritime superiority can be sustained. The answer is yes, but only conditionally. It requires deliberate investment in shipbuilding and repair capacity, expansion of munitions stockpiles, modernization of logistics forces, integration of allied planning, and political discipline in alliance management. At the end of the day, maritime superiority is produced through sustained choices. The United States does not require dominance everywhere forever. It requires decisive superiority where it matters, for as long as it takes.
Ships win battles, logistics wins wars. We must make the right investments now and sustain them to ensure future maritime dominance.
Dr. Jeff Harley is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Center for Maritime Strategy. He is a retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral with more than three decades of service who specializes in alliance partnerships, maritime strategy, and the Global Competition. This article is derived from a presentation at the 2026 AFCEA West conference on February 11, 2026.
The views expressed in this piece are the sole opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Center for Maritime Strategy or other institutions listed.