FY2021 DoD Budget

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

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1388
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post30 Jun 2020, 01:38

Corsair1963 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:
imho, the FY 21 budget already eliminated the F-18s. In last year budget, I argued getting rid of F-18s (rather than F-15s) was a better strategy considering that there were already significantly more newbuild navy super hornets (838 funded) i.e. lower average airframe life in the navy compared to the AF. It is also opportune to now buy more F-35Cs, which is happening.

What this means for the F-15EX program is no longer taking away USAF F-35 funds.


Except there was no uptick in outyear F-35C buys. In fact, there was a decrease relative to FY20.

My guess is that SLM/Block III upgrades are costing more than they initially predicted.


They increased the F-35C buy to 23 aircraft. Which, is enough to two squadrons...



The FY20 budget had

FY21: 18
FY22: 29
FY23: 27
FY24: 26

----> 100

The FY21 budget has

FY21: 21
FY22: 20
FY23: 26
FY24: 26
----> 93

So they lost 7 aircraft over the same outyear period.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6887
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post30 Jun 2020, 02:04

marauder2048 wrote:

The FY20 budget had

FY21: 18
FY22: 29
FY23: 27
FY24: 26

----> 100

The FY21 budget has

FY21: 21
FY22: 20
FY23: 26
FY24: 26
----> 93

So they lost 7 aircraft over the same outyear period.



Quote:


The House and Senate Armed Services committees make funding recommendations, which are then used by congressional budgeters in the appropriations committees to draw up the final funding bills. Nonetheless, SASC made a number of key funding authorizations that could mean major increases for certain aircraft programs.

• Unsurprisingly, it recommended a major increase for Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, approving the purchase of 60 F-35A conventional-takeoff-and-landing models, 12 F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing variants, and 23 F-35C carrier-takeoff-and-landing aircraft. That’s a net increase of 16 aircraft: 12 F-35As, two F-35Bs and two F-35Cs.


https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/06 ... tirements/


Plus, hard to count the out years as the numbers change all of the time..... :wink:
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1388
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post30 Jun 2020, 20:02

But Congress does rely on out year budgets to gauge the intent of the services; you are seeing
these resolutions on the Navy's fixed-wing force structure because there are no out year buys
of the Super Hornet.

And given the long lead times, you may have to commit this year's money.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6887
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post01 Jul 2020, 07:23

marauder2048 wrote:But Congress does rely on out year budgets to gauge the intent of the services; you are seeing
these resolutions on the Navy's fixed-wing force structure because there are no out year buys
of the Super Hornet.

And given the long lead times, you may have to commit this year's money.



It's going to be nothing short of extremely fluid with US Defense Budgets until this November Election and beyond. So, expect to see countless twist and turns. It's not going to be pretty boys and girls......... :shock:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24748
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Jul 2020, 17:44

House Appropriators Add 12 F-35s, Boost Weapons Spending, But…
07 Jul 2020 COLIN CLARK

"WASHINGTON: House appropriators made their first cut at the annual defense spending bill today, approving spending $3.5 billion below the Trump Administration’s request — although lawmakers added a substantial $4.1 billion for several weapons systems, including 12 additional F-35s....

...The appropriators approval of an increase in F-35 buys makes it unlikely the House Armed Services Committee’s skepticism of the Joint Strike Fighter program will prevail. The HASC added no more planes above the administration request for 79 aircraft of all three models and docked at least a score of supporting line items by a total of $561 million. By contrast the SASC added $1.36 billion to buy more Air Force F-35As, Marine F-35Bs, and Navy F-35Cs, plus spare parts...."

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2020/07/hou ... nding-but/
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: 2429
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post09 Jul 2020, 00:47

https://appropriations.house.gov/news/p ... nding-bill

Aircraft

Funds the request of 24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft ($1.7 billion).
Funds 91 F-35 aircraft, 12 more than the request ($9.3 billion).
Funds 12 F-15EX aircraft to recapitalize the F-15C/D fleet ($1.2 billion).
Funds the request of 15 KC-46 tankers ($2.7 billion).
Funds the request of 19 HH-60W combat rescue helicopters ($1.1 billion).
Funds 11 C/KC/MC-130J aircraft, 2 more than the request ($965 million).
Funds 16 MQ-9 Reaper air vehicles, 16 more than the request ($344 million).
Funds the first five CH-47F Block II Chinook aircraft and long-lead funding for the second five CH-47F Block II Chinook aircraft to ensure that the Army stays on schedule with the program of record ($227 million).
Provides $141 million above the request to fund a total of 42 UH/HH-60M Blackhawk helicopters ($866 million).
Funds the requested 50 remanufactured AH-64 Apache helicopters ($792 million).
Funds eleven V-22 aircraft, two more than the request ($1.1 billion).
Funds three P-8A Poseidon aircraft for the Navy Reserve, three more than the request ($510 million).
Funds five E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft, one more than the request ($791 million).
Funds nine CH-53K helicopters, two more than the request ($1.05 billion).
Funds a new start for SOCOM’s Armed Overwatch Program.

Shipbuilding

Provides $22.3 billion to procure nine Navy ships, $2.4 billion above the request.
Funds are provided for two DDG-51 guided missile destroyers, the initial Columbia Class submarine, two SSN-774 attack submarines, one Frigate, one LPD-17 Flight II, and two towing, salvage, and rescue ships.


