Navy Cancels Overhaul of Boise Submarine Due to Rising Costs

Secretary of the Army John Phelan stated that the decision to discontinue the repair of the Boise submarine stems from financial and strategic considerations. The overhaul costs had skyrocketed to nearly $3 billion, leading the Navy to cancel a long-awaited refurbishment.

In a conversation with Fox News Digital, Phelan explained that the Los Angeles-class attack submarines have already cost around $800 million and will need an additional $1.9 billion for completion. However, they possess only about 20% of their operational lifespan left. Rather than sinking more funds into an aging fleet, the Navy intends to redirect its resources toward constructing new Virginia- and Columbia-class submarines, aiming to enhance overall ship production and improve its complex acquisition processes.

“At some point, you just cut your losses and move on,” Phelan remarked.

The Navy had initially awarded a contract of approximately $1.2 billion under the Biden administration to revamp the submarines in 2024. Yet, nearly ten years after initial plans were made, revised estimations revealed that the costs for the work had increased significantly.

“Boise has been undergoing construction since 2015, costing nearly $800 million, and is only 22% complete — the math simply doesn’t add up,” he added.

The decision comes at a time when the Navy feels increased pressure to expand its fleet amid growing competition from China, which boasts the largest navy by ship count globally. U.S. officials emphasize the pressing need to ramp up shipbuilding and submarine production to keep pace with rising global demands.

It’s worth noting that Boise’s issues predated the cancellation of the contract. The submarine was last deployed in 2015 and was supposed to undergo an overhaul the following year. Delays at the naval shipyard pushed back its scheduled maintenance significantly.

The expansion of the situation led to the loss of its full operational certification in 2016, and by 2017, it had lost diving capabilities, essentially sidelining it from combat missions. Despite being a key attack submarine, Boise remained docked for years as the Navy faced backlogs in repairs due to limited dry dock access, a shortage of labor, and competing maintenance priorities.

While the overhaul was initially slated to begin in 2016, the contract wasn’t awarded until 2024, by which time the submarine had been inactive for several years. Once work commenced, delays extended the timeline for repairs, projecting completion in 2029, meaning Boise could have been out of action for about 15 years.

Over the years, Boise has become emblematic of broader challenges the Navy faces in maintenance and shipyard efficiency. Lawmakers and defense analysts frequently cite it as a case study on delays, rising expenses, and diminished readiness.

Phelan indicated that one significant reason for this decision was to free up scarce labor and engineering expertise, which are currently tied up in the Boise overhaul. These resources would be more effectively allocated to speed up the construction of newer submarines.

He pointed out that the cost of repairing aging submarines nearly equals that of constructing new ones and argued that the overhaul process is no longer justifiable from an investment standpoint.

“Boise represents 65% of the cost of a new Virginia-class submarine, but only offers 20% of its remaining service life,” he explained, which translates to about three deployments.

Commissioned back in 1992, Boise was designed primarily for blue-water combat during the Cold War. In contrast, the newer Virginia-class submarines are quieter, more adaptable, and more appropriate for modern missions such as intelligence operations and coastal conflict scenarios.

During a hearing in June 2025, Sen. Mike Rounds questioned, “Is it time to pull the plug on that?” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Darryl Caudle described the circumstances as “unacceptable,” calling it “a dagger to the heart” for the submarine force.

The public criticism did not arise immediately following the announcement of the decision, but Phelan highlighted that the program’s shortcomings are the result of various issues over the last decade. These include technological hurdles, shifting priorities, and strain on the Navy’s industrial base.

“I can’t pinpoint a single cause for this situation,” he noted. “It’s a combination of engineering difficulties, the impact of COVID-19, and pressures on the industrial base.”

Phelan confirmed that the cancellation also reflects a broader strategy by Navy leadership to reevaluate underperforming programs and rethink their acquisition methodologies.

“We are reviewing all plans,” he concluded, emphasizing the Navy’s push for “radical transparency” and a departure from a culture that tends to accept delays and escalating costs. He added, “We need to be more disciplined and expedite our processes. The president wants fast results.”