US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

[Jura The idiot]

Feb 2, 2017

Yesterday at 9:02 PM
another point of view:
Northrop Scratch-Built a Jet to Bid on an Air Force Contract. Now It’s Dropping Out.

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

related, with whining included

“We can not only buy U.S. products and not be able to sell a single product,” he said.

is
Leonardo CEO: Raytheon-Honeywell impasse to blame for T-X breakup

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The CEO of Italy’s Leonardo has denied reports that the firm’s M-346 jet is too pricey to compete in the U.S. T-X trainer contest, pointing fingers at another supplier for driving up the cost.

Leonardo’s partnership with Raytheon to pitch the Italian trainer in the T-X context broke up last month amid reports that Leonardo refused requests from the US firm to lower the aircraft’s price. Leonardo has since replaced Raytheon with its US electronics subsidiary DRS as prime contractor on the bid.

Asked about the split with Raytheon at a press conference in Milan on Wednesday, Leonardo CEO Mauro Moretti said, “The problem with Raytheon was not (our) price, because Raytheon checked it against a U.S. benchmark and our prices were lower.”

Moretti suggested Raytheon did have a problem with conditions set down by Honeywell, which provides propulsion for the jet, which was renamed the T-100 for the bid.

“Raytheon could not get what they wanted with Honeywell on the engines,” he said.

The DRS-led T-X team will be supported by CAE USA in the design and development of the T-100 ground-based training system (GBTS) and Honeywell will continue to provide twin F124 turbofan propulsion engines.

Moretti was bullish about the aircraft’s prospects, despite losing Raytheon as partner, claiming “There is no other competitor.”

The T-50 trainer proposed by Lockheed Martin was “not competitive,” he said, while the clean-sheet design pitched by Boeing and Saab would not be ready until 2024, by which time the USAF’s current generation of trainers “will be falling apart,” he said.

“The only mature system with maximum performace is ours,” he said, adding, “We are not going to lose this because we are lacking Raytheon.”

Moretti said that it was time Italy sold a defense product in the U.S., given Italy’s long history of buying U.S. products, from the AV8 jump jet up to the F-35. “We can not only buy U.S. products and not be able to sell a single product,” he said.

The Air Force is expected to buy 350 T-X aircraft and plans to down-select to a single vendor this year.

Speaking on Wednesday, Moretti also attacked the Canadian government’s decision to buy 16 C295W aircraft from Airbus for search and rescue missions, calling it “astonishing.”

Leonardo has challenged the award in Canadian federal court, arguing its losing contender, the C-27J, cost less and was better suited to the mission.

Moretti claimed Airbus had unjustifiably been deemed the winner thanks to “added services that were not part of the bid.”

 

[Jura The idiot]

Well more details emerged I am still optimistic.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

recently
Army Leaders Discuss Next-Generation Armored Vehicle

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

U.S.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

leaders and industry experts on Wednesday discussed what a next-generation armored vehicle might look like and protection was not a top priority.

It’s been three years since budget caps known as sequestration forced the Army to kill the Ground Combat Vehicle, the service’s effort to replace the Cold-War era

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

The GCV was slated to weigh at least 60 tons and designed to carry a nine-man infantry squad, the most basic element in Army maneuver.

In a discussion of strategies for modernizing the maneuver force, Maj. Gen. Eric Wesley, commander of the Army Maneuver Center of Excellence, said, “What you are going to see come out of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

soon is a request for a charter for the Next Generation Combat Vehicle.”

“It will be an [integrated capabilities development team] that empowers us to pull together the requirements folks, the resourcing folks the acquisition community, the labs and even industry in a collaborative effort to get after NGCV,” he told an audience at the Association of the United States Army’s Global Force Symposium and Exposition in Huntsville, Alabama.

While the discussion was very broad, Wesley cautioned that the Army should avoid using the last 15 years of experience with improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan and Iraq as a reason for making soldier protection more of a priority than speed and maneuverability.

“Not to say that the maneuver center is cavalier toward the protection of our soldiers, but if we want to optimize everything toward protection than we can do that very easily without

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

,” Wesley said. “In the end, we have to achieve strategic objectives which requires maneuver, which requires killing, which requires agility and speed.”

