FY2021 DoD Budget

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

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 05:24

Starting a FY2021 DoD Budget and linking items in I find interesting.

Procurement:
https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/ ... %20I_1.pdf

Mods (ie Block 3F updates, Block 4, etc)
https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/ ... Mods_1.pdf

R&D Vol 1:
https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/ ... ol%20I.pdf

R&D Vol2:
https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/ ... l%20II.pdf

R&D Vol3a:
https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/ ... 20IIIa.pdf

R&D Vol3b:
https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/ ... 20IIIb.pdf


Some tidbits:

All Block 3F upgrade kits confirmed to be installed by Q4 2020 (Sep 2020).

Here is a 30,000ft view of the hardware upgrades to facilitate the Block4 timeline. The reason that it is staggered is that Block 4 follows the C2D2 playbook of incremental upgrades rather than one big upgrade. TR3 is part of the 2023 plan (2 years from today's budget).

The F-35 Block 4 Program is established to retrofit advanced capabilities on the F-35As to increase the capability and lethality of the weapon system to meet current and future threats. Funding is required to upgrade Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lots 5-16, totaling 457. 148 aircraft of the 457 will only retrofit to a Lot 15 Block 4 configuration. The remaining 309 aircraft will upgrade to a Lot 17 Production configuration.
Block 4 incorporation will not follow the traditional Block upgrade approach; instead, modifications will be performed through a Continuous Capability Development and Delivery Concept that entails upgrades to both hardware and software on fielded aircraft on a yearly base. The current modification incorporation schedule synchronizes with planned production cut-in below, except planned installs for Lot 15 capabilities in 2024. This effort includes, but not limited to the below capabilities and associated modification install timelines:
2021 (Lot 13) - Magazine Retainer Plate
- Chaff and Flare Magazine Retainer Plate - provides the capability for programmable expendables, programmable magazine load-outs, programmable emergency jettison and quicker inventory
2022 (Lot 14) - High-efficiency low voltage power supply (HE-LVPS) and Digital Channelized Receiver / Techniques Generator (DCRTG). And Dual Capable Aircraft (DCA)
- Adds high efficiency-low voltage power and a second DCRTG to the Electronic Warfare system
- Achieves the DCA weapon load-out requirement on Lot 13 production aircraft by the operational need date of Jan 2024
2023 (Lot 15 - Mods start in 2024) - Technical Refresh 3 (TR3), Next Generation Distributed Aperture System (Next Gen DAS), Cooling Mod, and Advanced Communication, Navigation, Identification Processor
- TR3 -integrates new integrated core processor, panoramic cockpit display, and aircraft memory system to meet Block 4 processing, memory, and throughput requirements
- Next Gen DAS - replaces current DAS due to sensor reliability while increasing performance to provide larger pixel focal plane array and higher operating temperatures
- Cooling Mod - increases cooling capacity to support electronic warfare growth and addition of Full Motion Video (FMV)
2024 (Lot 16)- Full Motion Video, Embedded GPS and Inertial Navigation System (EGI), Modernized Electronic Warfare Controller(M-EWC), and Modernized Electronic Warfare Processor (M-EWP)
- Full Motion Video - adds the capability to receive encrypted and unencrypted full motion video and still imagery from Operational Facilities and Remote Video Terminals
- EGI - hardware enabler for M-Code/Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast/Required Navigation Performance/area navigation capabilities
- EWC/EWP - Increases 8 core processors (SDD) to 32 providing more than 3 times the processing performance for running advance algorithms and supporting the transition from 12 Receivers (SDD) to 20
receivers
2025 (Lot 17) - Advanced Multi Channel Transceiver Receiver (AMCTR), Band 2/3/4/5 Electronic Warfare (EW) Hardware (HW) and EW Group 2
- AMCTR - Provides MIDS Modernization Increment 1 (MMI) Concurrent Multi-Netting (CMN) and Concurrent Contention Receive (CCR) capabilities
- Band 2/3/4/5 EW HW - provides Band 2&5 RWR functionality by adding Band 2 Nose Landing Gear Door (NLGD) Aperture, Band 3/4 NLGD Aperture, Band 2/3/4 Array Electronic Module (AEM), Band
- 3/4/5 AEM, Band 5 Apertures, and Band 5 AEM
- EW Group 2 - adds technology to address the Advancing Threats, to detect and counter the LPI Emitter while providing Band 5 RWR functionality; includes Wideband Receiver, Wideband Notch Filter, Band 2/5
Switch Matrix Module, Aircraft Interface Module (ACIF), M-Quad Upconverter (M-QUC), M-Quad Tuner (M-QTM), M-Digital Channelized Receiver (DCR), M-DCR and Techniques Receiver
- (DCRTG), M-Analog-to-Digital Converter (ADC), M-Radio Frequency Converter, High Voltage Power Supply (HVPS)
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 05:28

