Fiction Week

Call For Articles: Fiction Week 2026

Leave a comment

Stories Due: November 10, 2026
Week Dates: December 7-11, 2026
Story Length: 1,500-3,000 Words
Submit to: Content@cimsec.org

By Brian Kerg

In annual tradition, CIMSEC will be featuring a series of short stories that explore the nature of conflict and competition through fiction. 

Fiction has long served as a powerful means for exploring hypotheticals and envisioning alternatives. Authors are challenged to explore how potential clashes and warfighting challenges may play out. They are invited to delve into the implications of new technologies and how they will change the character of warfare. They can probe the past and use historical fiction to explore alternative histories. They are encouraged to ply any element of the craft of writing. Their stories may be driven by character, narrative, theme, or any other literary approach.

Authors are invited to craft gripping narratives that illuminate the unforeseen and carve realistic detail into visions of future conflict. Send all submissions to Content@cimsec.org.

For past CIMSEC Fiction Weeks, feel free to view our 2025, 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, and 2020 fiction lineups.

Brian Kerg is CIMSEC’s Managing Editor.

Featured Image: Art created with Midjourney AI.

Arctic

Review of Polar War: Submarines, Spies, and the Struggle for Power in a Melting Arctic by Kenneth R. Rosen

Leave a comment

by Tatum Delaney

The countdown ticks forward, each second marching the Arctic ice closer to its liquid form. Some see opportunity in what will be left behind: new sea lanes, access to resources, and expanded commercial activity. Others see danger in a region where governance structures and territorial claims are outpaced by national ambitions. Is the United States prepared for the risks of a rapidly changing Arctic? 

Author Kenneth R. Rosen confronts this question through more than two years of investigative reporting with military units, scientific stations, and remote communities in Polar War: Submarines, Spies, and the Struggle for Power in a Melting Arctic. Rosen argues that the United States has fallen behind evolving threats along its northern flank, hampered by decades of inadequate investments. Although his reporting spans multiple Arctic Council states, Rosen’s greatest contribution lies in his pointed vignettes of U.S. preparedness. Through poorly suited infrastructure, broken equipment, inexperienced crews, and isolated service members, Polar War makes the consequences of neglect tangible.

Polar War by Kenneth R. Rosen (image courtesy of Simon & Schuster)

Despite the high stakes, Rosen’s depictions of deficient infrastructure can be unexpectedly comedic. He recounts his experience aboard the USCGC Healy, one of the United States’ few icebreakers, as its crew struggles with a small boat transfer alongside a Norwegian vessel:

They find “the marine off-load release—the device connecting the American small boat to a crane and winch—is stuck, frozen stiff, caked in a thin layer of ice. 

“Looks like you need a mallet,” I say. 

“I am a mallet,” comes the petty officer’s response as he hacks away at the device with a piece of flotsam.” 

The contrast becomes sharper when Rosen describes the Norwegian vessel’s design. Its covered launch wells cradle the small boats, keeping them ice-free and ready for immediate deployment. Polar War is at its strongest in moments like these, using small failures to expose larger institutional problems.

The Healy’s recurring equipment failures and the crew’s improvised solutions create the impression of a vessel struggling with reliability, even under routine conditions. The consequences become more serious when a Russian vessel approaches the Healy and launches a helicopter overhead. Although the Healy is outfitted with aircraft hangars, budget constraints have left them empty. Icy wings delay the arrival of a P-8 Poseidon, allowing the Russian ship to depart before the United States could respond with any meaningful display of airpower. For Rosen, the encounter demonstrates how distance, weather, and limited capabilities can constrain U.S. strategy.

U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy (WAGB 20) and Norwegian Coast Guard Vessel Svalbard steam in formation through ice on Sep. 27, 2023 in the Barents Sea. (U.S. Department of Defense photo by Sgt. Carter Acton)

The shortcomings extend well beyond any single vessel. Throughout the book, Rosen documents how budget shortfalls and inadequate winterization affect U.S. military infrastructure across the Arctic. Runways and barracks in Alaska and Greenland suffer from structural problems. Units lack equipment suited to Arctic conditions. The Polar Security Cutter Program faces persistent delays, while Alaska continues to have insufficient deep-water port infrastructure supported by storage and container facilities. Even the basic systems that sustain personnel in the field can be inadequate. Among Rosen’s most striking accounts are nurses resorting to sous vide machines in hardware store buckets to maintain medication temperatures, despite the availability of heated medical chests. Again, Rosen captures how deficient investment leaves personnel improvising when purpose-built solutions already exist.

Rosen situates these failures within a broader pattern of deferred decision-making. The same logic that slowed U.S. investment in climate adaptation, he argues, has long shaped its approach to the Arctic. For decades, the region was treated as an expensive future problem and sidelined in favor of more immediate theaters of conflict. Even with that progress, the consequences of delay may be difficult to overcome quickly. Rosen warns that this lag could yield strategic advantages to an adversary like Russia, which has actively worked to cultivate its Arctic presence.

