US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
The USA needs to accept that the time of an unipolar world is over.
Despite arguments to the contrary...the world has not been truly unipolar, even since the collapse of the USSR.

The US has been the dominant world power for a twenty+ year period...but other nations like the USSR and China, Britain, France, India, Pakistan, etc. with their nuclear weapons have ensured it was not truly unipolar.

So either the USA accepts that the world is moving back to a historical state of several powers or wasting more money into stupid military projects.
Of course...that is your own opinion. And sounds like it is spoken from an anti-American bias...perhaps Russian?

Folks having those opinions (in and out of the US) is no big deal...folks have been calling for that for a long time. Exactly the same thoughts prior to World War II set the stage for the rise of powers that the US and its allies then had to defeat. And the US was the impetus in terms of both manpower in the west, and the provider of huge amounts of material to all players...that allowed that defeat to take place.

To say that someone simply has to "accept" a condition and therefore must step back from its interests as a result, is not something most countries just do.

But, under the Obama administration, sadly, that is exactly what is happening.

Also, something that (as it did with Carter) can change with the next election cycle.

Finally, pmichael, this thread is about current, announced US military news. Not about carrying on a diatribe against the US.

Do not continue in that vein. Read the forum rules.
 
Last edited:

Pmichael

Junior Member
Wow! Not sharing your opinion isn't the same as having somekind of anti-American bias and I bet you're able to check my IP and see that I'm living in mid-Europe - not sure if it supports your claim that I hate America or not.

In which situation does the USA need a fleet larger than the projected fleet of 306 ships (+NATO/other allies) by the end of 2020? Against China, Russia, Iran... all together?
 

Miragedriver

Brigadier
Because the US Navy drew down very significantly from a larger number than the 450 ships it had in the 1980s and early 1990s.

Also as a result of the threat condition in the world also growing.

No real mystery here.

Jeff. An off topic question, I read in the Wall Street Journal that the US Navy is changing the classification of Naval Vessels by now counting Hospital Ships and Patrol Craft in the total ship count. Why is this being done? Is it to inflate the number of vessels in the Navy for political reasons, or is it for another purpose?
 

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
F35 purchase numbers are as follows I will add in the F18 E/F numbers too and EA-18G

2011
F35B x 35 units
F18 E/F x 31 units
EA-18G x 12 units

2012
F35B x 31 units
F18 E/F x 28 units
EA-18G x 12 units


2013
F35B x 29 units
F18 E/F x 37 units
EA-18G x 12 units


2014
F35B x 29 units
F18 E/F x 0 units
EA-18G x 21 units


2015
F35B x 34 units
F18 E/F x 0 units
EA-18G x 0 units


Total purchase over 5 years is
158 x F35
96 x F18 E/F
57 x EA-18G

Total aircraft purchase is 311 fighters
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Remington Outdoor Inc is the parent of Remington Defence. The Builder of M2010 Sniper Rifle, The SOCOM Precision Sniper Rifle, The Heart of the M40A5 scout Sniper rifle and likely it's Successor M40A7 Under development for the USMC, the M870 Shotgun, M24 Series Sniper rifles in service with a verity of nations including Japan, Georgia, the Philippines, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Hungry, Brazil and the Afghan national Army.
Remington Also own's AAC who manufacturers Suppressors used by US Forces for the Mk24 Pistol, M9, M11, MK23, MP5N, Selected MK18, M4A1, MK12, FN SCAR M2010, PSR, M249, M240, Muzzle Breaks for all of the Above and they designed and build the Honey Badger PDW that may or may not be in Service with US SOCOM as a replacement of the MP5N-SD as the .300Blackout round is exceptionally Lethal in a compact package, and very quiet.
Remington has also bid from time to to manufacture M4 carbines for the US army, And it's R4 and R5 carbines look well suited to become the next generation of the M4 series.
::UPDATE::
Reporting Announcement or Publicity Stunt
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Whether Global Digital Solutions (OTC-QB: GDSI) was announcing serious plans to launch an acquisition of Remington Outdoor Group or not, their announcement (made as per SEC requirements) certainly brought the company to the attention of both the firearm and financial industries.

There's not much doubt how Remington Outdoor Group feels about the 8-K filing and revelation that GDSI had made an unsolicited offer to purchase Freedom Group for "$1.082 billion in cash and shares of GDSI's common stock".

As we reported would happen in Wednesday's editions of the Outdoor and Shooting Wires, a confidential internal memorandum regarding the GDSI announcement was sent to Remington employees by Remington Outdoor Group's CEO, George Kollitides.

The Outdoor Wire was provided a copy of that memorandum in which Kollitides tells employees:

"Yesterday, a small, unknown investment entity publicly announced its desire to acquire the Remington Outdoor Company. If this wasn't disruptive to our employees and customers, we would not acknowledge the news and recognize it for what it is: a publicity stunt from an agenda-driven group with no credible financing options."

In his memorandum, Kollitides also reminded employees that the company "ran a sales process last year which generated offers from established and credible buyers. After careful evaluation of those offers, our agents concluded that the best course was to recapitalize our Company, providing liquidity to those investors desiring to exit."

"Nothing," Kollitides continued, "has changed from that strategy."

Rather than focusing on the "publicity stunt" Kollitides challenged employees to "focus on building the best, most innovative products to support our military, police and law-abiding citizens."

Nothing further has been released by GDSI. But a report by Bloomberg BusinessWeek assistant managing editor and senior writer Paul Barrett reported his unsuccessful attempt to speak with GDSI chairman and chief executive Richard Sullivan. The attempt ended with an apparent transfer to a cellphone that ultimately hung up on him. That, Barrett wrote, was "strange and not encouraging."