Unfortunately, there is no sign of the "Advanced EOTS" in the budget, procurement or R&D.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24377
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 05:35

Thanks 'SWP' - this looks like fun:
"- TR3 -integrates new integrated core processor, panoramic cockpit display, and aircraft memory system to meet Block 4 processing, memory, and throughput requirements
&
EWC/EWP - Increases 8 core processors (SDD) to 32 providing more than 3 times the processing performance for running advance algorithms and supporting the transition from 12 Receivers (SDD) to 20 receivers"
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 894
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 05:38

No Sidekick funding either, it seems.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6634
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 06:25

disconnectedradical wrote:No Sidekick funding either, it seems.



Very early in the process. We don't even know the generalities let alone the specifics... :|
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6634
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post26 Feb 2020, 07:22

Top 5 Things to Watch in Congress’ 2021 Defense Budget Hearings

By Mackenzie Eaglen

Resident fellow, American Enterprise Institute

February 25, 2020

On Wednesday, military and civilian leaders of the Defense Department will testify before Congress on their $705 billion budget request for 2021.


President Trump may be a lame duck to Congress, but his latest federal budget proposal attempts to ignore it. Before the first gavel falls on the hearings that will review his request, the fireworks are already flying.

The president has already broken his own budget deal, again proposed drastic discretionary cuts the Hill is dismissing, and raided the Pentagon piggy bank a second time for the wall.

On Wednesday, military and civilian defense leaders will testify to lawmakers about the Defense Department’s $705 billion budget request for 2021. This hearing is a daylong marathon ranging in topics from the mundane to the parochial to the headline-grabbing. Here’s what to expect.


The Pentagon’s budget has stopped growing for the first time in this administration (excluding disaster-relief funding). Lawmakers are still processing the many tradeoffs produced by this belt-tightening. Few were expecting the administration once again to attempt to divert defense funds to border-barrier construction. Last year, Washington’s impasse over “more wall” led to a government shutdown. Ultimately, the president got most of what he wanted.

But Hill staffers tell me that the Pentagon has spent just a fraction of the money it’s been given so far. There’s no obvious reason—beyond election-year politics—for Trump to have raided these coffers yet again. The Defense Department cannot spend the money it currently has, so Congress rightly will want more details.

HASC Chairman Adam Smith said it best: Trump’s raiding of the defense budget undermines the Pentagon’s argument for more money. “If you can just grab $7 billion out of your budget, then I think we need to take a closer look at your budget and how to cut it.”


Defense Secretary Mark Esper is animated by his efficiency reviews to plow more funds into the defense strategy. Congress is generally supportive of the concept but often dissatisfied when the individual consequences become real.

Nowhere is this truer than in shipbuilding and the retirement of existing aircraft. The Air Force has proposed expansive retirements of geriatric aircraft that strain tight budgets with increasing maintenance costs. Yet Congress has responded poorly to similar plans in the past, as former Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James recently reiterated. “No member of Congress wants to lose, or stand by and silently lose, a fleet of aircraft or a capability from their state or district, which, of course, translates to jobs,” she said.

