US Defense Budget: More for Stealth less for Legacy?
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 9840
- Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14
Biden to Request $715 Billion for DOD, Eliminate the OCO Account
April 9, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine
President Joe Biden will request $715 billion for the Pentagon in his first budget request in office, about a $10 billion increase from the 2021 enacted budget but below the sustained growth military officials have asked for.
Notably, Biden’s budget looks to do away with the “overseas contingency operations” fund, marking a significant shift in military funding. The OCO is intended to fund wartime operations, but critics have long lamented it’s nothing more than a slush fund for more defense spending. Biden wants to move that wartime funding back to the base budget.
Former President Donald J. Trump, for example, requested $705 billion in his last budget for the Pentagon, plus $69 billion in OCO funding. Congress appropriated $636.4 billion for the Pentagon’s base budget, $25.9 billion for national security programs within the Department of Energy, and $69 billion for the Overseas Contingency Operations account.
The White House Office of Management and Budget on April 9 released a “skinny” budget outline, with limited details of what to expect in the forthcoming overall budget request. Biden’s budget includes $753 billion total for national defense, including the Pentagon budget and other defense-related programs, such as the National Nuclear Security Administration.
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committees defense panel, said the proposed 1.5 percent increase for the Department of Defense “will sustain readiness and modernization while we also focus on divesting from ineffective legacy programs and eliminating wasteful spending.”
“I applaud President Biden’s proposed budget for its strong and responsible investments in critical domestic priorities and essential national security needs,” McCollum added in a statement released April 9. “The President understands that the health, economic, climate, and equity crises facing our country must be addressed with bold action.”
OMB, in its statement, states the funding will “defend America and deter adversaries while ensuring America is positioned for strategic competition.” While it does not outline specific efforts, the administration said it will support “ongoing nuclear modernization programs,” which would include the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, while it also reviews the overall U.S. nuclear posture.
The administration also plans to divest “legacy systems and programs to redirect resources from low- to high-priority programs, platforms, and systems,” though OMB did not specifically mention which platforms would be affected. The Air Force has long tried to cut legacy aircraft, such as KC-10s and A-10s, to free up funding for newer systems.
“Some legacy force structure is too costly to maintain and operate, and no longer provides the capabilities needed to address national security challenges,” OMB states. “The discretionary request enables DOD to reinvest savings associated with divestitures and other efficiencies to higher priority investments.”
The budget would continue the military’s overall effort to focus on the threat from China as the DOD’s top challenge, while also deterring Russia, by funding the Pacific Deterrence Initiative and working closely with allies and partners in both the Pacific and in NATO.
The request will support DOD research and development, by prioritizing funding “to invest in breakthrough technologies that would drive innovation and underpin the development of next-generation defense capabilities.”
The Biden administration will invest in a “mix” of long-range strike capabilities, a sign that it will continue funding U.S. Army efforts in this area in addition to continued USAF programs.
“The discretionary request invests in the development and testing of hypersonic strike capabilities while enhancing existing long-range strike capabilities to bolster deterrence and improve survivability and response timelines,” the document states.
Additionally, the budget request will “ensure readiness” with funding for training, promote climate resilience, counter emerging biological threats, support military families, and optimize U.S. Naval shipbuilding, according to OMB.
The lack of funding growth when adjusted for inflation elicited quick criticism from Republicans on Capitol Hill. In a joint statement, Sens. Jim Inhofe (Okla.), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), and Richard Shelby (Ala.) said without more funding, China will out-compete the U.S.
“President Biden’s budget proposal cuts defense spending, sending a terrible signal not only to our adversaries in Beijing and Moscow, but also to our allies and partners. Cutting America’s defense budget completely undermines Washington Democrats’ tough talk on China and calls into question the administration’s willingness to confront the Chinese Communist Party,” the senators wrote.
https://www.airforcemag.com/biden-to-re ... o-account/
April 9, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine
President Joe Biden will request $715 billion for the Pentagon in his first budget request in office, about a $10 billion increase from the 2021 enacted budget but below the sustained growth military officials have asked for.
Notably, Biden’s budget looks to do away with the “overseas contingency operations” fund, marking a significant shift in military funding. The OCO is intended to fund wartime operations, but critics have long lamented it’s nothing more than a slush fund for more defense spending. Biden wants to move that wartime funding back to the base budget.
Former President Donald J. Trump, for example, requested $705 billion in his last budget for the Pentagon, plus $69 billion in OCO funding. Congress appropriated $636.4 billion for the Pentagon’s base budget, $25.9 billion for national security programs within the Department of Energy, and $69 billion for the Overseas Contingency Operations account.
