FY2020 DoD Budget

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1180
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post09 May 2019, 23:53

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4342 ... agon-chief

President Trump is nominating Patrick Shanahan to be his second secretary of Defense, a position the former Boeing executive has held on an interim basis since December.

The move, announced Thursday, comes as the Trump administration grapples with rising tensions in a number of high-profile hot spots around the globe, from Iran to Venezuela to China.

“Based upon his outstanding service to the Country and his demonstrated ability to lead, President Trump intends to nominate Patrick M. Shanahan to be the Secretary of Defense,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement.

"Acting Secretary Shanahan has served in high profile positions, including the Deputy Secretary of Defense and Vice President of Supply Chain and Operations at Boeing ... he has proven over the last several months that he is beyond qualified to lead the Department of Defense, and he will continue to do an excellent job," she said.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8383
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post20 May 2019, 19:05

Congress wants to improve the parts issue by.. withholding half the funds  :doh:

The House panel that approves defense spending intends to withhold half of next year’s funding for F-35 spare parts until the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin Corp. agree on the sale of technical data for spare parts to improve the tracking of items and allow purchases from other suppliers.


​​​​​​​More at the JUMP
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ata-rights
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23101
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 May 2019, 08:15

House Appropriators Scrutinize Air Force Fighter Plans [BEST READ ALL TEXT at SOURCE - THIS IS COMPLICATED!]
20 May 2019 Rachel S. Cohen

"House appropriators this week are using the 2020 budget cycle to weigh in on the Air Force’s future force plans, calling into question the service’s fighter procurement strategy and arguing Congress needs a bigger say in the process....

...Buying seven fifth-generation fighter jets for every one fourth-gen fighter strikes a “reasonable balance” between pursuing more capable aircraft and maintaining the size of the F-15 fleet, they added. While an “unanticipated” request, recapitalizing the F-15C/D fleets with F-15EX would preserve Air National Guard units in California, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Oregon, and would make “critical contributions” to carrying out the NDS [National Defense Strategy], lawmakers wrote.

The HAC bill, released May 20, recommends the Air Force purchase 68 new fighters in 2020, including eight F-15EXs from Boeing for $985.5 million and 60 F-35As from Lockheed Martin for $5.1 billion. The Air Force asked for 48 Joint Strike Fighters in its budget request—plus another 12 in an unfunded priorities list—and eight F-15EXs....

“The Department of Defense, and the Air Force in particular, have sent conflicting and confusing signals with respect to the F-35 program,” appropriators continued. “The fiscal year 2020 request repeats a pattern of shifting aircraft quantities to future years, reducing the planned procurement from 84 to 78. Further, the Air Force submitted a fiscal year 2020 budget request that flattens F-35A procurement at 48 aircraft per year through the future years defense program despite the F-35A program of record remaining stable at 1,763 aircraft.”

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said in February the service can’t afford its 72-jet goal. Air Force acquisition chief Will Roper also noted in early May the F-35 buy plan shrinks over the next few years “in order to align the procurement timeline with capability development and reduce retrofit costs.”

The bill agrees to fully fund a $728.7 million request for spare parts for Navy and Air Force F-35s, even though lawmakers say they aren’t convinced the military will use the money or the parts efficiently.

DOD is still waiting on a proposal from Lockheed Martin that specifies which data is needed to run an organic supply chain and track all F-35 parts in the Pentagon’s inventory, as well as how much it would cost to own that information, according to appropriators. Getting the cost and technical data for spare parts is a crucial piece of improving supply issues. “Currently the F-35 enterprise is unable to comprehensively and accurately inventory parts, efficiently move parts between locations, accurately match deployable spares packages to deploying units, or capture cost information for all the parts that are procured,” the report noted....

...And while lawmakers acknowledge Pentagon officials’ concerns about long-term operation and sustainment costs, the committee wants to add 12 F-35As on top of the Air Force’s request as well as fully funded Block 4 development, spares procurement increases, and depot activation.

Half of F-35 funding in 2020 will be unavailable until 15 days after the head of the F-35 Joint Program Office certifies to Congress that Lockheed submitted its cost proposal for obtaining supply chain data...."

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

doge

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 242
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 16:07

Unread post23 May 2019, 09:57

https://larson.house.gov/media-center/p ... ng-90-f-35
Larson on Statement on Funding for 90 F-35
May 20, 2019 Press Release
Washington, D.C. – Today, Rep. John B. Larson (CT-01) released a statement on the approval of funding from the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for 90 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters in the Fiscal Year 2020.

“The F-35’s importance to our national security cannot be ignored as global threats continue to increase. In spite of the President’s request for only 78 F-35s in the upcoming fiscal year, I am pleased the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee was able to fully fund my request for 60 F-35As, totaling 90 fighters. The Subcommittee also provided full modernization funding to ensure the program will keep pace with the evolving threats for years to come. This funding will ensure that our men and women protecting our country have access to the best technology available, and will support thousands of high-skilled manufacturing jobs throughout the country and in Connecticut,” said Larson.

In April, Larson led the Congressional Joint Strike Fighter Caucus letter requesting 102 F-35s (60 F-35As, 22 F-35Bs, and 20 F-35Cs) for the FY2020 . His request received overwhelming bipartisan support from 103 Members of Congress.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1638
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post24 May 2019, 03:14

Senate Armed Services Committee authorizes 94 F-35 + 8 F-15EX for budget 2020.

https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/i ... ummary.pdf
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1638
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post24 May 2019, 03:21

House defense appropriations subcommittee also recommends procurement of 8 F-15EX in addition to the 90 F-35s mentioned earlier. See page 7.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP00 ... -SD002.pdf

Looks like congress (both house and senate) has no issue with funding the F-15EX.
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1180
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post24 May 2019, 09:28

From the House document ...

SUPPORTING ‘‘THE AIR FORCE WE NEED’’

The Committee has considered the Air Force budget request in conjunction with the analysis produced by the Air Force in response to section 1064 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. This analysis, publicly referred to by Air Force leadership as ‘‘The Air Force We Need,’’ indicates that the Service is too small to fulfill the demands of the 2018 National Defense Strategy at a ‘‘low-moderate’’ level of risk. To fill this gap, the Air Force indicates a need to grow to 386 operational squadrons from the current 312 squadrons, including the addition of seven fighter squadrons. Based on this notional growth in fighter squadrons, the Air Force has identified the need to annually procure 72 new fighter aircraft. The Committee notes that the resources to initiate and sustain such growth simply do not exist within the fiscal year 2020 budget request or future years defense program, nor does the Air Force’s five-year plan for fighter procurement achieve 72 new aircraft within any year. The plan that has been submitted to the Committee requests 48 F–35A aircraft in fiscal year 2020 and every year thereafter through 2024, a reduction of 30 aircraft compared to the 2017 Selected Acquisition Report profile for the F–35 program. In addition, the request includes funding for the procurement of eight new F–15 aircraft to begin recapitalization of the
F-15C/D fleet. In this plan, F–15 procurement would grow to 18 aircraft in fiscal years 2021–2024, achieving a total fighter aircraft procurement rate of 66 during the same period.

The Committee does not view the ‘‘Air Force We Need’’ analysis as a definitive solution to the Air Force’s requirements under the National Defense Strategy, or as a firm goal to guide immediate resourcing decisions, but rather as the first step of an iterative analytical, programming, and budgeting process to be undertaken in
dialogue with the congressional defense committees. The Committee believes that the demands of the National Defense Strategy must be met with a balance of increased capacity in existing systems and the development and fielding of new capabilities, subject
to fiscal constraints—which the Air Force was not required to consider in response to the section 1064 mandate. To address concerns about capacity, including the fighter fleet that has been emphasized by Air Force leadership, the Committee recommendation includes a total of 68 new fighter aircraft. This includes the eight new-build F–15 aircraft requested and 60 F–35A aircraft, an increase of 12 aircraft above the request. The F–35A
quantity of 60 is an increase of four aircraft above the
fiscal year 2019 enacted level. The Committee notes that this recommendation procures more than seven ‘‘fifth generation’’ fighters for every single new ‘‘fourth generation’’ fighter. The Committee recommends this as a reasonable balance between advanced capability and near-term capacity concerns. The Committee finds that the Air Force’s requested investments in the development of future capability generally are consistent with the requirements identified in the ‘‘Air Force We Need’’ analysis and considerations of affordability.

The Committee’s recommendations with respect to the Air Force’s request include: full funding of the request for the F–35 continuous capability development and delivery program, also known as Block 4; full funding of the request for the B–21 bomber program; full funding of the request for the Stand-in Attack Weapon program; full funding of the request for hypersonic weapons (including the Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon and Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon prototyping efforts); an additional $20,000,000 above the request for directed energy prototyping; full funding of the request for advanced engine development (which has the potential to provide increased capability and lower fuel consumption costs for the F–35 and potential future aircraft); an additional $75,000,000 to accelerate active electronically scanned array radar upgrades for the F-16; an additional $50,000,000 for the Low Cost Attritable Aircraft Technology program; and $500,000,000 for the Next Generation Air Dominance program.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3318
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post24 May 2019, 13:06

$500,000,000 for the Next Generation Air Dominance program.