Draft bill which doesn't say much.
https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/ ... pprops.pdf
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6887
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post09 Jul 2020, 04:31

The USN still need a good "30" F-35C each year. Yet, getting closer all of the time........ 8)
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2429
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post09 Jul 2020, 10:05

Looking at both versions of the bills from Senate & house
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... /4049/text

Not that far off in terms of F-35 (95 vs 91).
Both fund F-15EX.
Both are funding the F-18.

No issues this year.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6887
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post21 Jul 2020, 04:00

Defund Pentagon effort holds message for Biden


WASHINGTON ― Legislation from progressive Democrats to slash authorized defense spending by 10 percent is expected to fail in the Senate this week, with uncertain prospects in the House. But their hope is to advance an internal debate over defense spending, should Democrats take back the White House or the upper chamber.


Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and House Progressive Caucus co-chair Mark Pocan, D-Wis., are offering amendments that would cut each chamber’s $740.5 billion FY21 National Defense Authorization Act by about $74 billion. In recent days, advocates published multiple op-eds in support, and on Sunday the Congressional Progressive Caucus announced the cut as its official position.


Republicans, who hold a majority in the Senate, are, for the most part, fighting the amendments in both chambers. Reducing defense spending would undercut the bill’s deterrent effect on Russia and China, which have increased their own defense budgets, said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.


“If we cut our defense budget now, we play right into their hands,” Inhofe said in a recent op-ed in the conservative Daily Signal.

With Americans grappling personally with the effects of the coronavirus on their daily lives, Democrats argue that cutting the defense budget to fund domestic needs has become a mainstream policy. (The Sanders amendment would divert defense dollars to a domestic federal grant program to fund health care, housing, childcare and educational opportunities for cities and towns experiencing a poverty rate of 25 percent or more.)


On Monday, Pocan announced new polling from the progressive think tank Data for Progress showing that, by a 2-to-1 margin, people support a 10 percent cut in the defense budget. Fifty-seven percent of those polled support the idea and only 25 percent oppose.


“The polling is abundantly clear: the American people know that new nukes, cruise missiles, or F-35s won’t help them get their next unemployment check, or pay next month’s rent, or put food on their family’s table, or pay for the costs of healthcare in a global pandemic,” Pocan said in his announcement.



Separately, Pocan told The Intercept he saw the amendments as part of “an organizing campaign around the size of the defense budget, adding: “Next year may be the best chance, with a Democratic president and maybe a Democratic Senate, so we really are going to do everything we can this time.”


Progressives have swayed at least one important Democrat already. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has voted for every Pentagon budget increase of the Trump administration, but he announced his support for Sanders’ amendment when it comes to the floor this week.


Sanders, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, has long championed cuts for the military, but he believes the argument has new resonance now, said Sanders foreign policy aide, Matt Duss. After quickly allocating $5 trillion to respond to the coronavirus and its economic damage, Congress and the White House have been working for weeks on a new tranche of aid.


“Especially in this moment when a lot of Americans are out of work, they’re struggling, the idea that the U.S. Congress can send another quarter of a trillion dollars to the Pentagon without battling an eye―while not being able to get them more relief―that’s pretty stark,” Duss said Monday. “I think that’s something the pandemic has made very immediate and understandable to a lot of Americans in a way that it might not have been previously.”


Beyond congressional Democrats, Duss acknowledged that strong votes this week, even if the amendments fail, could send a message to former Vice President Joe Biden, who’s running for president. Biden has reportedly been under pressure from left-leaning groups to slash defense spending, if elected, with mixed results.


“What it says to Joe Biden is there is a substantial lobby within your own coalition that says we have to reset priorities,” said Gordon Adams, who led defense budgeting under the Clinton administration. “We know we have a public health crisis that’s been inadequately managed, and it’s going to lead to changes in the healthcare system.”


Should Biden win, he would have his best window early in his administration, before federal agencies are fully staffed, to aggressively pursue Democratic budget priorities, according to Adams. “That first year is crucial because they have to submit their own budget, there isn’t an outgoing budget that’s been submitted,” Adams said.



Jim Manley, who was Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s senior communications adviser, said it seems likely Democrats will have a significant debate over spending priorities next year, especially if the Senate flips and Sanders becomes chairman of the Budget Committee. But the size of the vote will be what determines how much pressure a President Biden would be under.


“We will see how the votes go, but I am not sure that this is where a majority of House and Senate Democrats are,” Manley said. “It’s interesting that Sen. Schumer has sided with the progressives here but I don’t think that anyone should be under the illusion that he is going to whip his caucus or do much of anything to get Senate Democrats on board.”


Whatever the strategic goals, Republicans are arguing the amendments make for abysmal policymaking. In the House floor debate over the Pocan amendment Monday, several likened it to sequestration budget cuts.


House Armed Services Committee Republicans on Monday released a statement arguing the cuts, among other reductions, would sap funding from operations, maintenance, training, military construction accounts, military housing and education for military dependents. To boot, research and development would lose $17 billion.

“This amendment is a deeply irresponsible stunt that would have great implications for our national security,” said HASC member Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo. “We would, with this amendment, undermine the readiness of our troops on air, on land and at sea.”

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/20 ... for-biden/
Previous

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests