Government Accountability & Military Spending

The Navy Spent $3.4 Billion Keeping Submarines and Crews Waiting

Supporting the troops should mean more than approving another military budget. It should mean making sure the money produces readiness instead of years at the pier.

The United States Navy has 44 attack submarines. Military commanders want them because they can gather intelligence and strike targets while remaining difficult to detect. They are expensive, specialized and central to the country's defense strategy.

They are not useful sitting at a pier.

According to the Government Accountability Office, maintenance delays and idle time cost the Navy more than 15,000 operational days between fiscal years 2016 and 2025. The estimated cost was $3.4 billion. That money sustained submarines and crews that, during those periods, provided no operational capability.

That sentence deserves to sit there for a minute.

The Navy spent $3.4 billion maintaining the people and equipment attached to submarines it could not use.

This was not one bad repair or one unexpected mechanical failure. GAO examined ten years of maintenance data, Navy documents and interviews with officials. It found a system struggling with delayed depot maintenance, active submarines waiting for available maintenance periods and older submarines waiting to be decommissioned because shipyards lacked dry-dock capacity.

The difference matters. An active submarine can be stuck pier-side because it is no longer certified for normal operations and cannot enter maintenance. A submarine designated for retirement can remain there because the Navy cannot get it into a dry dock to defuel its nuclear reactor. In both situations, crews remain assigned and public money keeps flowing while the submarine provides no operational capability.

The future bill may be almost as ugly as the one already paid. GAO projects that 15 attack submarines could enter inactive idle time from fiscal years 2026 through 2030. Without a better plan, that could produce more than 14,000 additional idle days and cost over $3.1 billion.

This is where Washington's usual argument about defense spending falls apart. One side says the military needs more money. The other points to waste and demands cuts. But a dollar figure by itself tells us almost nothing about whether service members are protected, equipment is ready or taxpayers received what Congress bought.

Readiness is the receipt.

If the Navy needs more shipyard capacity, Congress and the public should be told what kind, where, how much it will cost and when it will become available. If alternative decommissioning methods could free dry docks and reduce idle time, the Navy should evaluate them before another billion dollars disappears into waiting. If workforce shortages, planning failures or unrealistic maintenance schedules are driving the backlog, those causes should be named and measured.

The people inside this story are easy to lose behind the hardware. A submarine crew cannot simply be sent home because the vessel is stuck. Sailors continue training, maintaining equipment and living with the uncertainty created by a schedule they do not control. Military families plan around deployments, transfers and assignments. Shipyard employees face workloads shaped by years of accumulated delay. Taxpayers pay once for the submarine, again for its maintenance and again for every year the system fails to move it through the line.

The strongest counterargument is that nuclear submarines are among the most complicated machines the government maintains. Safety cannot be rushed, shipyard capacity cannot be created overnight and maintaining crews preserves knowledge needed if a submarine returns to service.

All true. GAO did not recommend skipping nuclear-safety requirements or pretending the backlog has an instant solution. It recommended that the Navy fully evaluate alternatives and develop an inactivation plan. Complexity explains why maintenance is difficult. It does not excuse a failure to plan for a predictable wave of decommissioning or to test options that could save billions.

The Navy verbally agreed with both recommendations. That is a beginning, not an outcome.

Supporting the troops cannot mean placing every military expense beyond scrutiny. Accountability is part of support. It protects sailors from a system that wastes their time, protects readiness from preventable delay and protects the public from paying billions for capability it never receives.

America does not need another speech about how much it respects service members. It needs dates, costs, capacity and a plan.

Show us when the submarines will move. Show us how the backlog will shrink. Show us who is responsible if it does not.

Show us the receipt.

← Return to all editorials