FY2018 Budget Details

[SpudmanWP]

You do know what "NDAA" stands for, right?

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2018 is what the actually funds the budget.

That is EXACTLY what passed the Senate and has already passed the House. After it is "reconciled", it will go to the POTUS, get signed, and then become law. There is no followup legislation that will fund, authorize, or in any other way affect matters of defense that are covered under the NDAA.

The bill surpasses the president’s $603 billion defense budget request, the $549 billion cap set by the BCA and the $696.5 billion House version, with which the Senate version must be reconciled before the NDAA’s final passage by Congress.

The House passed its annual defense authorization bill in July.

The Senate bill would authorize $640 billion for the Pentagon’s base budget, with $60 billion in budget-cap-exempt war funding. The House version authorizes $621.5 in base dollars and $75 billion in war funds.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/20 ... lion-ndaa/

[afjag]

You do know what "NDAA" stands for, right?

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2018 is what the actually funds the budget.

That is EXACTLY what passed the Senate and has already passed the House. After it is "reconciled", it will go to the POTUS, get signed, and then become law. There is no followup legislation that will fund, authorize, or in any other way affect matters of defense that are covered under the NDAA.

The bill surpasses the president’s $603 billion defense budget request, the $549 billion cap set by the BCA and the $696.5 billion House version, with which the Senate version must be reconciled before the NDAA’s final passage by Congress.

The House passed its annual defense authorization bill in July.

The Senate bill would authorize $640 billion for the Pentagon’s base budget, with $60 billion in budget-cap-exempt war funding. The House version authorizes $621.5 in base dollars and $75 billion in war funds.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/20 ... lion-ndaa/

I couldnt respond earlier, as I hit my newbie post limit of the day. There is a difference between authorizations and appropriations process. Authorization = legal authorization. Appropriations = Allocation funding for the authorizations

I

[SpudmanWP]

Show me the act that year that paid for the 2017 NDAA?

[maus92]

You do know what "NDAA" stands for, right?

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2018 is what the actually funds the budget.

That is EXACTLY what passed the Senate and has already passed the House. After it is "reconciled", it will go to the POTUS, get signed, and then become law. There is no followup legislation that will fund, authorize, or in any other way affect matters of defense that are covered under the NDAA.

The bill surpasses the president’s $603 billion defense budget request, the $549 billion cap set by the BCA and the $696.5 billion House version, with which the Senate version must be reconciled before the NDAA’s final passage by Congress.

The House passed its annual defense authorization bill in July.

The Senate bill would authorize $640 billion for the Pentagon’s base budget, with $60 billion in budget-cap-exempt war funding. The House version authorizes $621.5 in base dollars and $75 billion in war funds.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/20 ... lion-ndaa/

Sorry it's the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill (Act.) Brain fart. Must have been the F-35 helmet I tested today at the AFA. It's contained in this bill: H.R.3219 - Make America Secure Appropriations Act, 2018

A brief on this arcane process:

https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/d2b1dc6f ... e24150.pdf

[maus92]

Show me the act that year that paid for the 2017 NDAA?

H.R.244 - Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017

[SpudmanWP]

Thank you for the clarification. You are right, that is assinine.

Have any of the previous few years of appropriations bills ever shorted the NDAA for that year and if so, in what way?

[afjag]

Thank you for the clarification. You are right, that is assinine.

Have any of the previous few years of appropriations bills ever shorted the NDAA for that year and if so, in what way?

Yes and no. Sequestration has truncated just about every appropriations bill since 2011. But Sequestration does not impact authorization bills. So what happens in effect, is that there is not enough money to pay for what Congress says DoD (and other Federal Agencies) can buy.

[neptune]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... uy-443536/

US Senate spending bill less bullish on F-35 buy

21 November, 2017
BY: Leigh Giangreco

Washington DC
The chair of the US Senate Appropriations committee has approved the chamber’s version of the fiscal year 2018 defense spending bill this week, a move that pushes the legislation closer to final passage. In June, the US House of Representatives Appropriations committee approved their version of the FY2018 defense appropriations bill. The Senate appropriations bill adds fewer Lockheed Martin F-35s to the budget than the Administration requested compared to the House version of the bill. The House proposed adding 14 more Lockheed Martin F-35s above the president’s original budget proposal. The Senate mark calls for $1 billion to fund eight additional F-35s, including four F-35Cs and four F-35Bs. Despite a lower initial F-35 procurement, the Senate bill still provides an additional $120 million to fund a planned increase of F-35 procurement in FY2019, as well as $750 million to fund spares and repair parts to address maintenance and readiness issues across the joint force. The maintenance funding boost comes on the heels of a recent Government Accountability Office report which stated F-35s could not fly 22% of the time between January and August in 2017 due to spare parts shortages. Still, the simultaneous increase in maintenance and procurement does not jibe with another section of the same report which warned that long after Lockheed completes its deliveries, the F-35 program will continue to face sustainment issues since the Pentagon has failed to identify all the technical data needed from the prime contractor to ensure weapons system performance and support. Both chambers agreed on other line items, including for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The Senate proposed adding $739 million for 10 more Boeing F/A-18E/Fs. The Senate also called for adding $108 million for eight Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters for the Army National Guard, the same level as the House version. Both appropriations bills include provisions to support a next-generation Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System aircraft, a recapitalization that has remained a sacred cow for lawmakers even as the air force has positioned the program on its chopping block.