Still, not every gap Rosen identifies necessarily represents simple neglect. Maintaining infrastructure and specialized capabilities in one of the world’s most remote and expensive operating environments requires difficult resource tradeoffs, and the United States has faced competing priorities elsewhere. Readers may reasonably question whether some shortcomings reflect strategic prioritization rather than institutional indifference. Nevertheless, Rosen convincingly argues that the cumulative effect of these choices has left the United States with a force operating in the Arctic without the infrastructure, equipment, or experience necessary to do so effectively.

“We are an Arctic nation that doesn’t know how to be an Arctic nation,” observes Captain Krautler of the USCGC Stratton. Rosen recalls Krautler’s concern for his crew as they conduct wintertime inspections in the Bering Sea for the first time. The boardings go poorly, with Lieutenant Mike He later describing one as “embarrassing.” As these accounts accumulate, Polar War generates a sense of unease, not because personnel lack commitment or professionalism, but because they are asked to operate in an environment with limited domain-specific preparation.

These challenges are compounded by the constant rotation of personnel through Arctic assignments. At an Army readiness exercise in Alaska, a drone operator suggests that Arctic units should be all-volunteer. “Most people are only here for three years,” he explains. “By the time someone figures out their job, they are gone.” Institutional knowledge drains away just as hard-earned experience begins to accumulate. Rosen contends that addressing this churn requires more than increased recruitment; it demands an institutional culture better suited to Arctic conditions.

The human costs of failing to adapt are perhaps the book’s most sobering dimension. Rosen speaks with Delilah, a mortician in Anchorage, who has become familiar with receiving the bodies of service members from the 11th Airborne Division following suicide. Unlike rotational units that merely train in Alaska, the so-called Arctic Angels live—and sometimes die—there. Rosen’s reporting here shifts Polar War from questions of infrastructure and operational capability toward the sustainability of maintaining a military presence in such an unforgiving environment. Isolation, extreme weather, and the demands of Arctic service can become more than obstacles to readiness; they can fundamentally affect the lives of those asked to endure them.

Some tentative progress emerges through grant-funded initiatives with the Center for Alaska Native Health Research. They draw inspiration from the Qungasvik approach to reducing suicide among Alaska Native youth. The program offers avenues for improving mental health and resilience within Arctic units by fostering community connection, particularly among mid-level enlisted leadership. Targeting interventions at these leaders is intended to instill a sense of unity with and among the combat soldiers they interact with and train on a daily basis. Critically, rather than simply asking personnel to endure Arctic conditions, such efforts attempt to adapt systems of support to the realities of living and operating there.

U.S. Army Soldiers assigned to the 11th Airborne Division training in Alaska on Feb. 22, 2026. (U.S. Department of Defense photo by Spc. Brandon Vasquez)

Taken as a whole, Rosen’s reporting suggests that Russia’s advantage in the Arctic stems not only from technological superiority, but from decades of sustained presence, domain specialization, and familiarity with the region. In contrast, the United States has historically approached the Arctic more episodically, deferring infrastructure investments and rotating personnel through an environment where experience is particularly difficult to acquire and retain.

Yet the value of sustained presence should not be understood as entirely fixed. Rosen gives relatively little attention to how warming temperatures may also complicate the maintenance of Arctic infrastructure built for a different climate. As permafrost thaws, destabilized ground can damage foundations, walls, and floors, potentially turning long-established infrastructure into an increasingly expensive liability. The United States faces these challenges as well, but future investments may offer an opportunity to build with a changing Arctic in mind rather than adapting infrastructure designed for conditions that no longer exist.

Readers seeking a systematic assessment of Arctic force balances or a comprehensive academic treatment of the region’s security environment may find Rosen’s episodic approach less satisfying. The vignette-driven structure can leave readers wondering how representative individual failures are of the broader U.S. posture. For readers who are solution-oriented, the book ends with recommendations for how the United States might move forward. But its greatest strength lies more in diagnosis than prescription. Rosen excels at making strategic problems feel immediate. Taken together, his anecdotes reveal how grand strategy is experienced by the people responsible for carrying it out. In doing so, Rosen connects broad debates about Arctic competition to the realities of operating in the region. Polar War offers readers an accessible and unsettling account of what happens when a nation begins preparing for a theater only after its importance has become clear.

Climate change is wearing away the ice buffer that once insulated the United States from greater northern risks. As sea ice recedes, the margin for error may recede with it. The Arctic is no longer a distant frontier, but an operating environment whose strategic importance is increasingly difficult to defer. Rosen ultimately asks whether the United States will develop the capacity to meet that challenge or arrive too late to act.

Tatum Delaney is a Ph.D. researcher in the Ashley School of Global Development and the Environment at Cornell University. She is a National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellow with the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory in Political, Economic, and Sociocultural Sciences. Her current work primarily focuses on fisheries enforcement and management challenges in Alaska, including Coast Guard operations. 

Featured image: U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy (WAGB 20) crew and researchers install equipment on a floe of multi-year ice in the Beaufort Sea, Aug. 9, 2023. (U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Briana Carter)

Shipbuilding

The Surface Navy in an AI World: Rethinking the FFX

3 Comments

By James J. Wirtz

No one disagrees that the Navy has not had much luck constructing warships this century. It also continues to face significant challenges when building the next small surface combatant, the Future Frigate (FFX). It is becoming increasingly difficult to pack meaningful warfighting capability into a ship that is smaller and cheaper to build and operate than today’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. Case in point: the Constellation-class Frigate program was terminated with two vessels under construction as the price per unit began to approximate the cost of a destroyer.1 Making matters worse, the U.S. industrial base and shipyards lack the wherewithal to build more than a few ships at a time, and even then, only at a measured pace. Those imagining, designing, and building the FFX confront a wicked problem: efforts to balance competing missions, construction costs, and time requirements tend to produce a suboptimal outcome that satisfies none of them.

