Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2930
    Points : 2955
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 4 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  max steel Sun May 29, 2016 10:28 pm

    US Navy Faces $848 Million Ops & Maintenance Shortfall


    US Navy leaders have made no secret the fleet’s maintenance accounts are underfunded. The situation – exacerbated by several years of sequestration-mandated budget cuts, a government shutdown, Congress’ chronic ability to pass a budget before the end of each fiscal year, a high operating tempo and the cumulative effects of all those problems – is affecting the readiness of ships, aircraft and sailors.

    The Navy has an $848 million shortfall in its current operations and maintenance accounts, a service official said, and while there will be no impact to forces already deployed, continuing problems “would likely delay some deployments.”

    As the Navy moves through the fiscal year’s third quarter, officials are preparing to take several actions to limit 2016 spending:

    1 Deferring overhauls on four surface ships and one submarine from the fourth quarter of fiscal 2016 into fiscal 2017’s first quarter;

    2 “descoping” or deferring continuous maintenance for the assault ships Makin Island and America amphibious ready groups and the Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike group;

    3 Restricting Carrier Air Wing 1 (CVW-1) flying hours, including imposing a four-month no-fly period, and limiting other flying hour program costs; and

    4 deferring “various other contracts.”

    The Carl Vinson, America and Makin Island recently completed major overhauls and are expected to deploy in the coming year. CVW-1, on the other hand, completed a full deployment in 2015, is now in a “maintenance phase,” and is not expected to deploy again until 2019.

    The Navy also notes that a decision announced May 2 to extend the current deployment of the Harry S. Truman carrier strike group by one month to combat ISIS will require an additional $91 million in operations spending.

    Pushing the five ship overhauls into next year, the Navy official noted, will add to 2017’s scheduling problems and increase required funding by $473 million.

    Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., is urging Congress to increase maintenance funding and Thursday, he chaired a combined hearing of his Seapower and Projection Forces and Readiness subcommittees to focus on the issue. Forbes had hoped to draw special attention by holding the hearing in Norfolk aboard the soon-to-deploy carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower, but the effort was scotched by the Pentagon, although Forbes and other House Armed Services Committee members on Monday toured the flattop and several other ships and facilities.

    “We are not currently providing our Navy with the resources it needs to do what we ask,” Forbes said Thursday in his opening statement. “At least not without burning out our ships and our planes and our sailors and undermining our long-term readiness.”

    The Navy itself, Forbes said, notes that the service is at its “lowest readiness point in many years.

    “The resources we have been allocating to that critical function of government have been woefully inadequate,” he intoned.

    While Fleet Forces Commander Adm. Phil Davidson read an opening statement, the hearing sought to bring the readiness issue closer to the deck plates, and four Navy captains testified as to the effects on their commands and communities.

    Capt. Randy Stearns, commodore of Strike Fighter Wing Atlantic, said one in four aircraft were usually deployed and noted there were extreme issues with older F/A-18 Hornet strike fighters and CH-53 helicopters. Non-deploying aircraft were regularly being robbed of parts to keep deployed planes flying, he said, with the result that the fleet had little surge capacity should more aircraft be needed in action.

    Asked where the problems began, Stearns replied, “sequestration – we’ve never caught up.”

    Problems are being compounded, he noted, as new aircraft are being used at rates far higher than anticipated.

    “We’re chewing up about 40 aircraft hours a month” on each F/A-18 E and F Super Hornet, he said, adding to the maintenance load to deployed aircraft, Fleet Readiness Centers and naval aviation depots.

    Capt. Greg McRae, deputy commander of Submarine Squadron Six at Norfolk, detailed a particularly egregious case of a submarine overhaul that, for a variety of reasons, has nearly doubled in length and is leading to further issues.

    The Los Angeles-class submarine Albany, McRae told the subcommittees, had been scheduled to enter Norfolk Naval Shipyard in October 2013 for a planned 28 and one-half month overhaul – known as an availability in Navy parlance. But at the time, he said, “we were going through sequestration and there was a lot of instability, so the availability was pushed to January 2014.”

    Once in the shipyard, workforce challenges due to hiring freezes and funding shortfalls began to affect the overhaul. “About every three months we would get a new schedule pushing timelines to the right,” he said. As a result, the Albany is still in the shipyard. “Today, we’re looking at a 43-month overhaul.

