FY2020 DoD Budget

[ricnunes]

I don't see the US Military pushing the PCA and/or NGAD to the right. Not with the development of the Tempest and NGF.

Which, are moving right along...

I wouldn't say that having static mocks/models (albeit "full-scale") is "moving right/along".

When I see any or both of those fighters (Tempest or NGF) flying for the first time then it will be the day say that I'll say that they are "moving right/along".

[marauder2048]

Since the missiles themselves will be extremely expensive, how many do you plan to fire? 20? 100? 200?

There's also no POR for any of the air-launched hypersonic weapons. There are some rapid prototyping,
rapid fielding efforts which will produce some small war reserve LRIP quantities.

And the use of a still very expensive F-15EX is going to be weighed against the Army's TELs for the same BGV.
The TELs are much cheaper to own and operate. So then it's a question of the cost of a two-stage booster stack for the Army/Navy version vs a single stage booster that has to survive in the airborne launch environment (unless they intend to have a common stage).

[Corsair1963]

I don't see the US Military pushing the PCA and/or NGAD to the right. Not with the development of the Tempest and NGF.

Which, are moving right along...

I wouldn't say that having static mocks/models (albeit "full-scale") is "moving right/along".

When I see any or both of those fighters (Tempest or NGF) flying for the first time then it will be the day say that I'll say that they are "moving right/along".

They are in development and being funded....That sounds like "moving right along to me".

[ricnunes]

They are in development and being funded....That sounds like "moving right along to me".

This one was also in development and being funded:



and yet and fast-forwarding to today (2019)...

[doge]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u ... R-2500.pdf

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
July 9, 2019
F-15EX Aircraft Program (Section 123).
The Administration objects to section 123, which would designate the F-15EX as a major subprogram of the F-15.

The designation as a major subprogram would needlessly delay the fielding of the F-15EX by an estimated two years while providing only marginal decision-making value to the Milestone Decision Authority given the F15EX high level of technology readiness.

The delays would exacerbate capacity issues within the tactical aircraft portfolio, prevent the execution of key nonrecurring engineering and manufacturing activities, and require operating the less capable F-15C/D longer with its significant structural issues and high cost.

The Administration objects to the proposed limitation on procuring only two F-15EX prototypes, and requests full funding for the first eight F-15EX aircraft.

[Corsair1963]

:doh:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u ... R-2500.pdf

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
July 9, 2019
F-15EX Aircraft Program (Section 123).
The Administration objects to section 123, which would designate the F-15EX as a major subprogram of the F-15.

The designation as a major subprogram would needlessly delay the fielding of the F-15EX by an estimated two years while providing only marginal decision-making value to the Milestone Decision Authority given the F15EX high level of technology readiness.

The delays would exacerbate capacity issues within the tactical aircraft portfolio, prevent the execution of key nonrecurring engineering and manufacturing activities, and require operating the less capable F-15C/D longer with its significant structural issues and high cost.

The Administration objects to the proposed limitation on procuring only two F-15EX prototypes, and requests full funding for the first eight F-15EX aircraft.

Clear attempt by the Democrats to kill the F-15EX one way or another.........

[doge]

Additional news.
https://www.defensedaily.com/white-hous ... air-force/

White House ‘Strongly Objects’ to HASC NDAA Funding Cuts for F-15EX, Next-Gen Air Dominance
By Vivienne Machi |@VivienneMachi 12 hours ago |07/10/2019
The White House critiqued the House Armed Services Committee’s (HASC) mark of the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act to be debated on the House floor this week, in part for a $500 million reduction in funds to develop the Air Force’s future…

Relation.
https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/om ... hree-years

OMB: House's proposed NGAD cut would delay program by three years
By Courtney Albon July 10, 2019 at 3:51 PM
As part of a scathing review of the House's proposed fiscal year 2020 defense policy bill, the White House Office of Management and Budget told House lawmakers this week a proposed $500 million cut to the Next-Generation Air Dominance program would delay the program by three years. The cut would reduce the Air Force’s FY-20 NGAD request by about one half. "Full funding for NGAD is essential to maintaining a strong United States industrial base capable of building the world’s...

[mixelflick]

Here we go...

We have $ for a 50 year old teen series fighter new build, and already NGAD is being pushed to the right. How our "leaders" can't see the futility of this situation I do not know. Corporate welfare has to be the only explanation. I say if Boeing wants to be in the fighter business, then win either PCA or F/A-XX. Those are 2 opportunities, and it's not like they don't already have experience building fighters.

[weasel1962]

What I like about Trump is his natural instinct to bite back at every opportunity. The downside is a disregard of whether it presnts opponents a bigger target. In this case, the easiest counter is to ask why Trump/DoD doesn't want oversight? Why a 2 year delay is an issue when the delivery are meant to be 2022 anyways (weak case)...however, I'm not exactly impressed by the quality of the dems. No "fighters".