The report also caused some consternation in Huntsville, Alabama. That where Remington last month announced a $110 million expansion that would, ultimately, bring 200 new jobs to the booming northern Alabama city.

According to reports in Alabama media, Huntsville officials have "been in contact with Remington" and assured there were no negotiations. The whole matter, officials say, "has been characterized (by Remington) as a PR play for a company known to be anti-firearms."

Is GDSI anti-firearms?

Depends on how you read their own description of the company.

It appears to be betting/investing heavily in a technology that reportedly uses cloud-based technology that will be scaled-up so as to be capable of controlling anything from secure military communications to individual firearms. That is "smart gun technology" an anathema to gun rights groups, firearms manufacturers and a vast majority of private gun owners.

The company also describes itself as a leader in "cyber arms manufacturing, complimentary security and technology solutions and knowledge-based, cyber-related, culturally attuned social consulting in unsettled areas " (emphasis added).

When it comes to unsettled areas, gun control, or perhaps gun controls, would appear to be in their wheelhouse.

So is there a serious effort underway to acquire as many as three firearms-related companies by a small company in Florida?

Maybe. The announcement itself offers clues for a variety of plausible actions. That in itself is a clue as to several potential reasons why they sent their required 8-K to the SEC.

Required by SEC regulations, it is not unheard of in the fringes of the securities industry for companies to use a reporting requirement as a de facto marketing piece.

Of course, that position hinges on a couple of other purely speculative conditions:

GDSI would need to be releasing their "required document" in hopes of deliberately creating enough of a furor inside the firearms industry that deep-pocketed supporters of the anti-gun movement became aware of the company, their technology and intent in regards to the firearms industry.

"Technological convergence is the future in the cyber/smart arms arena," they write, "and we're eager to leverage our proven history of success by helping Freedom and others navigate the transition from analog to digital."

Putting digital controls into individual firearms -and having the requisite database to manage them, would certainly pique the attention of anti-gun supporters. Such a system minimally necessitates creation of a firearms inventory/registry. Ultimately, that system might ultimately become capable of electronically rendering guns with so-called smart technology unusable.

Raising hot-button topics might lead to sufficient capitalization -from the anti-side of the gun rights debate. Should that long-shot pay off, GDSI could potentially raise the capital necessary to make a run at some company or companies in the firearms industry .

After all, the GDSI announcement repeatedly mentions Remington and "two other related companies."

Purely for speculative purposes, it's probably worth remembering that former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, now a private citizen, but no less a gun control advocate, has a net worth several times the annual revenues of Remington. For some time, a few industry leaders have quietly confided their concerns that Bloomberg might turn his wallet on the gun industry instead of bankrolling various anti-gun groups.

Reading closely through the GDSI announcement, there is a piece of copy inside a lengthy and occasionally overly-detailed press release that many , myself included, read the first time as requisite boilerplate language:

"All three proposed acquisitions are subject to completion of due diligence, completion of satisfactory acquisition agreements and other customary conditions, including financing."
--Source: GDSI corrected release from PRNewswire

In other words, intent to conduct a deal is stated; but cash, the essential ingredient to all their plans, is not currently in hand.

Our attempts to contact someone at GDSI have been no more successful than Mr. Barrett's at Bloomberg/BusinessWeek. Announcing a billion-plus planned acquisition and then becoming very hard to reach really isn't a credibility builder. But any reports of "unsuccessful attempts to reach senior officials at GDSI" keep the company and its plan- for whatever the reason- in the public eye.

As always, we'll keep you posted.

--Jim Shepherd
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Remington and Freedom Group have just Called Bull! Global Digital Solutions made the offer but it's like David trying to take on Godzilla.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Wow! Not sharing your opinion isn't the same as having somekind of anti-American bias and I bet you're able to check my IP and see that I'm living in mid-Europe - not sure if it supports your claim that I hate America or not.
Never said you hated anything...those are your words. Just said that your opinion sounded anti-American. Maybe it is, maybe it is not. I also said that people have had such opinions for a long time, on both sides of the issue, and that the opinion was not the issue.

Stating that another nation must accept a "given," from your own perspective is beyond an opinion, it is a demand. I also indicated to you that the thread is about current US Military News and not about any anti-American diatrebe.

That comment and the moderator comment it included (in blue...like this), stands.

I'd recommend just giving it a rest and staying on topic about the thread.

Pmichael said:
In which situation does the USA need a fleet larger than the projected fleet of 306 ships (+NATO/other allies) by the end of 2020? Against China, Russia, Iran... all together?
In whatever scenarios the US Navy planners, and US military planners envision them with the growth and developing vulnerabilities resulting from those nations you mentioned and others.
 
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

quote
An MQ-8C Fire Scout surpasses 100 flight hours after completing a test flight March 10 at Point Mugu, Calif. The unmanned helicopter will continue testing at Point Mugu this year. In July, the Navy will conduct dynamic interface testing with the MQ-8C aboard USS Jason Dunham (DDG 109) to test the vehicle's take-off and landing procedures. Initial deployment for MQ-8C is planned for 2015.
end of quote from what NAVAIR put on Facebook most recently
 

Pmichael

Junior Member
Never said you hated anything...those are your words. Just said that your opinion sounded anti-American. Maybe it is, maybe it is not. I also said that people have had such opinions for a long time, on both sides of the issue, and that the opinion was not the issue.

Stating that another nation must accept a "given," from your own perspective is beyond an opinion, it is a demand. I also indicated to you that the thread is about current US Military News and not about any anti-American diatrebe.

That comment and the moderator comment it included (in blue...like this), stands.

I'd recommend just giving it a rest and staying on topic about the thread.

