Trump's amateur obsession with naval architecture is profoundly dangerous. Combined with the plans he has ordained for a nuclear-powered battleship he is running the risk of crippling America’s naval shipbuilding capabilities – the opposite of what he allegedly intends. Perhaps the worst consequence is that we'll feel the effects of these mistakes over at least two decades. If we implement these presidential directives, we'll have little capacity to respond to regional conflict, deter China's ambitions in Taiwan, limit incursions in the Arctic, or most any other scenario which demands power projection capability to cause a rethinking of aggressive intent against our national interests. The experience of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln demonstrates that extended deployments and failure to affect a timely transition between U.S. carrier battle groups, required by the President’s misbegotten war in Iran, have an on effect on the entire battle group - not just one big deck carrier. This is already having major impacts on fleet material readiness, the likely prospect of declining reenlistment rates, limited deployments to the Pacific, and failure to meet continued alliance commitments, and joint exercises. The President’s proposed changes will only compound these problems by exacerbating the already stressed condition of the fleet as the Navy plans for continued extended deployments.

Let’s begin with the facts. As the plight of the USS Abraham Lincoln has demonstrated, the Navy is short on operationally available carriers. This is the result of the poor decisions made over several decades in the exuberant but short-sighted expectations of a peace dividend after the Cold War ended, restructuring the Navy’s ship-building base and shrinking the Navy’s organic maintenance and repair infrastructure. As early as 2013 the Navy’s Program Executive Office for Aircraft Carriers, Vice-Admiral Thomas Moore, told Congress that the service is “an 11-carrier Navy in a 15-carrier world.” The situation has not improved. Bringing new carriers into the force to replace the overworked Nimitz class carriers has been plagued with delays. The USS Gerald Ford, the first of a new class of carriers designed to maintain maritime superiority at least through mid-century, took an astounding seventeen years to build. Production of the second and third ships in the Ford class, while much improved over the Ford, are already running late and are behind in their projected delivery to the fleet. Government foot dragging has been a major contributor to the delays and the President’s demands will only make matters worse. To complicate affairs further, the retirement next year of the USS Nimitz before her replacement enters service will temporarily reduce the carrier force to ten ships. U.S. national security requires that the production of these key power projection platforms be accelerated, not delayed. That, however, is not what President Trump would bring about.

Trump’s first attack on the carrier fleet occurred somewhat stealthily and almost unnoticed. Without advice or a demand signal from the Navy, his own Department of Defense, or the Congress, he decreed last December that the U.S. needed fifteen new “Trump class” battleships. Seemingly ignoring the evolution of naval warfare on display in Ukraine– a major topic in its own right – this $275 billion boondoggle takes funds away from other projects that the Navy actually needs. Due to their size (35,000 tons) and nuclear propulsion the only place where the final assembly of the battleships can take place is at Huntington Ingalls Industries Newport News facility. Given the current and anticipated shortage of skilled welders, electricians and other shipyard workers, the battleship vanity project undoubtedly will take resources away from construction of new carriers. Furthermore, although the Navy claims that Newport News can accommodate building both a battleship and a carrier simultaneously, the Congressional Budget Office has cast doubt on that assertion.

Trump’s second attack came in mid-August in a National Security Directive in which he ordered the Navy to report in 60 days on how to replace the new electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) on the fourth and follow-on Ford class ships with 1950’s era steam driven catapults. Based on hearsay, prejudice and little else Trump has long harbored animus towards the EMALS system; in his first term he threatened to replace it. To be fair, the system was initially imposed on the Navy over the service’s objections and suffered teething pains for several years, but the Service now indicates that it is performing excellently and offers significant operational advantages including improved operational reliability and efficiency, increased surge capacity and capability, ability to launch a wider range of aircraft weights and speeds, smoother acceleration for airframe and pilot, reduced manning and lifecycle costs, a quieter, cooler and safer environment, simplified maintenance and digital control with faster troubleshooting. A Navy test this February aboard the Ford not only validated the promise of the EMALS system but demonstrated it could increase sortie rates by 120% to 130% compared to the existing Nimitz class ships equipped with steam catapults. Replacing it with Eisenhower era steam catapults will require a major re-work of the carriers, as the ship’s design does not incorporate the massive equipment needed to generate the steam and the reworking to accommodate it will actually end up reducing the capability of the carrier. Carrying out Trump’s directive will impose additional cost in the millions if not billions of dollars and delay deployment timelines for new carriers into the 2030s.