Sh!t is starting to get real.

Can't wait to see the prototypes, or even an artist rendition of Boeing, Lockheed's proposals. Yeah, there are some out there already but it's clear they're far from what'll emerge hardware wise. Given how they've positioned it, it's going to be interesting to see what a "fighter" looks like for the 2030-50 timeframe...

I was happy to see hypersonics were fully funded. Not sure how I feel about lasers as of yet, but they apparently got the $ they wanted for that too. The next 10 years is going to be wild with the B-21, PCA, F/A-XX and others taking to the skies..
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1638
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 01:42

This makes 3 of 4 committees passing the F-15EX program but the HASC has imposed the toughest conditions yet but not major obstacles. Actually imho logical oversight.
https://www.defensenews.com/space/2019/ ... y-in-2020/

Full committee mark-up.
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS25 ... Forces.pdf

require the Secretary of Defense to designate the F15EX program as a major subprogram and subject it to relevant reporting requirements and criteria pertinent to a major subprogram....

allow the Secretary of the Air Force to procure two F-15EX aircraft for prototype development but would prohibit the procurement of any additional aircraft until 30 days after the Secretary submits F-15EX program plans for development, acquisition, and fielding to the congressional defense committees....

13 submits to the congressional defense committees the fol-
14 lowing documentation relating to the F–15EX program:
15 (1) A program acquisition strategy.
16 (2) An acquisition program baseline.
17 (3) A test and evaluation master plan.
18 (4) A life-cycle sustainment plan.
19 (5) A post-production fielding strategy.


In contrast, the F-35 block 4 program requirements (which like the above is also to be classed as a major subprogram) appears more onerous...

All eyes are now on the Senate defense appropriations committee.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 757
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 04:36

The one committee to whom the Air Force has given detailed testimony on tacair modernization plans
responded by ring-fencing procurement for the F-15EX and punishing the F-35 Block 4 effort with
major subprogram status.

It's a fairly disastrous outcome.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5577
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 05:13

I consider it a plus. As the USAF will have to come with a very specific plan. In order to make the case for the F-15EX.


Which, has been lacking from the start. :?
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1638
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 10:17

Under existing DoD acquisition rules, the F-15EX would have been required to be designated as a MDAP even if HASC did not legislate. ACAT 1 status would be achieved if budget exceeds $2.79b. The mandatory procedures of the MDAP appears to be the same as the HASC requirements.

http://acqnotes.com/acqnote/acquisition ... on-program
http://www.acqnotes.com/Attachments/DoD ... -R-new.pdf
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 757
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 11:30

weasel1962 wrote:Under existing DoD acquisition rules, the F-15EX would have been required to be designated as a MDAP even if HASC did not legislate. ACAT 1 status would be achieved if budget exceeds $2.79b.


Section 804 "rapid fielding" would let the Air Force circumvent this requirement
making the F-15EX non-ACAT akin to what the Air Force was looking to do with Light Attack.

By ring fencing procurement funds, labeling it a major subprogram and only permitting immediate
procurement for "prototype development" that path is effectively closed.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3318
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 15:53

weasel1962 wrote:House defense appropriations subcommittee also recommends procurement of 8 F-15EX in addition to the 90 F-35s mentioned earlier. See page 7.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP00 ... -SD002.pdf

Looks like congress (both house and senate) has no issue with funding the F-15EX.



Just one more step closer to reality. For the record, I think this is a mistake. We should take that money and put it towards additional F-35's. But if this thing goes through.... let's build the penultimate F-15 there ever was. Tricked out with everything it needs to lay waste to Mig-35's, SU-35's and perhaps even the SU-57.

The F-15EX could very well further the legend of the F-15. How on earth though, do you "improve" on a 104-0 record? I know, I know... 105. But really, they're tempting fate here as even the F-15EX gives up some important capabilities to the competition. Oh well. my son might very well see its finest hour.

I hope I'm there to share it with him..
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1638
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 16:18

marauder2048 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Under existing DoD acquisition rules, the F-15EX would have been required to be designated as a MDAP even if HASC did not legislate. ACAT 1 status would be achieved if budget exceeds $2.79b.


Section 804 "rapid fielding" would let the Air Force circumvent this requirement
making the F-15EX non-ACAT akin to what the Air Force was looking to do with Light Attack.

By ring fencing procurement funds, labeling it a major subprogram and only permitting immediate
procurement for "prototype development" that path is effectively closed.


Had the impression section 804 expires this year but it's still appropriate oversight on HASC's behalf.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests