The U.S. Navy is preparing to overhaul its torpedo inventory under the newly approved congressional budget as the military pivots toward a two-war strategy requiring sufficient undersea weapons for two major regional conflicts simultaneously, according to Naval News reporting.
Lawmakers made clear that the United States needs to build quantities of weapons sufficient to maintain simultaneous operations against near-peer adversaries, sources told Naval News. Manufacturers are now focused on increasing production of the MK-48 Advanced Capability (ADCAP) heavyweight torpedoes and MK-54 lightweight torpedoes to meet minimum base requirements set by the new budget.
The Navy has not disclosed the exact number of undersea weapons required under the two-war framework but said the figures are based on internal estimates about potential conflicts with near-peer forces. The service is also required to develop plans for a massive surge in torpedo production should such capacity become necessary during war or peacetime.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative defense hawks have praised the two-war strategy as a necessary return to Cold War-era deterrence principles. The Heritage Foundation has argued that peer competitors like China and Russia pose existential threats requiring sustained investment in conventional weapons systems.
Republican lawmakers including Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma have long advocated for rebuilding military stockpiles depleted by conflicts in the Middle East. Senate Minority Leader John Thune has stated that maintaining superiority in undersea warfare is essential to protecting U.S. naval dominance in contested regions.
Defense commentators aligned with conservative think tanks have emphasized that torpedo production timelines measured in years make early procurement decisions critical, arguing that delays could leave gaps in capability when adversaries are rapidly expanding their own fleets.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive defense analysts have generally supported the stockpile overhaul as a necessary response to evolving global threats, though some have urged greater transparency about the specific scenarios driving procurement decisions. The Center for Strategic and International Studies has noted that maintaining adequate munitions reserves is critical to deterrence.
Democratic lawmakers have pointed to the Iran conflict as evidence of the need for robust weapons stockpiles. Representative Adam Smith of Washington State, former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has previously argued that congressional oversight of defense production ensures taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently while maintaining military readiness.
Some progressive voices have called for increased investment in domestic manufacturing capacity alongside stockpile expansion, arguing that both elements are essential to long-term national security.
What the Numbers Show
According to an analysis by the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), defending Israel and Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar from Iranian counterstrikes during the recent 12-day exchange cost between $1.48 billion and $1.58 billion, representing significant burnthrough of U.S. missile systems.
The United States had approximately 632 Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors before June 13, when Israel began its offensive in Iran. About 540 interceptors remained in the arsenal as of JINSA calculations based on interceptor deliveries and documented use during the conflict.
The U.S. consumed roughly 14% of its global THAAD stockpile during the 12-day engagement, with America's systems accounting for nearly half of all interceptions due to what analysts described as insufficient capacity in Israel's Arrow interception system.
Current production rates would require three to eight years to replenish the THAAD interceptors expended during the conflict. Patriot interceptor production is more robust than THAAD, though the U.S. has been providing significant numbers of Patriot systems to Ukraine, complicating assessments of remaining domestic stockpiles.
The Bottom Line
The torpedo overhaul represents a significant shift toward preparing for potential simultaneous conflicts with major adversaries rather than counterterrorism operations that have dominated military planning since 2001. Congressional appropriators are expected to monitor production timelines closely as the two-war framework takes effect in future budget cycles.
Industry analysts will be watching whether manufacturers can scale MK-48 and MK-54 production quickly enough to meet stated goals, given that both torpedo variants require precision manufacturing processes. The experience with THAAD replenishment timelines suggests that expanding undersea weapons production could face similar multi-year lead times.
The broader munitions shortfall exposed by the Iran conflict is likely to drive additional legislative attention to domestic defense manufacturing capacity in coming months, with both chambers expected to hold hearings on stockpile management and surge production capabilities.