ICYMI: Golden grills Navy Secretary over potential lapse in destroyer procurement that could cost jobs at BIW

WASHINGTON — Congressman Jared Golden (ME-02) today questioned the Secretary of the Navy and Chief of Naval Operations on the lack of procurement funding for DDG-51 destroyers in their FY26 budget request. These ships are built at Bath Iron Works, and a lack of procurement would harm domestic shipbuilding capacity and national defense. 

Golden addressed the top Navy officials during a full hearing of the House Armed Services Committee.

“What we are asking for is simply consistency,” Golden said while questioning Secretary of the Navy John Phelan. “It’s just as important as how big the Navy you want to have, and how quickly you want to get there. You’re not going to maintain the best shipbuilders in the world if they don’t think it’s a consistent career. And you need their skills and assets. I would ask for you to give that some deep thought.” 

DDG-51 destroyers, known as the “backbone of the Navy’s surface fleet,” are highly versatile warships capable of both anti-air defense and striking targets like submarines, land-based threats, and other warships. Two shipyards in the United States produce DDG-51s: Bath Iron Works in Maine, and Ingalls Shipbuilding in Mississippi.

During the hearing, Acting Chief of Naval Operations James Kilby indicated that DDG class destroyers are a critical element to the Navy’s fleet. But the Trump Administration has released limited details about its upcoming FY2026 budget request, and current records show no plans to fund new DDG procurement in the upcoming year. 

In addition to Phelan and Kilby, Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps General Eric M. Smith also testified on Wednesday. Golden’s full questioning can be watched here. A partial transcription is provided below:

+++

CONGRESSMAN JARED GOLDEN (ME-02), HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: The navy’s shipbuilding plan envisions 23 [DDG] Flight III ships. You currently have one in the fleet. Correct? 

ADMIRAL JAMES W. KILBY, ACTING CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS: Well, yes, sir. One is about ready to deliver. 

GOLDEN: Thank you. Mr. Secretary, the pending reconciliation bill includes two DDG Flight IIIs. Congressional intent was pretty clear that these would result in a three-ship cadence in FY26 and FY27. I’m now hearing behind the scenes that the plan that we don’t have yet — the complete plan from you — is going to goose-egg the DDG program in your request for FY26. So I’ve been on the committee for six years and I’ve heard from the Navy consistently a desire that the two DDG yards [each] achieve a 1.5-ship per-year rate of production. But here you’re signaling demand that would not support that rate of production. So, do you envision paying these yards to build ships — well, I’m sorry I’ll rephrase that — to not build ships? Or do you expect these yards to achieve a 1.5-ship production rate only to then turn around and lay shipbuilders off? 

THE HON. JOHN C. PHELAN, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY: Thank you for the question, Congressman. The president and I are committed to national defense and are committed to shipbuilding. As it relates to the budget, you know, we are working very closely with the OSD and the OMB on this as we speak, basically daily. And so we have a good idea of what we need and don’t need, and I don’t want to get in front of the president on that. He’ll be coming out with a budget soon. But I think shipbuilding will fare quite well in that budget. 

GOLDEN: Shipbuilding, yes, but I’m talking about destroyers. 

PHELAN:Yeah, I can’t go into specifics with you right now Congressman, but I understand the question. I think that we are at the end of the line on the current destroyers, on the DDG (X) as I’ve said before, we’re looking at the whole force and trying to understand what the whole force posture should be, in terms of what we’re learning and what’s going on, and how it should be structured, in effect. And destroyers are an important component of that. 

GOLDEN:Yes. You know, across the country we have skilled shipbuilders, but they are aging. And every yard is trying to bring in new shipbuilders, to train them up, to have the skills that they need to build the best, most quality, most lethal Navy that this country needs. On this committee, we have found through studies, which we partnered with the Navy to do, that it takes on average seven years to develop a high-asset, fully skilled Navy shipbuilder. So this rate, this signal, the consistency of the signaled demand from the Navy, and then to actually deliver on acquiring at that rate, is key to not only developing that workforce — taking seven years to get them there — but maintaining them. You cannot build a future DDG (X) without shipbuilders. 

PHELAN:I agree with you and I have more ships than our shipyards can handle for the next 10 years. Whether it’s a destroyer, whether it’s a tanker, whether it’s an oiler, whether it is a submarine. So I am not worried about the demand signal we have. It is getting those workers and getting them trained. It is there, and I think it is incenting the private sector to help us as well. So this is a, as I’ve said, It’s really going to be a whole of government approach. I think the demand signal, you know, as Congressman Courtney mentioned, which we recently did …

GOLDEN:I hear you. What I’m asking to is a consistent concern that has been raised that these two yards [Ingalls and BIW] get to a 1.5-ship per year production rate, and you’re not actually then demanding that rate — which will inevitably lead to ups and downs, to bathtubs in the workforce, where you are hiring people, training people, and then laying people off. What we are asking for is simply consistency. It’s just as important as how big the Navy you want to have, and how quickly you want to get there. You’re not going to maintain the best shipbuilders in the world if they don’t think it’s a consistent career. And you need their skills and assets. I would ask for you to give that some deep thought. 


 

###