The Pentagon’s much-heralded next-generation attack submarine is going to be running awfully late—by half a decade—leaving the United States playing catch-up while adversaries like China and Russia build up their own underwater arsenals.
At a Glance
- The U.S. Navy’s SSN(X) next-generation attack submarine program faces a five-year construction delay, now set for 2040.
- Shipyards and suppliers warn of job losses, supply chain chaos, and a weakened defense industrial base.
- Congress and defense experts fear the delay could open a dangerous “capability gap” as adversaries modernize their fleets.
- The Navy will have to squeeze more life from aging submarines, raising costs and operational risks.
America’s Next-Gen Sub Delayed as Rivals Race Ahead
The U.S. Navy’s plan for a next-generation attack submarine—known as SSN(X)—has hit the brakes. Thanks to five more years of delay, the first hull won’t touch water until 2040 at the earliest. This is happening while China and Russia churn out advanced submarines, and the United States continues to rely on aging Los Angeles- and Virginia-class boats. It’s a spectacle worthy of a Greek tragedy: the world’s preeminent naval power now forced to watch as its technological edge steadily erodes, all because Washington can’t get its act together on shipbuilding.
The Navy’s latest shipbuilding plan, released in early 2025, cited “budgetary constraints and industrial base challenges” as the reason for this schedule slip. The SSN(X) program was originally supposed to begin construction in 2035. Now, not only does the Navy face a shrinking fleet, but the workforce and supply chains that underpin submarine manufacturing are left dangling, uncertain if the government will ever stop dragging its feet and get serious about undersea deterrence.
Congressional Alarm Bells and Industrial Fallout
Members of Congress and defense officials are sounding the alarm. The Navy’s own 2025 budget requests $622.8 million for SSN(X) research and development—good luck doing much with that when the actual submarine won’t begin construction for another 15 years. Meanwhile, General Dynamics Electric Boat and HII-Newport News Shipbuilding—the two companies that build U.S. nuclear subs—are warning of workforce attrition, supply chain instability, and the real risk of losing highly skilled jobs to other industries. The old adage rings true: you can’t turn submarine workers on and off like a light switch, but apparently that’s the plan.
As adversaries pour resources into their own fleets, Congress’s top analysts warn the United States could enter a “valley” of undersea capability. The last time this happened, with the ill-fated Seawolf-class, the result was a glaring gap that took decades and billions to patch. Now, the Navy is eyeing the same playbook: extend the life of old submarines, keep patching the holes, and hope nothing goes wrong. Has anyone in Washington noticed that hope isn’t a strategy?
Defense Strategy—Or Just Kicking the Can?
Navy officials spin the delay as a “strategic prioritization,” saying continued Virginia-class production will keep the fleet afloat and avoid a total collapse in numbers. But the facts don’t lie. By the 2030s, the U.S. will have fewer, older, and less capable attack submarines. Maintenance costs will balloon, operational risks will rise, and the fleet will struggle to meet global commitments—especially in the Indo-Pacific, where China’s navy now threatens to outnumber and outgun the United States in its own backyard.
Allied navies and defense planners, who’ve long counted on the U.S. for undersea dominance, are watching with growing concern. The potential for layoffs and economic disruption in communities dependent on shipyard jobs is very real. Meanwhile, the Pentagon’s “pivot to Asia” looks more like a soft-shoe shuffle than a strategic leap. It’s hard not to see this as another example of Washington’s chronic inability to prioritize real national security over endless squabbling and pork-barrel politics.
Expert Warnings and the Cost of Delay
Defense scholars and industry experts aren’t mincing words. The Congressional Budget Office, Navy brass, and independent analysts all agree: the longer SSN(X) is pushed down the road, the greater the risk of ceding undersea superiority to rivals. The United States will have to keep old subs running far beyond their design life, gambling on expensive overhauls while adversaries field brand-new, cutting-edge boats. That’s not just risky—it’s reckless.
The U.S. defense industrial base, once the envy of the world, is now hamstrung by indecision and neglect. Every year of delay means lost jobs, lost expertise, and lost deterrence. The next time Washington politicians bloviate about “supporting the troops” or “projecting power,” maybe they should explain to American workers and sailors why America’s world-class shipyards are running empty, while our rivals’ slipways are full.
