In-depth Analysis of the U.S. Military Annual Report: Eight Consecutive Audit Failures, Dilemmas, and the Illusory Fanfare of "Trump-Class" Battleships.

I. Overview of Core Events

On the early morning of December 20, the U.S. Department of Defense (the Pentagon) released its annual financial audit report, with the core result showing that the Department of Defense's annual financial audit failed for the eighth time. Two days later, on December 22, former President Trump announced at Mar-a-Lago that the United States would launch the construction plan for the Trump-class super battleship. The two events, occurring in close succession, not only expose significant flaws in the current financial system of the U.S. military but also reflect the challenges and controversies in its military development planning.

II. The Ministry of Defense's Financial Audits: "Eight Consecutive Failures" – Underlying Issues and Official Statements

(A) Audit Background and Historical Issues

According to the 1990 Chief Financial Officers Act, U.S. federal agencies must undergo independent financial audits annually. As a massive organization with millions of personnel and control over more than 700 bases worldwide, the audit work of the Department of Defense is inherently highly complex, and historical scandals have further exacerbated its audit system. During the audit process, globally notorious incidents such as the Iraq reconstruction funds case, the Benghazi embassy attack, and the "Fat Leonard" corruption scandal have been exposed, highlighting the long-term absence of financial oversight.

(2) The Severe Current Situation of Annual Audits

The 2025 audit results further reveal the financial crisis of the Department of Defense: First, the insolvency situation has intensified, with total assets increasing from 4.1 trillion dollars to 4.65 trillion dollars, but liabilities simultaneously surged from 4.3 trillion dollars to 4.7 trillion dollars, widening the imbalance between assets and liabilities; second, significant deficiencies have erupted, as the audit report clearly identifies 26 major deficiencies and two significant weaknesses, while also confirming multiple serious violations of legal contracts; third, a unique record of failure to pass audits, the Department of Defense has become the only major U.S. government agency in 35 years to have never passed an audit, with financial transparency far below that of other federal agencies.

(3) The "Optimism" and Concerns in Official Statements

Regarding this audit failure, Auditor General Hexes claimed that the 2025 audit had made significant progress and set a goal to achieve a clean audit by 2028. It is worth noting that 2028 coincides with the potential transition of the U.S. presidential term. If Trump has already left office by then, whether this goal can proceed smoothly or if it is merely a phased, slogan-style commitment has raised widespread doubts.

III. One of the Audit Black Holes: The Comprehensive Dilemma of the Project

(1) Core Audit Vulnerability: Global Spare Parts Inventory Not Included in Financial Records

The F-35 program is one of the key black holes exposed in this audit. The audit found that the Department of Defense did not include the global spare parts inventory containing F-35 components and equipment in its financial records, resulting in this core asset being unable to be accurately audited and valued. This has become a blind spot in financial oversight, further exacerbating the complexity and inaccuracy of the overall audit.

(II) Upgrade Plan: Severe Delays and Cost Overruns

The Block 4 upgrade for the F-35 was intended to be a crucial step toward achieving full operational capability, originally scheduled for completion in 2025, with a focus on enhancing core metrics such as electronic warfare, avionics, and stealth capabilities. However, reality has significantly diverged from the plan: according to the Pentagon's first law (projects are typically delayed by one year), this upgrade is now expected to be postponed until at least 2027. In terms of cost, it has significantly exceeded the budget, surpassing the original estimate of 10.6 billion dollars by over 6 billion dollars. In response, Lieutenant General Mike Schmidt, the F-35 program manager, had to acknowledge that the upgrade plan was overly ambitious, and some of the improvements are not worth the massive investment. The plan will be reconsidered and may even be completely restarted.

(3) Four Core Reasons for Delays and Chaos

The predicament of the F-35 program is not accidental but rather the result of multiple overlapping issues: First, severe supply chain shortages—in early 2025, Lockheed Martin reported over 4,000 missing parts on the final assembly line, a number reaching twice the historical peak, directly constraining production progress. Second, engine delivery delays—Pratt & Whitney has received multiple corrective action directives, yet the 123 engines delivered in 2025 still faced widespread delays, leading to unstable supply of core power components. Third, persistent issues with the Technology Refresh 3 (TR-3) upgrade—completing the Block 4 upgrade requires first completing TR-3, but TR-3 suffers from critical problems such as immature hardware design and comprehensive software testing failures, resulting in over 100 F-35 aircraft being backlogged at Lockheed Martin facilities, posing a risk of storage overflow. Finally, management chaos and incentive failure—in 2024, aircraft delivered by Lockheed Martin averaged a delay of 238 days (compared to 61 days in 2023). To push deliveries, the project team shifted performance metrics to other areas, allowing Lockheed Martin to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses despite severe delays, further weakening the constraint mechanisms.