Third, again based on tales he has purportedly heard, he has ordered a re-design of the elevators used to move ordnance around the ship, replacing cutting edge technology with 1950’s equipment - which promises more delay and more cost. And installing 1950’s technology for this and for the catapults assumes, questionably, that the industrial base which last supplied the steam catapults and old-style elevators almost 20 years ago still exists. Fourth, the President let it be known last week that “for aesthetic reasons” he has asked the Navy to study repositioning the Ford-class carriers’ island from its current position (which was chosen to increase flight deck flexibility and overall safety) forward so that they resembled the World War II carriers he so admired as a youth watching the classic television series “Victory at Sea”. Each of us were devoted fans of “Victory at Sea” too … but that did not qualify us as naval architects. Moving the island would require a thorough review of the weight, balance and stability implications of changing the position of such a major piece of superstructure. Undertaking to move the island will result again in more delays and more costs.

The President’s ill-considered meddling runs the risk of complicating and damaging the already fragile naval shipbuilding industrial base and could end up replicating the crippling dysfunction that bumbling 1930’s British policymakers ended up inflicting on the United Kingdom’s ability to rearm as Europe’s “gathering storm” of authoritarian aggression increasingly challenged the western democracies during the interwar years. The Navy used to pride itself in speaking truth to power.

huh?

President Truman’s decision to scrap a proposed aircraft carrier in the late 1940’s produced “the revolt of the admirals” as a result of which the CNO and other senior officers were fired. Thanks to Defense Secretary Hegseth’s heavy-handedness, silence prevails within the Executive branch today. It is up to the Congress therefore to intervene and fulfill its Constitutional responsibility “to provide and maintain a Navy” (Article 1, Section 8). Congress should prohibit the expenditure of any funding to undo EMALS, the new elevators or to otherwise tinker with carrier design. Moreover, the so-called “Trump” class of battleships needs to be carefully reviewed regarding cost and its potential impact on the Navy’s shipbuilding schedule. Finally, the Congress should immediately launch a review of the Navy’s operational readiness, morale, and ability to carry out its presence mission in areas vital to the national interest. We call upon the Armed Services Committees and the Defense Appropriations Committees to act before unchecked Presidential meddling and foolishness turns America’s Navy into a second-rate fleet.

The cost of all three variants of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are increasing by as much as roughly 11 percent, according to the Pentagon. A spokesperson for the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) confirmed to Breaking Defense that the average flyaway cost — a metric that measures when a jet has all the equipment it needs for delivery — of the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A rose to $92 million in the aircraft’s 18th and 19th production lots, which will deliver over the next two years. That’s up from the $82.5 million price tag of the jet’s most recent group of production contracts spanning 2023 to 2026, a growth of 11.5 percent. Similarly, the price of a jump jet F-35B rose to $121.4 million across lots 18 and 19, while the carrier-capable F-35C climbed to $110.8 million. For the F-35B, that’s an increase of 11.4 percent compared to a previous price tag of $109 million; the F-35C had the smallest increase of 8.5 percent set against a prior cost of $102.1 million. Air & Space Forces Magazine was first to report the new figures.

In response to a Pentagon document known as a modernized selected acquisition report (MSAR), which revealed rising buying costs for the stealth fighter, F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin previously said the report “shows the combat-proven F-35 program moving into full-rate production, resuming high-volume development deliveries and growing globally.” The company added that the report “also shows that the hard work has shifted from proving the basic aircraft to executing major modernization, improving fleet readiness and controlling long-term sustainment and integration costs.” Lockheed referred back to that statement today when asked to comment on the increased flyaway costs. The F-35 program has been battered by inflation, rising prices of raw materials and supply chain issues, which drove up costs for lot 18, the Pentagon previously told Breaking Defense. Rising rates even sparked a cost dispute with Switzerland, culminating in Bern trimming its buy of the stealth fighter. The flyaway cost includes government-furnished equipment outside the scope of Lockheed’s contract, such as the jet’s F135 engine built by RTX subsidiary Pratt & Whitney. The aircraft’s upgraded radar is supplied by Northrop Grumman, though delays have forced the Pentagon to accept new aircraft without the nose-mounted sensor, Breaking Defense previously reported. It’s not clear exactly how much those features may have influenced the overall price increase.

Projected F-35 buying costs are going up by over $50 billion across the program’s lifespan due to factors like upgrades, shifting buy profiles and a surge in spare parts to boost lackluster readiness rates. Those costs, detailed in the MSAR document, also showed the F-35’s total lifecycle costs — the sum total the government expects to spend to buy and sustain the fighter — dipping beneath $2 trillion after surpassing that number in 2024. One set of upgrades underway for the fighter is meant to enhance its engine, while a separate is intended to deliver a new power and thermal management system to address cooling challenges. Another modernization program known as Block 4 — which is over budget and years behind schedule — will add a suite of capabilities for the fighter, officials say. Block 4’s computing backbone, known as Technology Refresh 3, has still not been certified for combat, relegating jets delivered over the past two years to training. A total of 20 customers globally, including the US, are on contract for the F-35. International customers can have differing requirements, which may come with varying costs. Foreign buyers also largely acquire the A variant, though some are procuring the F-35B; only the US flies the F-35C. The Pentagon is planning to acquire 148 aircraft each in lots 18 and 19, for a total of 296 aircraft. Lockheed said in September 2025, when the contract was finalized, that the increase in price per jet was below the rate of inflation, while the JPO has said that the cost of the fighter’s airframe is “consistent” compared to prior years when adjusting for inflation.

With Congress headed on break, a continuing resolution in place through Dec. 11 and no hope for a near-term defense supplemental, Defense Department planners are scrambling to stretch available funds and make it through the end of the fiscal year.

really cool that the world's allegedly most powerful military is getting put on "desperately waiting on my salary to come in" end-of-month rations. hope you enjoy instant ramen! (although tbh, that'd probably still be better than the "food" they were serving to those sailors...)

The issue took center stage this week, thanks to a Thursday statement from Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, where she said the Pentagon is making a “secretive attempt to siphon” billions of dollars away from the National Institutes of Health through an “interagency agreement.” “These funds were provided for lifesaving medical research, not as extra money for the Department of Defense,” she added. “It is no secret that the Department of Defense is facing enormous financial pressure because of President Trump’s war of choice with Iran. But the Trump administration cannot make American patients, families, and scientists pay the price.”

uh, yeah, pretty sure they can since you're not going to actually fucking do anything to stop them?

In a statement to NOTUS, NIH said the proposed agreement was around a collaboration on medical technologies, and notably, neither NIH or DeLauro said a deal was ever consummated. Appropriations Committee chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., said in a statement late Friday that “not one dollar has been transferred from the NIH to the Department of War.” DeLauro’s office did not respond to a request for additional details, and neither did DoD and the Office of Management and Budget. DoD also did not respond to multiple requests for comment about ongoing FY26 budget pressures. Regardless of the specifics around the NIH claims, the fact the Pentagon’s budget is under stress is no secret, thanks to a mix of six months of military operations against Iran, National Guard deployments inside the US, increased fuel costs, end-strength overages and the lack of full reimbursement from the Department of Homeland Security for DoD border operations. The White House in June sent lawmakers a supplemental spending request that included $67.1 billion in defense funds, though Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth later said that he expects “certain aspects” of the Iran war to cost $37.5 billion through the end of September. However, with Congress effectively shuttered until after November’s elections, that supplemental isn’t coming anytime soon, if it ever gets done.

