Chairman Wicker Leads SASC Hearing on Department of the Navy Posture for Fiscal Year 2027

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Roger Wicker, R-Miss., Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today led a hearing to examine the posture of the Department of the Navy amid growing threats and efforts to strengthen the maritime industrial base.

Hung Cao, Acting Secretary of the Navy, Admiral Daryl L. Caudle, USN, Chief of Naval Operations, and General Eric M. Smith, Commandant of the Marine Corps, all testified before the committee.

In his opening remarks, Chairman Wicker emphasized the importance of rebuilding and modernizing the Navy and Marine Corps to meet growing global threats and sustain American deterrence. The Chairman highlighted the need to strengthen the shipbuilding industrial base, expand the fleet toward the statutory requirement of 355 ships, and invest in critical capabilities including amphibious warfare ships, destroyers, unmanned systems, and nuclear deterrence programs.

Read Chairman Wicker's hearing opening statement as delivered.

This morning, the committee meets to receive testimony on the posture of the Department of the Navy. I want to thank our witnesses, Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Daryl Caudle, and Commandant of the Marine Corps General Eric Smith, for being here and for their distinguished service and also for their testimonies early in a classified session.

I want to begin by applauding President Trump's fiscal year 2027 budget request. It proposes $65 billion dollars for shipbuilding, to buy 18 battle force ships and 16 support vessels. It builds directly on last year's substantial increase, including the funding from last year's reconciliation law, which jump-stared procurement for support ships and unmanned naval vessels.

Previous shipbuilding plans were not based on realistic assumptions about industrial-base growth and cost reductions. Those plans assumed a world at peace, not one that demands active deterrence. The can was kicked down the road instead of investing in American shipyards and workers. For over a decade, the statute has required a 355-ship fleet. This is the law, signed by the President of the United States. But no plan over last decade succeeded even though they promised to build a Navy with more than 300 ships. Today, we sit at just 291 ships in our fleet.

This budget changes that trajectory. Over the next five years, it plans more than $50 billion annually for battle force ships-a welcome change from the roughly $30 billion we saw in past requests. $50 billion versus $30 billion. Congress has had to add funding every year since 2013 to make up for inadequate shipbuilding requests. I am pleased we may finally enter a period where the budget is adequate and realistic. This is the kind of leadership our Navy and our industrial base need. So, thank you and congratulations.

However, I must note some concerns. Current requirements dictate that we need the continuous presence of three amphibious readiness groups. Each should be built around a simple formation: one large-deck amphibious warfare ship and two small-deck ones. This plan does all it can over the next five years, but still leaves the fleet stuck around 31 amphibious ships. This still leaves us approximately nine ships short of the three amphibious readiness groups requirement.

I am also troubled by the reduction to just one destroyer per year. The reduction is coming just as we will begin retiring large surface combatants. The reduction would come, if that stays the case, just as we begin retiring large surface combatants, which we will do at an average rate of more than three per year over the coming decade. That math doesn't add up. The risk to our fleet is simply too high.

Regarding unmanned systems. The Navy's commitment is equally inadequate. Congress invested $5 billion dollars in unmanned maritime systems in last year's defense reconciliation bill. In this shipbuilding plan, we see a desire to build unmanned surface vessels at scale. However, we see zero funding for small vessels and the procurement of only 10 to 12 medium vessels annually. Our small and medium shipyards need much higher demand than that.

I am also puzzled by the department's failure to request funding for the nuclear sea-launched cruise missile program-despite explicit statutory direction to do so in last year's NDDA bill passed by the House, passed by the Senate, signed by President Trump. As I told the Secretary of Energy publicly last week, this is simply a matter of complying with the law. The United States cannot afford to forgo credible, flexible response options while our adversaries' nuclear forces grow by the day.

Finally, we must address any move to outsource shipbuilding to foreign countries, whether modules or entire hulls. I do not believe the American people favor such an approach. We have yet to see concrete details or proposals for the NDAA, and time is running short.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on these issues. We must work together to grow the capacity of our Navy and our industrial base and to deliver the best naval forces for the United States in our increasingly contested world.