David Johnson, a senior fellow at Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a think tank in Washington, D.C., said that if the enemy is using IEDs, then the Army has 8,000 Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles in storage to deal with this type of threat.

“IEDs are not going to be a problem in Eastern Europe,” Johnson said. “That is not the problem we need to design the future force against.”

An IED is “merely a mine and mines have been around for decades,” Wesley said.

“And how did we reconcile the problem with mines? We maneuvered. The reason you had to raise protection is because maneuver was taken off the plate” in a counterinsurgency environment, Wesley said.

Maj. Gen. Cedric Wins, commander of Army Research, Development and Engineering Command, service leaders should not constrain its thinking so it limits options in developing a new armored vehicle.

“In some of the discussions I have heard with regard to Mobile Protected Firepower or the Next Generation Combat Vehicle or the next platform — in those discussions when we start talking about the key features that we need in a platform to be able to have it be more lethal, more mobile, more protected — we often rule out certain features,” he said.

Wins said the topic of reducing the size or the number of soldiers that can fit in a combat platform often leads to debates that lead nowhere.

Instead, consider the possibility of saying ‘hey, you could split the squad and have two vehicles; what’s the tradeoffs of doing that,'” Wins said.

“Now that probably affects your ability to be expeditionary, but you’ve got to think about things in those terms,” Wins said.

 

[Blackstone]

This is not Foreign affairs this is military affairs. This is the US Military news,Reports, Data and ecta Thread. Our topic is US Military news, systems and reports not foreign policy blogs, not opeds, and not
Not US Sino relations from the perspective of retired Officials cast down by Blackstone because he is always right and every one who differs is a neocon thread.

Your thoughtless reply on my PoV is demonstrably false. I never claimed to be "always right" and those who differ are neocon propagandists. You overstate your case, and you are wrong. For instance, I didn't say you were a neoconservative, only unformed on current geopolitical affairs regarding neoconservatism. It is, of course, your choice, but you might benefit from educating yourself on current neocon philosophy, it ain't 1969 anymore.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
– Inigo Montoya.
Whatever, It has no bearing on US military News, Reports, data and ectra.

Trump seeks defense boost for 2018, $30B supplemental for 2017
By:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

March 16, 2017
WASHINGTON — U.S. President Donald Trump announced a $1.1 trillion budget

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

to Congress on Thursday that boosts investments in national security at the expense of environmental protections and foreign aid.

The budget includes an expected $54 billion defense increase, offset by domestic-side cuts, including a 28 percent cut for the State Department. The broad-brushstrokes plan signaled the White House’s intent to restore a “depleted” military, despite criticism from hawkish lawmakers it is not enough.

"This is a hard power budget, it is not a soft power budget,” White House budget chief Mick Mulvaney told reporters Wednesday. “And that was done intentionally. That’s what our allies can expect. That’s what our adversaries can expect.”

The "skinny budget" request includes $639 billion for the Defense Department, including $574 billion in the base budget and $65 billion in the emergency Overseas Contingency Operations account.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and his House counterpart Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, have said a $640 billion defense budget is needed and that the administration's numbers mask a less robust increase than they would like.

"It is clear to virtually everyone that we have cut our military too much and that it has suffered enormous damage," Thornberry said in a statement Thursday morning. "In fact, the more we investigate, the deeper the damage we find. Unfortunately, the Administration’s budget request is not enough to repair that damage and to rebuild the military as the President has discussed."

Elsewhere in the budget, the request for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development sees a 28 percent reduction that includes the proposed transformation of the foreign military financing program from grants to loans. That excludes the $3.1 billion in security assistance to Israel.

Congress is unlikely to adopt the budget blueprint as offered, as it includes deep cuts for the State Department, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and National Institutes of Health. Democratic lawmakers have warned they will not pass a budget without matching any defense increase on the non-defense side.

Administration also sent a $30 billion supplemental funding

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

for the military, and $1.5 billion for a border wall, in the current year. Of the total, roughly $24.9 billion is in Defense Department base-budget programs and $5 billion is in OCO.



That is a huge wrinkle, according to Todd Harrison, a defense budget expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The base-budget funding requires increasing the budget caps for fiscal 2017.

