You have commented 375 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Surprise awaits us in the soon to be released National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
2026-07-02
Key bits:
[ArmedForcesPress] One day, and that day may never come, there will be an easy search mechanism for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Until then, the best a humble citizen from the provinces can do is take a low pass, bite a nibble at the most attractive bits, and then head off to digest what you got.

Speeches, orders, and policy statements from the Executive Branch are important, but if you really want to drive change or correct error, you have to do it through the legislative branch.

Yes, this is not finished and work must be done in the Senate, but let’s take a moment to see what the House has put on the table.

I first got a bit too ambitious when I started digging in, and then pulled myself back to focus on just one part of the NDAA. As we like to focus as much as possible on maritime matters, I decided to scope down to the House Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

We’re going to do a “Five and Ten” report.

From their print, there are five items that brought a raised eyebrow.


(1) A firm, “hold your horses” on the battleship:

Sec. 129—Limitation On Construction of Battleship Pending Certification On Technology Readiness Levels

This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to certify that the systems planned for inclusion on the BBG(X) program are at a sufficiently mature technology readiness level before award of a construction contract for the first of class vessel.

The long pole in this tent will be the railgun.

(2) FF(X) seems to be heading in an approved Salamander direction:

Sec. 130—Strategy for Iterative Development and Flight Modifications for FF(X) Class Frigates

(3) My punchline about “building Burke DDG until the crack of doom” seems to be policy now:

Sec. 122—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers

(4) That is because, DDG(X) is being written out of law:

Sec. 216—Modification to Test Program for Engineering Plant of Certain Vessels

(5) As Senator Sheehy (R-MT) said,

Tim Sheehy@TimSheehyMT

We need hulls in the water as soon as possible. I am less concerned where they are built vice when they are built. But if we want ships made in America in the next decade, we have to start today. China lays keels 230 times faster than we do. Time to catch up.
Posted by:NN2N1

00:00