WASHINGTON \u2014 In a new memo certain to make significant waves for the future of US Navy shipbuilding, President Donald Trump on Thursday called for the US to outsource the building of at least a few Navy ships to foreign shipyards.<\/p>\n
The new National Security Presidential Memorandum<\/a> urges the expansion of the so-called \u201cFinland model<\/a>\u201d currently employed to build the Coast Guard\u2019s Arctic Security Cutters where initial vessels are built in Finland by foreign yards and subsequent vessels are constructed domestically. The memo says that as long as foreign shipbuilders agree to some stringent conditions on-shoring future work to the US, they would be allowed to build up to two ships in three different ship classes at their parent docks, which would then be transferred to the US.<\/p>\n These ship classes include surface combatants with \u201csufficient inherent capabilities to perform anti\u2011submarine warfare, surface warfare, and convoy escort duties,\u201d as well as those that meet \u201cthe requirements for Consolidated Cargo Replenishment at Sea (CONSOL) Tankers and \u2014 separately \u2014 Roll-On, Roll-Off Vessels,\u201d according to the memo.<\/p>\n Prior to Thursday\u2019s directive, the Trump administration had already been pushing Congress to sign off on the Navy hiring foreign shipyards to build four vessels in the fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization Act<\/a>, and also had been requesting reconciliation funds go toward studying \u2014 and potentially procuring \u2014 an initial vessel from overseas. Congress has pushed back though, and each chamber has imposed their own restrictions in their respective versions of the NDAA.\u00a0<\/p>\n But should the White House overcome barriers on Capitol Hill seeking to curb employing foreign yards, the path towards integrating foreign-built ships into the US is hardly cut and dry. Designing, integrating and maintaining foreign ships as part of the US Navy\u2019s fleet would be effectively unprecedented \u2014 meaning the hurdles associated may be numerous, according to analysts who talked to Breaking Defense.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe main difficulties would be first off, we just never really have done that with \u2026 a combat-type ship,\u201d said Bradley Martin, a senior policy researcher at RAND and retired Navy captain. \u201cAnother is that the standards would be different, and the US would have to make a decision that some things just aren\u2019t as important.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Those hurdles, analysts said, can be put into two pots: technical and political. And it\u2019s not clear which would be easier to overcome.\u00a0<\/p>\n At stake may well be the force makeup of America\u2019s future navy.\u00a0<\/p>\n Technical Challenges: Learning To Speak The Same Language<\/p>\n The challenges on the technical side are myriad, in part because annual defense appropriations measures have historically barred constructing US Navy ships abroad.\u00a0<\/p>\n According to Martin, getting the design right for a foreign-built warship early on would prove paramount. Specifically, he said that the ship must be engineered from the get-go to accommodate the weapons systems if the US wants to avoid problems on the backend, in the event the ship were built overseas and then outfitted with weapons systems in the US.<\/p>\n \u201cThe US Navy has some survivability requirements and some requirements for redundancy and so forth that most foreign ships don\u2019t satisfy, so they have to be modified from the beginning,\u201d Martin said. \u201cAnother is that the types of combat systems and so forth that go into the ship \u2014 the ships are not engineered with those necessarily in mind. So putting two things together would be very difficult.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe best outcome would be: Buy a ship and build it from the keel up, with the ability to integrate these systems,\u201d Martin added. \u201cIf we don\u2019t do that, we try to do it with a back-fit \u2014 that\u2019s not going to work out real well, all kinds of delays.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Comms gear with allied navies has previously presented challenges \u2014 although there are options to mitigate such barriers and compatibility issues in combat systems would be more difficult to address, according to Bryan Clark, director of the Hudson Institute think tank\u2019s Center for Defense Concepts and Technology.\u00a0<\/p>\n While the US Navy already operates routinely with foreign ships in carrier strike group formations with NATO and Asian allies, these integrations typically aren\u2019t \u201cseamless\u201d because the foreign ships aren\u2019t outfitted with many of the communication networks on US ships, Clark said.\u00a0<\/p>\n Communication networks absent on NATO ships include Cooperative Engagement Capability that the US Navy utilizes to share missile defense targeting data. However, the US could outfit a foreign-built ship with \u201ccompatible\u201d networks and datalinks, Clark said.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe more significant challenges will be commonality in combat systems,\u201d Clark said. \u201cAlthough Spanish, Korean, and Japanese ships use Aegis, it is a different version and configuration than on US ships. And other combat systems, such as for undersea warfare, are completely different. The US would also need to integrate the parts and logistics needed for the foreign ship\u2019s hull, mechanical, and electrical systems into the US supply system.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n US Navy ships are also required to undergo extensive post-delivery testing and certification to gauge things like how the ship would weather in a combat environment \u2014\u00a0 and a new playbook would have to be sorted out for any new, foreign vessel entering the fleet.