The Navy faces a similarly steep charge. Despite commitment to a 355-ship fleet, the latest budget cuts Navy’s shipbuilding. Leaders have warned that the new nuclear submarine would eat into shipbuilding for years. But the Navy has also diverged from last year’s 30-year plan in other ways, cutting planned purchases of attack subs, littoral combat ships, and other programs.

Again, rumblings have already started in Congress. Chair of the Seapower Subcommittee, Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., held no punches: “The President’s shipbuilding budget is not a 355-ship Navy budget…I can say with complete certainty that, like so much of the rest of the President’s budget, it is dead on arrival.”

Modernization of the aging nuclear triad has been repeatedly put off by administrations of both parties. The ability to continue extending the service lives of these strategic platforms has essentially run out. The bills are due, and they are large.

In order to modernize bombers, boomers and ballistic missiles, the Pentagon had to cut other priority procurement to pay for it. One headline earlier this month summed up the difficult tradeoffs: “The U.S. Navy wants more ships but can’t afford them, admiral says.” The Navy’s unfunded priorities list reads like a casualty list of all the programs sacrificed for the new Columbia-class missile subs.

Nuclear forces upgrades alone will cost a half-trillion dollars over the next decade. The tradeoffs only get tougher next year and the year after that.

The sixth branch of the armed forces is quickly standing up and learning the ways of Washington. The Space Force might not have a headquarters yet, but it did have an unfunded requirements list totaling $1 billion.

Lt. Gen. David Thompson, vice commander of the U.S. Space Force reiterated the challenges ahead, saying, “Since the creation of the Space Force I’ve gotten questions from people along the lines of ‘So we’ve created the Space Force, but what is it going to do?’”

Over the next year, the new service must rapidly establish the bureaucratic structures it requires to sustain itself. Among various other charges, this means training personnel, deciding where talent will be pulled from, and launching their recruitment pipeline. Congress must be reassured the new service is progressing on schedule, while simultaneously avoiding the temptation to recreate old processes that will fail to serve this unique domain.

There is much disruption in this year’s defense budget as officials try to instill “irreversible” momentum toward implementation of the defense strategy. But policymakers have seen reality continue to mug the military the past year with repeated flare-ups in regions where the Pentagon would like to shed mission.

Just weeks ago, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, warned that “the Middle East is never going to let you pivot away from it.” After a challenging start to 2020, military brass will be pressed to justify their regional decisions. For example, the Army plans to draw down both counter-ISIS fund and Afghanistan security forces funds. It also intends to reduce the European Deterrence Initiative for the second year.

As policymakers and service chiefs prepare for a long season of posture hearings, it’s clear the military has made hard choices. Congress must now live up to its end of the bargain to accept some political pain for great(er) power competition gain.

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/0 ... enseOneTCO
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2249
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post20 Mar 2020, 10:39

Looks like this is becoming the norm. Congress to increase F-35 buys to 98. However the math in the article looks confusing. Add 12 As, 2 Bs and 26Cs to 79 = 98. More likely the article meant for the final breakdown to be 60 A, 12 Bs and 26 Cs = 98.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/20 ... d-in-fy21/

Good time to buy LM shares.
Offline

afjag

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017, 23:15

Unread post20 Mar 2020, 14:22

weasel1962 wrote:Looks like this is becoming the norm. Congress to increase F-35 buys to 98. However the math in the article looks confusing. Add 12 As, 2 Bs and 26Cs to 79 = 98. More likely the article meant for the final breakdown to be 60 A, 12 Bs and 26 Cs = 98.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/20 ... d-in-fy21/

Good time to buy LM shares.


I wouldnt count on that in light of the massive amount of government expenditures being spent to deal with COVID-19 and a Democratic House of Representatives.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6389
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post20 Mar 2020, 22:05

afjag wrote:Democratic House of Representatives.