In whatever scenarios the US Navy planners, and US military planners envision them with the growth and developing vulnerabilities resulting from those nations you mentioned and others.

questioning the statement of a lobbyist isn't more derailing and anti-americanism than your anti Obama rant.

But yeah, have a nice day.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
lol, it sounds like reading a book about Roman Empire :p

The US is not the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire when it was beaten retreated The US has continued.
After Vietnam, The US continued, After Korea the Us grew stronger.
Rome Only extended as far as the Med and Europe, She Fell when She extended her self beyond her logistical capabilities, Shrank her legions and then sub divided herself into two Empires The Failing Western empire (Rome) and the wealthy eastern Empire ( Constantinople, Modern day Istanbul) the critical fail for Rome that lead to it's sacking was a betrayal when the Romans Offered lands to the the displaced Gauls and then reneged. Before the fall of Rome, she fell into economic decline. moving to the second largest economy of the region the first being Constantinople.
Constantinople lasted until the collapse of the Crusaders, when corruption and Scheming backfired.

The US is placed in a position where she needs a strong Navy and Air force, as The US is both as much a European state as England as much a Asian state as Japan. She is located in the critical point bridging the two oceans of the Atlantic and the Pacific. Despite faltering she remains the worlds first economy.

now back to it. why the 400+ Ship navy. First lets be honest here the number given is not set in stone. the number has been fluffed. Congress likes to make it's own mind and usually they cut down the numbers. it's a negotiation, Haggling between the DOD and Congress. Sometimes it works and the needs of the Service are filled some times like with the Raptor the political wins and the needs of the service are neglected. I would say the number wanted is likely closer to 400. still larger then Europe. Why so big? First LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION! European nations in the defensive mode are vulnerable from three Seas each of these seas has a number of Carrier task forces the North Sea ( UK pending) the Atlantic (UK pending, France, Spain) and the Med ( Spain, Italy).
The US? east Coast. The North atlantic, The Gulf, the South Atlantic.
West Cost. the North Pacific, The South Pacific, Indian Ocean/ Sea of Japan ( Guam and Japan due to strategic and Treaty)
the Pacific is huge territory far bigger then the Atlantic. demanding more assets and resources then the Atlantic ever could The next biggest player in the America's is Canada, but Canada has a much smaller naval fleet then the US and a much smaller area of open Coastal vulnerability. Canada and the US have a long Running relationship. the two nations the United states and Canada are sometimes accused of being one and the same. moving south is Mexico. Of the Continent of North America there are three full nations Canada, the US and Mexico. Of the three the weakest player is Mexico. So the Us bares the brunt of Defense for the three nations.

Next Nato and Europe have been until very recently the Junior partners in global operations. The Us has employed every where Nato has, Nato has not Employed everywhere the US has. The USN is one of the busiest multi-mission services on the planet. the Others the USAF the USMC and the US ARMY. The US is everywhere, and not just fighting. They are building schools, supplying medicines, treating the Sick. The Us has defense commitments far beyond it's own territory, So having a fleet far larger then NATO and Europe is reasonable. Additionally European navy's have a strange habit, They transition from Naval power to coast guard on a regular basis. the French Navy employs it's CVN, Then pulls her back into port for refit. they loose there carrier. the UK right now just retired all it's harriers and it's true carrier force. The USN would never do that. by keeping a large carrier force. the US can Cycle it's Carriers in for refit and repair well maintaining the same active strength.

Sadly the USN has been sapped over the years. the Last American president who saw it as a asset was Ronald Reagan. President Obama is just the latest of the run of Presidents who have viewed the worth of the USN as lesser then the needs either pressing or presumed of asymmetric conflict. it's not just the USN though the USAF lost B2 and F22's the US Army was pushed to cut Armor and Artillery the USMC has slashed out it's Amphibious capabilities in favor of lighter crafts and Mraps and brown water navy, keeping only the most basic of deep blue water assets.

The newest ships in the USN are the Ford Class, With the Ford now going through Trials, The LCS freedom and independence, Virginia Class SSN, the Zumwalt class Destroyers, America Class LHA, Spearhead Class JHSV, Montford Point-class Mobile Landing Platform, Lewis and Clark class resupply ships, San Antonio Class LPH, and the Armstrong-class oceanographic research ships and the M80 Stiletto Special operations Ship ( what I would call a modernized PT boat)

Now Zumwalt production has been cut to three, and both Independence and Freedom LCS are both being cut in favor of Frigates that likely would be variants of the same to replace the Oliver Hazard class which is well beyond it's capabilities.
The termination of the Zumwalt is short term to restart the Arleigh Burke class but the Arleigh's are more Littoral in nature and some are projecting the Burkes until the 2040's. the cancellation of the CGX in 2010 places strain on the fleet as Destroyers will have to take the place of Ticonderoga-class cruisers that may be retired early. a short term suppliant the needs is a Ballistic missile defense ship based on a existing hull like the San Antonio class but that is basically a arsenal ship minus all the sexiness and multi mission capabilities . The Ford Class is needed to replace Nimitz class Carriers now reaching there 50 year end of life. Lewis and Clark are self explanatory, Armstrong is scientific.
America class is needed as the existing class is reaching it's operational end of life soon and as Amphibious fit along with the San Antonio, and Spearhead in Littoral battle sets with Stiletto sitting nicely.
Well all of this seems fine and good against a lesser state with limited to nonexistent naval assets, the World has changed. The PRC has built a capable naval force and continues to improve it making a possible peer strength, they have also been pushing there wants in territorial disputes placing American treaty allies in a position of feeling threatened. they have a technologically sophisticated force and extensive ship building capabilities.
The Russian Fleet once a rusting hulk has come a long way, They remain one of the worlds top military technology exporters. there recent sale to India and procurement of Mistral class LHD with the intention of indigenous production shows a nation moving back to carrier production capabilities. and a nation willing to export said carriers. they sell SSK and SSP type ships and are quite happy to do so.
North Korea, Iran and Cuba have been trading technologies particularly in North Korean SSK class submarines, The Iranians have expanded there fleet now to include a number of emerging Destroyer types Although based heavily on hulls they received before the revolution form the US and UK, they al have to start somewhere. the Iranians also have access to more up to date Russian SSK types and the Cuban's although having a much less powerful naval force are know to be in the act to having a number of Yugo based mini subs and recently introducing two frigate class ships of there own design.
The world is a busy place

