A Glance Over the Fence

Vincent J. Curtis

9 July 25

 After years of neglect, declining equipment readiness, retention problems, and procurement delays, the nation’s military, under new political leadership, is about to receive a surge of new funding.  This surge presents problems of a different kind.  No, I’m not talking about the CAF and the promises of the new Carney government, but about the US military under President Trump. It’s worthwhile to see how the US military is addressing its problems with acquisition and budgeting, a year before the CAF confronts similar problems of its own.  For this review, I’m going to concentrate on the US Navy.

In his first term, President Trump said he wanted a 350 ship fleet, but the US Navy operated 287 ships in Fiscal Year 2025, six fewer than in FY24.  For FY24, the US Navy requested funding for nine new ships; in FY25, six; but for FY26 the request is for nineteen!

The request for new ships includes the following:1 Columbia class ballistic missile submarine; 2 Virginia class attack submarines; 2 Arleigh Burke class destroyers; 1 America class amphibious assault ship; 1 San Antonio class amphibious transport dock; 9 medium landing ships; 2 John Lewis class oilers; and 1 Tagos class ocean surveillance ship.

The Columbia class will replace the Ohio class of subs that form the sea-based leg of the nuclear triad. (The others being land-based ICBMs and USAF carried bombs). The Columbias are supposed to be extremely stealthy carriers of ballistic missiles, and will be equipped with 16 Trident 2 D5s.  This class of 12 subs is expected to cost $132B. (Surprise: The program is already running behind schedule!)

The Virginia class sub is the USN’s current fast attack submarine. It can track enemy subs, and launch Tomahawk missiles. One of these requested ships will include a Virginia class payload module, which increases its missile load-out significantly.  Delivery of Virginia subs already on order is nearly three years behind schedule.

The Arleigh Burke class destroyers escort aircraft carriers, launch Tomahawk cruise missiles, and provide a ballistic missile and, with their Aegis combats systems, air defense also. The FY26 acquisitions are of the so-called the Flight III models, which come equipped with the AN/SPY-6 air and missile defense radars, a major upgrade over the AN/SPY-1D system on the Flight IIs. The Flight II DDGs are now pushing past $2.2 billion in cost, up from $1.8 billion. 

The America class Assault Amphibious ships are a mini-aircraft carrier for Marine Corps F-35Bs and helicopters.

Tagos ocean surveillance ships tow a sonar array that tracks submarines, and can map the ocean floor

Costs are rising, and deliveries are falling behind schedule: seventy percent of construction is behindhand.  Despite the shipbuilding budget doubling over the last 20 years, the number of ships the US Navy operates has remained essentially unchanged.

The FY25 ships won’t enter service for another 4 to 6 years. Delays are a real problem: the Kennedy, the next aircraft carrier, is delayed by two more years; and this may force the fifty year old Nimitz into another deployment or two. American procurement doesn’t run like a Swiss watch either, and looking to the US to supply Canada with naval assets may prove futile.

Out of a total defense budget request of US$962 billion, the USN portion is $292 billion, of which $248 billion is for the base budget.  The USN wants to increase its authorized strength by 12,300 to reach 344,600 sailors in FY26. In the US, funding above base is optional, and the selection of programs comes down to political decisions, if they’re funded at all.

One observes that the capabilities and size of the USN are astonishing, that delays and cost overruns are the norm at the bleeding edge of technology; that political neglect has ramifications years after it ends, that hesitation inhibits readiness and costs lots of money. The RCN can’t window shop and think over too much longer if it expects no gaps in capability and meet the budget,

-30-