    “The impact is significant,” McRae added. “Certainly the operational days lost – days we will never recover those. It’s also had an impact on other submarines and crews.”

    The submarine Boise, he said, was to have entered the shipyard after Albany. “But because of Albany’s delays, we’ve been extending Boise in three-month intervals,” he said. Because of needed maintenance, “we are no longer capable of operating Boise at sea after this summer,” he cautioned. “Any more delays after that,” he said, and the ship will remain pierside.

    “It’s almost double the lost [operational] days if you think of it in that perspective,” McRae noted. “Clearly it’s a significant impact.”

    The Albany’s crew has suffered from the prolonged shipyard period.

    “One of the tertiary effects is the impact to crew and families,” McRae said. “Because of the Albany delays, many sailors will start and end their submarine tour in the shipyard – not something they signed up for.”

    The ship’s commanding officer, McRae noted, expected to wrap up the overhaul period, prepare the ship to deploy and take her to sea.

    “But he will be relieved with his ship still in the shipyard. Because of that he has decided to retire from the service.”

    McRae added that Albany’s executive officer and chief engineering officer, unable to demonstrate their proficiency at operating a nuclear submarine, were not selected for command or to become XO.

    “The engineer was by all measures a great performer,” McRae said, “but in the shipyard he could not demonstrate that expertise and he did not select for XO. Inhibiting their ability to go to sea certainly inhibits their professional development,” he declared.


    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2930
    Points : 2955
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 4 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  max steel Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:47 am

    The Pentagon’s Budget Time Bomb
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 16336
    Points : 16839
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 4 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  George1 Tue Oct 04, 2016 3:42 am

    Clinton Criticism Could Mean Doom for LRSO

    http://www.defensenews.com/articles/clinton-criticism-could-mean-doom-for-lrso
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 16336
    Points : 16839
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 4 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  George1 Sat Jan 28, 2017 2:09 am

    Trump Signs Executive Order To Rebuild US Military

    "No one will question" that the US is the best military on earth and the greatest force for justice "the world has ever seen," President Donald Trump said. But that the US also wants peace, he said.

    After participating in the swearing-in of new Defense Secretary Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis, Trump announced the signing of two executive actions, the first of which Trump thinks the 115th Congress "will like very much."

    Trump has issued a series of promises to bolster the US military. But as it stands, the US already outpaces the rest of the world in military spending by a long-shot. Trump has vowed to build up the nuclear arsenal and increase the number of ships in the US Navy. He has also been busy with the F-35 program, which he said will see cost reductions conducted "beautifully."

    At the Pentagon, Trump also signed a separate executive order that will enact "new vetting measures to keep radical Islamic Terrorists out of the United States of America"

    The full details of the executive order rebuilding the military have not been disclosed.

    In the Pentagon's Hall of Heroes with a massive medal of honor behind him, Trump declared the "executive action" will contribute to "a great rebuilding of the armed services," adding that it will include "new planes, new ships, new resources, and new tools for our men and women in uniform."

    https://sputniknews.com/us/201701281050092926-trumpy-signs-executive-order-military/
    franco
    franco

    Posts : 4302
    Points : 4334
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 4 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  franco Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:07 am

    Obviously billions more need to be feed into the trough....

    http://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-10/2018_IndexOfUSMilitaryStrength-2.pdf
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29860
    Points : 30388
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 4 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  GarryB Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:51 pm

    Got to get the MIC on side if you want to make any headway...

    A rearm is almost as good as a war in terms of cost...
    KiloGolf
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2496
    Points : 2482
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 4 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  KiloGolf Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:43 am

    GarryB wrote:Got to get the MIC on side if you want to make any headway...

    A rearm is almost as good as a war in terms of cost...

    It's not funny, even their figures are aimed at politicians with a "gib moneyzzzz" theme.
    They get Russia's population wrong, bloat their number of warheads and then include Japan in NATO lol1

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 4 J1X9QOa

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 4 5kbhIyz
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 8960
    Points : 9057
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 4 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  JohninMK Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:21 am

    Big report on the FY2018 spending by the US on drones etc showing the huge increase in budgets.

    http://dronecenter.bard.edu/drones-2018-defense-budget/
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 8960
    Points : 9057
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 4 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  JohninMK Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:30 pm

    My highlight, wow!


