Now thats a budget

Stan · 05-27-2008, 04:48 AM

U.S. House Approves '09 Authorization Bill, Sustaining $200M FCS Cut - Defense News

Quote:

The U.S. House of Representatives late on May 22 overwhelmingly approved a measure that would clear the Pentagon to spend $601.4 billion on weapon programs, personnel, construction projects, research efforts and other initiatives.

The bill will allow the U.S. Air Force to purchase 20 new F-22A fighters. (Tech. Sgt. Ben Bloker / U.S. Air Force) The massive authorization measure, passed 384 to 23, includes $3 billion in research and development funds for the Army's Future Combat Systems program, a $200 million cut to the president's request. The chamber did, however, fully fund the president's $331 million request for 2009 FCS procurement.

Related TopicsAmericas
During floor debate on the measure, the House soundly axed an amendment offered by Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., that sought to revive $193 million of the FCS research funding reduction. Akin proposed freeing up those dollars by cutting military health care and other personnel accounts.

Opponents of the amendment, including Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, argued the reduction would not affect any FCS components slated to be fielded until 2015.

The House bill also would authorize spending $2.2 billion for Abrams tank, Bradley fighting vehicle and Stryker vehicle upgrades, $3.4 billion for armored Humvees and $3.1 billion for helicopter programs.

The bill, crafted by Skelton's panel, includes a green light to spend $400 million not requested by the White House to purchase two DDG-51 Arleigh Burke destroyers, a move made possible by pushing back delivery of a third DDG 1000-class destroyer.

The House measure authorizes $2.5 billion in procurement and research funding for Navy F/A-18E/F and EA-18G fighters, and adds $262.5 million for Joint Strike Fighter R&D, moves aimed at helping the sea service address its so-called "fighter gap."

It also reduces the amount the Marine Corps can spend in fiscal 2009 on its troubled Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program to $275.8 million, a $40.2 million cut in R&D dollars.

For ships, the bill clears the Navy to buy an additional LPD-17 amphibious ship and two new T-AKE transporters.

The biggest move the measure would usher in for Air Force programs was an authorization to purchase 15 new Boeing-made C-17s, a legislative move needed to help keep the Long Beach, Calif.-based Globemaster production line humming. The Senate's version of the second 2008 war supplemental, approved by that chamber May 22, includes funding for those new military cargo planes.

The measure also reduces the amount the Air Force requested for its controversial C-5 airlifter modernization program by $60 million, to $425.5 million for 2009. It also clears the service to purchase 20 new F-22A fighters next fiscal year. The chamber also authorized the Air Force to spend $1.3 billion to purchase 52 Predator, Reaper and Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicles.

For space, the measure fully funds the Air Force's spending plans for the Transformation Satellite (TSAT), Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) and Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) programs, a total of $4.2 billion in research and procurement monies.

The bill also trims $700 million from the administration's $9.3 billion request for Missile Defense Agency (MDA) spending in 2009, including a $232 million cut from the White House's plan for a European missile shield. That reduction would leave MDA with $8.6 billion, which is still $213 million more than the agency received this fiscal year.

That missile defense cut reflects panel members' belief the agency should focus on weapons that will be fielded sooner rather than later, a continued skepticism about the administration's plans to field a missile shield in Europe and program-specific worries, according to Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., chairwoman of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee.

The Senate Armed Services Committee has approved its own $612.5 billion version of the measure. With Congress leaving May 23 for its annual weeklong Memorial Day recess, the full Senate is not expected to take up its version of the Pentagon authorization bill until next month. A House-Senate conference committee will iron out any differences between the two bills after the full Senate has approved its bill.

The White House, in a May 22 statement of administration policy, indicated the president would veto any defense authorization bill that includes several provisions in the House bill, including: the missile defense reduction, one that would prohibit competitions between private companies and government entities, require all interrogations be videotaped, as well as ones that would set Iraq withdrawal dates and alter the executive branch's ability to enter into certain pacts with the Iraqi government.

Sending a message to the president, the House ignored the veto threat and included each one, among others included in the veto threat section of that policy statement.

The White House also raised concerns about other portions of the House bill but did not threaten to reject the measure if they were included, including: raising funding levels to purchase more C-17s, F-22As, an LPD-17 ship and a Virginia-class submarine. The administration also expressed worries about the House's decision to inflate the amount the Pentagon can spend on advanced research efforts for the F-35 fighter and its move to delay the third DDG-100 destroyer.

Some fantastic news in there for the US navy, another LPD and two more TAKE ships.

Also nice news for the C-17 hopefully with this order it will give some of us time to get in more orders. Especially NATO as a whole. Should be looking to make a serious purchase.

Blademaster · 05-27-2008, 09:27 AM

So the additional purchase of 20 Raptors brings up the number from 183 to 203. Nice. only about 150 more Raptors to go.

Sea Toby · 05-27-2008, 15:52 PM

As I have noted before, this is just the House bill. It does not agree to the Senate bill. So this will wind up in a joint committee before its law. Thanks for the update, the House seems to be pro-defense this year.

