The chairman’s mark of the House Appropriations Committee’s (HAC) fiscal 2027 defense appropriations bill funds the administration’s $1 billion request for the BBG(X) Trump-class battleship, but adds restrictions.
The proposed restrictions would require a certification from the Navy Secretary on combat system maturity as well as reports seeking key details about ship development.
During the committee’s markup last week, the committee rejected an amendment by Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) that sought to cut the $1 billion in battleship advanced procurement funding.
During a hearing of the HAC defense subcommittee last month, McCollum argued the panel needed to know the battleship’s design characteristics and was skeptical of Congress’s ability to afford the ships in light of other shipbuilding programs with cost overruns. She was joined in those concerns by subcommittee chairman Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), who said he was wary of wasting money on a platform that might ultimately be canceled.
However, Calvert voted against her amendment.
The Navy has said it plans to buy the lead battleship in fiscal 2028 and expects it to cost $17 billion total, but a Congressional Budget Office estimate argued that could rise to over $20 billion.
A similar amendment to cut the battleship funding was defeated in the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) fiscal ‘27 defense bill markup, but HASC did include a provision requiring a report from the Navy Secretary on the strategy to design and build the ship without interfering with existing nuclear-powered shipbuilding plans.
The Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan released in May revealed the service ultimately decided the battleship would be nuclear-powered, using the reactor used in the Ford-class aircraft carriers.
House appropriators did include a bill provision restricting the Pentagon from entering into a contract or other agreement for construction of the lead battleship until the Navy Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that the weapon systems for the lead ship are at a “sufficiently mature technology readiness level.”
This matches a provision in HASC’s fiscal 2027 defense policy bill that also prevents contracts for construction of the lead ship until certifying lead ship weapon systems maturity.
Beyond that initial restriction, House appropriators’ bill report expressed skepticism with the battleship program’s readiness.
“The committee has repeatedly cautioned, most recently with respect to the Constellation-class frigate and the Medium Landing Ship, that committing funding to construction before achieving design stability and solidifying requirements is a principal cause of the cost growth, schedule delay, and industrial base instability that afflict Navy shipbuilding,” the report added.
The committee also said it is concerned that since the Navy decided BBG(X) will be nuclear-powered, it will draw from the limited pool of nuclear-capable shipyard capacity, workforce, reactor components and supplier base that the submarines and Ford-class carriers already depend on.
“The committee notes that the Ford-class program is already experiencing significant delays attributable in part to supply chain and workforce constraints, and that introducing a new nuclear surface combatant without careful planning could compound those constraints and place at risk the delivery of programs the committee considers higher priorities for the nuclear-capable industrial base,” according to House appropriators.
To address its concerns, the committee’s bill directs the Navy Secretary to submit a report within 90 days of the act’s enactment that explains validated requirements and key performance parameters of the large surface combatant, status of analysis of alternatives and ship design, design maturity assessment and criteria the Navy will use to certify design stability before committing to lead-ship construction, acquisition strategy and procurement profile, independent cost estimate for the lead ship, and overall class compared against the program office estimate, novel systems needed to field the ship and projected development and procurement costs.
The lawmakers also want the Navy to address anticipated effects BBG(X) and other Golden Fleet vessels will have on the cost and schedule of legacy shipbuilding programs.
The bill directs the Navy Secretary to submit a second report, within 90 days, focused on the Navy’s strategy to design and construct BBG(X) without interfering with existing nuclear-powered shipbuilding programs and how it affects the nuclear industry.
“The report shall identify the nuclear-capable shipyard capacity, workforce by trade, and reactor and component supplier capacity required for BBG(X); assess the degree to which those requirements overlap with the requirements of existing nuclear shipbuilding programs; and describe how the Navy will sequence and resource BBG(X) so as not to jeopardize the delivery schedules of those programs,” House appropriators said.
Exchange Monitor affiliate Defense Daily first published a version of this story.