With the Instability in Venezuela and Argentina, Peru, Columbia, a unpredictable Cuban nation and Mexico in a seemingly undeclared civil war that stretches from the Jungles and Plantations of South America across central America, North into the American midwest.

In Africa Libyia, Liberia, Mali, the CAR, Somalia, Somaliland, Uganda, The Demicratic ( it's not) Republic of Congo( also not), South Sudan, Sudan, The Gambia, Senegal, Nigeria, Algeria, Tunisia, Niger... I mean other then South Africa pretty much the whole Continent is a giant war zone.

The middle East, Israeli Palestinian conflict, internal conflicts in Iran, the Iraqi-Syrian-Lebanon Conflict, Insurgency in Yemen, Egypt. Iran-Iraq-Syria-Turkey Kurdistan issue

Rising troubles in Eastern Europe the Ukraine, Insurgency in the North Caucasus of Russia, and possible issues in the future.

The long term issues between Pakistan and India, Internal issues in both as Maoist fight in India and the Taliban in Pakistan, Afghanistan, The Xinjiang conflict in China, Ethnic Conflict in Burma, South Thailand insurgency and the Korean Stand off.

Off shore you have the Philippines with insurgencies, the Papua conflict in Indonesia, the long standing three way Sino-Korean-Japanese tensions, the Taiwan issue, the long standing territorial disputes.

not to mention Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Viral outbreak, Hurricane, Typhoon, land slide, random acts of terrorism, Search and Rescue, Famine, Drought, wild fire, Flooding.
Look over this list and look hard you will find the USN nearby.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
USAF delays LRSO again, this time by three years
By: JON HEMMERDINGERWASHINGTON DC Source: Flightglobal.com 20 hours ago
The US Air Force has once again delayed development of its long-range standoff (LRSO) weapon, announcing it will push back a contract award by three years until fiscal year 2018.

The service, which had expected to award a contract in fiscal year 2015, attributes the delay to budget constraints in a document posted on the government’s procurement website.

The latest delay follows a two-year delay — from 2013 to 2015 — announced by the USAF in early 2013.

The USAF’s five-year spending plan, released on 11 March, provides move details about the service’s plan for LRSO development.

According to those documents, the USAF proposes to spend $4.9 million on LRSO in fiscal year 2015. That’s $35.6 million less than the $40.5 million that the USAF had previously expected to spend on the project that year.

The change makes way “for higher Air Force priorities,” says the service.

LRSO funding under the plan would then double each year for the next three years before jumping to nearly $145 million in fiscal year 2019.

The LRSO programme seeks to develop a weapon that can penetrate and survive integrated air defence systems, according to Pentagon budget documents.

LRSO weapons would be carried by the service’s future long-range strike bomber (LRS-B), which the service hopes to field by the mid-2020s.

The USAF is required to have an operational LRSO weapon by around 2030 under the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014, signed by president Obama late last year.

Though that document doesn’t provide a firm date, it does require the weapon reach initial operational capability (IOC) before the service retires its nuclear and conventionally armed Boeing AGM-86B air-launched cruise missiles.

The USAF has said it plans to extend the service life of those weapons, which are typically launched from Boeing B-52 aircraft, until at least 2030.
Delayed again. I have a bad feeling that some in power are looking to follow Europe in using only fighters. for a mission set better served by a true bomber.
USAF details five-year spending plan
By: JON HEMMERDINGERWASHINGTON DC Source: Flightglobal.com 15:50 13 Mar 2014
The US Air Force on 11 March released a detailed budget proposal showing how much it intends to spend in the five-year period to fiscal year 2019 on current and next-generation aircraft programmes.

According to the documents, the service wants to inject $11.4 billion over the period to develop a long-range strike bomber (LRS-B), which it hopes will reach initial operational capability by the mid-2020s. The air force also intends to spend nearly $2 billion between fiscal years 2015 and 2019 to field a next-generation joint surveillance target attack radar system (JSTARS), and more than $1.6 billion to replace the fleet of US presidential Boeing VC-25 aircraft, which are converted Boeing 747-200s.

In addition, the proposal includes an investment of nearly $670 million on new jet fighter trainers – the T-X replacement programme – and more than $40 million on joint air-to-surface stand-off missiles (JASSMs).

The documents also detail how much the USAF plans to spend to bolster its existing fleet.

The plan calls for an investment of almost $28 billion over five years to purchase 238 Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighters, at an average flyaway cost of about $107 million each. The USAF also proposes spending nearly $15 billion on 69 Boeing KC-46A tankers, about $7.2 billion on 70 Lockheed Martin C-130J tactical transports and $2 billion for 63 General Atomics Aeronautical Systems MQ-9 Reapers.
Raytheon Eyes Early SM-3 IIA Builds
By Amy Butler [email protected]
Source: AWIN First

March 13, 2014
Credit: U.S. Navy
Raytheon is preparing to submit a bid to the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to build the first batch of SM-3 Block IIA ballistic missile interceptors while gearing up for the first flight test next year.