The White House Office of Management and Budget on April 9 released a “skinny” budget outline, with limited details of what to expect in the forthcoming overall budget request. Biden’s budget includes $753 billion total for national defense, including the Pentagon budget and other defense-related programs, such as the National Nuclear Security Administration.
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committees defense panel, said the proposed 1.5 percent increase for the Department of Defense “will sustain readiness and modernization while we also focus on divesting from ineffective legacy programs and eliminating wasteful spending.”
“I applaud President Biden’s proposed budget for its strong and responsible investments in critical domestic priorities and essential national security needs,” McCollum added in a statement released April 9. “The President understands that the health, economic, climate, and equity crises facing our country must be addressed with bold action.”
OMB, in its statement, states the funding will “defend America and deter adversaries while ensuring America is positioned for strategic competition.” While it does not outline specific efforts, the administration said it will support “ongoing nuclear modernization programs,” which would include the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, while it also reviews the overall U.S. nuclear posture.
The administration also plans to divest “legacy systems and programs to redirect resources from low- to high-priority programs, platforms, and systems,” though OMB did not specifically mention which platforms would be affected. The Air Force has long tried to cut legacy aircraft, such as KC-10s and A-10s, to free up funding for newer systems.
“Some legacy force structure is too costly to maintain and operate, and no longer provides the capabilities needed to address national security challenges,” OMB states. “The discretionary request enables DOD to reinvest savings associated with divestitures and other efficiencies to higher priority investments.”
The budget would continue the military’s overall effort to focus on the threat from China as the DOD’s top challenge, while also deterring Russia, by funding the Pacific Deterrence Initiative and working closely with allies and partners in both the Pacific and in NATO.
The request will support DOD research and development, by prioritizing funding “to invest in breakthrough technologies that would drive innovation and underpin the development of next-generation defense capabilities.”
The Biden administration will invest in a “mix” of long-range strike capabilities, a sign that it will continue funding U.S. Army efforts in this area in addition to continued USAF programs.
“The discretionary request invests in the development and testing of hypersonic strike capabilities while enhancing existing long-range strike capabilities to bolster deterrence and improve survivability and response timelines,” the document states.
Additionally, the budget request will “ensure readiness” with funding for training, promote climate resilience, counter emerging biological threats, support military families, and optimize U.S. Naval shipbuilding, according to OMB.
The lack of funding growth when adjusted for inflation elicited quick criticism from Republicans on Capitol Hill. In a joint statement, Sens. Jim Inhofe (Okla.), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), and Richard Shelby (Ala.) said without more funding, China will out-compete the U.S.
“President Biden’s budget proposal cuts defense spending, sending a terrible signal not only to our adversaries in Beijing and Moscow, but also to our allies and partners. Cutting America’s defense budget completely undermines Washington Democrats’ tough talk on China and calls into question the administration’s willingness to confront the Chinese Communist Party,” the senators wrote.
https://www.airforcemag.com/biden-to-re ... o-account/
- Active Member
- Posts: 247
- Joined: 05 Jul 2005, 04:16
That isn't quite as much of a cut as I had feared. At least he didn't go full Obama/Clinton on the defense budget, though considering the difference between now and then on the world stage, I suppose no administration could politically survive too much defense cuts at a time like this. And based on what republicans are saying, I'd say there is a fair chance we get that defense budget bumped up a bit during negotiations to at least offset inflation. So it may very well end up holding steady as opposed to declining. While I'd prefer to see the annual 3-5% increase in defense spending some are calling for, this isn't a terrible defense budget considering it it coming from a modern (D) administration. I was expecting something considerably worse.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 9840
- Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14
Fox1 wrote:That isn't quite as much of a cut as I had feared. At least he didn't go full Obama/Clinton on the defense budget, though considering the difference between now and then on the world stage, I suppose no administration could politically survive too much defense cuts at a time like this. And based on what republicans are saying, I'd say there is a fair chance we get that defense budget bumped up a bit during negotiations to at least offset inflation. So it may very well end up holding steady as opposed to declining. While I'd prefer to see the annual 3-5% increase in defense spending some are calling for, this isn't a terrible defense budget considering it it coming from a modern (D) administration. I was expecting something considerably worse.
Honestly, doesn't save as much as many may think it would. Unless, you retire an entire type from service. Let's see if the Biden Administration has the guts to do that???
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3067
- Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
- Location: Singapore
DoD outlay in 2008 (final year of Bush) was $595b. Next 3 years was $637b, $667b and $678b (1st 3 years of Obama), notwithstanding the subprime crisis. Not many people remember the budget limits imposed during the Obama 2nd term by the republican congress....with the then doomsday forecasts about deficits & debts.
With Ukraine & Taiwan in the limelight, it would be remarkably tone deaf to cut the defense budget right now (which applies to some of the "progressives" in congress).
With Ukraine & Taiwan in the limelight, it would be remarkably tone deaf to cut the defense budget right now (which applies to some of the "progressives" in congress).
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 5298
- Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
- Location: Finland
weasel1962 wrote:DoD outlay in 2008 (final year of Bush) was $595b. Next 3 years was $637b, $667b and $678b (1st 3 years of Obama), notwithstanding the subprime crisis. Not many people remember the budget limits imposed during the Obama 2nd term by the republican congress....with the then doomsday forecasts about deficits & debts.
With Ukraine & Taiwan in the limelight, it would be remarkably tone deaf to cut the defense budget right now (which applies to some of the "progressives" in congress).
For an outsider it seems like Obama first term was pretty good for US defence budget both in absolute and relative terms. It was higher then than it was during George W. Bush era again both in absolute and relative terms. Obama 2nd term saw some pretty significant decrease though. Of course Trump term it was pretty much flat in relative terms, which meant it did increase somewhat in absolute terms as economy expanded (like it pretty much always does).
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1496
- Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committees defense panel, said the proposed 1.5 percent increase for the Department of Defense
The Army/Navy joint inflation calculator, that was just updated in March for PB FY2022, has
inflation at 2 percent so as other have alluded to this is a cut.
https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/72/Documents/Offices/CE/PB22_Joint_Inflation_Calculator.xlsm
DOD procurement basically peaked in the FY2008/09 budget and was flat or declining until ~ FY2017+
Most of the growth in that period was in Operations and personnel.
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 7505
- Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
Fox1 wrote: At least he didn't go full Obama
one of the biggest falsehoods of the 21st century is that Obama was peaceful. He turned 2 wars into 7, surged the troops in Afghanistan and his crowning achievement was the UBL operation. in one of the world's great ironies, getting a peace prize will apparently give you a blank check to start and expand as many wars as you please.
Choose Crews
-
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2806
- Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26
Salute!
Maybe a new thread for the topic, but Joe's blog entry on Tyler's site was terrible.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... d-wargames
I get the impression that he is a Bug Forever troop or of something in wondertland. I also have serious feelings about the USAF greneral, who might be a "never F-35" or "never Trumper"
Good grief! They did a simulation and used the imaginary next gen air dominance platform and I can bet it worked exactly like the spec demanded! Then throw in legions of smart drones, then limit the F-35 missions, then..... Has that guy seen the Red Flag results? Ha s he stood in front of 200 folks to present the plan for the day like I did? Did he see actual results from physical pilots and crewchiefs and the coordination once the bell rang? How were the AWACS and other assets of its ilk deployed and used? Were was USN support?
Gonna log, but the blog entry and the related main article should be read and digested before replying here, IMHO.
Gums sends...
Maybe a new thread for the topic, but Joe's blog entry on Tyler's site was terrible.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... d-wargames
I get the impression that he is a Bug Forever troop or of something in wondertland. I also have serious feelings about the USAF greneral, who might be a "never F-35" or "never Trumper"
Good grief! They did a simulation and used the imaginary next gen air dominance platform and I can bet it worked exactly like the spec demanded! Then throw in legions of smart drones, then limit the F-35 missions, then..... Has that guy seen the Red Flag results? Ha s he stood in front of 200 folks to present the plan for the day like I did? Did he see actual results from physical pilots and crewchiefs and the coordination once the bell rang? How were the AWACS and other assets of its ilk deployed and used? Were was USN support?
Gonna log, but the blog entry and the related main article should be read and digested before replying here, IMHO.
Gums sends...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 7505
- Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
Gums wrote:Salute!
Maybe a new thread for the topic, but Joe's blog entry on Tyler's site was terrible.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... d-wargames
I get the impression that he is a Bug Forever troop or of something in wondertland. I also have serious feelings about the USAF greneral, who might be a "never F-35" or "never Trumper"
Good grief! They did a simulation and used the imaginary next gen air dominance platform and I can bet it worked exactly like the spec demanded! Then throw in legions of smart drones, then limit the F-35 missions, then..... Has that guy seen the Red Flag results? Ha s he stood in front of 200 folks to present the plan for the day like I did? Did he see actual results from physical pilots and crewchiefs and the coordination once the bell rang? How were the AWACS and other assets of its ilk deployed and used? Were was USN support?
Gonna log, but the blog entry and the related main article should be read and digested before replying here, IMHO.
Gums sends...
NSFW language:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFYv6sixE0g
We need one trillion dollars to develop the worlds best military over the next 10 years
Wow that's a lot, but here you go
It will absolutely by worth it! You can count on us!!
a decade later:
We ran a simulation that said we can't defend a single island in the pacific, unless we get completely new weapons-- we are going to need more money
I'm not a luddite. But I am a little shocked at some of speed we've decided that even 5th generation is suddenly not really worth doing since 6th generation is now "here" in (likely) just 20 years. and we still have to keep the A-10s? why?
The USAF needs to be really careful about how it navigates all this, and if they decide to throw the F-35 under the bus (as CSAF Brown stupidly did in February) they might just find some politicians that are more than willing to oblige them. If the F-35 is going to be hard pressed with things like "Range in the pacific", then the F-16 will be even worse off, but that may be all they have left if they're stupid.
I wish them the best of luck, and be careful about those new magical programs that are somehow easier than the JSF.
Choose Crews
-
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2806
- Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26
Salute!
Great pic, Crews.
If we go to war tonight, we have a great mix of weapon systems, and I will stand them up to anybody depending on the theater.
I am not advocating a force structure depending upon a naval scenario, but that is one we must plan for for sure. Not a direct and present threat to vital country structure or society, but sure, maybe a rogue nation will do something stupid.
I shall challenge that USAF general to a "war game" using the Rand Corp or whoever"s think tank models are used. Without knowing the conmputer code, I shall surprise the dude and beat him. First thing would be to have spurious failures in the cosmic NGAD thing - logistics, not as stealthy, and when? Next year? 5 years? NO! We fight with what we have today.
Folks must realize that a nation's military must be financed, equipped and trained to support national policy and threats to the nation. So fighting in the Pacific with no imminent threat to U.S. interests is an interesting war game, but not that vital to overall national interests.
Oh well, msybe a new thread for policy and such, but I am very upset about a highy ranking officer throwint in the towel, and question his experience in these matters.
Gums sends...
Great pic, Crews.
If we go to war tonight, we have a great mix of weapon systems, and I will stand them up to anybody depending on the theater.
I am not advocating a force structure depending upon a naval scenario, but that is one we must plan for for sure. Not a direct and present threat to vital country structure or society, but sure, maybe a rogue nation will do something stupid.
I shall challenge that USAF general to a "war game" using the Rand Corp or whoever"s think tank models are used. Without knowing the conmputer code, I shall surprise the dude and beat him. First thing would be to have spurious failures in the cosmic NGAD thing - logistics, not as stealthy, and when? Next year? 5 years? NO! We fight with what we have today.
Folks must realize that a nation's military must be financed, equipped and trained to support national policy and threats to the nation. So fighting in the Pacific with no imminent threat to U.S. interests is an interesting war game, but not that vital to overall national interests.
Oh well, msybe a new thread for policy and such, but I am very upset about a highy ranking officer throwint in the towel, and question his experience in these matters.
Gums sends...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3906
- Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
I just don’t get this new appetite for Corfam amongst USAF go’s. 
“We can’t win without NGAD...”. You can’t win without any force structure either, General, and perhaps defending Taiwan is not your number one problem.
Agree w Gums; aint it amazing how perfect all the war game vaporware works.
“We can’t win without NGAD...”. You can’t win without any force structure either, General, and perhaps defending Taiwan is not your number one problem.
Agree w Gums; aint it amazing how perfect all the war game vaporware works.
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 7505
- Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
quicksilver wrote:I just don’t get this new appetite for Corfam amongst USAF go’s.
“We can’t win without NGAD...”. You can’t win without any force structure either, General, and perhaps defending Taiwan is not your number one problem.
Agree w Gums; aint it amazing how perfect all the war game vaporware works.
Its magical really... hard to know if the brass is informing the scenario, or the scenario the brass.
So should we retire the F-22s? since they are unable to win in their designated Air Dominance role?
I was informed F-22 would assure "air dominance for decades", but it turns out they can't win one of the few conflicts they were expressly built for, and are now apparently obsolete?
looks like the RAPTOR...
...Is a Dinosaur
YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
Choose Crews
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 6001
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
- Location: Nashua NH USA
hahahaha
"Spurts"
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 7505
- Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
Well Air Force, you got me. I had no idea an entire generation of fighters was being fielded that couldn't do what you said they could. I was under the impression we were fielding winners, not losers. jokes on me.
Choose Crews
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests