FY2020 DoD Budget

[weasel1962]

I see a scenario where Congress gives them 56 F-35A's and 8 F-15X's keeping both the camps happy for both FY20 and FY21 as this will be a two year deal so at least we will have a topline defined for next year.

And the easiest way to achieve this is just to cut the F-18E/F buy.

[spazsinbad]

'weasel1962' said on previous page: "...(and shift the USMC F-35C sqns up front in terms of replacement)." Do you have a reference for this claim please? Thanks.

[weasel1962]

'weasel1962' said on previous page: "...(and shift the USMC F-35C sqns up front in terms of replacement)." Do you have a reference for this claim please? Thanks.

Its not a claim, its a deduction. If one slows down B procurement and buys more Cs. There are only 2 possibilities. One is less B sqns but more USMC C sqns or less B sqns and more USN C sqns. Take your pick.

[bring_it_on]

I see a scenario where Congress gives them 56 F-35A's and 8 F-15X's keeping both the camps happy for both FY20 and FY21 as this will be a two year deal so at least we will have a topline defined for next year.

And the easiest way to achieve this is just to cut the F-18E/F buy.

No one is going to cut a navy fighter plan that is part of a larger buy to fund AF jets. This will probably be just via increase to the AF F-35 buy with money scrambled from a bunch of other areas within the procurement budget. The DON will likely also see an F-35 buy increase since it has requested fewer aircraft than planned (6 fewer I believe). All in we could probably see as many as 15 F-35's added to the request once everything is said and done..

[quicksilver]

'weasel1962' said on previous page: "...(and shift the USMC F-35C sqns up front in terms of replacement)." Do you have a reference for this claim please? Thanks.

Its not a claim, its a deduction. If one slows down B procurement and buys more Cs. There are only 2 possibilities. One is less B sqns but more USMC C sqns or less B sqns and more USN C sqns. Take your pick.

I agree w what weasel deduced. Some portion of the annual ‘C’ buy has been for USMC jets. Don’t know the breakdown for each, but this re-profiling of ‘C’ buys seems to indicate some movement of USMC buys to the left.

[weasel1962]

The Trump plan shows 56 new fighter buys for the USAF and 54 for USN/USMC. That's clearly not balanced.

I'm not so sure USN has a more urgent need than the USAF. Consider how much larger the USAF is compared to the other 2 and the fact that the USN fleet is newer (not commenting on the fleet state). Then factor in USMC's fleet state...

Congress has its work cut out.

[Corsair1963]

48 F-35A's is consistent with the last F-35 SAR so the AF is asking exactly what it said it would order for FY20, though the AF has reduced the total F-35A request over the FYDP by not ramping up to 50+ aircraft as it had previously planned (maintains the 48 a year request). That said, requesting a set amount is one thing getting what they request is all together another thing. It is quite likely that the enacted budget exceeds the USAF's request just like it did last year.

I see a scenario where Congress gives them 56 F-35A's and 8 F-15X's keeping both the camps happy for both FY20 and FY21 as this will be a two year deal so at least we will have a topline defined for next year.

Sounds like a good compromise for the next year or two. Yet, problem is to agree to "8" F-15X's today. You're in fact agreeing to hundreds more over the next decade! Trust me the Armed Services Committee are well aware of this....

In short "In for a Penny in for a Pound"!

[bring_it_on]

The Trump plan shows 56 new fighter buys for the USAF and 54 for USN/USMC. That's clearly not balanced.

I'm not so sure USN has a more urgent need than the USAF. Consider how much larger the USAF is compared to the other 2 and the fact that the USN fleet is newer (not commenting on the fleet state). Then factor in USMC's fleet state...

Congress has its work cut out.

That has nothing to do with it. The F-18 E/F additional buy was sanctioned last year. If you want to compare USAF and USN fighter buys, a good data point would be looking at overall fighter aircraft procured over the last decade.

The F/A-18E/F plan to buy 100+ aircraft is pretty much set in stone and so is the 24 per year production plan for the program. Barring any exports (allowing the Navy to move some of its buys to the right) or an overall reduction in the USN plan to buy the SHornet this will not change.

We are likely talking about adding around 14 F-35's to the overall request (8 for AF and 6 for the USMC)..this can easily be done by moving things around or adding to the topline by altering the R&D and procurement mix for example. Last year the Congress added 16 F-35's to the number requested.

[bring_it_on]

Sounds like a good compromise for the next year or two. Yet, problem is to agree to "8" F-15X's today. You're in fact agreeing to hundreds more over the next decade! Trust me the Armed Services Committee are well aware of this....

In short "In for a Penny in for a Pound"!

In short, what you've described (knowingly or unknowingly) is exactly how the defense budget process has been working during the BCA budgets and this isn't unexpected to change much . With a looming 2-year budget deal, I don't think much the ASC's both in the House and the Senate have a lot of say that they would during normal circumstances...

I'm not sure whether the AF (or OSD) actually have hundreds of F-15EX's planned. I don't think the number is any more than 80...

[weasel1962]

That has nothing to do with it. The F-18 E/F additional buy was sanctioned last year. If you want to compare USAF and USN fighter buys, a good data point would be looking at overall fighter aircraft procured over the last decade.

Exactly my point. Its lopsided.

