FY 2019 Budgets VARIOUS Info USofA

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 20534
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 Feb 2018, 21:13

The process baffles me so I'm not pretending to understand & yet the wishful thinking will probably be cut short by CRs.
Ship and Aircraft Procurement See Bumps in FY2019 in $194.1B DoN Budget
12 Feb 2018 Sam LaGrone

"...The combat aircraft include nine carrier-variant Lockheed Martin F-35C Lighting [CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT & I'M CURRENTLY LISTENING TO 'BLINDED BY THE LIGHT'!] II Joint Strike Fighters, 20 Marine Corps-variant F-35Bs, 24 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters...

...According to out-year projections within the budget request, the Navy won’t buy its first four MQ-25A Stingray unmanned aerial vehicles until FY 2023...."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2018/02/12/ship-a ... don-budget

Pentagon unveils $686 billion military budget for FY19
12 Feb 2018 Joe Gould and Tara Copp

"...Aircraft

• 77 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters: $10.7 billion

• 24 F/A-18s: $2 billion..."

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-ne ... -for-2019/

DoD R&D Soars 24%, Procurement Up 15%; Army Up Most
12 Feb 2018 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

"...Broken out by services, the Army (14.9 percent) and Air Force (14.1 percent) got the largest increases, while the Navy Department — which includes the Marine Corps — lags slightly (at a still respectable 12.1 percent)....

...◾ As for aircraft, the number of tri-service F-35 Joint Strike Fighters bought goes from 70 in the 2018 request to 77, a 10 percent increase in numbers — but since the price keeps coming down, the funding allocated remains the same at $10.7 billion. That’s also. decline from what the Obama administration had proposed for this year — 80 F-35s. There’s a bigger relative increase in the Navy’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter, from 14 planes for $1.3 billion last year to 24 planes for $2 billion this year...."

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2018/02/dod-r-army-up-most/

US Navy wants more sailors, jets and an extra ship in 2019
12 Feb 2018 David B. Larter

"...For aircraft, the Navy is asking for $19 billion, a figure which includes 24 F/A-18 Super Hornets in 2019 and has another 86 planned for the FYDP.

The Navy is planning to buy nine F-35Cs and the Marine Corps plans to pick up another 20 of the vertical-launch F-35Bs [WUT!? STOVL PuhLeez] in 2019. The Navy’s buying strategy for the F-35C picks up in 2020 with 16 slated for purchase and then 24 every year from 2021 through 2023 for a total of 97 in the FYDP. [geez some reporters are fwits]

Procurement of the MQ-25 Stingray, an aerial unmanned tanker currently in development, is slated to begin in 2023, the last year of the FYDP...."

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/smr/federal ... p-in-2019/

US Air Force requests $156.3 billion in FY19, plans to retire B-1, B-2 fleets
12 Feb 2018 Aaron Mehta

"...In FY19, the Air Force is requesting 48 F-35A fighter jets...

...Overall, the budget request calls for buying 258 F-35A fighters through the next five years..."

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/smr/federal ... -2-fleets/
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

talkitron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 327
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post12 Feb 2018, 21:43

The total figure of $686 billion in Trump's 2019 budget appears lower than the 2019 cap of $716 billion in the two-year budget agreement Trump signed into law last Thursday. Trump's 2019 budget also contains $15.1 billion for the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration, which designs and maintains nuclear warheads. Even if the $716 billion cap in the agreement signed into law contains the budget for the NNSA, there is still around $15 billion for Congress to add in extras without taking away the baseline requests from the Trump administration.

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/federal ... re-review/
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1090
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post12 Feb 2018, 23:12

For non-'merican furinners, Trying to understand the US budget process.

They just broke the BCA logjam. So the good news, is that the budgets passed will get funded, and equipment expected will be bought, for a change. (2018 and 19). Troops will get badly needed spares, and resources for training.

The bad news? My great grandson will have to sell his Tonka Truck, Hot wheels, and then eat straw when he's my age to pay for everything flooding through the break in the logjam.

BP
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2068
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post13 Feb 2018, 06:06

Salute!

Not so sure bout future debts and bills that our grandkids have to pay, Blind. Seems we have been pulling off that scam since you and I were born. Think SS and , later, Medicare. No lock box and $$$ go into the general fund. The social "helping hand" programs comprise the majority or the U.S. budget.

I question the low USN acquisition numbers, as they seem low and the jet seems ready to go into mass production. USN must want $$$ or something else while the Super Bug is still around.

The production numbers still amuse me, but I guess they are low due to the three versions. By the winter of 1979 GD was cranking out so many Vipers that it was hurting our IP availability. Gotta check, but I think they were cranking out 3 or 4 jets every week, and we and the MacDIll folks had to go get them.