\u00a0<\/p>\n For example, Clark said the bulk of the certification process for US ships stems from US technical standards for design and construction.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cSince they would be built to different technical standards, the Navy will need to determine which standards to keep and which to revise,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Clark noted that this process hampered the Constellation-class frigate program<\/a>, which was based on a design from Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri. <\/p>\n Wisconsin-based Fincantieri Marinette Marine secured an initial contract for the frigate in 2020. However, the Navy announced in December 2025 it would cut the program and only accept the two frigates already being built amid a series of cost overruns, delays and design changes.\u00a0<\/p>\n Eric Labs, a senior analyst for naval forces and weapons at the Congressional Budget Office, said that although he expects foreign ships to meet the same standards as US ships, including trials designed to test a ship\u2019s shock hardness, ultimately the Navy, the administration and Congress would determine the degree of testing needed.<\/p>\n \u201cWe could certainly choose not to do that and accept whatever risks would be associated with the specifics of the case,\u201d Labs said.\u00a0<\/p>\n Additionally, Labs said that maintaining foreign ships would prove expensive if the US only chose to purchase two or three of them, and ended up with essentially an \u201corphan class,\u201d like the three Zumwalt-class<\/a> guided missile destroyers.\u00a0<\/p>\n But, Labs said, if the Navy purchased between 10 to 20 foreign ships, maintenance and training pipelines would function similarly to any other new class of ship introduced to the fleet. (Labs spoke to Breaking Defense prior to the release of the memo, which directs all ships after the first two to be built in the US.)<\/p>\n \u201cIt will need training equipment that is unique to the class and it will have a maintenance and spare parts program that will be unique to the class,\u201d he said. \u201cIt would likely be a bit harder because there is less potential for overlap with existing US ship programs if the ship is sourced entirely to foreign suppliers but it is possible US suppliers could be brought, to some degree, into the process.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Even so, Labs said the Navy should invest \u201cheavily in an upfront supply of spare parts that would be critical or merely important to maintain the class.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Separately, Labs said that a foreign vessel could be designed intentionally in a way that\u2019s easier to maintain.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe Navy does not always invest as heavily in designing for maintainability as perhaps it should,\u201d Labs said. \u201cSome foreign ship designs and shipyards are better at that, so it would depend on who and what ship.\u201d<\/p>\n However, Clark said foreign ships would likely encounter difficulties on the maintenance front once operating at the rate US Navy ships do.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe challenge will likely be wear and tear given the US Navy\u2019s operating tempo,\u201d Clark said. \u201cForeign ships are often built to commercial vessel technical standards because they only operate a small percentage of the time.\u201d<\/p>\n In contrast, the Navy currently employs a 36-month Optimized Fleet Response Plan (OFRP) to accommodate maintenance, training and typically a seven-month-long deployment. Under this three-year cycle, ships could be at sea half the time, Clark said.\u00a0<\/p>\n Political Challenges: White House, Congress Clash Heats Up<\/p>\n Despite the Trump administration\u2019s hardline efforts, there are lawmakers on both sides of the aisle staunchly opposed to hiring foreign shipbuilders to construct ships for the Navy \u2014\u00a0 even though some have acknowledged that the Navy needs more ships, faster.\u00a0<\/p>\n For example, the House\u2019s version of the FY27 NDAA that passed in July includes a provision barring the construction of both warships and those that make up the combat logistics fleet in a foreign shipyard.\u00a0<\/p>\n In response, the White House\u2019s Office of Management and Budget<\/a> (OMB) issued a statement blasting the move, claiming that the prohibition is \u201cinconsistent\u201d with the administration\u2019s legislative proposal for lawmakers to include in the NDAA to permit the Navy to contract construction of two surface combatant vessels and two non-combat auxiliary vessels overseas \u201cfor the purpose of driving significant and direct foreign investment into our domestic shipyards.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThis bill\u2019s prohibition and lack of authorization of this requested authority is a direct decrement to the safety and security of the American people and our national economy for which this Administration is directly responsible, and impedes the Administration\u2019s efforts to expand domestic shipbuilding competition and capacity,\u201d OMB said in a statement in July. \u201cIn addition, it limits the flexibility of the United States in leveraging foreign shipyards that have specific advancements, strengths, and technology that serve a specific Department of War need.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The Senate Armed Services Committee\u2019s version of the NDAA that passed in June also restricts building warships abroad. However, the measure does approve the procurement of up to two auxiliary ships from foreign shipyards \u2014 provided they invest in the US maritime industrial base for production of additional vessels. (Senate Democrats have halted the legislation<\/a> from advancing to the floor, citing reservations with defense spending and the ongoing conflict with Iran.)\u00a0<\/p>\n