The U.S. Navy’s ambitious Columbia-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) program, a cornerstone of its nuclear deterrence strategy, is perilously behind schedule. This has raised concerns over whether the Navy can replace its aging Ohio-class SSBNs in time to maintain a robust nuclear deterrence capability, particularly as tensions with China continue to rise. A recent report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has highlighted numerous issues plaguing the Columbia-class program, ranging from delays and cost overruns to critical performance risks, all of which could affect the timeline of these critical submarines.
The Columbia-class program was initially envisioned as a timely solution to replacing the aging Ohio-class SSBNs, with the first submarine slated for delivery by April 2027. However, the GAO’s report, published last month, revealed that the delivery date has now been pushed to between October 2028 and February 2029. This delay could severely impact the submarine’s availability for operational service, which was originally set for 2030. Any further delays may create a gap in the U.S.’s nuclear deterrence capabilities, increasing the pressure on the aging Ohio-class submarines to remain in service beyond their intended operational life.
The GAO report underscores several issues contributing to these delays, including construction performance shortfalls, inefficiencies in work instructions, and material shortages. These problems have caused cost overruns that already total hundreds of millions of dollars. This raises serious concerns about the sustainability of the program, as the cost to deliver the first Columbia-class submarine has skyrocketed, with further delays likely to escalate costs even more.
Electric Boat’s Struggles with Cost and Schedule Targets
The primary contractor for the Columbia-class submarines, General Dynamics Electric Boat, has been facing mounting challenges in meeting both cost and schedule targets. The GAO report warned that Electric Boat’s optimistic recovery plan may not be realistic, particularly given the chronic underperformance in meeting construction milestones. While the company has implemented recovery plans to mitigate these risks, the GAO expressed doubts about their viability, given the consistent slippage of both timelines and budgets.
The report also raised concerns over the $2.6 billion investment made by the U.S. Navy into the submarine supplier base, which was intended to accelerate production. However, the GAO highlighted that this investment lacks sufficient performance tracking, making it difficult to assess whether these funds are being used effectively. Without better oversight and revised cost estimates, the U.S. Navy could face further setbacks, potentially leading to operational gaps in its nuclear deterrence strategy.
The problems confronting the Columbia-class SSBN program are compounded by difficulties across the U.S. industrial base, particularly in the shipbuilding sector. A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report from September 2023 highlighted several contributing factors to the delays, including difficulties in assembling critical submarine modules, workforce shortages, and supply chain bottlenecks. These issues have caused significant delays in obtaining essential components like turbine generators and the bow dome, which are supplied by key subcontractors such as Northrop Grumman.
The CRS report noted that these delays are exacerbated by the concurrent construction of Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines (SSNs), which is placing additional strain on U.S. shipyards. As the U.S. Navy pushes its shipbuilders to meet the growing demand for both SSNs and SSBNs, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the industrial base is struggling to keep up. Shipyards are finding it difficult to balance quality and timeliness, raising concerns that production shortcuts may compromise the operational readiness of future submarines.
Faulty Welds and Quality Assurance Failures
In an alarming development, an investigation by the U.S. Navy has revealed potentially faulty welds in submarines and aircraft carriers built by Newport News Shipbuilding, another key contractor involved in the Columbia- and Virginia-class submarine programs. According to a memo from Assistant Secretary of the Navy Nickolas Guertin, certain welds in both new and in-service vessels did not meet proper standards. This discovery prompted the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to open an investigation into the matter, with early findings suggesting that some welders may have knowingly violated welding protocols.
Newport News Shipbuilding, which is also responsible for constructing Ford-class aircraft carriers, has stated that the problem was identified through internal quality assurance measures and that corrective actions have been taken. While the shipbuilder claims there was no malicious intent involved, U.S. lawmakers, led by the House Armed Services Committee, have launched an investigation into the safety risks posed by these faulty welds. Re-inspections of affected vessels are expected to continue through October, but the full extent of the problem remains unclear.