"Five billion comes from OCO, but the other $25 billion is in the base budget, which requires increasing the budget caps for fiscal 2017," Harrison said. "That’s unlikely to happen because changing the caps requires 60 votes in the Senate, and this proposal also includes $18 billion in cuts for non-defense in fiscal 2017 and $3 billion for the wall. This means the fiscal 2017 supplemental is unlikely to pass as proposed."

The request's $24.9 billion in Defense Department base-budget programs include $13.5 billion Army helicopters, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and F/A-18 Super Hornets, tactical missiles, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, and further funding for the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

The administration wants $7.2 billion in operations and maintenance funds, to address readiness shortfalls and to improve cyber and intelligence capabilities.

There is another $5.1 for the campaign against the Islamic State group and for operations in Afghanistan.

Of that, the administration wants $1.4 billion to go toward the fight against ISIS, specifically for force protection, precision-guided munitions and countermeasures against the militant group's lethal drone program.

There is $2 billion for a “flexible fund” to augment U.S. counterterrorism activities and a $626 million fund that consolidates all counter-ISIS train-and-equip programs. The request also includes $1.1 billion for Afghanistan operations.

Additionally, the request includes $3 billion for Department of Homeland Security border protection and immigration enforcement programs. Of that, half is for the border wall — a provision which Senate Democrats warn they will oppose.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J., offered a statement Thursday saying his committee will review requests and aim to "strike a balance that will enable us to fund the federal government responsibly and address emergency needs, while ensuring this legislation will clear the Congress.”

"As directed under the Constitution, Congress has the power of the purse. While the President may offer proposals, Congress must review both requests to assure the wise investment of taxpayer dollars," he said.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

At Army chief's request, service rapidly crafting network strategy
By:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

March 16, 2017
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. -- Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley has asked service leaders to immediately produce a strategy on the Army’s network, according to the acting assistant secretary of the service’s acquisition branch.

“Last week I was in three network-related meetings,” Steffanie Easter told Defense News in an interview at the Association of the U.S. Army’s Global Force Symposium on March 13.

“There have been multiple studies on the Army network -- none of them flattering,” she said. “They have all been very deliberate in identifying the shortfalls.”

But developing the network isn’t an easy task. It’s been up against 15 years of rapid procurement without much consideration for the entire life cycle of radios or other aspects of command, control and communication capabilities. The goal was to get hardware out to the soldiers as quickly as possible as they fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There wasn’t much time for careful thinking regarding which unit or soldiers or command should get what capability to function properly across the network.

The Army network was also formed amid struggles across the entire Defense Department to change its acquisition cycles to keep pace with rapidly evolving technology. By the time the service fields a radio or a portion of the network, it’s already considered archaic in the commercial world.

The Office of the Director for Operational Test and Evaluation came out with a report on Army network modernization in December 2016, for example, that offered a scathing review of its current state and concern for its future. The report notes that Congress mandated -- in its National Defense Authorization Act in 2016 -- a report on current and future capabilities for the Army's tactical communications and data networks that is due this month.

“The chief of staff of the Army has made it very clear that he wants to see our overall strategy for networks and we owe him that,” Easter said. When asked if he’d imposed a timeline, she said, “He told us immediately,” adding leadership would be huddling next week to lay out a plan that answers Milley’s questions and “our own questions.”

Easter said formulating the strategy is not “as easy as it appears or sounds” because the network is so multi-faceted -- having to consider capabilities from tactical radios to the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical -- which is a capability that allows units to communicate using at-the-halt data, voice and video communications -- to the common operating environment to other defense business systems that ride on the network. All of these are competing for time and bandwidth.

A second increment of WIN-T is in development that aims to provide the same capability on-the-move, but is moving at such a slow pace that some critics say by the time it’s fielded it too will be considered outdated.

Easter noted that in the case of WIN-T Increment 2, it’s not so much a matter of technical issues holding up the program, but funding. She said the program has seen some assistance from Congress in order to keep moving forward.

As the Army works out a strategy, Easter said, pressures on funding will continue to cause the Army to have tough conversations about how much network capability to field and where.

“We are at a point where we have to have serious conversations about that, is that the most effective way to do it? Does everybody get everything? Or do we just give select units select capability,” she said, “and where are we willing to take risk if that is what it comes down to?”