Gums sends...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

bigjku

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 678
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2012, 21:00

Unread post13 Feb 2018, 14:16

I wish they would cut back funding for the army and the operational budgets generally. Bring the troops home and properly equip and train them but stop the constant forward presence crap.
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1090
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post13 Feb 2018, 17:25

bigjku wrote:I wish they would cut back funding for the army and the operational budgets generally. Bring the troops home and properly equip and train them but stop the constant forward presence crap.


And I wish they would stop buying cell phones and cigarettes for any old person who can't find the "job they want," and via well equipped and trained forward presence, keep terrorists from blowing up buildings, and my grandsons out of wars.

BUT ... that's the problem and the reason we'll just do both till we run out of other people's money. :D :D

MHO,
BP
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 20534
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Feb 2018, 21:07

F-35A Production Back Up to 48 Per Year, 110 Still Elusive
12 Feb 2018 John A. Tirpak​

"The Air Force plans to buy 48 F-35A fighters in its Fiscal 2019 budget request, a very modest increase from the Fiscal 2018 request of 46 and back to the level requested in Fiscal 2017, with no sign yet that the service will soon be boosting its buy to levels of more than 100, forecasted eight years ago for the near future.

Funding for F-35A procurement was pegged at $5.23 billion for Fiscal 2019, actually down slightly from the Fiscal 2018 request of $5.714 billion, but the Air Force is also asking for F-35 “capability development” funding of $550 million in 2019, up from $335 million in 2018.

Air Force Undersecretary Matt Donovan, speaking to Air Force Magazine after an AFA Mitchell Institute event on Monday, said the service is grappling with how to “balance” the need to stock up with new aircraft versus the fact that those built so far have to be modified to reach a common configuration.

“That’s what we’re working through,” Donovan said. “Because the faster we buy them right now means the more we’re going to have to retrofit later up to a certain capability.”

He also said USAF is considering a two-tiered F-35 force approach: one that makes sure “the frontline combat units have the very latest” capability while training units have a lesser but “still pretty good” capability that provides adequate preparation for frontline pilots. The Air Force takes such an approach with the F-22 fleet: training aircraft are not configured with the latest capabilities carried by frontline aircraft.

Asked if he ever sees the Air Force F-35 buy reaching 110 a year, Donovan said it will all depend on success in knocking down sustainment costs. Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan and Pentagon acquisition chief Ellen Lord “are working really hard—I mean, that’s a big focus for them—to drive down the cost of sustainment,” Donovan said. Whether they succeed will determine whether the Air Force buys out the full order of 1,763 aircraft or halts the buy and moves on to something else.

“It’s really dependent on the cost of sustainment,” he said. “That really drives the cost of the entire system, as far as the total numbers we would build.”"

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... usive.aspx
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 20534
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Feb 2018, 21:20

Pentagon Budget 2019: US Navy requests 29 F-35s
13 Feb 2018 Pat Host

"Key Points
XXXXXX• The US Navy is requesting 29 total F-35s for both itself and the Marine Corps
XXXXXX• The F-35 is the Pentagon’s largest programme by spending

The US Navy (USN) is requesting 29 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) in fiscal year 2019 (FY 2019) – 20 of the Marine Corps’ B-model short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) variant and nine of the navy’s F-35C aircraft carrier model.

The Pentagon on 12 February released its FY 2019 budget request. The US military is operating under FY 2017 spending levels as Congress has not enacted full year FY 2018 spending and, instead, has passed a series of continuing resolutions (CRs) that keep the government operating at FY 2017 budget levels....

...The USN is requesting 24 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters in FY 2019, 10 more than the service requested in FY 2019. The navy said in its budget overview book that its strike fighter inventory management (SFIM) strategy remains challenged with Super Hornet aircraft that reach the end of their service lives before sufficient F-35 aircraft can be delivered into service...."

Source: http://www.janes.com/article/77856/pent ... s-29-f-35s
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 20534
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 May 2018, 21:59

USofA the land of 'BUDGETS are US' - they are never-ending schmozzle of this and that and tit for tat & hows ya fadda.
HASC’s 2019 Bill Boosts Navy Spending, With Focus on Readiness and Pacific Operations
07 May 2018 Megan Eckstein

"The House Armed Services Committee’s Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act [ https://armedservices.house.gov/sites/r ... 0Final.pdf (3.3Mb) ] today focuses on building readiness – especially in aviation – and on optimizing for operations in the Indo-Pacific region....

...The bill takes away $310 million in Navy aircraft procurement – some due to program cost growth; some due to expected efficiencies that will come from the multiyear contracts the bill authorizes; and some due to the FY 2018 spending bill, which was finalized after the Pentagon made its 2019 request, covering a $206-million bill for the C-40A medium airlift program.