Instead of hoping for different results from the same approach to force design by balancing competing requirements and ship construction, it is time to return to first principles to ask what unique qualities the FFX brings to the Navy in a future increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence (AI). Today’s effort to update well-known design and operational concepts with more advanced and expensive weapons, propulsion systems, and electronic accoutrements will likely produce disappointing results. What is needed is not a better ship based on traditional thinking, but new thinking about how a frigate can contribute to future combat effectiveness and national security. The U.S. Navy must look toward the future by ending the effort to gussy up old ways and rethink the role of the FFX in an AI world. It is time for the U.S. Navy to build its first ship designed intentionally to exploit the synthetic reality created by AI and operate with Large Unmanned Surface Vessels (LUSV), Extra Large Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (XLUUV), and Medium Unmanned Surface Vessels (MUSV), ships that can exceed frigates in terms of endurance and carrying capacities.

 

FFX and the Art and Science of War

Already, AI is having a profound impact on conflict, especially when it comes to the science of war, that is, the domain of war that can be quantified. In maritime affairs, this manifests in growing platform and weapons autonomy. Range, precision, and lethality are increasing, while cost and the need for human direction are decreasing. When it comes to calculating combat power, the importance of relatively inexpensive and increasingly autonomous weapons in theater and magazine depth is superseding the number of platforms available.2 Additionally, AI is creating a new, synthetic reality as it curates and analyzes nearly limitless amounts of data from myriad sensors, while presenting tactically useful information at a pace that would completely overwhelm even the largest staff. Commanders need computer assistance to make sense of the massive amounts of data available to them. Well-implemented AI workflows can provide operators with superhuman situational awareness to identify thousands of targets in real time, allocate available weapons efficiently, and update this synthetic reality faster than opponents can respond.3 The results are staggering: in the first 11 days of the war against Iran, U.S. forces struck more than 5,500 targets, including mobile missiles and drones on land and over 60 ships at sea.4 This stands in stark contrast to the fact that no SCUD missiles or their transporter-erector-launchers were destroyed on the ground by Coalition air attack or special operations during the 1991 war against Iraq.5

By contrast, the impact of AI on the art of war, which involves making decisions that require self-awareness, is a matter of debate. Some fear the emergence of a “Frankenstein’s Monster” that will lead to a creeping loss of control as humans grow too reliant on its advice when making key political or strategic decisions about the initiation, conduct, or termination of hostilities. Any human-in-the-loop, notes Anthony Becker, “may find their intent edited, eroded, or even eclipsed by the operation of the human-machine system, creating an inexorable pull toward deference to the machine.”6 Others envision the emergence of a human-machine team, which is often described as the best way to exploit AI’s ability to analyze and present data and the human ability to act on this synthetic reality.7 From this perspective, the synthetic reality created by the AI-enabled science of war will greatly empower humans as they make decisions that only humans can make (the art of war), that is, judgments made by the self-aware and eyes-on, hands-on actions. This human-machine teaming is already emerging in society: AI is replacing entry-level computer programmers, but not electricians, who are being enabled, but not replaced, by machines.8 All this suggests that the FFX’s most important role in the future is to gather this human-machine team together locally, allowing the humans aboard to bring the art of war to a micro setting. It is the people on board the FFX, not the weapons it will carry, that constitute the new ship’s unique contribution to national security. After all, precision-guided and increasingly autonomous weapons can arrive from all directions, but in situ human judgment and action are not so easily replaced.

The FFX’s primary function, then, is not as a warship but as a locus of American human-machine integration in a local setting. It brings human senses, judgment, “skin in the game,” and the ability to influence situations where a U.S. presence is desirable for tactical, operational, or strategic reasons. Its organic and distributed sensors feed synthetic reality at a local, regional, or theater-wide level, while the people on board integrate synthetic reality with human judgment and action to address immediate tactical situations. The FFX should be deliberately designed as the first ship built with human-machine integration as a priority. It should empower and protect the humans aboard as they interact with synthetic reality and autonomous weapons. In other words, at a minimum, the FFX should be built to operate with a mix of LUSVs, MUSVs, or XLUUVs depending on mission requirements. The autonomous platforms that accompany the FFX can provide the combat power and flexibility the Navy wants from a new frigate, but only if the Navy accommodates a new operational philosophy.

FFX: The Human Node in the Local Network

So, what would the FFX look like? Following a compelling assessment of how the Navy’s recent forays into shipbuilding came a cropper, Kevin Eyer, provided a bottom-line description of the FFX, which is currently based on the Coast Guard’s Legend-Class National Security Cutter: “The FF(X) should essentially function as a ‘horsed-up’ Coast Guard cutter equipped with a 5” gun, RAM point-defense missiles, and even the Naval Strike Missile, but nothing more sophisticated.” Eyer also suggests that the primary purpose behind the FFX would be to stimulate U.S. naval shipbuilding and that the vessel “will never be a pocket Arleigh Burke-class.” For Eyer, the FFX would augment and eventually replace the existing fleet of Littoral Combat ships, while bolstering the U.S. industrial base. Eyer believes that the new frigate would undertake maritime interdiction, mine countermeasures, and presence missions, although there is no reason why a new “drone frigate” could not undertake anti-submarine warfare and surface strike operations too.9

Eyer’s conception of the Future Frigate’s capabilities, missions, and impact on the defense industrial base makes perfect sense; it only requires four minor modifications before his platform can serve as the integrator of the human-machine team. First, one might remove piloted aircraft from the FFX and instead equip it with recoverable reconnaissance and one-way strike unmanned aerial vehicles capable of a mission kill against a similar platform at whatever range is deemed appropriate.

Second, the FFX should incorporate a spiral development philosophy; that is, it should be deliberately built to accommodate future technologies iteratively. Instead of spending months or years waiting for new systems or experimental weapons, FFX designers could settle on an 80-percent solution that would give warfighters access to the ship as quickly as possible for experimentation and training. Nevertheless, ship customers and developers must acknowledge that foundational design choices are generally locked into a minimum viable product – as illustrated by the lasting impact that the Littoral Combat Ship program’s high sprint speed requirement had on so many other elements of the platform. Changing the engine or hull length is not usually possible once a ship is built.10

Third, the ship should be built to accommodate a separate battle staff and significant command, control, and communication capabilities – capabilities not usually found on frigates. Initially, this battle cell might only require a few personnel. It should not be too hard to keep tabs on a couple of MUSVs built for autonomous operations, or to monitor synthetic reality, or to supply higher-level systems with local data. As more and different types of autonomous vessels are added to the ship’s reconnaissance-strike network, the size of the battle staff will probably increase. A division of responsibility would emerge. The ship’s commander and crew would operate the vessel, and its organic weapons, and supply the sailors needed to undertake hands-on, eyes-on activities, while the battle staff would operate the drone network and interact with higher echelons.

Fourth, to accommodate spiral development involving new types of weapons, and the eventual need for additional personnel, the new frigate should incorporate excess capacity, which means ample space, cooling, electricity, and whatever the best guess is about the additional resources that are likely to be required in the future. In other words, while the FFX would be optimized for drone operations, it would have the capacity to accommodate spiral development, especially new types of organic sensors and weapons. This is not the traditional tradeoff between mission-specific and general-purpose weapons procurement.11 Instead, it constitutes a hybrid approach to force design. Put somewhat differently, because it arrives with excess capacity at the outset, the FFX itself would be more of a general-purpose platform with a drone command center optimized to operate autonomous vessels and utilize theater-level synthetic reality.

All this requires a new way of thinking about what a warship is and what a warship does. Its fighting capability is not centered on its organic capabilities, but on its ability to support and capitalize on synthetic reality and organize its autonomous weapons into a local, or maybe a regional, reconnaissance-strike complex. Instead of a weapons platform, it is the human node in an AI-enabled network that can generate significant combat capability, far more capability than can be carried on any frigate. The LUSVs, MUSVs, or XLUUVs that accompany the new FFX would allow it to punch above its weight; it would have capabilities that cannot be packed into a vessel smaller than the Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.

FFX: Spiral Development

Although spiral development generally refers to a process of continuous improvement in a platform’s capabilities, it can also occur across the drone network that accompanies the new FFX. Exactly how this network will operate is currently a matter of conjecture and needs to be worked out by designers and operators. The drones themselves should all be equipped with an intermediate force capability to drive off the curious or disable smaller vessels that approach too closely. Some LUSVs or MUSVs, under the appropriate circumstances, can also be equipped with the ability to self-destruct, especially if they can hold at risk a target that arrives in their immediate vicinity.12 In any event, one can imagine how this human-machine integration might be used to achieve several important missions.

Maritime Security and Surveillance

The new FFX should enter service with a complement of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) MUSVs that would enhance the frigate’s ability to generate situational awareness. Whether or not the ISR drones are made for broad ocean and air surveillance or to respond to queuing provided by synthetic reality, they would solve the Navy’s enduring problem of placing too many eggs in one basket.13 Active sensors would no longer signal the position of the FFX for thousands of miles in all directions, allowing it to approach potential targets in electronic silence. It would be desirable if the ISR drones could serve as decoys, mimicking the electronic and acoustic signature of an FFX, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, fishing boats, freighters, etc. The ISR drones would provide the Navy with a way to experiment with non-lethal autonomous systems in a variety of settings, paving the way for more lethal payloads.

Counter-Mine Networks

As recent events in the Strait of Hormuz suggest, even the threat of mined waterways and harbors can curtail commercial shipping and greatly restrict maritime operations. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that the counter-mine mission has been a low priority for the U.S. Navy for decades. MUSVs or XLUUVs equipped for the counter-mine mission might be a logical second capability to add to the ISR drone network. There is a real need to experiment with counter-mine capabilities to protect the approaches to U.S. harbors.