The strategy, Easter added, intends to focus on exactly what the Army needs to make sure soldiers can continue to communicate and remain mobile.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

US Air Force to release OA-X invitation this week
16 MARCH, 2017SOURCE: FLIGHTGLOBAL.COM BY: LEIGH GIANGRECO WASHINGTON DC


The US Air Force will officially kick off its low-cost fighter experiment this week, with invitations to industry expected to release 17 March.

The OA-X concept has progressed in fits and starts over at least two decades, but the constrained fiscal environment in Washington, continued counterinsurgency operations in the Middle East and fighter pilot shortfall in the air force has appeared to push the cheap, light-attack option to the service’s acquisition priorities this year. Lt Gen Arnold Bunch, military deputy for the assistant secretary of the air force for acquisition, emphasised the upcoming invitation constitutes an experiment and not a programme of record.

“We do not know how we’re going to proceed after the experiment,” Bunch told air force and industry representatives during a 16 March address in Washington. “We could move forward into a combat demo, we could move forward into another experiment in the CONUS [Continental United States], we could decide that there’s enough out there from industry that we want to start the process to begin an acquisition program but we do not know that today.”

The USAF could also decide to put the experiment on the shelf if industry’s offerings are not mature enough, he adds.

The invitation will detail mission profiles, carriage requirements, mission durations and supply chain requirements, Bunch says. The USAF will also examine offerors’ manufacturing levels to see how quickly a low-cost fighter could be fielded. Buying the light-attack aircraft would not come at the cost of fifth-generation procurement, but would consume an additional budget line, he adds.

While previous OA-X efforts have favored turboprop aircraft, the USAF has not drilled down requirements for specific platforms. The service is seeking an aircraft optimised for an austere environment that can operate off of 6,000ft or shorter runwasy and fly with an average fuel flow of 1,500lb/h or less, Bunch says.

“For light attack, it’s going to be open to anybody,” he says. “But there are selection criteria. I don’t know what the art of the possible is for industry right now, so we’re trying to keep it as broad as we can, industry may have something that’s very innovative that we haven’t thought about.”

The service expects responses from industry within a month and will make a selection for participants to fly this summer at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. That experiment would continue work from a previous US Special Operations Command effort known as Combat Dragon. Combat Dragon I operated low-cost aircraft at Fallon Naval Air Station, Nevada, and its successor Combat Dragon II demonstrated OV-10 Broncos in the Middle East. Like the previous iteration of low-cost aircraft experiments, the Holloman exercise would determine whether the service should transition to a second phase with demonstrations in the Middle East, USAF chief Gen David Goldfein told reporters 3 March at the annual Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Florida.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[FORBIN]

Wow !

I had posted video but not pic u have both now a cargo can be also pretty.

C-17 Globemaster over Rainbow Canyon

A couple of jets, rarely seen in the Jedi Transition in Death Valley.

In the Jedi place yeeaaah

 

[Jura The idiot]

now instead

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I read
Pentagon’s FY17 supplemental sets up budget caps fight

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

By presenting the majority of its fiscal year 2017 defense supplemental funding request as base budget dollars rather than special war funding, the Trump administration has set itself on a collision course with Congress, top Pentagon budget officials confirmed Thursday.

John Roth, the acting comptroller for the Pentagon, Army Lt. Gen. Anthony Ierardi, director of Force Structure, Resources and Assessment (J8) on the Joint Staff, confirmed that the $30.9 billion supplemental request will require Congress to pass language changing caps put in place by the Budget Control Act — something analysts were quick to point out is unlikely to happen.

Of the supplemental request, $25 billion is in base budget funding, which will largely go towards equipment — including adding five F-35 joint strike fighters, buying 24 new F/A-18E/F planes for the Navy, and giving the Army 20 new AH-64 Apache helicopters. There is also a wide-ranging investment in munitions, something the Pentagon has expressed concern about over the last two years.

Another $5.1 billion is earmarked for four specific areas: $2 billion for the broad fight against ISIS, $1.1 billion for Operation Freedom’s Sentinel in Afghanistan, $1.4 billion for Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq and Syria and $600 million for the Counter-ISSI Train and Equip mission.