Let's see if the Senate, much more interested in foreign affairs, will be as eager to cut the European $9.3 billion missile shield. In my opinion its a waste, if the Europeans want a missile defense shield, LET THEM PAY FOR IT! You will notice, the additions don't add up to the European missile shield. So in the end the bill cuts the administration's bill.

Please inform us when the Senate defense appropriations bill is passed. Then we'll see the differences.

Stan · 05-28-2008, 07:08 AM

Sea Toby.

One of the main reasons for the european defence shield is to protect the US as well. Basing radars in europe and enabling the US to better track incoming war heads e.t.c

The UK doesnt need the shield and neither do france. You shoot at us with a nuke and we go for the MAD scenario.

Its the US that wants the shield to extend to europe so your better protected in the US.

Sea Toby · 05-28-2008, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stan

Sea Toby.

One of the main reasons for the european defence shield is to protect the US as well. Basing radars in europe and enabling the US to better track incoming war heads e.t.c

The UK doesnt need the shield and neither do france. You shoot at us with a nuke and we go for the MAD scenario.

Its the US that wants the shield to extend to europe so your better protected in the US.

From this week's House vote, the US doesn't want it.

Stan · 05-28-2008, 09:07 AM

There we go then - no one is worse off.

Maxor · 05-28-2008, 16:22 PM

I like some of the provisions listed what other stupid unrelated things are attached to this defense apropriations bill?

Sea Toby · 05-28-2008, 16:47 PM

In the Senate there are a number of amendments which may pass, but not get the votes to overcome either a Republican filibuster or a presidential veto. In the House the majority rules, in the senate 60% majorities overcome filibusters and vetos.

gunnut · 05-28-2008, 17:17 PM

Are those 20 Raptors part of the 183? Or 20 additional?

How about the 2 Burkes? Are they 2 above and beyond the original planned 62? And 15 new C-17s. I thought that money might be better spent on more tankers.

ArmchairGeneral · 05-29-2008, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

And 15 new C-17s. I thought that money might be better spent on more tankers.

Probably did it to keep the production lines open. Boeing's been on the verge of shutting it down for a couple of years now.

Sea Toby · 05-29-2008, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

Are those 20 Raptors part of the 183? Or 20 additional?

How about the 2 Burkes? Are they 2 above and beyond the original planned 62? And 15 new C-17s. I thought that money might be better spent on more tankers.

Yes, but at the cost of no more than 2 Zumwalts. While the Burke's are nice ships, and the US navy won't give them back, I believe the US navy would prefer to see more Zumwalts.

And yes, the House voted for more C-17s, to keep the line going as Boeing could sell more abroad.

And yes, since the House did not vote to close the plant, they bought some more.

But none of this will agree with the Senate's bill, so there will be a conference. And as usual, both houses will vote again on the compromise. The House always votes for more jobs at home, the Senate does the same, but the Senate also thinks of more than just jobs at home. The House votes on the budgets, the Senate oversees the armed services. Usually the two don't mix.

Chunder · 06-11-2008, 16:51 PM

Let me get this right, the house ordered more C-17's even though the pentegaon and the USAF don't want tham, essentially a government hand out to Boeing.

Hmm this doesn't smell like lobbiest sponsored pork and Pat Murray at work at all now does it!!

glyn · 06-11-2008, 18:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chunder

Let me get this right, the house ordered more C-17's even though the pentegaon and the USAF don't want tham, essentially a government hand out to Boeing.

Hmm this doesn't smell like lobbiest sponsored pork and Pat Murray at work at all now does it!!

The C-17A Globemaster III is badly needed as the USAF Cargo fleet is old and increasingly difficult and expensive to maintain. However the C-17s costs are extortionate and this has prevented many Air Forces from getting involved, much as they need them in their inventorys.

SteaminDemon · 06-12-2008, 02:12 AM

Before allocating any money, they should first take a look at all the programs, their budgets and where the money is actually going. Should we pour more money into the LPD 17's, if they are still having "issues". Before the money is awarded, the contracts should be restructured to where it is either FPI or FFP. If it is FPI the ceiling should be set @ 5% or so, this way the Navy is protected from what has been going on since the 90's (and during the Carter years as well). If it is going to be anywhere near Cost plus fee, then it should be the variant of "incentive fees", which however is different.

The ship should not be accepted if there are "discrepancies" like the San An had, which she had many (over 5,000). The problem was, she was accepted in that condition and the Navy had to foot the bill for the repairs after the fact. Is it OK to do business like that? Hell no. Billions have been poured in to the Navy's budget, but due to cost plus fee contracting, pork, and other things that people have turned a blind eye to, still goes on. What have we received after all this? R&DDX, LCS which the costs have exceeded 100% of the original cost (thank cost plus fee), some converted SSGN's (costs were also higher), an unfinished LPD with all sorts of issues, and that isn't all.