The proposal will include the sale of 22 of the missiles, which are now being developed, says Mitch Stevison, SM-3 program director for the company. They would be purchased by MDA with research and development funding.

The SM-3 Block IIA is the most recent iteration of the Raytheon’s SM-3 family. It is required for implementation of phase 3 of the Obama administration’s European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) for the defense of most of Europe and the East Coast of the U.S. from a possible Iranian ballistic missile attack. SM-3 IIA, which will be ship- and ground-launched, is slated for operational use in 2018 in accordance with the EPAA plan to incrementally expand defenses in and around Europe.

While the SM-3 Block IAs and IBs are now used on U.S. Navy ships as a guard against regional ballistic missiles, the IIA, co-developed with the government of Japan and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), will introduce a newer, more powerful propulsion system. The SM-3 IA, IB and IIA each have a 21-in. first stage, but the IIA will incorporate 21-in. second and third stages as well. The earlier models have only 14-in. diameters for these elements.

This provides for more range and velocity at burnout, allowing for a larger defended area. “The [IIA] missile is kinematically far more capable than the Block 1B missile,” Stevison says.

Officials tested canister egress of the new SM-3 IIA design last Oct. 24, validating models to ensure the larger missile can eject from the Navy’s Mk. 41 vertical landing system, Stevison tells Aviation Week. This canister will be used for launching the missile at sea and ashore.

The first intercept trial is slated to take place by the end of fiscal 2016, two years later than planned due to a restructuring in 2012. This allowed for more risk reduction work. The Pentagon “wanted a hardware-rich program early,” Stevison said, adding that early detailed testing has addressed risk. Four intercept attempts are planned before the SM-3 IIA is inducted for operational use. The first flight test, a controlled test vehicle trial that will put the propulsion system through its paces, is set for the first quarter of 2015.

The Pentagon is planning to spend roughly $1.51 billion developing the SM-3 IIA, with Japan adding roughly an equal amount. MHI is developing the nose cone, second- and third-stage motors, staging assembly and steering control for the interceptor.

Aerojet is building the first stage and Raytheon is manufacturing the kill vehicle. It is based off of work for the 1B, although the larger booster allows for a larger kill vehicle capable of improved signal processing and range. It will include the two-color infrared seeker and divert-and-attitude-control system now used on the 1B.

Eventually, Japan plans to buy the missile to allow for defense of its own territory with fewer ships than with using the older models.
Standing up the next Standard.
Rep. Visclosky: 'Impossible' To Move Pentagon Spending Bill With Only OCO 'Placeholder'
Mar. 13, 2014 - 03:31PM | By JOHN T. BENNETT | Comments

A
A
-
US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, second from right, arrives to speak to US troops at the Kandahar air base in December. (Agence France-Presse)
FILED UNDER
World News
Americas
WASHINGTON — A key US House member warned Thursday the Obama administration’s withholding of a war-funding request could hinder passage of the chamber’s 2015 military spending bill.

Rep. Pete Visclosky of Indiana, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Defense subcommittee, took umbrage with a decision by Pentagon brass and White House budget officials to send Congress only a $79 billion “placeholder” figure for a new overseas contingency operations (OCO) budget blueprint.

A final OCO topline and details of what kinds of items that spending plan would propose to buy is on hold as Obama administration officials continue so-far fruitless efforts to secure a security pact with senior Afghan leaders. The agreement is needed to keep some number of US and NATO forces there beyond 2014 to perform counterinsurgency operations and support indigenous forces.

But outgoing Afghan President Hamid Karzai is refusing to sign the pact. That means Washington likely will have to wait until later this year to convince Karzai’s successor to sign it.

The outcome of the security agreement drama will determine whether any US forces are there next year, and help officials shape the final size and contents of the war-funding request.

The problem, Visclosky told Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, is that lawmakers might not be able to wait that long.

“It would be impossible for us to go to the floor with a placeholder for $79 billion,” Visclosky said.

The Democratic member called out the White House, saying it “has got to understand there’s some urgency with regard to the appropriations process.”

Meantime, Visclosky also put the Pentagon leaders on notice they are unlikely to receive an additional $26 billion — on top of their $496 billion 2015 request — they want next year.

Pentagon officials say the White House in coming weeks will send Congress a $58 billion wish list featuring defense and domestic programs it wants funded, but did not include in the president’s 2015 federal spending plan. It will include a $26 billion request for the Pentagon.

But, echoing other Democratic and Republican lawmakers, the HAC-D ranking member bluntly said: I do not think [it] is gonna happen.”

That’s largely for political reasons.

The $58 billion wish list will contain White House proposals for new federal revenues and spending on domestic programs to allow it to comply with spending caps. Republicans, who control the House, oppose both things.

Analysts like the Stimson Center’s Gordon Adams say the $58 billion package is doomed in the GOP-controlled House and the Democratic-controlled Senate, where he says it would fail to get 60 votes to break a filibuster threat.

Lawmakers say, of all its controversial 2015 budget proposals, the Pentagon likely is in store for its biggest fight over the $26 billion wish list.

“I think perhaps the real focus is going to be on that additional fund,” Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said last week.

“The recent budget agreement … prohibited taxing and spending,” Senate Budget Committee’s Ranking Member Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., told Defense News last week. “The president should comply with the law. Surely, it would be astounding that eight weeks after signing Ryan-Murray, he would propose to bust it. Astounding.”
US Army Working With Joint Chiefs to Develop 'Global Landpower Network'
Mar. 13, 2014 - 03:45AM | By PAUL McLEARY | Comments

A
A
US Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno has unveiled a concept called Global Strategic Landpower Network.
US Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno has unveiled a concept called Global Strategic Landpower Network. (Paul McLeary/Staff)
FILED UNDER
World News
Americas
Related Links
Commentary: US Army Must Redefine Its Role
US Army Plans to Cut 3 of 13 Aviation Brigades by 2019
WASHINGTON — Preparing for the start of a series of hearings before Congress to discuss his fiscal 2015 budget, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno struck a cooperative tone in remarks at a Washington think tank Thursday, stressing joint solutions to future conflicts.

