Lawmakers and Navy Officials Flag Major Delays in Submarine and Surface Shipbuilding; Push for Industrial-base Fixes

House Appropriations subcommittee members and senior Navy officials told lawmakers on May 20 that persistent construction delays and a shrunken shipbuilding industrial base are undermining the Navy’s ability to deliver submarines and other major platforms on schedule.

Chairman Ken Calvert, chair of the subcommittee, warned that “delays in construction of the lead Columbia class submarine presents a significant risk to strategic deterrence” and said the program is facing an 18- to 24-month slip. He also noted concerns about the Virginia-class production rate, saying the program is producing roughly "1.2 submarines a year versus a necessary cadence of 2 per year."

The Navy’s new secretary, John Phelan, told the panel he has visited eight shipyards and spoken directly with tradespeople to diagnose bottlenecks. "Our welders spend between 30–40% of their time filling out paperwork," Phelan said, describing productivity differences he saw comparing U.S. yards with yards in Japan and Korea. Phelan said he has discussed workforce and workflow changes with prime contractors and shipyard leaders and is pursuing wage and productivity investments at prime yards.

Admiral John Kilby, acting chief of naval operations, and Phelan described a combination of causes for schedule slips: first-of-class technical integration challenges, workforce inexperience, supply-chain gaps and aging infrastructure at yards. Kilby said the Navy is considering ways to extend service life for some Ohio‑class ballistic missile submarines as an insurance measure while Columbia delivery slips are addressed.

Committee members pressed officials on contracting reforms. Phelan described recent shifts away from pure cost‑plus contracts toward arrangements with more fixed-price features and incentives, saying the goal is to “put pressure on them to … perform and get quicker.” Subcommittee members pressed for ongoing briefings and transparency on contract changes and cost impacts.

Lawmakers and witnesses discussed broader industrial‑base measures, including expanded workforce training, greater automation and international cooperation. Phelan cited a U.S. accelerated training center in Danville, Virginia, and noted that learning from allied shipyards’ practices could help: "They get the productivity out of one 8‑hour shift that we get out of three shifts," he said.

Why it matters: Delays in Columbia and Virginia production timelines affect the sea‑based leg of U.S. strategic deterrence and force posture in the Indo‑Pacific; they also ripple into deployment schedules, maintenance backlogs and long‑term industrial capacity. The committee pressed the Navy for a near‑term schedule assessment and regular updates to Congress.

Looking ahead, Navy officials promised continued engagement with the committee and said they would provide follow‑up briefings on schedules, contracting templates and workforce investments. The subcommittee did not take any formal votes during the hearing.