And the bill boosts Navy operations and maintenance by $143.3 million overall, though a significant amount of money is moved from the O&M budget into a separate National Defense Sealift Fund....

...Aviation readiness is a key focus of the bill, according to statements by both the committee Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans’ summary [ https://armedservices.house.gov/sites/r ... 20NDAA.pdf (0.3Mb) ] notes that $39.4 billion is dedicated to “overcome the crisis in military aviation by getting more aircraft in the air,” with the services’ flight hour funding increased by $24.2 million and other training operations funding increased by $83 million compared to the services’ request.

“In 2017, nearly four times as many members of the military died in training accidents as were killed in combat. In all, 21 Servicemembers died in combat while 80 died as a result of noncombat training-related accidents,” according to the summary. “This spring alone, 25 were killed in military aviation mishaps. This tragic statistic is the latest in a chain of evidence that has led Chairman Thornberry and many members of the Armed Services Committee to believe that America’s Military is ‘at a crisis point.’”

Navy and Marine Corps leaders have pushed back against the notion that there’s a crisis, but they do acknowledge the need for more funding for spare parts, depot maintenance and other enablers to keep their aircraft ready for pilots to train in them. However, HASC Ranking Member Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) felt so strongly about the topic that he announced today an amendment he would submit during the markup that would establish an independent National Commission on Military Aviation Safety.

“The commission would review military aviation mishaps between FY 2013 and 2018 compared to historic averages; assess the causes contributing to mishaps; and make recommendations on safety, training, maintenance, personnel, or other policies related to military aviation safety,” according to a committee news release....

...For the Navy specifically, $37.4 million was added to the aircraft depot maintenance account beyond the Navy’s request for “readiness restoration,” along with $6.4 million added for aviation logistics and $40 million added for F-35B Joint Strike Fighter spare parts for the Marine Corps….

...the bill also adds an additional $20 million for development of hypersonic weapons, an additional $40 million for electromagnetic railgun development, $100 million for directed energy prototyping and $30 million for undersea and unmanned aerial warfare research, “which represents an additional investment in maritime robotics, autonomous systems, and energy storage technology,” according to the Democrats’ bill summary. The Republican summary also highlights artificial intelligence, machine learning and quantum computing as technology areas of interest."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2018/05/07/hascs- ... operations
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 20534
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 May 2018, 07:01

Only the Bits About the F-35C have been excerpted below - there are more bits about 'other stuff in the USN' but not here.
2019 NDAA Amendments Question Carrier Long-Range Strike, Future of ASW Helos
10 May 2018 Megan Eckstein

"...In another amendment, the committee would allow the Pentagon to “procure a quantity of F-35 aircraft in excess of the quantity authorized by this Act if such additional procurement does not require additional funds to be authorized to be appropriated because of production efficiencies or other cost reductions.” This “buy-to-budget” strategy basically allows the Pentagon to buy as many planes as it can afford for the dollar amount allotted, encouraging the Defense Department and builder Lockheed Martin to find any additional efficiencies they can to bring down per-unit costs.

Also on carrier aviation, an amendment requests a briefing on the carrier air wing’s ability to conduct stealthy long-range strike and whether the Navy can enhance to F-35C to conduct this mission or whether a purpose-built platform like the canceled A-12 would be needed. [What about the slow to market MQ-25 Stungruy?]

“The committee notes that the aircraft carrier air wing has been optimized for striking power and sortie generation and believes that it may not be configured to support the long-range strike required by current and future threat systems. While the introduction of the F-35C will significantly expand stealth capabilities, the F-35C could require increased range to address necessary targets. The committee believes that several options could be used to address this issue to include developing a stealth tanker capability, improved engine technology or to develop and procure a strike capability that is purposely built to strike at increased range. The committee further notes that the Navy previously desired to significantly increase the carrier air wing range with the development of the A-12 aircraft. The committee understands that the A-12 would have included a 5,000-pound internal carriage payload, stealth, and a range of 800 nautical miles. While the committee believes that requirements to support this capability remain relevant and the technology available, the development of the A-12 aircraft was mired in acquisition challenges that eventually resulted in the cancellation of the program. While the committee further believes that the Department of Defense has successfully developed a suite of long-range intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, the committee also believes that it is vital that the Navy develop a carrier-based long-range strike capability. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by January 25, 2019, on options to expand the strike range of a carrier air wing in a contested environment, including manned and unmanned capabilities, and, Department of the Navy capabilities it plans to pursue in the Next Generation Air Dominance capability,” according to the amendment...."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2018/05/10/2019-n ... -asw-helos
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 20534
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 May 2018, 17:23

What’s in the House NDAA?....
10 May 2018 Marcus Weisgerber

"Unlike their counterparts in the Senate, which usually reviews the annual National Defense Authorization Act behind closed doors, the House Armed Services Committee conducts its review in the open....

...The committee also funded all 77 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (LMT) in the Pentagon’s spending request. But there is an amendment that allows the Defense Department to buy an unspecified number of additional F-35s if it can find savings.

Then also money for upgrades/maintenance/spare parts. Specifically: “$18.5 billion to begin to rehabilitate and replace worn out Army equipment; $39.4 billion to begin to overcome the crisis in military aviation by getting more aircraft in the air.”..."

Source: https://www.defenseone.com/business/201 ... 18/148116/
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2689
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post11 May 2018, 18:53

spazsinbad wrote:Only the Bits About the F-35C have been excerpted below - there are more bits about 'other stuff in the USN' but not here.
2019 NDAA Amendments Question Carrier Long-Range Strike, Future of ASW Helos
10 May 2018 Megan Eckstein

"...In another amendment, the committee would allow the Pentagon to “procure a quantity of F-35 aircraft in excess of the quantity authorized by this Act if such additional procurement does not require additional funds to be authorized to be appropriated because of production efficiencies or other cost reductions.” This “buy-to-budget” strategy basically allows the Pentagon to buy as many planes as it can afford for the dollar amount allotted, encouraging the Defense Department and builder Lockheed Martin to find any additional efficiencies they can to bring down per-unit costs.

Also on carrier aviation, an amendment requests a briefing on the carrier air wing’s ability to conduct stealthy long-range strike and whether the Navy can enhance to F-35C to conduct this mission or whether a purpose-built platform like the canceled A-12 would be needed. [What about the slow to market MQ-25 Stungruy?]

“The committee notes that the aircraft carrier air wing has been optimized for striking power and sortie generation and believes that it may not be configured to support the long-range strike required by current and future threat systems. While the introduction of the F-35C will significantly expand stealth capabilities, the F-35C could require increased range to address necessary targets. The committee believes that several options could be used to address this issue to include developing a stealth tanker capability, improved engine technology or to develop and procure a strike capability that is purposely built to strike at increased range. The committee further notes that the Navy previously desired to significantly increase the carrier air wing range with the development of the A-12 aircraft. The committee understands that the A-12 would have included a 5,000-pound internal carriage payload, stealth, and a range of 800 nautical miles. While the committee believes that requirements to support this capability remain relevant and the technology available, the development of the A-12 aircraft was mired in acquisition challenges that eventually resulted in the cancellation of the program. While the committee further believes that the Department of Defense has successfully developed a suite of long-range intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, the committee also believes that it is vital that the Navy develop a carrier-based long-range strike capability. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by January 25, 2019, on options to expand the strike range of a carrier air wing in a contested environment, including manned and unmanned capabilities, and, Department of the Navy capabilities it plans to pursue in the Next Generation Air Dominance capability,” according to the amendment...."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2018/05/10/2019-n ... -asw-helos


The adaptive engine upgrade on the F-35C could give it more range than the A-12 spec of 800nm. I guess the question is just how much range do they want (unrefueled/with tanker)? With JASSM-ER type weapons, that'd increase the reach another 1000+ km, giving a carrier the ability to hit targets 1500 to 2000nm away.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1448
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post11 May 2018, 19:06

wrightwing wrote:The adaptive engine upgrade on the F-35C could give it more range than the A-12 spec of 800nm. I guess the question is just how much range do they want (unrefueled/with tanker)? With JASSM-ER type weapons, that'd increase the reach another 1000+ km, giving a carrier the ability to hit targets 1500 to 2000nm away.


The only issue I see there is that with JASSM hanging under the wings, I'm not so sure the F-35C retains it's VLO signature. Out to that 800nm launch point (with an adaptive engine) the enema might see you coming. It's too bad the JASSM couldn't be shortened slightly to fit the F-35A/C internal bays.
Take an F-16, add a dollop of A-7, a big gob of F-22, sprinkle on some AV-8B, stir well, then bake. What do you get? An F-35.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7405
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post11 May 2018, 19:21

It's too bad the JASSM couldn't be shortened slightly to fit the F-35A/C internal bays.

It's called JSM :mrgreen:
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1448
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post11 May 2018, 19:30

Yah... but...

The JSM only goes about 300nm, and the physical warhead is only round 250lb (though they claim it is "500lb class." JASSM-ER hauls a 1000lb warhead about 575 mi. Figure if they could shorten it, you'd sacrifice the fuel (probably), then maybe you could deliver 1000lb "hello honey I'm home" maybe around 400mi? Or if you cut the warhead to 500lb or 750lb, maybe you could keep the 575mi range.
Take an F-16, add a dollop of A-7, a big gob of F-22, sprinkle on some AV-8B, stir well, then bake. What do you get? An F-35.
Next

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests