Brian Bradley
NS&D Monitor
6/12/2015
Senate appropriators this week expressed concern about whether the Navy’s budget request for Fiscal Year 2016 accurately reflects the service’s most important priorities, including the Ohio-class Replacement (OR) Program. The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday reported out its version of the FY 2016 defense spending bill, which does not include money for the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund (NSBDF), an account that Congressional authorizers established last year to help cover the cost of the OR program. “The Ohio Class replacement is an indispensable component of the Nation’s nuclear triad, but the program’s acquisition costs are expected to exceed $135 [billion], with the first ship of the class scheduled for procurement in [FY] 2021,” states the committee report accompanying the Senate defense spending bill. “The Navy has raised concerns about affordability of this ship within its total obligational authority, and has endorsed proposals for funding mechanisms that appear to be unprecedented.”
While senior Navy officials have stated that a funding mechanism outside of the Navy’s traditional shipbuilding budget could be needed to fund OR, the report notes that the Defense Department has not and does not appear to be considering alternate funding mechanisms for other acquisition programs of equal or greater costs—specifically naming the F-35 and the ballistic missile defense system. The bill would match the Obama Administration’s $1.4 billion request for OR research and development for FY 2016. “The Committee recommendation does not include any new transfer authority or similar proposal in relation to alternative funding mechanisms for the Ohio Class replacement,” the report states. “The Committee believes that support for shipbuilding programs, including the Ohio Class replacement, is an imperative for the future of the Navy, as evidenced by the recommendation’s significant funding increases within the [Navy shipbuilding] appropriation. The Committee welcomes an ongoing dialogue with the Department of the Navy and the Department of Defense, as well as the other services, on prioritizing funding for modernization programs which are indispensable to the defense of this Nation.”
Bill Would Provide Less than Amount Proposed for LRSO
The bill would provide $22.5 million less than the Administration’s $36.6 million request for the long-range standoff weapon (LRSO). In their report, Senate appropriators attributed the choice to provide significantly less funding than what the Administration had sought to concerns with the Pentagon’s LRSO “acquisition strategy” and concerns that the program is too new to require the test support and program management the Pentagon cited. However, the report does suggest the Air Force maintain its $1.7 billion funding profile for the program over the Future Years’ Defense Program, “given the strategic importance of the program,” and notes the committee’s support for building the planned follow-on for the air-launched cruise missile.
Lawmakers Want Report on GBSD Acquisition Strategy
The bill would also require the Air Force Secretary to provide the Congressional defense committees within three months of the bill’s passage the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) acquisition strategy that would support “full and open competition” throughout the acquisition process. “The Committee believes the use of full and open competition provides the best opportunity for the Department of Defense to benefit from innovation, improved contractor performance, and reduced costs,” the report states. The bill would match the Administration’s $75.2 million request for GBSD.
The committee also stated its support the Force Improvement Program (FIP), noting that it recommends matching the Administration’s request of $130 million to spread across the personnel and operations and maintenance accounts. Additionally, the bill would require the Air Force Secretary to report to the Congressional defense committees within six months of the bill’s passage on investments made in the FIP each fiscal year, and how the investments help the nuclear enterprise.
Bill Would Give Less for Minuteman 3 Squadrons
The bill would provide $12.2 million less than the White House’s $178.9 million request for Minuteman squadrons. The committee report notes a “budget documentation disparity,” citing the lack of a clear funding description for the Minuteman 3’s airborne launch control system. The bill also would reduce the Administration’s proposed $149 million for B-52 modifications by $4 million.
The bill would match President Obama’s $1.2 billion request for the long-range strike bomber, and would match the Pentagon’s FY 2016 requests of $5.9 million for B-52 post-production support, $74.5 million for B-52 squadrons. The bill would appropriate the President’s requests of $272 million for the B-2 Defensive Management System, $32.5 million for B-2 modifications, $38.9 million for B-2 post-production support, and $108.2 million for B-2 squadrons. Additionally, the bill would match the White House’s $212.1 million request for “nuclear weapons modernization.”