WASHINGTON ― In a strong bipartisan vote, the House passed a compromise defense policy bill that authorizes a new Space Force and $738 billion for the Pentagon. However, a small but vocal group of Democrats voted against it because of the absence of new war powers restrictions, arms control language and border wall mandates. The vote was 377-48.

Beyond the 3,488-page bill’s role in authorizing the defense budget, lead House Democrats highlighted a number of reasons for their caucus to vote for the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. Paid parental leave for federal workers was at the top, with a new process to redress military medical malpractice cases, improvements to scandal-plagued military housing, the elimination of the military “widows tax” and prohibitions on the military’s use of “PFAS” chemicals.

But a number of Democrats still broke ranks on the final draft, which excluded a broader PFAS ban, restrictions on the president’s ability to transfer military money to his southern border wall project, a cut to the W76-2 low-yield nuclear warhead and prohibitions on U.S. military support for the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen.

Of Democrats, 188 voted “yea” and 41 voted “nay.” Of Republicans, 189 voted “yea” and six voted “nay.”

An NDAA has been finalized by Congress for 58 consecutive years, but this year’s bipartisan, bicameral negotiations were unusually complex because of split control of Congress. When House Republicans en masse opposed their chamber’s bill months ago, Democrats added progressive policy measures so it would muster the votes to pass the House, but those provisions were stripped out in talks with the GOP-controlled Senate.

The split Democratic vote highlights the crosscurrents House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash., must navigate ― in addition to GOP pressure ― as he steers future NDAAs. On Wednesday, Smith issued a fiery and defensive statement aimed at members of his own party, saying: “This is the most progressive defense bill we have passed in decades.”

He also argued it reflected a bipartisan consensus on national security: “Ultimately, the biggest difference between where the Democrats in the House were at and the Republicans in the Senate were at, we believe in more aggressive legislative oversight, particularly when it comes to matters of engaging in military action. We remain deeply concerned about the war in Yemen. It is not our war.”

During the debate, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said calling the bill progressive was “Orweillian,” and he exhorted his colleagues to vote “nay” over the absence of language he sponsored “to stop the war in Yemen.”


Democrats often demand to fatten it up. a lot of democrat states completely hinge on their military contracts.

old: cutting the military
new: "progressive defense budgets"

Democrats aren't peace lovers anymore. They love this war stuff. its so empowering.

if anything theyll demand a larger budget for "muh jobs" and Biological warfare on top of that. Chris Murphy of CT demanded an expanded budget beyond what was proposed because GE, Electric boat and sikorsky are all in his district. But then he unfollowed Trump on twitter since he was a repugnant "racist" and no I'm not making that up. He said Trump was an irredeemable racist, and then voted to give him even more firepower.

its a game.

hokum hō′kəm►
n. Something apparently impressive or legitimate but actually untrue or insincere; nonsense.
n. A stock technique for eliciting a desired response from an audience.
n. Meaningless nonsense with an outward appearance of being impressive and legitimate.

Democrats at this rate or going to demand a massively increased homeland security and defense budget, and an even larger wall in light of Covid19 along with expanded travel bans. Trump will look like Jimmy Carter in 2 years.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24377
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Mar 2020, 01:55

Yeah but how long did the CARTER of much Jimmy last? For sure observing US 'politics' is weird for nonUSians dununder. :roll:
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2249
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post12 Jun 2020, 02:44

Senate Armed Services Committee advances $740B defense policy bill
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2020/06 ... 591897595/

U.S. Senate panel authorizes $9.1 bln for 95 F-35 jets made by Lockheed
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-def ... SL1N2DO15N

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

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3954
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post12 Jun 2020, 15:41

More F-35's - yay

With the sole source engine thing gone, the F-15EX is (all of a sudden) looking iffy. It's a great time to buy LM shares, regardless of Democrat/Republican control. They're the world's biggest defense contractor, with a big (and growing) competitive edge in stealth, a production pipeline that's just hitting its stride, a good shot at winning PCA outright and more than a big toe in the hypersonic waters.

