Month: August 2025
US Navy photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Darryl I. Wood/Released
- The submarine USS Boise has faced maintenance and repair delays since its last patrol ended in early 2015.
- The wait has been caused by — and come to exemplify — the US Navy’s maintenance and repair problems.
- The new chief of naval operations said in his confirmation hearing that the Boise’s time in the yard is “unacceptable.”
Sidelined for over ten years now, the attack submarine USS Boise has become one of the clearest and most damning examples of the US Navy’s maintenance problems.
The Los Angeles-class sub came up during the confirmation hearing of Adm. Daryl Caudle, President Donald Trump’s pick for top admiral. The Senate recently confirmed him as the new chief of naval operations.
Last month, Caudle responded to fresh concerns about the Boise and questions of whether it might be time to scrap the boat. He told the US Senate Armed Services Committee that if he were confirmed, he’d look hard at the Boise’s situation.
“The decision whether or not to actually walk away from Boise is a big one, and I want to make sure I clearly understand the trajectory and trends,” Caudle said, responding to a question from Sen. Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican who had asked him if it was time to “just simply pull the plug on that one.”
“I hear you loud and clear, senator, on how unacceptable it is, how long she’s been in the yards,” the admiral said.
He added that the Boise’s delays were “a dagger in my heart as a submarine officer.” Caudle previously served as commander on three nuclear-powered submarines and was the commander of Submarine Forces Atlantic and Submarine Forces, US Pacific Fleet.
Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Jeffrey M. Richardson / US Navy / DVIDS
The Boise and the larger US Navy shipbuilding and maintenance issues were major topics of conversation in Caudle’s hearing. The Boise was originally launched in 1991 and conducted operations until early 2015, when it wrapped up its last patrol and docked at Naval Station Norfolk for scheduled repairs.
Limited dry dock availability and workforce capacity left the Boise and its crew waiting. In 2016, the vessel lost its ability to perform unrestricted operations, and then it lost its dive certification in the following year. Those developments were then followed by more waiting, leaving the valuable combat asset out of action.
In 2019, then-US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper visited the Boise and praised the crew for maintaining “readiness and lethality” as the vessel was still standing by for repairs.
In February 2024, the Navy awarded prominent shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) a $1.2 billion contract to begin an engineering overhaul on the Boise. The work is expected to be completed by 2029, meaning the ship will not have set sail on a patrol for roughly 15 years by the time it’s finished. That’s a staggering waste of an expensive, front-line asset. Even when the work is done, the ship will be nearing the end of its service life.
The Boise has thus emerged as an example of overstretched and under-resourced shipyards, insufficient planning, and the challenges of budget instabilities that affect Navy readiness. The sea service did not immediately respond to request for comment from Business Insider.
Work on US nuclear-powered submarines is typically handled by one of the Navy’s four public shipyards, which have seen dramatic demands in recent decades due to a lack of investment in maintenance from the Navy and the increased complexity of the subs and nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, Bryan Clark, a retired Navy submarine officer and defense expert at the Hudson Institute, told Business Insider.
US Department of Defense
A “combination of factors created a huge backlog at the shipyards,” Clark said.
The long tail of COVID-19 disruptions, particularly for supply chains and labor pools, added strain to Navy shipyards in the early 2020s. In more recent years, experts have pointed to persistent workforce shortages, uneven investment, and inconsistent Navy planning as critical causes of ongoing delays in major shipbuilding programs and maintenance backlogs.
The Navy’s long-standing struggles with routine maintenance stretch back decades, with challenges including persistent shipyard bottlenecks, limited dry dock availability, troubling scheduling missteps, workforce shortages, unreliable or inconsistent maintenance data, and unforeseen issues that tend to emerge during repairs and cause significant delays.
Supply chain problems and shortages of spare parts and critical materials have also added to the strain.
These issues, combined with broader weaknesses in the Navy’s shipbuilding enterprise, have raised concerns within the service and on Capitol Hill about the fleet’s size and overall readiness, particularly as the US emphasizes the need to deter or, if necessary, fight a potential conflict with a major power like China, which has far greater shipbuilding and repair capacity.
In recent years, Central Asia has undergone a remarkable transformation — from a region historically marked by political divisions and competing national interests, to one increasingly characterised by cooperation and dialogue. Today, Central Asian countries are exploring the idea of strategic autonomy and greater regional solidarity, not as an abstract ambition, but as a practical response to the shared challenges and opportunities they have.
A key institutional vehicle for this evolving cooperation is the Consultative Meeting of Central Asian Leaders. Unlike formal international summits, this forum allows for open and informal dialogue between heads of state. It is valued precisely because it enables leaders to discuss sensitive regional matters candidly, without the constraints of protocol. The momentum for regional cooperation is clearly growing, and this forum has become a symbol of Central Asia’s desire to take its future into its own hands.
Beyond this, the countries of Central Asia cooperate through platforms such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the Organisation of Turkic States, both of which offer multilateral mechanisms for addressing regional security, economic integration, and cultural exchange. Importantly, what was once a region of competing national agendas is now evolving into a space of shared strategic vision, including coordinated positions in international forums such as the United Nations.
Additionally, in recent years, the foreign policies of Central Asian countries have demonstrated more and more coordination and regional alignment, especially in their engagement with external partners. This shift is reflected in the emergence of multilateral dialogue formats between Central Asia and key global actors. Notably, the European Union–Central Asia Summit, most recently held in Samarkand in 2025, underlined a shared commitment to regional connectivity, sustainable development, and mutual security.
Similar formats have been institutionalised with other global players, such as the C5+1 format with the United States, focusing on green transition, economic reforms, and regional security. Germany has also advanced a Central Asia–Germany high-level dialogue, including the “Berlin Initiative,” aimed at promoting green energy, vocational training, and the rule of law. Meanwhile, Italy has launched its Central Asia + Italy format as part of its strategy to diversify partnerships in Eurasia and promote economic diplomacy.
These platforms reflect a common approach, where Central Asian countries are increasingly choosing to engage as a bloc, rather than solely through bilateral channels. This enhances their negotiating capacity, visibility, and strategic coherence on the global stage. While each country maintains its sovereignty and specific foreign policy priorities, there is a growing recognition that regional solidarity amplifies voices and leverage in an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape.
This shift aligns with the broader regional identity-building efforts under the Consultative Meetings of Central Asian Leaders, and reflects a pragmatic understanding that shared challenges — such as water management, climate adaptation, and migration — are better addressed collectively and in concert with international partners.
Common regional challenges also drive this growing convergence. Climate change, water scarcity, and labor migration are issues that transcend borders. One of the most pressing concerns is the region’s vulnerability due to the presence of millions of Central Asian migrant workers in Russia, which creates economic, political, and even social fragilities. Similarly, security threats stemming from terrorism, extremism, and instability in neighboring Afghanistan demand a coordinated regional response.
In this regard, Uzbekistan has taken a leading role in advocating for constructive engagement with Afghanistan. Rather than treating Afghanistan solely as a security threat, Uzbekistan emphasises its potential as a partner in regional development. Tashkent continues to promote infrastructure and connectivity projects that include Afghanistan and actively engages with global stakeholders to avoid repeating past mistakes that led to isolation and instability. These efforts are crucial for countering radicalisation and preventing the spread of extremism across the region.
Another major regional concern is demographic pressure, particularly in Uzbekistan, where over 60% of the population is under the age of 30. This youth bulge presents both opportunities and challenges. Uzbekistan aims to provide higher education access to 50% of young people by 2030, a bold and necessary goal. However, such educational expansion must be matched by meaningful employment opportunities. To this end, Uzbekistan has established a specialised migration agency to facilitate the organised deployment of skilled labour abroad, including in cooperation with the European Union. Agreements with countries like Germany are already in place, and more are expected to follow.
All these initiatives — whether in education, migration, energy, or security — are being pursued in parallel and in partnership with regional peers. The increasing alignment of foreign policy priorities, the absence of interstate tensions, and the habit of consultation signal that Central Asia is developing a new regional identity based on strategic autonomy, mutual respect, and proactive cooperation.
While the concept of a formal “political union” remains premature, the foundations for deeper regional integration are being laid. As long as this cooperative spirit persists, the Central Asian region will continue to gain agency and resilience amid a turbulent geopolitical landscape.
