Posted on April 20, 2026
By Du Chaoping
The White House recently released its budget proposal for fiscal year 2027. The proposal requests Congress to significantly increase US defense spending, with the development of maritime forces as a key component. The US Navy has requested an appropriation of $65.8 billion for the construction and procurement of 34 vessels, including submarines, destroyers, and auxiliary ships. This scale marks a 60-year high.
Nuclear submarines remain a development priority
In this plan, nuclear submarines remain a development priority. The Columbia-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) has been listed by the US Navy as a top-priority procurement program, which will gradually replace the active but aging Ohio-class nuclear ballistic missile submarines to maintain US sea-based strategic nuclear deterrence capabilities. The Virginia-class nuclear-poweredattack submarines developed in parallel will primarily undertake missions such as forward reconnaissance, anti-submarine warfare (ASW), land-attack, and special operations support. The increased investment in these two classes of submarines indicates that the US Navy views securing nuclear deterrence as an equally important maritime strategic pillar as maintaining an underwater combat advantage.
The procurement arrangement for surface combatants is relatively conventional. The third Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyer remains the US Navy’s main combatant for regional air and missile defense at present. Equipped with the new Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, the destroyer is capable of intercepting ballistic and cruise missile, providing escort for carrier strike groups. As the crucial equipment to fill the gap in the force structure below destroyers, the new FF(X) frigate will mainly undertake tasks such as regional air defense, ASW, and far-sea escort.
The procurement of amphibious ships fully reflects the US military’s Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO) concept. The America-class amphibious assault ship is designed to emphasize sea-air assault, vertical envelopment, and expeditionarysupport functions, enabling the rapid projection of Marine Corps expeditionary forces. The San Antonio-class Flight II amphibious transport dock mainly takes on the mission of delivering personnel, equipment, and supplies, and also serves as an expeditionary command platform capable of coordinating littoral operations. For the six Medium Landing Ships (LSMs), the US Navy has selected a mature design from the Netherlands-based Damen Shipyards Group, aiming to accelerate the fielding process and the generation of near-shore mobility and dispersed supply capabilities.
Urgently addressing logistics shortfalls
Compared to traditional main combatants, the proportion of logistics support platforms in this shipbuilding budget has significantly increased. The White House budget document explicitly proposed expanding the procurement scale of auxiliary vessels. The FY2027 plan intends to procure two AS(X) submarine tenders, two John Lewis-class replenishment oilers, one special mission ship, one ocean surveillance ship, one sealift ship, one bulk fuel vessel, one hospital ship, and five fireboats and various other auxiliary ships. In recent years, the US Military Sealift Command (MSC) has also repeatedly emphasized that its goal is to support the Navy and joint operations with sufficient scale, efficient speed, and a reasonable tempo in a contested maritime logistics environment.
However, from budget approval to the on-schedule delivery of these vessels, there are stillnumerous practical constraints. Reuters noted that the budget proposal still requires months of congressional deliberation. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has also repeatedly warned that the US Navy’s shipbuilding industrial system has long failed to meet expected construction goals, facing prominent issues such as aging infrastructure, a shortage of skilled labors, and severe supply chain pressures.
Overall, the US Navy’s vessel construction and procurement plan for the new fiscal year is no longer confined to a simple expansion of fleet size; rather, it focuses on building a complete maritime combat system that encompasses nuclear deterrence, underwater offense and defense, littoral mobility, and logistics readiness of theaters. Its strategic orientation is abundantly clear: preparing for long-term, high-intensity maritime confrontation in the context of so-called “great power competition.” Nevertheless, merely piling up budget figures is far from sufficient to support the US’ ambition of maintaining its maritime supremacy. Fundamentally, it still depends on its shipbuilding industry’s ability to solve the problems such as schedule delays, cost overruns, and capacity shortfalls.
