Listen to the article

0:00
0:00

House and Senate appropriators backed the White House’s shipbuilding goals with an additional $6.5 billion in funding for fiscal year 2026—including adjustments to fix accounting errors resulting from last year’s budget reconciliation. 

The compromise bill, released last week, allots a total $27.2 billion for shipbuilding, with increases across several efforts. 

That $27.2 billion topline covers 17 ships, including “one Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, two Virginia-class fast attack submarines, three Medium Landing Ships, and one T-AGOS [Surveillance Towed-Array Sensor System] ship for anti-submarine warfare,” House appropriators wrote in their bill summary.

There’s also $1.5 billion in maritime industrial base funding to boost supplier capacity, technology and infrastructure, outsourcing, and workforce training. 

But last year’s budget reconciliation bill—and the accounting quagmire it created—is what makes this minibus bill different from other spending bills. 

“The bill addresses more than $4.6 billion in dangerous budget shortfalls created [by] the president’s decision to request a portion of critical fiscal year 2026 defense capabilities through a partisan and highly uncertain legislative process, coupled with poor decisions made by congressional Republicans in drafting their reconciliation bill last summer,” Democrat Senate appropriators wrote in a bill summary. 

Appropriators referred to the discrepancies as “reconciliation funding incongruence.” Here’s a list of some shipbuilding programs that got increases in the bill:

  • $1.92 billion increase for Virginia-class submarines, to “support infrastructure and wage enhancements at the prime shipyards”—a $2.74 billion total
  • $23 million increase for outfitting
  • $100 million increase for auxiliary vessels (plus a $145 million program increase for a $290 million total—six times the amount requested) 
  • $462 million for completion of prior year shipbuilding programs

The bill also includes increases for destroyers and “$1.9 billion to fully fund the Navy’s ship operations, previously noted shipbuilding impacts totaling several billion dollars,” senators wrote in the bill summary. 

Other notable, but not reconciliation related, program increases:

  • $242 million to procure long lead-time material for the FF(X)-Frigate
  • $800 million for two Medium Landing ships (none were requested in the budget but others were funded by reconciliation)
  • $100 million for frigate workforce support
  • $320 million for two ship-to-shore connectors (an unfunded requirement and increase from a $238 million mandatory requirement)

There were also program funding reductions, particularly compared to the requests, due to “reconciliation funding incongruence”. 

Congress zeroed out a $54.5 million budget request for small and medium UUVs due to sizable funding in the reconciliation bill. But the program received $7 million for “deep seabed scanning and over-the-horizon sensors.”

Under other procurement for the Navy, appropriators reduced funding  for “spares and repair parts” from a $585.9 million budget request to $159.1 million due to “excess growth” and “reconciliation misalignments” but provided $2.1 million for a resistance welding pilot program. 

Also, the budget request for advanced undersea prototyping was more than halved for reasons including reconciliation discrepancies and XLUUV delivery delays, but received $60 million for “commercially available extra large unmanned underwater vehicle technology.” 



Read the full article here

Share.

20 Comments

  1. The Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine program receiving funding is a significant development, considering the strategic importance of this project for national defense.

  2. Amelia G. Thompson on

    The bill’s focus on maritime industrial base funding and workforce training is a step in the right direction, as it acknowledges the importance of a skilled workforce in supporting naval shipbuilding efforts.

  3. The $100 million increase for auxiliary vessels and the $145 million program increase for a $290 million total seems like a significant investment, but I’d like to know more about the specific goals and objectives of these programs.

  4. Amelia Martinez on

    The $462 million for completion of prior year shipbuilding programs is a necessary investment to ensure that existing projects are completed and resources are utilized efficiently.

  5. The $23 million increase for outfitting is a relatively small amount compared to other programs, but it’s still an important aspect of ensuring the Navy’s ships are properly equipped and maintained.

  6. The $27.2 billion allocated for shipbuilding in 2026 is a significant increase, but I’m concerned about the $4.6 billion in budget shortfalls created by last year’s reconciliation bill and how it will affect the overall project timeline.

    • Michael Miller on

      The accounting errors from last year’s budget reconciliation will likely cause delays, but the additional funding should help mitigate some of those issues.

  7. Mary T. Johnson on

    I’m skeptical about the $1.9 billion allocated to fully fund the Navy’s ship operations, given the ‘reconciliation funding incongruence’ and its potential impact on the overall budget.

    • The funding for ship operations is crucial for maintaining the Navy’s readiness and capabilities, but it’s understandable to have concerns about the budgeting process.

  8. I’m concerned about the potential impact of ‘reconciliation funding incongruence’ on the overall effectiveness of the Navy’s shipbuilding programs and the ability to meet strategic objectives.

  9. I’m interested in learning more about the ‘deep seabed scanning and over-the-horizon sensors’ that received $7 million in funding, and how this technology will be used in naval operations.

  10. The $800 million allocated for two Medium Landing ships, despite none being requested in the budget, highlights the complexities of the reconciliation process and its effects on defense spending.

  11. Oliver Martinez on

    The $320 million for two ship-to-shore connectors is a notable increase, especially considering it was an unfunded requirement, and I’m interested in learning more about how these connectors will enhance naval operations.

  12. The $2.74 billion total for Virginia-class submarines, including the $1.92 billion increase, demonstrates a clear commitment to upgrading the Navy’s submarine fleet and its capabilities.

  13. The $1.5 billion in maritime industrial base funding is a crucial investment in supplier capacity, technology, and workforce training, which will have long-term benefits for the industry as a whole.

  14. William L. Smith on

    The fact that Congress zeroed out the $54.5 million budget request for small and medium UUVs due to ‘reconciliation funding incongruence’ raises questions about the priorities of the current administration and its impact on naval capabilities.

  15. James R. Martinez on

    I’m curious about the $242 million procurement of long lead-time material for the FF(X)-Frigate and how it fits into the overall strategy for naval modernization.

    • The FF(X)-Frigate program is a key part of the Navy’s plans to upgrade its surface fleet, and this funding will help move the project forward.

  16. William W. Taylor on

    I’m surprised to see a $1.92 billion increase for Virginia-class submarines, especially with the focus on infrastructure and wage enhancements at prime shipyards, which could lead to improved working conditions and productivity.

  17. Patricia Taylor on

    The $100 million for frigate workforce support is a positive development, considering the need for skilled labor in the shipbuilding industry and the challenges of attracting and retaining talent.

Leave A Reply

© 2026 Gun Range Day. All Rights Reserved.