The F/A-18E/F plan to buy 100+ aircraft is pretty much set in stone and so is the 24 per year production plan for the program. Barring any exports (allowing the Navy to move some of its buys to the right) or an overall reduction in the USN plan to buy the SHornet this will not change.

Kuwait buy.

[spazsinbad]

'weasel1962' said on previous page: "...(and shift the USMC F-35C sqns up front in terms of replacement)." Do you have a reference for this claim please? Thanks.

Its not a claim, its a deduction. If one slows down B procurement and buys more Cs. There are only 2 possibilities. One is less B sqns but more USMC C sqns or less B sqns and more USN C sqns. Take your pick.

I agree w what weasel deduced. Some portion of the annual ‘C’ buy has been for USMC jets. Don’t know the breakdown for each, but this re-profiling of ‘C’ buys seems to indicate some movement of USMC buys to the left.

Agreed about 'once again' the USMC taking up the USN SLACK. However some official documentation would be nice. Otherwise I'll have to sit on the fence and hope I ain't HUMPTY DUMPTY. Maybe BreakaDaFence will tell us soon?

[bring_it_on]

Kuwait buy.\

Kuwait buy won't cover what the USN has laid out as far as its 110 SH buys in its last budget. They have approved that increase in procurement based on a review overseen by higher ups at the Pentagon and I don't think anyone is going to alter that in any way, just as that was left untouched as the Congress added 16 F-35's last year.

At this point, I can see a scenario where the Congress defers the F-15X decision to next year if it comes to chopping something to add more F-35s to the USAF but the Navy's SH buy is not going to change as they have requested that and no one in Congress challenged their 110 increase when that number was derived a while ago. A more likely scenario is that everything will be kept in place and a dozen or more F-35's added on top..We are 7 fighters away from last year's fighter number and I'm sure many in Congress would want to go beyond 117 given an overall increase in the budget top line.

We're talking about $1.5- $2 Billion increase/shift to a $719 Billion budget request so this is not something that will require serious engineering...The Congress is used to the plus ups and I don't think anything as dramatic as chopping the USN's acquisition plans is going to be required...

[usnvo]

Highlights of the Department of the Navy FY 2020
Budget Office of Budget - 2019 PDF pp130

https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... s-Book.pdf (14Mb) ATTACHED 'PRN' [reprinted PDF] to reduce file size.

Honestly, the numbers mean little as the US House usually provide additional aircraft above what the services request. So, expect the final numbers for the F-35B's and F-35C's to increase. When all is said and done....

I immediately thought of the Clinton Years when I saw the budget. Outside of the F-15X thing (I doubt the camel gets its nose under the tent but we will see, almost seems like a red hearing), it looks like all the services are gaming the system. Game plan is simple:
1. Ask for less than you want, especially with programs with strong congressional critter support. These are things like shipbuilding and aircraft (LPDs, CVN mid-life ROH, F-35, etc) that employ large numbers of people.
2. Claim you would buy more if only you had more money but you are being fiscally responsible. Have figures crossed behind back.
3. Make sure the things that you can't get a plus up on is in the submitted budget. Because cutting anything out of the budget is difficult but adding pork, I mean critical defense capabilities, is always possible. Especially when they make jobs.
4. Complain in hearings that Congress is killing the budget.
5. Smile all the way back to the Pentagon.

[Corsair1963]

Highlights of the Department of the Navy FY 2020
Budget Office of Budget - 2019 PDF pp130

https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... s-Book.pdf (14Mb) ATTACHED 'PRN' [reprinted PDF] to reduce file size.

Honestly, the numbers mean little as the US House usually provide additional aircraft above what the services request. So, expect the final numbers for the F-35B's and F-35C's to increase. When all is said and done....

I immediately thought of the Clinton Years when I saw the budget. Outside of the F-15X thing (I doubt the camel gets its nose under the tent but we will see, almost seems like a red hearing), it looks like all the services are gaming the system. Game plan is simple:
1. Ask for less than you want, especially with programs with strong congressional critter support. These are things like shipbuilding and aircraft (LPDs, CVN mid-life ROH, F-35, etc) that employ large numbers of people.
2. Claim you would buy more if only you had more money but you are being fiscally responsible. Have figures crossed behind back.
3. Make sure the things that you can't get a plus up on is in the submitted budget. Because cutting anything out of the budget is difficult but adding pork, I mean critical defense capabilities, is always possible. Especially when they make jobs.
4. Complain in hearings that Congress is killing the budget.
5. Smile all the way back to the Pentagon.

The services know the Defense Budget is likely to decline in coming years. Especially, if the Democrats beat Trump in 2020. Yet, I've never seen this level of politics from them directly ever.....(something I know a little about)

[bring_it_on]

Spaz, the DON request is difficult to dissect because the SAR never breaks up B and C variants by year. They've asked for 6 fewer jets compared to the last SAR so I'm assuming that those would have been Bs so some of them will most likely be added back in.. A 16 F-35B and 20 F-35C mix would be a nice balance .

The services know the Defense Budget is likely to decline in coming years. Especially, if the Democrats beat Trump in 2020. Yet, I've never seen this level of politics from them directly ever.....(something I know a little about)

IMHO the defense budgets will be determined by what happens post BCA. If they can't end up with a solution and we go back to cost caps then defense spending levels will continue to be driven by congressional negotiations which means that the makeup of the Senate and the House will likely have more influence.