They're the Johnson and Johnson of defense contrators...
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1007
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post13 Jun 2020, 00:15

mixelflick wrote:More F-35's - yay

With the sole source engine thing gone, the F-15EX is (all of a sudden) looking iffy. It's a great time to buy LM shares, regardless of Democrat/Republican control. They're the world's biggest defense contractor, with a big (and growing) competitive edge in stealth, a production pipeline that's just hitting its stride, a good shot at winning PCA outright and more than a big toe in the hypersonic waters.

They're the Johnson and Johnson of defense contrators...



The concern would be "Lockheed fatigue." They do own vast swaths of the A2/AD capable
weapons inventory from AIM-260 to most of the hypersonics arsenal.

And they make everything from heavy lift helicopters to strategic BMD radars.

Absent some desperation bids from Boeing and NG, Lockheed could be building MQ-25 and LRS-B as we speak.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3954
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post17 Jun 2020, 15:09

marauder2048 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:More F-35's - yay

With the sole source engine thing gone, the F-15EX is (all of a sudden) looking iffy. It's a great time to buy LM shares, regardless of Democrat/Republican control. They're the world's biggest defense contractor, with a big (and growing) competitive edge in stealth, a production pipeline that's just hitting its stride, a good shot at winning PCA outright and more than a big toe in the hypersonic waters.

They're the Johnson and Johnson of defense contrators...



The concern would be "Lockheed fatigue." They do own vast swaths of the A2/AD capable
weapons inventory from AIM-260 to most of the hypersonics arsenal.

And they make everything from heavy lift helicopters to strategic BMD radars.

Absent some desperation bids from Boeing and NG, Lockheed could be building MQ-25 and LRS-B as we speak.


It's just the American way.. LM keeps building better mouse traps. Much, much better than anything Boeing or NG can put out (at least insofar as stealthy, advanced aircraft and missiles). And as these aircraft grow more sophisticated, so too do their production methods.

I'm not a fan of monopolies either, but it sure looks like where this is going.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6389
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post17 Jun 2020, 21:10

mixelflick wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:More F-35's - yay

With the sole source engine thing gone, the F-15EX is (all of a sudden) looking iffy. It's a great time to buy LM shares, regardless of Democrat/Republican control. They're the world's biggest defense contractor, with a big (and growing) competitive edge in stealth, a production pipeline that's just hitting its stride, a good shot at winning PCA outright and more than a big toe in the hypersonic waters.

They're the Johnson and Johnson of defense contrators...



The concern would be "Lockheed fatigue." They do own vast swaths of the A2/AD capable
weapons inventory from AIM-260 to most of the hypersonics arsenal.

And they make everything from heavy lift helicopters to strategic BMD radars.

Absent some desperation bids from Boeing and NG, Lockheed could be building MQ-25 and LRS-B as we speak.


It's just the American way.. LM keeps building better mouse traps. Much, much better than anything Boeing or NG can put out (at least insofar as stealthy, advanced aircraft and missiles). And as these aircraft grow more sophisticated, so too do their production methods.

I'm not a fan of monopolies either, but it sure looks like where this is going.


its a topic for a bigger debate, but the government picks the winner. Its not exactly a competitive market in the traditional western style of free markets. In this case since defense programs get ever more sophisticated and are not consumer products, the government literally picks the winner.

In all seriousness the battle of the X planes should have never taken place. LM had a winner from the start and then it was contested and we threw away good time and money to prove that winner. Everyone knew it was a winner when the lift fan worked as well. we could have built a single X-35 prototype and been done with it after some "proof of concept trials" The idea is that competition drives down costs, but thats not exactly the case very often:

Imagine if we kept F136 going but it takes 10 billion to develop. But thats ok because we think over the life of the program we can save 5 billion dollars thanks to competition with F135

So we net lost 5 billion to "save" 5 billion.
Choose Crews
Next

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: blindpilot and 13 guests