(IV) Derivative Issues: Exorbitantly Priced Components and the Military Recruitment Dilemma

The chaos of the F-35 project has also spread to its supporting supply chain. The Secretary of the Army publicly criticized Lockheed Martin for deceiving the military. For example, a screen control knob for the Black Hawk helicopter costs only 15 dollars to manufacture individually, but when quoted as part of a complete component, the price skyrockets to 47,000 dollars. Behind this exorbitant profit lies a lack of oversight in military procurement. At the same time, the U.S. military is also facing a severe recruitment crisis. Over the past three years, it has spent over 60 billion dollars on recruiting and retaining personnel, but with little effect. Defense Secretary Hexes attributed the issue to young people being either too overweight or too unintelligent. This statement not only failed to address the problem but instead highlighted the military's cognitive bias toward the social recruitment environment.

IV. The Second Audit Black Hole: Chaos in the Shipbuilding Program and the Farce of the "Legend-class" Frigate

The disconnect between grand plans and audit realities.

In January 2025, Trump announced that over the next 30 years, more than $1 trillion would be invested in shipbuilding and updating shipyard infrastructure, outlining a grand blueprint for naval development. However, the 2025 audit report revealed that a large number of naval assets could not be accurately accounted for. Behind the grand plan lay a severe lack of financial oversight, and the whereabouts and effectiveness of the massive investments were difficult to track. In January 2025, Trump announced that over the next 30 years, more than $1 trillion would be invested in shipbuilding and updating shipyard infrastructure, outlining a grand blueprint for naval development. However, the 2025 audit report revealed that a large number of naval assets could not be accurately accounted for. Behind the grand plan lay a severe lack of financial oversight, and the whereabouts and effectiveness of the massive investments were difficult to track.

(2) From the Cancellation of the "Constellation Class" to the Takeover by the "Legend Class": A Shoddy, Unfinished Project with Superficial Changes

In the adjustment of the shipbuilding program, the cancellation of the Constellation-class frigates has been viewed by some public opinion as good news—at least avoiding further waste of funds on a failed project. However, the subsequent new frigate project has sparked considerable controversy: On December 19, Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro announced that the Coast Guard's Legend-class cutter would serve as the design basis for the Navy's new frigate. He emphasized that he would personally oversee the project, dedicating every Friday to handling project matters, with any changes requiring his approval, and driving delivery in a wartime state to showcase American industrial strength. Yet, the essence of this project is taking over an unfinished Legend-class cutter (the 11th vessel), which began construction in 2021 and was halted in November 2024 with only 15% of the build completed.

(3) Analysis of "Legend-Class" Performance: The Vast Gap Between Coast Guard Vessels and Main Frigates

Objectively speaking, the Legend-class performs quite well as a coast guard vessel, with a full-load displacement of 4,600 tons, a speed of 28 knots, and a range of 12,000 nautical miles. Ten ships have been built since 2008, demonstrating a high level of technological maturity and extensive operational experience. However, converting it into a main naval frigate reveals several significant shortcomings: Firstly, its firepower configuration is limited, with main armament consisting only of a 57mm naval gun, a Phalanx Close-In Weapon System, and machine gun mounts, making it difficult to fully meet the diverse demands of modern naval warfare; secondly, it lacks critical combat functions, as the vessel has no built-in vertical launching system, lacks area air defense capability, and its core anti-submarine functions require subsequent planning and installation, making it challenging to achieve full operational capability in the short term; thirdly, there is uncertainty in the modification approach. The U.S. military plans to add a platform above the open deck to carry containerized modular components (such as the Army's MK70 vertical launching system). This concept is similar to the modular design path previously taken by the Constellation-class, and the latter's precedent of failure has also cast doubt on the feasibility of this conversion. Analysis points out that between continuing with a problematic project and switching to an alternative, the U.S. military has chosen the latter, but whether the new solution (Legend-class conversion) can effectively address the existing challenges remains to be seen.