All told, the supplemental, if enacted as is, would bring the defense base funding to $549.6 billion and the OCO funding to $69.7 billion, for a total of $619.2 billion in fiscal 2017 requests.

Roth acknowledged that the request would require changes to the defense caps, saying “ultimately what will happen is the administration will have to work with congressional leadership” to figure out a way forward.

One potential solution would involve sliding more of the money into OCO, which is why it was surprising to many analysts to see the Pentagon put an emphasis on base budget spending with the supplemental. But Roth defended that move — a move previously backed by Office of Management and Budget head Mick Mulvaney — as the right way to do business.

“We put the money where it belongs, to be quite honest with you. The $25 billion is legitimately base budget kinds of things — training, maintenance, those kinds of things,” Roth said. “The $5.1 billion is purely in support of the overseas contingency operations. So we’ve tried, at least for the get go, we’ve tried to play that exactly as it is.

“Does that create a legislative challenge? The answer is yes it does, and we will be there to work with” Congress on a solution, Roth added.

"Five billion comes from OCO, but the other $25 billion is in the base budget, which requires increasing the budget caps for fiscal 2017," Todd Harrison, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Thursday. "That’s unlikely to happen because changing the caps requires 60 votes in the Senate, and this proposal also includes $18 billion in cuts for non-defense in fiscal 2017 and $3 billion for the wall. This means the fiscal 2017 supplemental is unlikely to pass as proposed."

And speaking the day before the budget dropped, Roger Zakheim of the American Enterprise Institute predicted that If House Speaker Paul Ryan has to choose between a showdown in his own caucus or telling the defense hawks that "for now can you pick your number of billions and let me throw it into OCO, [Ryan] probably takes that deal.”

While discussing the planning that went into the supplemental, Roth noted that major changes happened between the initial unfunded list requirements submitted by each service shortly after the FY17 budget was delivered to the Hill and today’s supplemental request.

Those changes, he said, were largely driven by two factors: the Trump administration’s plan to increase the force structure, which required more funding, and the reality of operating under a Continuing Resolution six months into the fiscal year, as any funds now appropriated would need to be spent by the end of September.

The services had to take a realistic look at whether they could spend all the money they had initially requested. Roth said about $2 billion to #3 billion was cut from each service’s initial request as a result, with those projects being pushed instead into the FY18 plan. That funding was largely ticketed for Operations and Maintenance requirements, Roth said.

Added Ierardi, “with respect to training, there is physics involved. Training plans can be bent to accommodate a focus on increased warfighting readiness, but there is only a six-month period” to spend it in.

and noticed
"Of note, though, the request left out two F-35C Joint Strike Fighters the Navy had asked for, as well as support for six shipbuilding programs."
inside
2017 Supplemental Funding Request Invests In Aircraft Procurement; May Be Too Late For Some Maintenance Needs

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Jura The idiot]

I don't think it'll happen but anyway I read
Another government shutdown is possible. What's at stake for the military

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Congress could cause a partial government shutdown next month, with proposed defense spending at the center of a looming feud between Capitol Hill and the White House.

The Trump administration on Thursday unveiled its proposed fiscal 2018 budget for all federal programs and a plan to fund the last few months of fiscal 2017, which ends Sept. 30. And while Republicans control both houses of Congress, Democratic party leaders have threatened to allow a shutdown unless some compromises are made. Should that happen, it could disrupt military operations both at home and overseas, and delay ambitious plans to recapitalize the force.

Currently, the Defense Department and most other federal programs are running off a continuing budget resolution that expires at the end of April. The White House plan includes a $25 billion boost in base defense spending for the final five months of the current fiscal year, and at least $18 billion in cuts to non-defense programs over the same period.

The extra money is for "urgent warfighting readiness needs," President Trump said in an accompanying letter to Congress. It's also necessary, he says, to begin a "sustained effort to rebuild the U.S. armed forces," and to address shortfalls in everything from personnel and training to equipment maintenance and munitions.

Standing in the way is a new agreement from congressional Democrats to lift the defense spending caps known as sequestration — without corresponding spending increases for non-military programs. Party leaders have refused to do that for the last six years.

To overcome Senate procedural rules, Republicans would need at least eight senators from outside their party to approve any spending plan.

Earlier this week, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., indicated that any “poison pill riders such as defunding Planned Parenthood, building a border wall, or starting a deportation force” will force Democrats to oppose Republican budget plans, even if that means a partial government shutdown.

The White House's fiscal 2017 proposal does include $1.4 billion for the first phases of building a wall along the Mexican border.

What does this mean for the Pentagon, and rank-and-file military personnel and their families? Earlier this month, House lawmakers voted 371-48 in favor of a $578 billion spending bill to keep the military operating through September, roughly matching the White House's request but allotting the funding differently — and excluding proposed cuts to non-defense programs.

That measure is currently stalled in the Senate.

The last extended government shutdown occurred in October 2013, resulting in unpaid furloughs for civilian workers employed by the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. That disrupted some basic services on military bases and installations, and delayed implementation of some military pay and benefits.

The White House spending plan for the remainder of 2017 also includes $5 billion in new funding for overseas contingency operations, including $1.4 billion for the mission in Iraq and Syria, and $1.1 billion for ongoing operations in Afghanistan. Another $2 billion for be set aside for a "flexible fund" for the war against Islamic State militants, to "maximize the impact of U.S. counter-terrorism activities and operations."

A partial shutdown this year would not affect VA operations, since its full 2017 budget was approved by Congress last fall.

The administration's fiscal 2018 budget plan also includes a stark divide between defense and non-defense spending, with a $52 billion boost for the military and $64 billion in proposed cuts to the State Department, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Health and Human Services, and other federal programs.

But lawmakers must resolve spending plans for the current fiscal year before fully engaging in that debate.

 

[FORBIN]

I' ll detail
Supplemental Fiscal Year 2017 Appropriations Request
transmited these days to Congress from White House voted in april or may and funds usable, Congress can also accept only a part.

2 PDF files
Official request

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And PDF with grapics practical to understand

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A request of 30 billions whose 25 for base budget + 5 for OCO same funds in more for FY 2018 so each year about + 5%, + 60 billions for the 2 years a little less than Trump had say before 50 billions base IIRC 60 but do 85 %.
Mainly 13 for procurement and 7 for Operation & Maintenance

By service not surprising USN is advantageous with Boeing have for 2 years of production with 24 F/A-18E/F build by month 2 Super Hornets/Growler ( before 3 ) have now to build again 20 - 30 max EA-18G, 7 new F/A-18E/F nomaly 28 for Kuwait possible others deals so the line remains active up to at least 2022 before planned 2018/19.

Main materials requested
24 F/A-18E/F do 2 Sqns yet 7 ordered last year ( whose 2 OCO for attrition ) so 31 USN want about 3 Sqns with some in more about 40 with F-35C delay - 0 in the request - and Hornet to replaced
5 F-35A
6 P-8 in more possible for the 2 Reserve VPU right no planned do transition from P-3C to P-8 the 2 have 16 P-3C
20 AH-64E
17 UH-60
5 HC/MC-130
A part of price of 1 Burke right now funded to 3/4

Remains to see if especialy with Operation & Maintenance funds increase USN can keep 3 Sqns normaly stand down end may a E-2, a F-18, a MH-60S to consider new planned EA-18G, MH-60R a very small decrease for F-18 fleet 1 Sqn on 35 ops + 4 USMC + 1 Reserve but always better when this does not diminish and logic with new Strategic situation no decrease for force size.
Or with new ordered in some years F/A-18E/F units can be re activated.

One other files of last year
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OVERVIEW FISCAL YEAR 2017 BUDGET ESTIMATES

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Jura The idiot]

Today at 7:43 AM

now instead

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I read
Pentagon’s FY17 supplemental sets up budget caps fight

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and noticed
"Of note, though, the request left out two F-35C Joint Strike Fighters the Navy had asked for, as well as support for six shipbuilding programs."
inside
2017 Supplemental Funding Request Invests In Aircraft Procurement; May Be Too Late For Some Maintenance Needs

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and after reading in related article
Trump seeks defense boost for 2018, $30B supplemental for 2017

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Congress is unlikely to adopt the budget blueprint as offered, as it includes deep cuts for the State Department, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and National Institutes of Health."

I'll wait what will be the deal