The top Democrat on the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee this week led a push against the Navy’s 2025 budget request seeking only one attack submarine (SSN) instead of two.
Ahead of a Wednesday hearing on the Navy’s budget, Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) shared a memo with his committee colleagues outlining the consequences of cutting the previously planned two
Virginia-class submarines in FY ‘25 and arguing against some Navy justifications for the change, including upward trends in submarine shipyard capacity, workforce and supplier development.
Courtney wrote the Navy has no plans to add a 10th submarine back into the future plans, which may impact the ability of the president to ultimately certify the planned sale of three to five Virginia-class submarines to Australia under AUKUS will not degrade U.S. capabilities.
That certification was mandated by Congress in the FY ‘24 defense authorization act.
He also noted the fleet is already 17 submarines below the Navy’s warfighting requirement of 66 boats.
Courtney argued that while Congress previously appropriated almost $1 billion in the past two budget cycles for long-lead items in advanced procurement (AP) for a planned two submarines in FY ‘25, “the Navy has been unable to demonstrate how these funds will be used now that they have reduced procurement from two submarines in FY25 down to one.”
In his opening statement during an April 17 subcommittee hearing on the Navy’s FY ‘25 budget request, Courtney argued “this unexpected change in demand signal has and will cause serious reverberations throughout the industrial base and friends overseas, who based on my conversations in those arenas are frankly incredulous.”
When the Navy unveiled its FY 2025 budget request in March, Under Secretary of the Navy Erik Raven told reporters the submarine request was cut due to both budget caps imposed by the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) and “out of concern for the industrial base ability to produce yet one more, while, in a capped environment, making room for these historic investments in the submarine industrial base [SIB],” (Defense Daily, March 12).
The Navy decided to instead shift some of the funds to invest further in the SIB to “set up for long-term success” in the Navy’s submarine programs,” Raven said.
Subcommittee Chairman Trent Kelly (R-Miss.) agreed with Courtney, arguing the plan to procure only one SSN in FY ‘25 “is not aligned with the two plus one cadence that was predicated under the AUKUS agreement. Sending a strong demand signal is essential for maintaining industrial capabilities and international confidence in our naval production.”
“Reducing our order from two boats to one in this year’s budget does not inspire confidence, nor does it forecast ability to our industry partners or allies,” he continued.
During the hearing, Courtney argued that while he is a big supporter of increased SIB investments, “I reject the ivory tower theory that SIB investment is a substitute for a consistent demand signal for orders and business. The two enterprises have to incur in tandem.”
He said in recent meetings with supply chain companies he was told the SIB investments are welcome but they “don’t pay the bills, particularly for those firms that don’t qualify for SIB assistance.”
During the hearing, Courtney pushed Nickolas Guertin, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition (ASN-RDA), on what will happen to the suppliers of parts only covered by full vessel funding.
Guertin reiterated there were some “very difficult trades that had to be made in putting together a budget” and that “we’ll have to take a closer look…and see what we can do to help that aspect of the industry as well.”
Courtney found that “not a very encouraging answer for that cohort of folks.”
Much of the funding for submarine procurement goes to Courtney’s district, which includes one of the two primary contractors for Virginia-class submarines, General Dynamics Electric Boat (EB) [GD] in Groton, Conn.
Guertin also said the previously allocated advanced procurement spending for the now-canceled submarine is intended to be used in future boats.
“To be honest, our shipbuilders are a fair bit behind. We haven’t even got to the point yet where we’re back to building two per year, And we’ve been buying more than that since. So we have a long ways to go to take advantage of that material in future ship procurements,” Guertin said.
Courtney indicated AP includes a submarine reactor and argued this just means some of the companies will have work “fall off a cliff” once these parts are consumed in a future submarine in 2027 or 2028.
“I appreciate the intent in terms of trying to protect these folks. But I think what people who have to analyze this, as business people in terms of making investments, that’s really not the most encouraging reply,” Courtney continued.
In his memo ahead of the hearing, Courtney also revealed submarine builder EB exceeded Navy projections to reach a 1.4 submarine per year build rate from December 2023 to March 2024.
Also, during the hearing, Courtney argued the Navy’s overall FY ‘25 shipbuilding budget cuts deeper than the cuts mandated by the FRA
“To be clear, the Navy shipbuilding procurement request is not for only a one percent increase, rather it decreases that line item by 3.4 percent from the fiscal year 2024 enacted level.”