V. "Trump-class" Battleship: A Modern Version of "The Emperor's New Clothes"?

The high-profile launch ceremony and the proclaimed "superior performance"

On December 22, Trump, along with Defense Secretary Hexes, Secretary of State Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy Fran, held a launch event for the Golden Fleet Battleship at Mar-a-Lago, unveiling the Trump-class super battleship plan with great fanfare. According to the presentation slides, this class of battleship claims to possess ultimate performance: a displacement exceeding 35,000 tons, a speed of 30 knots, and a highly aggressive weapons system configuration—including one 32-megajoule electromagnetic railgun, two 406mm (16-inch) replica main guns, multiple laser cannons, a 128-cell MK41 Vertical Launching System, and a 12-cell Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) vertical launch system (capable of launching nuclear missiles and hypersonic missiles). The plan calls for the initial construction of 20 to 25 ships.

(2) Fatal Flaws in Design: Unrealistic "Technological Promises"

The seemingly powerful Trump-class battleship has faced numerous controversies in its design, with critics questioning its detachment from realistic technological foundations: Firstly, the radar system lacks adaptability. As a main battleship planned to serve for decades into the future, its core radar still relies on the Burke-class SPG-62 and the Zumwalt-class SPY-3, making it difficult to fully align with the informational and intelligent trends of modern naval warfare. Secondly, key technologies remain immature. Core equipment such as hypersonic missiles, laser weapons, and electromagnetic guns planned for deployment have not yet completed development and finalization, raising doubts about technical feasibility and mass production stability. Thirdly, the design logic lacks systematic coherence. The design drawings blend elements of the Zumwalt-class arsenal ship and ironclad warships, resulting in a disjointed style and significant challenges for subsequent integration. Fourthly, fundamental design oversights exist. The PPT clearly labels the ship as having a combined diesel and gas turbine propulsion, yet no chimney structure is designed, revealing haste and lack of rigor in the design process.

(3) Strong Personal Characteristics and Controversy Over Project Nature

The Trump-class battleship carries a strong personal imprint, sparking debates over the professionalism of military planning: Trump explicitly claimed he would personally participate in the design, citing his strong sense of aesthetics; zooming in on the PPT clearly reveals Trump's portrait and signature; the lead ship was named "The Fives," a naming approach that bears a strong personal mark. Overall, throughout the design and advancement of the entire project, the influence of personal will is quite prominent, leading to widespread controversy from the outset. It is widely believed that for the project to materialize, it must overcome multiple challenges such as technical feasibility, budget constraints, and industrial capacity, making substantial progress unlikely in the short term.

VI. Conclusion: The Systemic Failure of the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex

In 2025, the U.S. military budget exceeds 900 billion dollars, yet such enormous investment has not led to a corresponding enhancement in military capabilities. Instead, it has exposed comprehensive challenges: the Air Force has been forced to cut its early warning aircraft program, the Navy faces the awkward situation of having no qualified frigates available after canceling the Constellation-class frigate, and the Army has reduced its size by eliminating 10 brigade-level units. The F-35 upgrade plan is severely delayed, the construction of the USS Kennedy aircraft carrier remains far from completion, and hypersonic missile development continues to be stuck at the conceptual stage.

The development model of the U.S. military-industrial complex is facing phased transformation challenges: although early projects like the Comanche helicopter failed, they accumulated valuable technical experience through physical research and development. After the 2010s, it gradually fell into a **cycle of announcing plans first—design deviations—repeated modifications—cost overruns—project stagnation**, making it difficult for some projects to materialize. Currently, in the advancement of certain major military plans, the balance between political factors, technical feasibility, and industrial foundation has become increasingly prominent. How to balance strategic needs with practical capabilities has become a core challenge for the U.S. military to address.

Looking back to 1997, when the F-22 made its first flight, the United States held a relatively significant technological advantage in the field of advanced fighter aircraft, demonstrating strong military-industrial research and development capabilities. Today, however, the U.S. military is facing issues such as delays and cost overruns in multiple key defense projects, creating a stark contrast with its massive military spending. This current situation reflects the systematic challenges the U.S. military faces in operating a large-scale military system, including challenges at multiple levels such as audit oversight, supply chain management, and coordination of technological research and development. How to solve these problems will directly impact the effectiveness of its future military capability development. Looking back to 1997, when the F-22 made its first flight, the United States held a relatively significant technological advantage in the field of advanced fighter aircraft, demonstrating strong military-industrial research and development capabilities. Today, however, the U.S. military is facing issues such as delays and cost overruns in multiple key defense projects, creating a stark contrast with its massive military spending. This current situation reflects the systematic challenges the U.S. military faces in operating a large-scale military system, including challenges at multiple levels such as audit oversight, supply chain management, and coordination of technological research and development. How to solve these problems will directly impact the effectiveness of its future military capability development.