ASW Operations

Future ASW operations in the Navy will have to contend increasingly with crewed and autonomous underwater threats. Although the impulse will be to equip the FFX with organic ASW capabilities, force designers should keep the threat at bay and configure autonomous systems to counterattack submarines and subsurface drones that are themselves hunting for targets. Whether these systems can support Carrier Strike Groups or Surface Action Groups on the move remains to be seen; nevertheless, the combination of decoys and hunters creates interesting ASW possibilities in support of carrier operations. ASW MUSVs and XLUUVs should be more capable of patrolling American and allied littorals, searching for crewed and non-crewed subsurface threats. This capability would immediately help to secure Guam, Pearl Harbor, San Diego, and the approaches to the Panama Canal from subsurface drone and submarine attacks.14

Littoral Strike

While the previous drone networks would immediately enhance the Navy’s tactical capabilities, equipping drones with surface-to-surface strike systems to augment the FFX would bolster a deterrence-by-denial strategy, especially along the First Island Chain archipelago. Placed among coastal traffic and the clutter of the shoreline, the FFX’s reconnaissance-strike complex would provide an immediate sea denial capability to the United States as the remainder of the Joint Force moves toward the area to respond to aggression. Instead of abandoning the area and allies as the long-range battle plays out overhead, the FFX and its drone flotilla can confront the opponent, creating immediate opposition to an attempt at a fait accompli before the Navy can overcome the tyranny of distance and respond accordingly.15 The FFX would also confront the opponent with the harsh reality of war immediately by responding at the point of aggression; Washington would no longer be faced with the onus of horizontal or vertical escalation after a fait accompli, but would instead be able to defeat an opponent at the point and time of attack by responding in kind. Control of the waters surrounding the archipelago would also help protect allied and U.S. land forces operating long-range strike weapons to influence events along the Asian mainland’s littorals.

Air Defense

Today, the Navy operates two types of surface combatants: a large air-defense cruiser (Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers) and a small air-defense cruiser (Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers) equipped with the highly capable Aegis system that relies on the SPY-1 radar and a family of Standard Missiles. Unfortunately, the Aegis system will not fit on a vessel much smaller than an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, so the FFX cannot provide high-end air defenses. An FFX could escort and control LUSVs carrying Standard Missiles that might be fired by Aegis-equipped warships in a local reconnaissance-strike complex, but high-capability air and missile defense is not an option for the new frigate. It was the absence of a significant air defense capability that might have led to the cancellation of the Constellation-class Frigate.

LUSVs accompanying the FFX, however, could be configured to provide relatively low-cost and distributed air defenses against drones, cruise missiles, helicopters, and low-flying aircraft. The Marine Air Defense Integrated System (MADIS) might be adapted for LUSVs to detect and destroy low-altitude drones and piloted aircraft using its organic radar, Stinger missiles, 30mm cannon, and 7.62mm miniguns. MADIS can backstop more capable Aegis-equipped warships by supplying an inexpensive way to defeat drones, cruise missiles, and piloted aircraft, saving high-cost Standard Missiles for more demanding ballistic and cruise missile targets.16 The FFX and its MADIS-like autonomous system might be a way to provide the Fleet with a cost-effective air defense against the drone threat.

Search and Rescue

Today, if a major surface combatant is lost, the Navy would be hard-pressed to rescue hundreds, or even thousands, of sailors who might find themselves in the water.17 If assigned to a Carrier Strike Group, the FFX might be equipped with a LUSV “lifeboat” that operates nearby but out of harm’s way. One could place hundreds of inflatable rafts on the vessel so that they can be jettisoned to survivors in the water. It might also be possible to create a system to retrieve sailors in the water and to bring them on board where temporary shelter, food, and medical supplies would be stored. Of course, retrieving injured sailors from the water is easier said than done; nevertheless, necessity is the mother of invention. Warfighters should be realistic about warfare.

Conclusion

Nearly all the drone missions described above are a matter of active consideration or increasingly ambitious experimentation by the Navy. New organizations and personnel designators related to the operation of autonomous platforms are also standing up, providing a way to institutionalize drone operations within the Fleet.18 Nevertheless, amid all this activity, there is a tendency not to see the forest for the trees: more effort is needed to achieve the human-machine teaming demanded by AI to best exploit the potential of synthetic reality and autonomy. There is a tendency to proceed willy-nilly, without a guiding philosophy and an associated concept of operations that is designed to exploit new opportunities. The Navy will have to do things differently before it can use new technology to its full potential. It remains to be seen if Navy culture will foster the requisite change or impede it.

The FFX is a case in point. Instead of going back to the drawing board to pack more high-end warfighting capability into an ever-smaller package, rethinking what a frigate contributes to the human-machine team allows us to see a small surface combatant in a new light. Instead of a platform for employing weapons, it provides a ringside seat for the humans to influence events, especially when mindful, eyes-on, hands-on actions are needed for success. It is a way to use the science of war to empower the art of war. It is a way to demonstrate that the United States is willing to risk involvement in a sticky situation and engage opponents in a meaningful way. The LUSVs, MUSVs, or XLUUVs that could serve as the primary weapons systems for the FFX will help its crew give as good as they get until the Joint Force Arrives. Even in the age of sail, no one could realistically expect a small surface combatant to do more than that.

James. J. Wirtz is a Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA. He has written extensively about intelligence, strategy, nuclear and conventional deterrence, and maritime affairs. 

Endnotes

1. As Secretary of the Navy John Phelan noted, “the reason Constellation Class frigate was canceled because, candidly, it didn’t make sense anymore to build it. It was 80% of the cost of a destroyer and 60% of the capability.  You might as well build destroyers,” see Ronald O’Rourke, “Navy Constellation (FFG-62) and FF(X) Class Frigate Programs: Background and Issues for Congress,” R44972 Congressional Research Service January 5, 2026, p. 2. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R44972/R44972.133.pdf

2. Jeffrey E. Kline, “Impacts of the Robotics Age on Naval Force Design, Effectiveness, and Acquisition,” Naval War College Review, Vol 70, No. 3, Summer 2017: 63-78.

3. James J. Wirtz, “Artificial Intelligence, Synthetic Reality, and Future Warfare,” Political Science Quarterly Advance Publication 12 February 2026. https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqaf159

4. Miriam Sela-Eitam, “US destroyed over 5,000 targets across Iran, including 60 warships, CENTCOM chief says,” The Jerusalem Post, March 11, 2026. https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-889602

5. Mark E. Kipphut, “Crossbow and Gulf War Counter-SCUD Efforts: Lessons from History,” AU/AWC/RWP126/94-96. Air War College, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, 1996:52 https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA393984.pdf

6. Anthony Becker, “War Threatens Control of Military AI,” U.S Naval Institute Proceedings, Vol. 151/6/1,468 June 2025.

7. Robert O. Work and Shawn Brimley, “20YY: Preparing for War in the Robotic Age,” Center for New American Security (January 2014): 30.

8. “Unleashing developer productivity with generative AI,” McKinsey & Company, June 27, 2023. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/tech-and-ai/our-insights/unleashing-developer-productivity-with-generative-ai; and “AI Automation Could Replace 300 Million Jobs, Skilled Trades Remain Safe,” Business Honor November 6, 2025. https://businesshonor.com/2025/11/ai-jobs-trades-automation-risk

9. Kevin Eyer, “Three Shipbuilding Failures and A Future” USNI Proceedings, Vol 153/4/1,478, April 2006.

10. Austin Gray and James Wirtz, “Spiral Development as a Strategic Asset,” USNI Proceedings Vol. 151/12/1,474 December 2025.

11. Stephen Peter Rosen, Winning the Next War: Innovation and the Modern Military (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991): 243-249; J. Ding and A. Dafoe, “Engines of power: Electricity, AI, and general-purpose, military transformations.” European Journal of International Security. 2023;8(3):377-394. doi:10.1017/eis.2023.1

12. Collin Fox, “Taking Notes from Narcos: Semisubmersible Unmanned Ships for Great Power Competition,” Center for International Maritime Security (CIMSEC), May 1, 2020, https://cimsec.org/taking-notes-from-narcos-semisubmersible-unmanned-ships-for-great-power-competition/.

13. James J. Wirtz, Jeffrey E. Kline, and James A. Russell, “A Maritime Conversation with America,” Orbis Vol. 66. Iss. 2, Spring 2022: 178-180.

14. The Coast Guard should incorporate these counter-mine and ASW capabilities to protect U.S. littorals.

15. Wirtz, Kline, and Russell: 175-178.

16. MADIS Marine Air Defense Integrated System,” Global Defense News, June 5, 2026. https://www.armyrecognition.com/military-products/army/air-defense-systems/air-defense-vehicles/madis-marine-air-defense-integrated-system

17. James J. Wirtz, “Imagining Maritime Conflict in the Indo-Pacific: Can Analogies Substitute for Strategy?” Defense & Security Analysis 38, no. 3 (2022): 349–68, https://doi.org/10.1080/14751798.2022.2093433.

18. Jodesz Gavilan, “US Navy to Deploy First Medium Unmanned Surface Vessels,” The Defense Post, January 19, 2026. https://thedefensepost.com/2026/01/19/us-navy-usvs/

Featured image: Aircraft from the Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group (VINCSG) and French Carrier Strike Group (CSG) fly in formation over the Philippine Sea with ships from VINCSG, French CSG, the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF), and U.S. Military Sealift Command (MSC) during Pacific Steller 2025, Feb. 12. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Apprentice Pablo Chavez)

Training and Exercises

Strategic Messaging, Deterrence, and RIMPAC 26

1 Comment

By Adam Lockyer

Between June 24 to July 31, Exercise Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2026 took place on and around the Hawaiian Islands. RIMPAC is the world’s largest international exercise. In this, its 30th iteration, RIMPAC boasted 25,000 personnel, 40 surface ships, 5 submarines, and 140 aircraft. Beyond the impressive headlines, however, RIMPAC has become a relic of the Cold War and needs revitalization and reorientation.

Major maritime exercises serve a range of functions, including to certify crews, and for the participants to learn new skills, test equipment, and gain experience working alongside units from near and from afar. In addition, however, a good major maritime exercise should also be a vehicle for strategic messaging. Major maritime exercises are relatively rare and expensive enterprises. So, they send a strong signal to the participants and to onlookers what the exerciser considers to be its main strategic challenges and helps to outline how they plan on responding to those challenges. In my newly released book – Conventional Maritime Deterrence: The Operational Foundations of Influence at Sea – I unpick how major maritime exercises can contribute to deterrence. I explain how they have a performative dimension. They tell opponents (as well as friends and one’s own forces) a strategic story about the future. If you do this, then this is how we will respond and we are very good at it, so it is probably best that you don’t.

Yet, RIMPAC is symptomatic of many of the current suite of international maritime exercises in being wedded to an international strategic environment that has long moved on. At best, it is a missed opportunity. At worst, it negatively affects strategic messaging and, therefore, the effectiveness of our overall deterrence posture.

RIMPAC’s Origin Story

RIMPAC was first held in 1971 and, after being repeated in 1972, became the US Pacific Fleet’s largest biennial multinational exercise. The Cold War in the Pacific had a very different cadence to that across in the Atlantic. Few doubted that Europe and the Atlantic would be the epicenter of any future conventional war between the United States (and its allies) and the Soviet Union (and its aligned states). The Pacific, on the other hand, was likely going to be a relatively quiet backwater. Indeed, until the 1980s, US naval strategy called for the Pacific’s aircraft carriers to be swung over to Atlantic to reinforce, or replace, the Atlantic’s carrier forces. Through the 1970s, the Soviets in the Far East were more concerned about the Chinese land forces that were amassed along their shared border, than American naval power. They feared that Beijing might seize the opportunity of a war in Europe to mount a surprise attack in the East. Moreover, America’s Pacific allies – Australia, the Philippines, Japan and South Korea – were quietly pleased that they might be able to sit out the conventional phase of World War III.

So, unlike the NATO members in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean, who regularly participated in more realistic and warlike exercises (e.g., OCEAN SAFARI or NORTHERN WEDDING), America’s Pacific partners were less enthusiastic about rocking the boat by conducting forward exercises directed towards the Soviet Union’s Pacific periphery. As a result, the US Pacific Fleet largely conduct unilateral forward exercises (such as the FLEETEX series in the 1980s) with some occasional Canadian involvement.

RIMPAC was an exercise for its times. In addition to the pleasant climate, beaches, and shopping, Hawaii was far enough away from the Soviet Union so not to be provocative. The participants were attracted by the prospect of working alongside the world’s best navy and undertaking activities that they often did not have the opportunity to do back home. The exercise scenario usually involved some creative writing so that all the foreign units could practice what they came to do, and no-one would be left out. Unsurprisingly, the prospect of traveling to Hawaii and doing fun things continues to make RIMPAC very popular. In 2026, there were once again contingents from around the world, including Israel, Germany, Poland, and Greece.  

This is not to imply that RIMPAC, in its current form, has no strategic value. Indeed, its inclusive scenario, its non-provocative setting, and its ability to attract partners from far and wide, has several positive outputs. First among these is that signals the breadth of the United States-led coalition without forcing any one nation to choose a side. The mere fact that the US Pacific Fleet pulls contingents from over 30 nations is a tangible example of America’s enduring soft power. Second, attracting thousands of foreign personnel, from around the world, allows the participants to build inter-personal relationships that can be drawn upon later. Establishing and maintaining international friendships – at all levels – banks valuable social capital that can be spent later in the pursuit of the national interest. Finally, the argument could be made that the sight of over 25,000 personnel, all working to advance interoperability, contributes to deterrence by influencing perceptions of the balance of power across the Pacific.

The argument here is not that RIMPAC has no strategic value. If we could continue to hold an old and new RIMPAC, then we certainly should. But this would be lazy analysis when we know that budgets are not keeping pace with demands and, therefore, regional navies are already operating beyond their stretching point.

The argument here turns on the opportunity costs. If we accept that the Pacific has the capacity to hold one large regional-wide biennial exercise, is RIMPAC, under its current guise, the very best option?

RIMPAC for a New Era

The Pacific is no longer a quiet strategic backwater. For exercises to better contribute to strategic messaging, and deterrence, they should evolve to reflect the challenges that the region is now facing. Some exercises should concentrate upon responding to the most likely flash points. For example, exercise scenarios that challenge participants to respond to localized conflicts in the South China Sea or in Japan’s near seas.

China’s exercises around Taiwan that rehearse a blockade or maritime quarantine (e.g., its JOINT SWORD series), for example, should be treated as a message that has been delivered, and now requires a reply. The response being a US-led anti-blockade exercise. This exercise should employ the same strategic language as the Chinese (e.g., an emphasis on jointness, etc.) so that nothing is lost in translation. The resulting strategic message will be clear: if you do that, we will respond this way, and as you can see, we are very good.