The chief unveiled what he called the Global Strategic Landpower Network, which he said is being discussed among the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The idea is new, but Pentagon discussions about the concept revolved around “a multinational network that would be established around the world that enables us to respond” to contingencies, and a “multinational joint capability,” he said.

Army staffers and other Pentagon officials contacted for more information either did not respond to queries by press time or were unfamiliar with the discussions.

Specifically, Odierno said that he’s working with Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh on issues related to close air support, a nod to the Air Force’s desire to eliminate the aging A-10 ground attack jet, which Army infantrymen rely on heavily.

He said they’re working though issues such as, “what does close air support look like in the future, what kind of close air support do we need in order to support land power in the future, and how do we go about doing that?”

He stressed, “these are all joint concepts.”

Continuing his theme of placing the Army’s mission in a larger joint context, Odierno added that while the service is spending a lot of time working though its forced entry capabilities for potential future operations, “forced entry is not a ground exercise, it is a joint exercise that would require support from air, naval, cyber, etc.”

He added that the nascent Global Strategic Landpower Network he had briefly described “is not about positioning ourselves for the budget, this is about trying to develop concepts for how we believe landpower should be used in the future.”

The Army has previously teamed with the Special Operations Command and the Marine Corps to produce a white paper for their joint Strategic Landpower task Force, but this new “Network” appears to be more inclusive of the other services, and more global in its ambitions.

It is also unclear if the effort is an attempt to construct something similar to the “Global SOF Network,” which Special Operations Command leader Adm. William McRaven has been pushing for the past two years.

McRaven’s idea is to have Special Operations forces partner with US combatant commanders and indigenous special operators in partner nations to share intel and conduct joint training and engagement operations, in order to more fully integrate capabilities and increase information-sharing.

Odierno’s idea isn’t completely new, however. An article in the July 2013 issue of Army magazine authored by the head of Army Special Forces, Lt. Gen. Charles Cleveland, and Lt. Col. Stuart Farris promoted the idea of developing a multinational “landpower network” that would “consist of allies, expeditionary global and regional partners, and host-nation forces. It could ultimately include non-military actors that have a direct relationship to success in wars among the people in places like Libya and Syria.”

Cleveland and Farris continued, “this is not about outsourcing our global security responsibilities to witting and unwitting actors,” but rather to “generate strategic options for senior defense officials and policymakers, both domestically and abroad.” ■
Five Fights To Watch In The 2015 Budget
By Amy Butler, Michael Bruno, Michael Fabey
Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology

March 10, 2014
Credit: USAF
The Obama administration's fiscal 2015 base budget request of just over half a trillion dollars includes the gutting of major U.S. Air Force and Army aviation fleets, delays to Navy aircraft efforts and slips for satellites, but it also attempts to preserve funding for future technology. The total Pentagon request is for $495.6 billion in the “base” budget with another $26 billion as a “wish list” tied to a larger government tax and revenue package. The former relies heavily on approval from lawmakers to conduct a new round of base closures and reforms to military pay and health care—all likely hitting a divided Capitol Hill with an uninspiring thud. The Pentagon plan to retire A-10 and OH-58D aircraft, many of which are operated by Guard and Reserve forces that have significant influence with lawmakers bent on protecting jobs and facilities in their districts, was also met with a groan. The $26 billion Opportunity, Growth and Security (OGS) fund money funding to backfill depleted readiness accounts—such as those for squadrons required to stand down flying hours in fiscal 2013 owing to the haphazard implementation of sequestration cuts—as well as some procurement items. Among them are: $1.1 billion for eight Navy Boeing P-8As; $600 million for 26 Army Boeing AH-64E Apache helicopters; $500 million for 28 Army Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawks; $100 million for two Army Boeing CH-47 Chinooks; $1.1 billion for 10 Air Force Lockheed Martin C-130J transports; $300 million for two Air Force Lockheed F-35As; and $200 million for 12 Air Force General Atomics MQ-9 Reapers. These are all clear enticements to industry and its powerful lobbying arms. But the success of the OGS fund relies on the willingness of Congress, including tax-shy House Republicans, to approve it as part of a larger, $58 billion government-wide fund that will draw from new revenues. The OGS fund is a precursor to $115 billion more the Pentagon seeks over sequestration levels in fiscal 2016-19. Some or all likely will be appropriated in the non-capped Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget. Congress has proven its willingness to both provide minor sequestration relief and move more base spending into OCO, including equipment upgrades and replacements. But OCO ostensibly is a war-fighting fund, and its political future is uncertain as Afghan operations end. If sequestration is not lifted in 2016 and beyond, the Pentagon will ax a $1 billion program to develop an adaptive-cycle engine, delay GPS III satellite procurement further than already planned, and terminate the Global Hawk Block 40 ground-surveillance aircraft, among other initiatives. Aviation Week's editors have outlined the particulars of five key aerospace debates to follow as Congress addresses the budget request in the coming months.

HIGH GROUND

One of the most controversial decisions in the Pentagon's 2015 budget request is its move to ignore the U.S. Air Force's advice to keep the U-2 spy plane flying. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) proposes mothballing U-2s starting in fiscal 2016, though Air Force fleet retirement plans “are not complete,” says USAF spokesman Ed Gulick. At issue is how much it will cost and how long it will take for the Northrop Grumman RQ-4B Global Hawk to reach so-called U-2 parity, a benchmark Pentagon officials have been not publicly defined for the unmanned aircraft's performance.