[steve2267]

I may very well be wrong here, but whereas the US Navy does not appear ready yet for additional F-35C's... I bet the US Air Force would know what to do with four extra F-35A's. Of course, the flying leathernecks will, no doubt gratefully, accept four additional Killer Bees... they would probably even take eight if they were forced...

[weasel1962]

The USMC is part of the navy. The 4 C could actually go to a usmc sqn since the Cs were "forced" on them.

[steve2267]

The USMC is part of the navy. The 4 C could actually go to a usmc sqn since the Cs were "forced" on them.

True, but the Corp cannot fly the Cees off an LHD/LHA. They could immediately use the Bees.

On the other hand, perhaps the better question to ask is... when will these "not requested" airframes actually be delivered? If it's going to be two or more years yet... then perhaps the CVN's will be ready by then?

[Corsair1963]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-senate-spending-bill-less-bullish-on-f-35-buy-443536/

US Senate spending bill less bullish on F-35 buy

21 November, 2017
BY: Leigh Giangreco

Washington DC
The chair of the US Senate Appropriations committee has approved the chamber’s version of the fiscal year 2018 defense spending bill this week, a move that pushes the legislation closer to final passage. In June, the US House of Representatives Appropriations committee approved their version of the FY2018 defense appropriations bill. The Senate appropriations bill adds fewer Lockheed Martin F-35s to the budget than the Administration requested compared to the House version of the bill. The House proposed adding 14 more Lockheed Martin F-35s above the president’s original budget proposal. The Senate mark calls for $1 billion to fund eight additional F-35s, including four F-35Cs and four F-35Bs. Despite a lower initial F-35 procurement, the Senate bill still provides an additional $120 million to fund a planned increase of F-35 procurement in FY2019, as well as $750 million to fund spares and repair parts to address maintenance and readiness issues across the joint force. The maintenance funding boost comes on the heels of a recent Government Accountability Office report which stated F-35s could not fly 22% of the time between January and August in 2017 due to spare parts shortages. Still, the simultaneous increase in maintenance and procurement does not jibe with another section of the same report which warned that long after Lockheed completes its deliveries, the F-35 program will continue to face sustainment issues since the Pentagon has failed to identify all the technical data needed from the prime contractor to ensure weapons system performance and support. Both chambers agreed on other line items, including for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The Senate proposed adding $739 million for 10 more Boeing F/A-18E/Fs. The Senate also called for adding $108 million for eight Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters for the Army National Guard, the same level as the House version. Both appropriations bills include provisions to support a next-generation Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System aircraft, a recapitalization that has remained a sacred cow for lawmakers even as the air force has positioned the program on its chopping block.

This is just the Senate version and is hardly the final bill.....

[weasel1962]

True, but the Corp cannot fly the Cees off an LHD/LHA. They could immediately use the Bees.

On the other hand, perhaps the better question to ask is... when will these "not requested" airframes actually be delivered? If it's going to be two or more years yet... then perhaps the CVN's will be ready by then?

If one looks at the USMC marine aviation plan, the schedule for C squadrons aren't that far off. Whilst the Cs are designed for carrier ops, it doesn't mean the USMC can't use the Cs without a carrier. Same way they use the carrier capable Hornets in the land-based role.

P.s. if the senate version says 8 and the house version says 14, I think there is a reasonable chance the final version will end up somewhere between 8 to 14.

[Corsair1963]

True, but the Corp cannot fly the Cees off an LHD/LHA. They could immediately use the Bees.

On the other hand, perhaps the better question to ask is... when will these "not requested" airframes actually be delivered? If it's going to be two or more years yet... then perhaps the CVN's will be ready by then?

If one looks at the USMC marine aviation plan, the schedule for C squadrons aren't that far off. Whilst the Cs are designed for carrier ops, it doesn't mean the USMC can't use the Cs without a carrier. Same way they use the carrier capable Hornets in the land-based role.

P.s. if the senate version says 8 and the house version says 14, I think there is a reasonable chance the final version will end up somewhere between 8 to 14.

Problem is you need at least 10-12 F-35C's per year to replace a single Squadron. So, we better hope they get that number up to 20-24 by the year 2020. That or it's going to take a very long time to convert every Air Wing (CVW) to the F-35C!

[weasel1962]

If I remember correctly, lot 12 which is for fy18 had 6 Cs. An additional 4 will allow a full squadron of 10 Cs to standup earlier than the 2 and 4s of prior lots.