    Luke O'Brien
    ‏ @luke_j_obrien
    31m31 minutes ago

    Luke O'Brien Retweeted Grant Turnbull

    It would be interesting to see a breakdown of how many rounds of each is being ordered. We’ve gotta be exhausting all the M107 HE rounds we have saved up, and will need to backfill with the new M795 HE.

    Grant Turnbull
    ‏ @GrantTurnbull_
    1h1 hour ago

    FY19 procurement quantities compared with FY18 for US Army, significant uplift in purchase of 155mm artillery rounds for M777 and M109 guns

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 4 DV2r5EfWAAMkD1c
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 8960
    Points : 9057
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 4 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  JohninMK Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:40 pm


    Stephen Trimble
    ‏ @FG_STrim
    49m49 minutes ago

    Here's your handy chart showing how many aircraft the US military was authorised by Congress to buy in FY17 and FY18, plus how many are requested in FY19. By units, fighters are up. Most everything else is down.


    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 4 DV2zBr_W4AAD6Hn
    franco
    franco

    Posts : 4302
    Points : 4334
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 4 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  franco Mon Feb 19, 2018 12:36 pm

    Dollars turned into weapons. American money against Russia

    US military officials and congressmen are discussing the future military budget of the state. This budget may, perhaps, be the largest in the entire history of the United States. In fact, multibillion-dollar spending is directed against Russia. It was Russia that became the number one bugbear for the bearers of advanced liberal thought.

    For the 2019 fiscal year, the Pentagon requires (or, as the American press says, it asks) that the US Congress has a defense budget of $ 716 billion.

    Such a budget, if approved and accepted, will break records in the history of US military budgets.

    Recall, the fiscal year in the US begins on October 1, and therefore there is still much time for debate and discussion. Of course, there will be changes. The military budget is usually unchanged. One must remember, incidentally, that Mr. McCain and his hawk companions believe that President Trump is doing a good job, arming his homeland, but he is spending an unacceptably low amount of armament!

    Surprisingly, America's main "enemy", that is Russia, is spending on its defense, if counted in dollars, roundly 46 billion. The indicators are simply incommensurable. It must also be remembered that Russia has an economic crisis, oil is not as expensive as in 2013, and Western sanctions are still in force, including against the military-industrial complex of Russia. Therefore, the cost of defense in the Russian Federation in general is under the big question: if oil becomes cheaper, then these costs will inevitably fall. In the US, with the new militaristic policy of Mr. Trump copying Reagan's militarism, spending will rise rather than drop. Did the Russians so intimidate peaceful Americans with their military bases around the world?

    Apparently, yes. Russians seem to the Pentagon as a truly terrible enemy. The Pentagon also does not hide: the United States, military officials say, it is necessary to preserve military "advantages" in front of Russia, and even before China. Naturally, the preservation of "advantages" is not free.

    The budget request of the Ministry of Defense for 2019, released on Monday, caused an increase in wages by 2.6 percent, a modest increase in the final benefits of services and major recovery programs aimed at maintaining US influence on China and Russia.

    In fact, if you look closely at the numbers, the increase in the military budget does not seem significant. In comparison with the previous fiscal year, it is planned to increase the defense budget by 2.6 percent, Military.com said . However, this is more than President Trump himself proposed for the new financial year: in December 2017, he approved an increase in the military budget by 2.4%.

    The growth of the defense budget, the newspaper notes, is linked, among other things, with a significant increase in the monetary allowance for American servicemen. The US Department of Defense expects that a moderate increase in military salaries in the short term will continue and will even correspond to the growth of incomes of private sector personnel. This is reported in the open budget documents of the Pentagon. In the fiscal year 2019, for example, it is planned to increase the allowance of sergeants by $ 1,169 per year.

    It is reported and the expected increase in the number of members. The US Air Force will "grow up" to 4,000 people. The total number of Air Force personnel will be 329,100 people. The ground forces will also receive 4,000 active personnel in order to increase their strength to 487,500 people. In the navy will add 7,500 people, and the total number of sailors will be 335,400. Finally, the Marine Corps will receive 1,100 people, and the total number of these forces will grow to 186,100 people.

    The National Guard will increase its strength slightly, by 500 people.

    If the Pentagon approves the White House and the US Congress, the budget request of $ 716 billion for 2019 will provide financing for the construction of ten ships for the Navy, including three missile destroyers, two Virginia class submarines and one coastal combat vessel.

    Also, more than 400 new aircraft will be financed, including seventy-seven F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, twenty-four F / A-18 E Super Hornets, sixty AH-64 Apache helicopters and sixty-eight UH-60 Black Hawk aircraft.

    In total, the newspaper notes, for two fiscal years in the form of military financing will be allocated 1.4 trillion. dollars to create lethal weapons and increase the potential of the armed forces. This was announced by Defense Minister J. Mattis during his trip to Europe for a meeting on security issues. According to Mattis, thanks to the budgetary decisions of Congress and the president, the US will again have a "primacy" among the armed forces of the world. The Minister of Defense also talked about plans to increase the number of servicemen, the development of cyber-operations and the purchase of more ammunition.

    Of the estimated $ 716 billion, about $ 30 billion will go to the needs of the Department of Energy and other institutions that contribute to national defense. About 617 billion dollars is planned to be allocated in the form of the Pentagon's basic budget. About 69 billion will go to the so-called military budget (or the Fund for Foreign Operations) in case of unforeseen circumstances. Basically, the money will go to Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. 6.5 billion dollars will be used to support the European Defense Initiative (to strengthen NATO). Another $ 900 million - on agreements on cooperation in the field of security, US prisoners with a number of countries.

    As President Trump previously said, the US defense budget "provides resources to strengthen missile defense and the creation of airplanes, tanks, warships and cyber warfare through which those brave men and women that protect us will hold back aggression and, if necessary, engage in battle and win ". Trump focused on increasing the monetary allowance to "brave men and women," saying that it was "the most important thing."

    As for the promotion of his budget, Trump, when he saw how well the matter was, told his protege Mattis "Mad Dog" about this, and he did not hide his joy by publicly declaring (almost in the manner of Hillary Clinton): "Wow, I do not I can believe: we got everything we wanted! "(Wow - I can not believe we got everything we wanted!)

    Thus, we see that the Pentagon will have 6.5 billion dollars to restrain Russia, which will go to support the European defense initiative (otherwise, to strengthen NATO). The amount on the background of the general budget is almost tiny.

    "6.5 billion dollars is, roughly speaking, one percent of the military budget. But we must understand that this amount is equivalent to the military budgets of the Baltic countries, Poland, Ukraine and other countries that Americans consider their allies in the aggregate, " military expert Alexei Leonkov reminded the newspaper " Vzglyad " .

    According to him, these billions are likely to go "to restore all the infrastructure around the borders of Russia, which was during the Cold War." This is the reconstruction of military bases, the installation of new observation posts, equipment. It's reconnaissance flights and stuff.

    However, in reality, 6.5 billion is not all that is "specifically" intended for Russia. After all, it's not for nothing that the Americans think about the resumption of the practice of equipping cruise missiles with nuclear warheads (for example, the same Tomahawks). Alexei Leonkov said: "To do this, you need money: the Pentagon plans to receive $ 16 billion. Additional funds will be used for the resuscitation of other programs with cruise missiles of medium range, sea and, possibly, even ground bases (although they are prohibited by the INF Treaty). " In fact, the Pentagon wants to return to the practice of the 1980s, when there was a concept of striking the USSR with the help of cruise nuclear missiles. And here is the amount of more than 20 billion - this is what it is supposed to spend on the modernization of missiles.

    It is pertinent to say here about the US Navy: the increase in the fleet. The expert recalls the "Arly Burke" and the sub class "Virginia". "We must understand, again, that this is primarily the carriers of cruise missiles," he says.

    Finally, the Americans intend to place their strategic bombers closer to the Russian borders. "For their constant presence in the air (B-52, probably, regular flights will begin soon along our borders), we need air tankers. Hence the corresponding requirement to purchase KC-46 refuelers, "Leonkov said.

    It turns out, we note that Trump, copying the strategy of his idol Reagan, puts the cart of politics ahead of the horse economy. If the Reagan did not have such huge state debts for the United States, and production was not in a hurry to move to fraternal China, today the financing of defense spending will obviously be implemented in the good old way - by raising the "ceiling of borrowing." Reagan just became the president at which the US debt sharply jumped. The 1980s are defined by economists as a period when the US public debt grew much faster than GDP. Later, in the 2000s, the gap between the dynamics of GDP and the growth of public debt increased even more. This was due to the wars that President Bush unleashed.

    As a result, a new increase in military spending will lead to a rise in both the state debt and the budget deficit in the US. As for inflation, the US dollar has recently been weakened by the US finance minister.

    In short, the American hegemon is ready to go to anything, just to protect against the terrible Russians.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29860
    Points : 30388
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 4 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  GarryB Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:01 am

    Hahahaha... the more they spend... the "safer" they will be... hahahahaha...

    Just as well the FBI is spending all its energy and resources on repelling the Russians and not on students shooting up their schools...
    Odin of Ossetia
    Odin of Ossetia

    Posts : 447
    Points : 538
    Join date : 2015-07-03

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 4 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  Odin of Ossetia Fri Apr 20, 2018 11:13 pm




    U.S. Air Force to Start Work on Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon.


    https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/us-air-force-orders-hypersonic-conventional-strike-weapon/ar-AAw5LyO?li=AAggFp5&ocid=SKY2DHP
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 10288
    Points : 10435
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 4 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  kvs Fri Oct 23, 2020 6:46 pm



    The yanquis are going to spend almost $100 billion to extend the life of its 50 year old Minuteman III
    ICBMs. I have a question:

    If America is so rich and Russia is so poor, then how can Russia actually build new ICBMs over the last
    30 years, seeing the worst depression by any country in the last 150 years, but America cannot?
    Like with hypersonic missiles America is all talk and no action, but hundreds of billions of dollars of
    taxpayer money are still spent on something or other.

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29860
    Points : 30388
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 4 Empty The yanquis are going to spend almost $100 billion to extend the life of its 50 year old Minuteman III

    Post  GarryB Sat Oct 24, 2020 5:14 am

    Because the US has a higher standard of living so the corruption is much more expensive.... Twisted Evil
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 16336
    Points : 16839
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 4 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  George1 Sat Dec 12, 2020 3:42 pm

    The Air Force wanted to mothball over 100 planes. Here’s what Congress says it will permit.


    WASHINGTON — Congress is seeking to block the Air Force from retiring any of its A-10 Warthog attack planes, KC-135 refueling tankers and RQ-4 Global Hawk surveillance drones this fiscal year.


    On Dec. 3, the House and Senate Armed Services committees put forward the conference report of the fiscal 2021 National Defense Authorization Act — a final version of the defense bill that includes input from both chambers. The bill is expected to be approved by Congress sometime next week and will then move to the desk of President Donald Trump, who has threatened to veto it.

    This year’s NDAA contained policy provisions on everything from the Pentagon’s organizational structure to military bases named for Confederate officers. For the Air Force, the biggest concern was whether Congress would greenlight the divestment of more than 100 aircraft, which service leaders said would free up funding for modernization priorities that include space technologies and the Joint All-Domain Command and Control concept (which was recently updated to Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control).

    Lawmakers have opted to let the Air Force retire some bombers, tankers and cargo planes, but they stridently protected others like the A-10 and Global Hawk from any reductions.

    Here is a breakdown of what the Air Force wanted to send to the boneyard, and how Congress responded:

    A-10: Congress’ battles with the Air Force over the venerable A-10 have been legion over the past decade, with the service seeking to retire the entire fleet in the mid-2010s. In FY21, the Air Force sought a more modest adjustment — the retirement of 44 A-10s, or about three squadrons worth of aircraft, leaving about 237 Warthogs to fly close-air support missions in the next decade.

    But Congress put the kibosh on that as well, stipulating in the NDAA that no funding be used to divest or retire any of the 281 A-10s currently in the Air Force’s inventory.

    Bombers: The Air Force hoped to retire 17 of its oldest B-1s, which leaders said were putting strain on the fleet due to the manpower needed to keep them running. In the defense bill, Congress repealed an existing law that requires the Air Force to maintain at least 36 combat coded B-1 aircraft — essentially agreeing to a reduction to the B-1 fleet.

    However, lawmakers put several new stipulations in place: The Air Force must maintain 92 bombers of any kind in its primary mission aircraft inventory. The service must place four retired B-1s in storage so that they can be reclaimed if necessary. And it cannot remove any B-1 maintenance billets, ensuring that the B-1s that stick around will get the time and attention needed to keep them flying.

    ISR fleet: Congress also rejected the Air Force’s plan to retire all the Global Hawk Block 20 and 30 surveillance drones — a total of 24 aircraft — which would have left RQ-4 Block 40s and the U-2 spy plane around to conduct the high-altitude surveillance mission.

    Over the past decade, the Air Force has tried multiple times to divest its Global Hawks and U-2s, with Congress refusing to permit the retirement of either aircraft. In response, Congress has stipulated a list of requirements the Air Force must meet before lawmakers consider that request. Specifically, lawmakers have asked for certifications from the Defense Department that the Air Force is developing a cost-effective way to replace the RQ-4 or U-2, or a waiver from the defense secretary stating that a better but more expensive capability is in development.

    Neither has been received, lawmakers wrote in the conference report.

    “The conferees understand and acknowledge that modernizing airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities will necessitate divestment of legacy systems,” the conference report stated. “However, the conferees remain concerned about the Air Force’s continued inability to execute an ISR acquisition and replacement plan that appropriately manages operational risk to the global combatant commanders, as well as the service’s failure to comply with current public law.”

    Tankers:
    The Air Force wanted to divest 13 KC-135s and 16 KC-10s in FY21, but the NDAA sketches out an alternative plan — one that forbids any KC-135 retirements over the next three years.

    https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/12/04/the-air-force-wanted-to-mothball-more-than-100-planes-in-its-inventory-heres-what-congress-says-it-will-permit/
    Kiko
    Kiko

    Posts : 690
    Points : 706
    Join date : 2020-11-11
    Age : 72
    Location : Brasilia

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 4 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  Kiko Sat Dec 12, 2020 7:20 pm

    George1 wrote:

    The Air Force wanted to mothball over 100 planes. Here’s what Congress says it will permit.



    WASHINGTON — Congress is seeking to block the Air Force from retiring any of its A-10 Warthog attack planes, KC-135 refueling tankers and RQ-4 Global Hawk surveillance drones this fiscal year.


    On Dec. 3, the House and Senate Armed Services committees put forward the conference report of the fiscal 2021 National Defense Authorization Act — a final version of the defense bill that includes input from both chambers. The bill is expected to be approved by Congress sometime next week and will then move to the desk of President Donald Trump, who has threatened to veto it.

    This year’s NDAA contained policy provisions on everything from the Pentagon’s organizational structure to military bases named for Confederate officers. For the Air Force, the biggest concern was whether Congress would greenlight the divestment of more than 100 aircraft, which service leaders said would free up funding for modernization priorities that include space technologies and the Joint All-Domain Command and Control concept (which was recently updated to Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control).

    Lawmakers have opted to let the Air Force retire some bombers, tankers and cargo planes, but they stridently protected others like the A-10 and Global Hawk from any reductions.

    Here is a breakdown of what the Air Force wanted to send to the boneyard, and how Congress responded:

    A-10: Congress’ battles with the Air Force over the venerable A-10 have been legion over the past decade, with the service seeking to retire the entire fleet in the mid-2010s. In FY21, the Air Force sought a more modest adjustment — the retirement of 44 A-10s, or about three squadrons worth of aircraft, leaving about 237 Warthogs to fly close-air support missions in the next decade.

    But Congress put the kibosh on that as well, stipulating in the NDAA that no funding be used to divest or retire any of the 281 A-10s currently in the Air Force’s inventory.

    Bombers: The Air Force hoped to retire 17 of its oldest B-1s, which leaders said were putting strain on the fleet due to the manpower needed to keep them running. In the defense bill, Congress repealed an existing law that requires the Air Force to maintain at least 36 combat coded B-1 aircraft — essentially agreeing to a reduction to the B-1 fleet.

    However, lawmakers put several new stipulations in place: The Air Force must maintain 92 bombers of any kind in its primary mission aircraft inventory. The service must place four retired B-1s in storage so that they can be reclaimed if necessary. And it cannot remove any B-1 maintenance billets, ensuring that the B-1s that stick around will get the time and attention needed to keep them flying.

    ISR fleet: Congress also rejected the Air Force’s plan to retire all the Global Hawk Block 20 and 30 surveillance drones — a total of 24 aircraft — which would have left RQ-4 Block 40s and the U-2 spy plane around to conduct the high-altitude surveillance mission.

    Over the past decade, the Air Force has tried multiple times to divest its Global Hawks and U-2s, with Congress refusing to permit the retirement of either aircraft. In response, Congress has stipulated a list of requirements the Air Force must meet before lawmakers consider that request. Specifically, lawmakers have asked for certifications from the Defense Department that the Air Force is developing a cost-effective way to replace the RQ-4 or U-2, or a waiver from the defense secretary stating that a better but more expensive capability is in development.

    Neither has been received, lawmakers wrote in the conference report.

    “The conferees understand and acknowledge that modernizing airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities will necessitate divestment of legacy systems,” the conference report stated. “However, the conferees remain concerned about the Air Force’s continued inability to execute an ISR acquisition and replacement plan that appropriately manages operational risk to the global combatant commanders, as well as the service’s failure to comply with current public law.”

    Tankers:
    The Air Force wanted to divest 13 KC-135s and 16 KC-10s in FY21, but the NDAA sketches out an alternative plan — one that forbids any KC-135 retirements over the next three years.

    https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/12/04/the-air-force-wanted-to-mothball-more-than-100-planes-in-its-inventory-heres-what-congress-says-it-will-permit/
    This year's NDAA will very likely be vetoed by DT for its protection of BigTech outlets such as Twitter and Facebook under Section 230 legislation.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 10288
    Points : 10435
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 4 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  kvs Sat Dec 12, 2020 7:54 pm

    The NDAA passed with a veto-proof majority with only 78 or something against. So Trump will not be able to veto it.
    This demonstrates that both the R. and D. Parties are beholden to the same interests. The US Congress is nothing
    more than a rubber stamp.

    I find it funny how the Supreme Soviet was always fobbed off as a rubber stamp, but actually there could be more serious
    fighting in it than the real rubber stamp called the US Congress. Stalin's win over the Trotskyists is an example. That
    was not some window dressing distraction, that was a real shift in power. Nothing the Congress does violates the
    control and interests of the puppet masters behind the scenes. They already have all the power and Congress will
    never take it away from them.

    GarryB likes this post

    Kiko
    Kiko

    Posts : 690
    Points : 706
    Join date : 2020-11-11
    Age : 72
    Location : Brasilia

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 4 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  Kiko Thu Dec 17, 2020 6:45 pm

    Trump Re-Promises To Veto The Defense Bill: "Must Have Section 230 Termination":

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-re-promises-veto-defense-bill-must-have-section-230-termination
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29860
    Points : 30388
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 4 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  GarryB Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:41 am

    “There’s two threats to conservatism: mass mail-in voting unverified and social media companies unregulated, unable to be sued when they take down the content of conservatives,” the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman told Fox News’ “Hannity.”

    Suggestions of mail voting fraud and social media companies is like Russian hacking... when it appears to be working for Democrats it is not a problem... it is only when they lose an election that Russian hacking... even with no evidence of it even happening let alone effecting even a single voters voting choice is the biggest problem of the day.

    If mail votes were mostly for Trump, and if social media companies were conservative then they would both be problems for democracy and the world too.

    I think social media companies have too much power now and need to be broken up into smaller less influential pieces... and I think the same needs to happen with TV and print and radio media which is in the hands of the 1% who make money bitching about fake problems to take peoples attention away from the fact that nobody is looking for solutions because they make lots of money the way things are now.
    lancelot
    lancelot

    Posts : 460
    Points : 462
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 4 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  lancelot Fri May 21, 2021 6:07 am



    Notes from our favorite Russian Weeaboo robot on how to compare the US and Russian Military Budget.
    Some of the news on this channel are a bit, hmmm, out there. But it is always fun.

    Sponsored content

    US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts - Page 4 Empty Re: US Military Budget- Procurement and cuts

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:50 am