Lt. Gen. Charles Davis, military deputy for the Air Force acquisition chief, says the Pentagon faced a difficult choice between two “$3.5 billion fleets,” referencing the nearly equal cost of operating both through 2019. USAF officials say U-2 divestiture will save the service $2.2 billion through fiscal 2019.

Even Global Hawk advocates acknowledge that operational deficiencies must be addressed if it is to unseat the U-2. Among other things, it needs anti-icing equipment that will allow it to operate more reliability through bad weather, especially in the Pacific, where 55% of Global Hawk missions were canceled in fiscal 2013, largely due to weather. U-2s completed 96% of their missions there (AW&ST Jan. 20, p. 24).

Likewise, Air Force testers cite shortcomings with the Global Hawk's electro-optical/infrared camera—Raytheon's Enhanced Integrated Sensor Suite—and its Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload. A solution to the sensor issue is to transition the Global Hawk to employ U-2 sensors, all of which have been upgraded in the past decade, except for the black-and-white camera used for treaty monitoring. Davis acknowledges this shift will not come without challenges, as the Global Hawk's design is less modular.

“The U-2 sensors are very good, and they're very new,” says one senior defense official speaking of the decision on background. “Eventually, we're going to have to get rid of the U-2. Wouldn't it be nice if the Global Hawk could be the replacement?”

The Global Hawk's cost per flying hour came down in fiscal 2013 to $25,000 from $33,000 (roughly equal to the U-2's), ultimately tipping the decision in the unmanned aircraft's favor. An industry source suggests, however, that the comparisons are not equal because Global Hawk upgrades are funded through separate accounts while the U-2's are sourced through operations and maintenance accounts.

The cost of parity still looms. Air Force officials say $1.9 billion is needed for viability, reliability, compliance and sensor improvements for the Global Hawk in 10 years to more closely mirror U-2 operations.

One operational compromise will be altitude. Service officials say there is no money to improve Global Hawk's operating altitude, usually 55,000-60,000 ft. The U-2 typically flies higher than 70,000 ft., allowing for better sensor slant range. The U-2 also carries a defensive system capable of countering the new S-300 and S-400 air defenses, while Global Hawk lacks self protection.

These are likely to be the arguments raised in favor of the U-2 by Lockheed Martin, the aircraft's manufacturer. For the past decade, Lockheed has quietly worked on the U-2, and last month it held its first public briefing on the aircraft in years to promote its current capabilities. Northrop Grumman declined to comment on the arguments for and against the Global Hawk.

Combatant commanders overseeing forces in the Pacific, Europe and the Middle East are likely to echo these arguments if called to Congress to testify. All have reportedly backed the U-2 in classified memos. But Davis notes that their requirement should be platform-agnostic.

It is possible that the forthcoming debut of the RQ-180, a classified, high-flying, stealthy unmanned intelligence aircraft, is having an unseen influence on the debate if it is capable of penetrating hostile airspace for collection missions (AW&ST Dec. 9, 2013, p. 20). This could allow the service to eventually invest less than planned in the Global Hawk and simply use it to augment the stealthy RQ-180, which is being built by Northrop Grumman.

WING-WALKING

The U.S. Navy decision not to fund continued work for Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler production line is the strongest indication yet that the service will not eventually back away from buying the F-35C to fill the decks of its aircraft carriers.

Abandoning the F/A-18 line is a major shift toward the F-35C by the Navy, the last U.S. service to buy into the procurement of the single-engine, stealthy Lockheed Martin jet. But it has sliced its quantities by 33 to a total of 36 F-35s in fiscal 2015-19, with initial operational capability (IOC) still planned for fiscal 2019.

The Marine Corps is requesting funding for 69 F-35Cs through 2019, maintaining its buy profile and an aggressive IOC goal of next summer.

“The Navy is a little different. . . . They can take a little more risk,” notes USAF Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, F-35 program executive officer. The Navy slid 33 of its F-35C purchases to beyond 2019 because it is still taking delivery of F/A-18s; 21 Growlers were in the fiscal 2014 budget.

The Air Force, the largest F-35 buyer, cut four aircraft from its fiscal 2015 buy profile, lowering it to 26, but the service has requested that two be restored through the OGS fund, a $26 billion wish list added to the 2015 request. The Air Force is also taking risk by cancelling plans to move forward with the F-16 Combat Avionics Programmed Extension Suite (Capes) project to upgrade its aircraft with an active, electronically scanned array radar.

The Navy's request for $679 million in Super Hornet-related modifications, includes the addition of an infrared search-and-track capability, but this is hardly a consolation for Boeing's hopes to maintain steady work for the St. Louis production line.

Boeing is imploring Congress to add funding for more of its aircraft. Without additional government money, Boeing will face a decision this year to cut its Super Hornet and Growler production rate by as much as half.

As the F-35 matures, however slowly, Boeing's chances to sell more Super Hornets internationally are dwindling; customers including Canada and Denmark are still weighing their options.

When Boeing opted to underwrite the C-17 production line, there were no viable alternatives for customers seeking near-term delivery of a strategic airlifter. Self-funding F/A-18 activities, however, poses more jeopardy, as there are viable options in the fighter market. But a congressional plus-up of Super Hornets is also a risk for the F-35, which would probably be cut commensurately.

With the F/A-18 on the brink, there is some consolation for Boeing in other major, new programs gearing up. The Air Force plans a downselect among options for its next-generation bomber and requests a steep jump in funding to $914 million in fiscal 2015 from $359 million in fiscal 2014. Boeing, teamed with Lockheed Martin, is competing with Northrop Grumman for the contract.