Not to say all has been bad, there have been upgrades and numerous other projects that have been successful. The way contracting is going, it should be restructured to the way it was done in the 80's. It was PROVEN effective, and saved money, as well as protected the Navy and the tax payers from no ceiling nightmares.

05-27-2008, 15:52 PM	#3 (permalink)
Sea Toby Patron Join Date: 01-24-06 Posts: 223	As I have noted before, this is just the House bill. It does not agree to the Senate bill. So this will wind up in a joint committee before its law. Thanks for the update, the House seems to be pro-defense this year. Let's see if the Senate, much more interested in foreign affairs, will be as eager to cut the European $9.3 billion missile shield. In my opinion its a waste, if the Europeans want a missile defense shield, LET THEM PAY FOR IT! You will notice, the additions don't add up to the European missile shield. So in the end the bill cuts the administration's bill. Please inform us when the Senate defense appropriations bill is passed. Then we'll see the differences. __________________ http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/waglogo.gif Last edited by Sea Toby; 05-27-2008 at 15:54 PM..

05-28-2008, 17:17 PM	#9 (permalink)
gunnut *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-27-06 Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 13,831 Country:	Are those 20 Raptors part of the 183? Or 20 additional? How about the 2 Burkes? Are they 2 above and beyond the original planned 62? And 15 new C-17s. I thought that money might be better spent on more tankers. __________________ "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

06-11-2008, 16:51 PM	#12 (permalink)
Chunder Contributor Join Date: 03-02-08 Posts: 499	... Let me get this right, the house ordered more C-17's even though the pentegaon and the USAF don't want tham, essentially a government hand out to Boeing. Hmm this doesn't smell like lobbiest sponsored pork and Pat Murray at work at all now does it!!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
UN budget approved but US votes against	xrough	International Economy	4	12-28-2007 18:37 PM
Federal Budget	mostlymad	International Politics	18	04-01-2007 15:43 PM
Articles and links for the Military Professional	Officer of Engineers	The Staff College	115	11-20-2006 11:28 AM
Defence Budget cannot be discussed in Parliament	Samudra	International Politics	2	05-03-2005 14:35 PM
The True Federal Budget Deficit Is $880 Billion	oneman28	International Economy	4	04-23-2005 13:49 PM

05-27-2008, 09:27 AM	#2 (permalink)
Blademaster Military Enthusiast *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-15-03 Posts: 3,277	So the additional purchase of 20 Raptors brings up the number from 183 to 203. Nice. only about 150 more Raptors to go.

05-28-2008, 07:08 AM	#4 (permalink)
Stan Contributor Join Date: 07-11-06 Posts: 647 Country:	Sea Toby. One of the main reasons for the european defence shield is to protect the US as well. Basing radars in europe and enabling the US to better track incoming war heads e.t.c The UK doesnt need the shield and neither do france. You shoot at us with a nuke and we go for the MAD scenario. Its the US that wants the shield to extend to europe so your better protected in the US.

05-28-2008, 09:07 AM	#6 (permalink)
Stan Contributor Join Date: 07-11-06 Posts: 647 Country:	There we go then - no one is worse off.

05-28-2008, 16:22 PM	#7 (permalink)
Maxor *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-18-05 Location: Suburban Ohio, I commute to redneck land on the weekends. Posts: 709 Country:	I like some of the provisions listed what other stupid unrelated things are attached to this defense apropriations bill?

05-28-2008, 16:47 PM	#8 (permalink)
Sea Toby Patron Join Date: 01-24-06 Posts: 223	In the Senate there are a number of amendments which may pass, but not get the votes to overcome either a Republican filibuster or a presidential veto. In the House the majority rules, in the senate 60% majorities overcome filibusters and vetos.

06-12-2008, 02:12 AM	#14 (permalink)
SteaminDemon Patron Join Date: 01-18-08 Posts: 221 Country:	Before allocating any money, they should first take a look at all the programs, their budgets and where the money is actually going. Should we pour more money into the LPD 17's, if they are still having "issues". Before the money is awarded, the contracts should be restructured to where it is either FPI or FFP. If it is FPI the ceiling should be set @ 5% or so, this way the Navy is protected from what has been going on since the 90's (and during the Carter years as well). If it is going to be anywhere near Cost plus fee, then it should be the variant of "incentive fees", which however is different. The ship should not be accepted if there are "discrepancies" like the San An had, which she had many (over 5,000). The problem was, she was accepted in that condition and the Navy had to foot the bill for the repairs after the fact. Is it OK to do business like that? Hell no. Billions have been poured in to the Navy's budget, but due to cost plus fee contracting, pork, and other things that people have turned a blind eye to, still goes on. What have we received after all this? R&DDX, LCS which the costs have exceeded 100% of the original cost (thank cost plus fee), some converted SSGN's (costs were also higher), an unfinished LPD with all sorts of issues, and that isn't all. Not to say all has been bad, there have been upgrades and numerous other projects that have been successful. The way contracting is going, it should be restructured to the way it was done in the 80's. It was PROVEN effective, and saved money, as well as protected the Navy and the tax payers from no ceiling nightmares.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)