This welding controversy has raised concerns over the quality assurance processes at U.S. shipyards, which have already faced scrutiny over production delays and cost overruns. In a similar incident in the early 2000s, Newport News faced a similar scandal over faulty welds, which resulted in costly repairs and schedule delays. The recurrence of such issues threatens to further undermine confidence in the shipyards’ ability to deliver critical vessels like the Columbia-class submarines on time and within budget.
Soaring Costs and Strategic Consequences
The combination of these issues has contributed to the skyrocketing costs of the Columbia-class SSBN program. The CRS report estimates that procurement costs for the first submarine now stand at $15.2 billion, a figure that includes significant expenses for design and engineering work. Further delays or cost overruns could have a profound impact on the U.S. Navy’s ability to maintain its strategic deterrence posture, as the aging Ohio-class SSBNs will need to remain in service longer, potentially requiring costly and risky service life extensions.
Any operational gaps resulting from delays in the Columbia-class program could leave the U.S. vulnerable at a time when geopolitical tensions are rising, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region. China’s rapid naval modernization, including the development of advanced submarine capabilities, has heightened concerns about the U.S.’s ability to maintain its undersea dominance. If the Columbia-class submarines are not delivered on time, the U.S. may find itself at a disadvantage in maintaining its nuclear deterrence capabilities.
The Columbia-class delays are symptomatic of broader challenges facing the U.S. submarine industrial base. In a 2024 article for American Affairs, defense expert Jerry Hendrix pointed out that the U.S. submarine fleet has dwindled from its Cold War peak of 140 nuclear-powered submarines to just 67 today, with only 49 of these classified as SSNs. Compounding this issue is a three-year maintenance backlog, which has rendered nearly a third of the U.S. submarine fleet non-operational at any given time.
Hendrix also highlighted that the U.S. Navy’s shipbuilding partners have struggled to ramp up production since the Covid-19 pandemic, with only one new SSN planned for construction in the fiscal year 2025. This stagnation in submarine production comes at a time when global threats, particularly from China, are escalating. The declining state of the U.S. submarine industrial base is largely the result of decisions made in the 1990s to close several key shipyards, which has left the U.S. with insufficient drydock and maintenance capacity.
China’s Rapid Submarine Modernization
While the U.S. faces significant challenges in its submarine program, China’s submarine industrial base has made remarkable strides in recent years. According to a September 2023 report from the China Maritime Studies Institute (CMSI), China has modernized its shipyards, including the Bohai, Wuchang, and Jiangnan facilities, to meet the growing demand for both nuclear and conventional submarines. The report, authored by expert Sarah Kirchberger, notes that China’s advancements have been driven by state-led innovation, which has focused on research and development (R&D) and upgrading shipbuilding infrastructure.
However, Kirchberger points out that China still faces critical challenges in its submarine program, particularly in areas such as propulsion systems, submarine quieting technologies, and air-independent propulsion (AIP) capabilities. To address these shortcomings, China has sought to leverage its close political and economic ties with Russia, seeking access to advanced undersea technologies.
Despite these challenges, China’s aggressive shipbuilding trajectory, fueled by substantial state financing, has allowed it to rapidly expand its submarine fleet. While China’s submarines may still lack the technological sophistication of U.S. and Russian vessels, its ability to quickly produce large quantities of submarines gives it a growing advantage in the undersea domain.
The delays and challenges facing the Columbia-class SSBN program have raised serious concerns about the U.S. Navy’s ability to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent amid rising global tensions. The combination of industrial base constraints, supply chain disruptions, and quality assurance failures has created a perfect storm that threatens to delay the delivery of the Columbia-class submarines well beyond their original timeline.
As China continues to modernize its submarine fleet, the U.S. must address the underlying issues plaguing its submarine industrial base to ensure it can maintain its strategic edge. Without significant improvements in oversight, cost control, and workforce management, the U.S. risks falling behind in a critical area of military power—just as its rivals are catching up.