[doge]

The very very too long articles. (I decided to quote only the part of F-15EX and NGAD.)
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... power.aspx

The Case for Fifth-Generation and NGAD Airpower
JULY 2019 LT. GEN. DAVID A. DEPTULA, MAJ. GEN. LAWRENCE A. STUTZREIM, AND HEATHER PENNEY
The case for 5th generation fighters is built on all-aspect stealth; superior aerodynamic performance; advanced automated sensors; and the power of automated information fusion.

Delayed F-35 production has also meant extending fourth-generation F-16s and A-10 airframes. The average age of the Air Force’s fourth-generation jets now exceeds 25 years. While they remain flyable (albeit with significant structural limitations), they are not survivable in an advanced threat scenario such as a great power competition.

What was once “tomorrow’s threat” is now today’s reality.  

With only 186 F-22s and about 200 F-35s to complement its aging fourth-generation fighters, the Air Force has too few fighters to defend the United States in a modern security environment including a potential North Korean conflict occurring simultaneously with a requirement to check Russian revanchist actions in Europe, or Chinese aggression in East Asia.

Yet instead of increasing the buy rate for more low-observable F-35s to support the goals of the new defense strategy, the Department of Defense (DOD) fiscal 2020 budget request seeks to purchase eight F-15EX fighters—aircraft based on a design that dates back to the late 1960s.  Even as new-build with upgraded capabilities, these fourth-generation F-15EXs will lack key attributes necessary to survive and operate in the priority advanced threat environments identified in the National Defense Strategy. Low observability, commonly known as stealth, and sensor fusion are not bolt-on capabilities and cannot be retrofitted or modified: They must be designed into an aircraft from Day 1. 

Air superiority is a prerequisite to joint operations. Without Air Force contributions, other military services’ capabilities cannot be realized. Ships, ground forces, space and cyber facilities, logistics nodes, and support aircraft are all exceedingly vulnerable to attack from modern weapons. Failure to modernize our air forces with relevant, capable, and survivable aircraft will result in crippling losses in a conflict with a rival such as China or Russia. Recapitalizing the Air Force fighter force with fifth-generation aircraft is fundamental to fielding viable US military power around the globe. 

Given those stakes, it is crucial to prioritize the production of fifth-generation fighter aircraft. The US should increase F-35 procurement rates and accelerate investment in the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program to make up for its undersized F-22 fleet. Today’s fighter force consists of 82 percent fourth-generation and only 18 percent fifth-generation aircraft. Reversing that balance is the only way to ensure America’s sons and daughters strap into aircraft that can successfully execute their missions against the world’s most challenging threats—and return home safely.

Because fourth-generation fighters have been dubbed “good enough” for the last 30 years, the vast improvements provided by fifth-generation technologies are not sufficiently understood by policymakers. Modernization has incrementally increased the capabilities of fourth-generation aircraft through improvements in sensors, displays, pods, and increased processing. Yet, fourth- generation aircraft, even with advanced avionics modifications like those on the F-15EX, are simply not survivable against modern threats.

These airplanes lack three critical attributes:

･All-aspect stealth and superior aerodynamic performance.
･Advanced automated sensors and information fusion.
･The synergy of stealth, fused information, and integrated automated processing. 

Air Force written testimony to Congress makes that point plainly, stating “to meet emerging worldwide threats across the spectrum of conflict … the cornerstone of the Air Force [must be a] shift from 4th/5th-generation to a 5th/6th-generation fleet.” Increasing the procurement rate of fifth-generation aircraft and accelerating NGAD development are the paths necessary to ensure this goal is met.

While some defense observers suggest that the F-15EX program will come from additive funds, history suggests otherwise over the long haul. Budget plus-ups of this sort disappear when defense budgets decline, but the mandate to pay the bill remains. Given today’s ballooning federal deficits, economic uncertainty, and mounting pressure from mandatory federal spending accounts, it is unlikely that current spending levels can be sustained. Further looming over the budget is a sharply divided and gridlocked Congress, with the growing possibility of a return to sequester-level spending. Either path could lead to a competition between the F-35 and F-15EX for funding, with severe ramifications for the F-35.

If the F-15EX becomes a program of record and funds are appropriated for production, it is likely that any future budget trade-offs could come out of planned F-35 purchases. This would reduce F-35 production rates, pushing up the cost per plane. If that happens, new doubts will emerge about F-35 program sustainability and affordability, yielding further cuts and further price hikes. This is what Washington calls a “death spiral,” a self-reinforcing dynamic that leads to an inevitable early end to expensive programs.

Recently departed Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson pushed back against the trade-off of F-35 for F-15EX, prudently explaining: “If the budget gets crunched in the out years, you can’t start trading off and saying we’re going to keep open an F-15 line. … We’re not going to trade off fifth-generation for fourth-generation.” In reality, however, once the F-15EX becomes a line item in the budget, that decision will not be in the hands of the Air Force. Congress will make that call, with local politics, not prudent planning, the foremost driver in the debate. 

It is ironic that it is because the F-22—itself a victim of the death spiral—was prematurely canceled that an F-15EX is even being considered. The only difference this time is that dramatic reductions to the Air Force F-35 program would also impact the US Navy, the US Marine Corps, and a host of allied militaries also buying the F-35.

While each military service will need new capabilities and capacities to fulfill their obligations, none of those investments will matter if the Air Force is unable to provide the airpower foundation upon which joint combat operations depend. America must now have the resolve to rebuild its Air Force to be able to defeat advanced adversaries as outlined in the National Defense Strategy. The following actions are prudent means to accomplish this objective:  

･Ensure fifth-generation aircraft and NGAD receive top priority for finite budget resources. Procuring F-15EXs cannot come at the cost of these essential modernization programs.
･Increase the F-35A production rate to 80 aircraft per year beginning in fiscal year 2021.
･Reduce the ratio of fourth- to fifth-generation fighters from 82/18 to 50/50 as rapidly as possible.
･Encourage allies to buy fifth-generation aircraft.
･Eliminate “aircraft unit cost” as a decision metric on programs and replace it with a “cost-per-effect” model.
･Replace the simplistic cost-per-flying-hour metric with the more holistic metric of total annual cost per aircraft. 

America’s sons and daughters will fly into harm’s way in whatever combat aircraft their nation procures. We must do everything in our power to ensure those aircraft can get the job done in the face of an increasingly challenging threat, while also ensuring the airmen inside will return home safely from their missions. That requires investing in modern, capable, and relevant advanced aircraft designs and technology.

From that too long article, I can feel the Confused or Baffled or Perplexe of the Gen. members who wrote the article...
--------------------
[Postscript. Edit.]
Apparently, This article seems to have been written based on the Mitchell Institute PDF.
http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/a2dd91_66 ... 7d1cf2.pdf
(I jumped into a conclusion(?) I have not confirmed everything... This PDF is also long!)
Sorry to bother you...

In PDF, there was such a figure.

[spazsinbad]

By buying F-15 jets, Pentagon leaders are repeating past mistakes
12 Jul 2019 Gen. John D.W. Corley (ret.)

"...Pentagon leaders are repeating mistakes of the past. Rather than reestablishing the planned acceleration of F-35 production capacity after years of sequestration caps, the Department of Defense is requesting numbers far lower than needed in order to fund an F-15EX.

With Patrick Shanahan withdrawing as the defense secretary nominee, Pentagon leaders have the opportunity to set the record right. New leaders must signal that continuing to invest in aircraft lacking the capability to survive in the 21st century is repeating an egregious mistake and is cannibalizing the F-35 production capacity already in place.

Congress must increase its funding of the free world’s one and only fifth-generation fighter jet in production today to allow the United States to remain ahead of its adversaries. Anything short of that is a potentially deadly mistake that we cannot afford to make."

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/com ... -mistakes/

[spazsinbad]

Back to the BUD GET. "...The next step is for members of the House and Senate to meet in a conference committee to iron out differences between the two versions of the FY 2020 NDAA...." Seems there ain't no buds in the US Congress.

House Passes Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act on Party Lines
12 Jul 2019 Ben Werner

"The full House of Representatives passed its version of the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act on a strict party-line vote. The policy bill, which provides lawmakers a means for detailing their defense-related priorities, provides funding and regulatory guidance to the Pentagon. The bill passed on a 220-197 vote, with no Republicans supporting the measure....

...The next step is for members of the House and Senate to meet in a conference committee to iron out differences between the two versions of the FY 2020 NDAA.

“As we now move to conference with our colleagues in the Senate, I am hopeful that our work can return to the bipartisan tradition that distinguishes the Armed Services Committees,” Smith said in his statement. “I look forward to working with my colleagues as we continue to refine this legislation so that it not only honors our oath to protect and defend, but it also – and most importantly – continues to takes care of the single most valuable asset in our national defense strategy: our service members.”..."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2019/07/12/house- ... arty-lines

[weasel1962]

Final deal struck on FY 2020 defense budget at $738b. This increases the house budget by $5b but is lower than the $750b requested by Trump and approved by the senate.

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/budget/2 ... ding-deal/

Weasel's note: Looks like the F-15 budget has crossed the final budget hurdle at least for FY 2020. It would be interesting to see what happens in FY 2021 since the budget is now agreed to be capped at $740.5b of which the increases are probably to fund pay increases.

[Corsair1963]

As I've said over and over. Future US Defense Budgets are very likely to decrease in the coming years. Which, will make the case for the F-15EX harder and harder...

[weasel1962]

Looks to me like night court redux to push more money for key FY 21 programs.

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/07/esp ... next-year/