The lead ship in the Columbia class of nuclear submarines is facing delivery delays of up to 18 months, and “critical path challenges” continue to jeopardize carrier delivery schedules, Navy officials told Congress on Tuesday.
Likewise, nuclear aircraft carriers are facing delays as production on future Ford-class hulls are taking longer than anticipated, the officials told the Senate Armed Services seapower subcommittee.
For the Columbia-class submarines, set to replace the Ohio-class boats in the U.S. nuclear triad, lead ship District of Columbia (SSBN-826), is now set to deliver in 2029, which is 12 to 18 months behind schedule, said Rear Adm. Todd Weeks, program executive officer for strategic submarines. The next ships in the class, Wisconsin (SSBN-827) and Groton (SSBN-828), are set to follow roughly on schedule in 2032 and 2034, he said.
“We are taking action right now to accelerate and recover as much schedule as we possibly can,” Weeks said.
Spokesmen from Columbia-class shipbuilders General Dynamics Electric Boat and HII’s Newport News Shipbuilding referred USNI News to the Navy.
As of March 2024, the lead ship was at risk of a one-year delay due to ongoing supplier issues, USNI News reported at the time.
The hearing comes as the Pentagon is drafting the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act – a proposal that President Donald Trump suggested on Monday may top $1 trillion for the first time.
In opening remarks, subcommittee chairman Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) expressed optimism that a new White House shipbuilding office announced last month would help defense shipbuilding get “back on track.” While Navy officials did not disclose details about planning for the office, Rear. Adm. Casey Moton, program executive officer for aircraft carriers, said they’d been afforded the chance to offer inputs.
“All of us had the opportunity to actually review the draft executive order for the White House Office of Shipbuilding and the other measures that are in there, and we were able to provide feedback,” Moton told the panel. “So it was very positive that we had the ability to do that; you need to have feedback. I know at the higher secretary level, there’s active discussion going on on that process and how it’s going to work.”
In the meantime, though, lawmakers wanted answers on how the Navy could ensure accountability for slipping ship delivery timelines and rising price tags.
Moton said the next carriers in the Ford class are facing challenges that might stress delivery timelines. The future USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) is now 95 percent complete, he said, but is continuing to experience “critical path challenges” with the advanced weapons elevators and advanced arresting gear. With an anticipated delivery date in 2026. Enterprise (CVN-80), the next in the class, also has a slipping delivery timeframe; Moton said he now estimates it will be 28 months behind schedule, revised from 18-26 months a year ago. Delivery is now expected in early 2030, with Doris Miller (CVN-81) following in 2032. Costs, meanwhile, are climbing. Moton said John F. Kennedy is now projected to cost $12.9 billion; Enterprise $13.5 billion; and Miller an eye-watering $14 billion.
“Major items of materiel … are late to the ship and are causing delays to the critical path and forcing the shipbuilder to change our big build cycle,” Moton said of Enterprise. ” … We’re doing everything we can with the shipbuilder to improve that prognosis.”
An HII spokesman referred USNI News to the Navy on the carrier issues.
Scott voiced frustration at the Navy’s limited options to hold builders accountable for delays and overruns.
“Y’all, every one of you, have dealt with companies that have not performed on their contract,” Scott said. “Do they have penalties? What’s the repercussion of not doing what they said there?”
The Navy officials noted that the level of accountability the service is able to leverage depends on the kind of contract the work was conducted under and the level of competition the builder faced.
“I would say that the direction that we are headed with these maritime industrial base efforts, with partnering across the submarine, aircraft carrier community – particularly in submarines, is to get to leverage competitive forces to get the best results both in terms of schedule and cost, out of our industrial base,” said Matthew Sermon, the executive director of the Maritime Industrial Base. “And as we build up the maritime industrial base, we are positioning ourselves to better leverage those forces.”
Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) asked whether the Navy needs more shipyards, noting that there are only two private nuclear shipyards in use, both on the East Coast. Rear Adm. Jonathan Rucker, who leads the program executive office for attack submarines, deferred to a Navy study on the matter that has been underway in conjunction with the Defense Department’s Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office, also known as CAPE, since 2022. That study, he said, is set to wrap up and deliver its findings soon.
“I actually have the team that’s running that study, and I’m waiting to see the final results, so I’ll be able to get back to you later this year,” Rucker said.
In addition to known challenges to get ships from the yard to the fleet, the panel briefly addressed a new and less well-defined challenge: the global tariffs the Trump administration implemented in recent days..
“The vast majority of the components that go, certainly into the Columbia class, but also the Virginia class, are American-made components,” Weeks said. “You know, the Navy anticipates that there may be some cost increases associated with tariffs. However, it’s really too early to be able to assess what those might be.
USNI News staff writers Mallory Shelbourne and Sam LaGrone contributed to this report.
