Summary and Key Points: The Navy’s new Columbia-class nuclear submarines, intended to replace aging Ohio-class “boomers,” remain a top Pentagon priority despite their significant cost. Each sub, crucial to modernizing America’s nuclear triad, will carry Trident II D5 missiles and offer unmatched stealth capabilities.
-However, budget constraints under Secretary Pete Hegseth, including a targeted $50 billion annual Pentagon cut, raise questions about sustained funding. Simultaneous procurement with the Virginia-class submarines strains the shipbuilding industry, challenging the Navy’s ambitious timeline.
-While vital strategically, the Columbia-class may attract increased Congressional scrutiny, as balancing costs and other shipbuilding priorities becomes increasingly complex amid tightening budgets.
The Columbia-Class Sub Drama Show
When U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was sworn in, he quickly outlined the Pentagon’s defense-acquisition priorities. One was to modernize the military’s nuclear weapons programs. That update should include building and commissioning the Columbia-class ballistic-missile nuclear submarines (SSBNs) that will replace the older Ohio-class “boomers.” The Columbia-class should be safe from cancellation, although its budget could be trimmed.
High Cost for Launching Nuclear Weapons Anytime, Anywhere
The Columbia-class will be expensive. The first sub will cost around $15.2 billion. The Navy, which has identified the Columbia-class as a top priority, wants 12 of the new boats to replace its 14 Ohio-class SSBNs.
The second Columbia-class sub will set the Navy back $9.3 billion, which is considerably less, but still a lot. (The first boat is more expensive because it includes initial design and first-look engineering requirements.) The Navy then wants to build 10 more Columbia-class SSBNs, one each year from Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 to FY 2035.
A Billion Here, A Billion There…
For the two boats now in construction, the Navy has requested $3.3 billion in FY 2025. This should make the bean counters at the Department of Government Efficiency take notice. It is not clear whether Hegseth’s priority programs will be in DOGE’s crosshairs, but perhaps the Columbia-class should be. Having new boomers is a bonus, and the American nuclear triad could use improvements, but the billions add up quickly.
Columbia and Virginia-class Are Being Made at the Same Time
Not only are the Columbia-class boats expensive, but there have also been delays to the program, because the Navy is procuring Columbia-class and Virginia-class submarines at the same time. The Virginia-class nuclear-powered cruise-missile fast-attack submarines are another priority for Hegseth.
These will be instrumental in the Navy’s strategy to improve its land-attack capabilities with cruise missiles.
What About Other Shipbuilding Needs?
The Columbia-class and Virginia-class will challenge the U.S. shipbuilding industry. To make matters more acute, President Donald Trump has identified military shipbuilding as an area of needed improvement for the U.S. defense-industrial base.
Trump rightly thinks that the Chinese have forged ahead with better shipbuilding numbers. The need for new U.S. submarines is part of that equation.
“Navy officials have stated consistently since September 2013 that the Columbia-class program is the Navy’s top priority program, and that this means, among other things, that from the Navy’s perspective, the Columbia-class program will be funded, even if that comes at the expense of funding for other Navy programs, and that in a situation of industrial base constraints, the Columbia-class program will have first call on resources to minimize the chances of schedule delays in building the boats,” according to the Congressional Research Service.
How Long Will the Columbia-class Be a Priority?
That sounds serious and should be taken at face value, but the Navy must accept the reality of reduced money and resources. The Hegseth-led Pentagon has asked for $50 billion in budget cuts each year for the next five years. Are we still safe to assume that the Columbia-class will avoid more scrutiny and avoid the cuts?
Budget-trimming measures could also affect the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier program that costs more than $13 billion dollars per ship.
The Columbia-class will be the biggest submarine ever built by the Navy. The boats will run silent at 20 knots and displace around 21,000 long tons. They will be highly stealthy over their planned 40 years of service. The reactor core will be so quiet that it will produce less “acoustic energy than a 20-watt light bulb.”
Submarines carry 70 percent of the nuclear warheads in the U.S. arsenal. “Each [Columbia-class] will be installed with 16 missile tubes for launching 16 Trident II D5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles,” according to Naval Technology. “Powered by three solid-fuel rocket motors, the three-stage missile can carry up to 14 multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles with W88 or W76 thermonuclear warheads to a distance of 12,000 km.”
FERNANDINA BEACH, Fla. – The Ohio-class guided missile submarine USS Georgia (SSGN 729) transits the Saint Marys River July 15. Georgia returned to Kings Bay after spending more than a year forward deployed. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class(SW) James Kimber)
So, despite the large acquisition costs, it appears that the Navy is still ready to hit the accelerator on the Columbia-class program. This is a high priority for the Navy, and a key part of the Hegseth-era Pentagon, and it looks to be safe from the cost-cutters at DOGE. There have been some delays, but overall, nothing too alarming about the program, other than its high cost and the possibility that it could take funds from other ship procurement programs.
The U.S. nuclear triad will be transformed in the coming years. The B-21 Raider strategic stealth bomber is on time and under budget. The Sentinel ICBM will help better deliver nuclear weapons too, although that program has endured schedule slips and ballooning cost estimates.
The Columbia-class will be a welcome acquisition. It will need more Congressional oversight, since its weight in the acquisition strategy of the Pentagon is so high. It should work out fine—it will just need the watchdogs to examine progress periodically.
About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood
Brent M. Eastwood, PhD is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.