Finding outside sources of money and putting them towards the Pentagon is just one of a handful of options available to defense budget planners, a pair of former defense officials told Breaking Defense. But none of them, they said, are pretty. “Their problem right now is the operating costs that they didn’t plan for,

YOUR WHOLE JOB IS TO FIGHT IMPERIAL WARS HOW DID YOU NOT FUCKING PLAN FOR FIGHTING AN IMPERIAL WAR!?

and that has to be solved by 26 days from now,” a former senior defense official granted anonymity to speak freely, told Breaking Defense this week. “If I were still in the building, I would say, ‘I’m probably screwed now.’”

Viable Options And Roadblocks

Both the former senior official and Elaine McCusker, an acting comptroller during the first Trump administration, spoke to Breaking Defense before DeLauro’s statement came out. However, they broadly laid out some of the available options to get operations and maintenance (O&M) funds lined up. One option is via DoD requests to reprogram money between coffers. Broadly speaking, Pentagon officials have more legal wiggle room to reshuffle O&M as they see fit — cancelling training exercises, for example, is fully within the department’s decision space. In July, US Pacific Air Forces Commander Gen. Kevin Schneider warned that the military would do just that and was reevaluating its upcoming exercise schedule to help preserve “readiness” in the face of increased commitments around the globe, including the Middle East. Such moves are likely more wide-spread, especially for the Navy given its operational tempo in the Middle East. “[You] can’t really let the services go ahead, go full speed ahead, on training and stuff, on the 45 percent chance that more money will show up because we’ll be broke in the operating accounts if we don’t slow down,” the former defense official added.

Another option is to seek Congressional approval to move dollars between accounts. In early July, for example, the Pentagon asked Congress for permission to reroute roughly $4.3 billion from FY26 coffers in order to pay for “higher priority items,” including increased personnel and operational costs around the globe. Lawmakers on the appropriations committees did not respond to questions about the status of this reprogramming request, but $4.3 billion is just a fraction of Hegseth’s $37.5 billion Iran estimate and the $67.1 billion requested for defense in the supplemental ask. “Reprogramming requests submitted to Congress, if approved, would help with some immediate cash flow challenges, particularly in the military personnel account, but the sources to fund these reprogramming actions are not good and will need replenished as well,” McCusker explained.

you've heard of debasification, now get ready for robbing-peter-to-pay-paul-ification

“The Pentagon is close to the cap on general transfer authority (GTA),” she added. “If it does not get supplemental relief, it will have to defer maintenance

oh well good thing the military doesn't have longstanding and evergrowing problems with maintenance then!

and potentially stall acceleration of modernization and procurement. Some bills could carry into next year.” But given the Pentagon is in the middle of a major modernization push, and how officials always like to note that delayed modernization usually costs more down the road, cutting technology buys to fund O&M isn’t ideal. Another option on the table to cut costs by furloughing civilian workers or cutting back their hours. “You could tell civilians to only work three days a week, but the question is how much you can do this late in the year that would really move the needle,” the former senior defense official added. “You could also slow purchases of things that you normally buy with O&M funds and hope for relief later.” Then there are more creative “maneuvers,” like using funds from the $152 billion reconciliation pot to pay the bills, the former senior defense official said. While that money has been earmarked, the Pentagon could shift funding around, similar to how the department diverted $3.8 billion to pay for the wall along the southern border in 2020. Notably, the Pentagon has to get its reconciliation funding on contract this year or lose roughly 8.3 percent of its funds. In theory, that means the department could do some acrobatics and shift money from procurement to O&M, then shift reconciliation to cover those holes in procurement — but eventually, something gets cut. While some of DoD’s funding pressure could abate on Oct. 1 when FY27 starts, it still has funds to backfill and will likely be under a continuing resolution until early December. “The financial challenges will only get worse until a final appropriations bill and supplemental are passed,” McCusker said. “Always wasteful and disruptive, a CR will be particularly destructive this year as only the 2026 base budget will extend. This means an immediate budget reduction of more than $150 billion or about $400 million per day compared to what was requested and planned for 2027.”