Summary and What You Need to Know: The U.S. Navy faces a tough budget choice between continuing its Virginia-class submarine program or advancing its F/A-XX sixth-generation fighter program. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin warned that funding a second submarine in FY25 could cut $400 million from the F/A-XX, delaying its progress.

-Although some lawmakers advocate for building two submarines annually to boost the fleet, Austin noted that shipyards are already struggling to meet demand.

-The Navy argues for prioritizing the new fighter program, while others believe focusing on submarines is more critical to maintaining fleet strength and readiness.

Hard Choice For the U.S. Navy – Sixth-Gen Fighter or More Submarines

Most Americans understand that a budget means choosing – do you buy a new 4K UHD TV or enjoy a weekend getaway, while others must even juggle bills just to stay afloat. There have long been complaints that the Department of Defense (DoD) hasn't had to truly make hard choices, but as the costs for the latest platforms continue to skyrocket, it is clear that there simply isn't enough money to go around.

That point was made clear as the U.S. Navy may need to choose between an additional Virginia-class nuclear-powered fast attack submarine and funding its F/A-XX program, which includes a sixth-generation carrier-based aircraft to replace the aging Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet.

In a letter to lawmakers last month, which was made public earlier this week, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin warned that by authorizing a second submarine in fiscal year 2025 (FY25), the U.S. Navy would need to cut funding for the F/A-XX, likely delaying when it would enter service.

"Adding a second submarine would require the Department to reduce the Next Generation Fighter program by $400 million, making the fighter program unexecutable and degrading the Navy's ability to field next generation aircraft capabilities required in the 2033 to 2037 timeframe," Austin said in the letter.

The secretary also warned, "If left unaddressed, certain provisions in the House-passed or Senate-proposed bills will substantially impact the Department's ability to accomplish our strategic goals."

Rollcall.com described the communication between the Pentagon and lawmakers as the annual "heartburn letter," which comes as Congress needs to write the final version of the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

The House passed its version of the NDAA in June, and in it, lawmakers authorized $1 billion that could fund the construction of a second Virginia-class submarine – while the Senate Armed Services Committee has already "approved $400 in incremental funding to build a second sub," Breaking Defense reported.

The Sub Mission

Secretary Austin noted that even if the funding is provided for an additional nuclear-powered fast attack submarine, the U.S. submarine industrial base would be unable to produce it "on a reasonable schedule," and instead called upon lawmakers to follow the U.S. Navy's budget request that called for a single Virginia-class boat in FY25.

In February, the sea service called for Congress to fund just one of the submarines, instead of the usual two-per-year request – and suggested it would provide industry to catch up.

"The decision, initially contemplated last year, is a tacit recognition from the Navy and the Pentagon that the two shipyards building the attack boats and the industrial base can’t keep up with the two-per-year pace that the service says it needs to keep the fleet healthy," USNI News reported earlier this year, citing a source familiar with the matter.

However, some lawmakers have suggested that the U.S. Navy needs to focus on increasing the size of the fleet rather than spending R&D money on an aircraft that won't enter service for at least another decade.

"The bottom line: The Navy's just wrong on this. The Navy is 100% wrong," Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Virginia), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, told reporters on May 15 after the release of the 2025 NDAA.

"We are going to build two a year," Wittman added.

"We know what happens with the industry if you go to one per year," the lawmaker emphasized, suggesting that industry would slow down further by cutting the order instead of catching up. "If you don't send a demand signal to the industry, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy."

The Virginia-class program has continued to run behind schedule, and while the U.S. Navy has been purchasing the fast attack submarines at a rate of two per year for the past four years, only an average of 1.2 submarines has been delivered annually. As previously reported, the program is also more than $17 billion over budget.

The sea service has received 23 of a planned 66 in service, and the Virginia-class submarines will be acquired through at least 2043 and will remain in service with the U.S. Navy through at least 2060 – while the final boats built could operate into the 2070s and beyond.

The U.S. Navy has remained committed to its F/A-XX program, even as the U.S. Air Force has paused its similar Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: [email protected].

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.