There is some movement in this direction. VALIANT SHIELD, for instance, is a Western Pacific exercise that has evolved from being a unilateral exercise in 2006, into now being multinational (the 2026 iteration is primarily a US and Japan affair with Australia, Canada and New Zealand sending smaller contingents). VALIANT SHIELD rehearses defensive sea control operations through the Pacific Rim island chain. That is, integrating land-based missiles, aircraft and drones with naval units to achieve sea control through the choke points and island chains. VALIANT SHIELD ’26, held between June 22 and July 1, highlighted some of the challenges with putting theory into practice. For example, although during VALIANT SHIELD the USS George Washington Carrier Strike Group and the Japanese flat-top JS Kaga (DDH-184) along with other vessels exercised around Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, the land-based activities – that included the Japanese Typhon Missile System and HIMARS – were all 1,600 miles away on the Japanese main island of Kyushu. While this simply reflected many of the political, logistical, and geographic realities of running a large multinational exercise, it remained some way from the ideal case of strategic messaging that would be far more geographically focused and have a sharper exercise scenario.

In addition, to localized scenarios, there is need to rehearse how America and its allies would respond to a regional-wide conflict. The leading candidate would be a reimaged RIMPAC.

In the future, rather than traveling to Hawaii, participants could enact how they plan to respond to regional war. RIMPAC would become the umbrella exercise under which regional allies and security partners rehearse their part in a regional war. For Pacific Rim nations (e.g., South Korea, Japan, and Australia), this would mean exercising in their own near seas with contributions from extra-regional states. For its part, the US Pacific Fleet would practice coordinating its efforts with its regional allies. A Western Pacific RIMPAC would also be a valuable opportunity for land forces to rehearse racing forward to important maritime choke points to assist in seizing and holding sea control through the littorals. The US Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO) concept could be tested and refined at scale and alongside allies. Indeed, in addition to the US Marines, several of America’s allies and friends are moving in a similar direction. The Australian Army, for example, is being equipped with large landing craft and long-range missiles, with the explicit expectation that it will surge forward into the Melanesian archipelago to its north and contribute to achieving defensive sea control through the choke points.

It would be valuable to the participants to observe how their own operational concepts work in conjunction with their partners and begin working through the inevitable initial kinks in coordination and logistics. Equally as important, the strategic messaging would sharpen. For Beijing, this would be a jarring image of a how a regional-wide war may unfold. This, more than any other factor, will reinforce conventional maritime deterrence.

Of course, not all will be happy. The ASEAN states, for instance, could be expected to quietly communicate objections. And their views would not be entirely wrong. On balance, the economic opportunities offered by engaging with China still outweigh the security risks for most Indo-Pacific nations. Furthermore, the Indo-Pacific region has no choice but to learn to live alongside a great power whose diplomatic, military, and economic strength already casts a long shadow over the entire Pacific and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. However, it should be explained to concerned parties, that regional peace, stability and economic prosperity is reinforced by making it clear through words and deeds what a conflict would look like should Beijing decide to walk down the wrong path. Although counter intuitive, the best way of securing our business ties with China might be to reimagine our major maritime exercises so they are much better at telling a story about the future no one wants to see play out.

For similar reasons, it wouldn’t be surprising if the number of participating nations in RIMPAC shrunk. Those nations that don’t have vital national interests at play in deterring China will likely sit future RIMPACs out. But a RIMPAC that reorients towards depth rather than breadth would not necessarily be a bad thing. In the post-Cold War era, when America sought to advance the international rules-based order under its leadership, signing up as many member states as possible made sense. Even a token contribution to an international exercise, such as RIMPAC, signaled a commitment to the principles that the exercise represented. Today, however, the depth of the participants’ commitment matters more. An authentic depiction of how the participants plan to respond in different situations will produce both higher quality training and strategic messaging.  

Effective deterrence requires a fine calibration. If a posture of a deterring actor appears too risk-averse or lacking in force, then an opponent may decide that the actor’s heart really isn’t in it and accepts the gamble. On the other hand, if a posture is too reckless or aggressive, then it might lead to a security dilemma. Many years ago, Robert Jervis, Richard Ned Lebow and Janice Gross Stein convincingly presented historical cases of deterrence that exacerbate the sense of insecurity in the target and triggered the exact war the deterring states were attempting to avoid. The challenge is calibration. Major exercises should not be too provocative nor too timid. The direction of movement in the defense posture of America’s key Pacific Rim partners is towards variations of a strategy of denial (e.g., see Australia’s National Defence Strategy). These are not offensive nor overly aggressive strategies. The new RIMPAC would simply breathe life into these strategic documents. The activities themselves would likely resemble VALIANT SHIELD ’26 but stretch the length of the Pacific Rim island chain. This Goldilocks exercise would, on the one hand, clearly demonstrate unity, commitment, capability and provide a compelling strategic narrative, while also being decidedly defensive in orientation and located in the near seas of the Pacific Rim partners.  It would be a RIMPAC for our times.

Adam Lockyer is the Executive Director of the Geopolitical Risk Research Centre and Associate Professor in Strategic Studies at Macquarie University. He is the author of four books, including his latest: Conventional Maritime Deterrence: the Operational Foundations of Influence at Sea (Georgetown 2026). He was awarded the 2015 Fulbright Scholarship in US-Australian Alliance Studies at Georgetown University, and before joining Macquarie held positions at the University of New South Wales, the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington, DC.

Featured image: Multinational ships sail in formation during Exercise Rim of the Pacific 2026 in the Pacific Ocean, July 22, 2026.  (U.S. Navy Photo)

 

Fostering the Discussion on Securing the Seas.