Backlogged Yards BETRAY Navy

U.S. Navy patch with black-and-white American flag.

The U.S. Navy’s next-generation SSN(X) submarine, meant to be an undersea apex predator, risks becoming a costly “underwater donkey” sinking under delays that could hand China undersea dominance by 2040.

Story Snapshot

SSN(X) delays push first delivery from 2030s to 2042, creating critical gaps as Los Angeles-class subs retire.
Shipyard backlogs, workforce shortages, and dry dock limits cripple progress amid Virginia-class overruns.
Flawed “Swiss Army Knife” design mirrors F-35 failures, blending speed and stealth at $8 billion per unit.
China rapidly expands its fleet, threatening U.S. maritime superiority if industrial base fragility persists.
FY2026 budget allocates $222.8M-$622.8M for R&D, but procurement slips to FY2040.

SSN(X) Program Origins and Ambitious Goals

U.S. Navy leaders launched SSN(X) to replace aging Los Angeles-class and backlogged Virginia-class submarines. The design targets Seawolf-class speeds over 30 knots with Virginia-class stealth, adding vertical launch systems for cruise missiles, larger payloads, superior sensors, and unmanned underwater vehicle coordination. Navy planners aim for full-spectrum undersea warfare against near-peer threats like China. This evolution addresses gaps from submarines averaging 40 years old, commissioned since 2004 for Virginia-class.

Shipyard Backlogs Drive Timeline Slips

Shipyards such as General Dynamics and HII face Virginia-class completion backlogs, dry dock shortages, and workforce deficits. These constraints delay SSN(X) procurement from FY2035 to FY2040, with first delivery now projected for 2042. FY2026 budget requests $222.8 million or $622.8 million in R&D funding. Analysis of Alternatives completed in FY2024 to define requirements, but no final design exists—the “X” signals pending details. Congress and CBO scrutinize these slips.

Design Flaws Echo Past Naval Failures

Brandon J. Weichert critiques SSN(X) as a multi-role “Swiss Army Knife” like the F-35, Zumwalt destroyer, and LCS, predicting mediocre performance from overambition. Estimated $8 billion per unit strains budgets and diverts funds. Reactor choice pits low-enriched uranium against traditional highly-enriched uranium, balancing costs, arms control, and power. Weichert’s hyperbolic warnings align with common sense: specialized designs succeed where jacks-of-all-trades falter in high-stakes defense.

Stakeholders clash—Navy pushes capabilities for China counter, Congress demands fiscal restraint, shipyards battle capacity limits. Pete Hegseth as SecDef advocates acquisition reform to cut red tape fueling delays. These tensions expose power dynamics where strategic needs collide with industrial reality.

Strategic Risks from Undersea Gaps

Los Angeles-class retirements create immediate force gaps, worsened by Virginia backlogs. Long-term, 14-year delays risk U.S. undersea superiority loss as China surges its fleet. Allies like AUKUS depend on U.S. rotations starting 2026-2027. Economic strain hits shipyard jobs, offset partially by growth potential. Politically, it ignites reform debates, underscoring conservative priorities: efficient spending protects national security without waste.

Expert Views on Path Forward

Optimists see SSN(X) enabling UUV swarms and acoustic edges for dominance. Pessimists like Weichert decry “giant headaches” from convoluted processes versus China’s speed. Consensus pins industrial constraints as core issue. CBO doubts Navy cost estimates and LEU viability by 2040. Facts support urgency: U.S. must fortify shipyards and simplify designs to reclaim edge, embodying American resolve against adversaries.