Though then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates put a $550 million-per-unit cost cap on the effort to buy 80-100 bombers, Lt. Gen. Charles Davis, Air Force military deputy for acquisition, describes this as more of a guideline for bounding the requirements appetite of the service.

The bomber program is moving forward, but the Air Force is continuing to defer real work on the T-38 replacement; a program is not set to kick off until fiscal 2017, although $503.2 million is outlined for the effort through fiscal 2019. Top Air Force officials are slated to hold a quarterly meeting soon to discuss requirements for the so-called T-X program with a goal of keeping “to the minimum requirements to do the mission upfront.” Any adjuncts, such as a variant for national air defenses, should come later, Davis says.

DOWNWASH

In many ways, the once-and-future U.S. Air Force Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH) is emblematic of major weapon system sturm and drang and how business is done with the U.S. military. Ditched years ago after scandal and intense lobbying by opposing groups—including Air Force acquisition malpractice, Air Force-versus-Pentagon disagreements and strained relations with losing foreign bidders—a 112-rotorcraft effort has suddenly been slated for takeoff again.

This time it will be an Air Force-driven program sole-sourced to an industry team led by United Technologies Corp.'s (UTC) Sikorsky and backed by leading Pentagon contractor Lockheed Martin. Contract award should come before July.

The turnabout came quickly. Just two weeks ago, newly installed Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James and Bob Work, the next expected deputy defense secretary, said there was no money in the fiscal 2015-19 budget blueprint for CRH, due to the need to apply scarce defense dollars to higher Pentagon priorities. They did so even while acknowledging that the combat-search-and-rescue (CSAR) capability remains a “sacred mission” in the eyes of many who wear blue uniforms and current Sikorsky HH-60 Pave Hawks are aging.

“It's a question of: 'Can we afford it?' Can we afford it now versus later?' '[And] is it better to do upgrades or buy new?'” James said. “We have to rack and stack that priority with the others.”

Fast forward to March 4, when the 2015 budget request was announced, with USAF Maj. Gen. Jim Martin providing “breaking news” to Pentagon reporters. “I was informed of the decision before I walked in here,” he announced. “We have made a decision to fund the CRH.”

What happened? It may never be fully explained, but the combination of lamentations in the Air Force ranks and industry and congressional influence surely played a role. The Air Force says it will “realign” $430 million from other USAF priorities in its five-year blueprint, building off $334 million that New England-led lawmakers earmarked in final 2014 appropriations this year (AW&ST Dec. 23, 2013, p. 18).

After Martin spoke, James cited the “criticality of the mission” and argued that the decision “protects a good, competitive price and effectively uses” the earmark. Moreover, the CRH must complete a Milestone B low-rate production review, as well as Pentagon-led “independent” cost assessments. Sikorsky also must agree to extend its pricing through June, which is expected.

Above all, James warned, if Congress does not undo full sequestration-level spending caps set for fiscal 2016-19, “this program, along with many others, will need to be reevaluated.”

Still, industry is pleased for now, and lawmakers vow to defend their gain. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), a vocal advocate for Connecticut-based Sikorsky, says, “I will continue to fight for the necessary funding and to work with the Air Force as it takes the steps needed to award the contract so that we can field these helicopters for our warfighters while supporting good jobs for the men and women in Connecticut building them.”

POWER PLAY

The addition of roughly $1 billion to fund a next-generation tactical engine program is both a nod to industry and a potentially conditional temptation to a Congress keen on keeping its powerful defense lobbyists happy.

The Air Force says it can only fund the program if the draconian sequestration cuts are not maintained in 2016 and beyond. That, of course, is up to Congress. It would be “game-changing for the Pentagon's capability to operate in anti-access/area-denied environments” due to its goal of improving range by 30%, Air Force officials say.

Ultimately, the Air Force is planning to bring adaptive-engine technologies from science and technology efforts into the mainstream of its programs—perhaps eventually replacing the F135 on the 1,763 F-35s it plans to buy. Such work could also influence the Air Force's next-generation bomber design and work for new unmanned aircraft and the Navy's notional FA-XX program.

UTC's Pratt & Whitney and General Electric are likely to benefit directly, as the effort is designed to create a full demonstration and validation program in fiscal 2016. Both companies are influential, with geographically disbursed interests in droves of lawmakers' districts, and they are likely to lobby hard to keep the program.

Meanwhile, the Army is taking measures to preserve research funding for its Improved Turbine Engine Program, which also seeks operating efficiencies. The logic is similar: If the engine powers its main helicopter fleets—Apaches and Black Hawks—the fuel savings will allow for spending on other priority programs.

The so-called next-generation engine program for the Air Force would build on work from the Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology (Advent) and Adaptive Engine Technology Development Effort (AETD) programs, both intending to advance engine efficiency by at least 25%—perhaps as much as 40%—and improve thrust, according to Air Force officials.

Advent funding spanned fiscal 2007-13; AETD research and science and technology funding was slated to end in fiscal 2016. The Air Force is requesting a total of $198 million for AETD in the fiscal 2015 budget plan.

The next-gen effort would follow with two competitively awarded adaptive engine demonstration/validation contracts, both starting in fiscal 2016, Air Force officials say. A downselect to one winning contract would later kick off an engineering, manufacturing and development (EMD) program. It “will further mature adaptive-engine technologies through extensive ground testing to facilitate integration and flight testing,” Air Force officials say. “The emphasis is on proving advanced component and subsystem maturity prior to incorporation into major systems, thus reducing risk for future engine EMD programs.”

General Electric, which worked both the Advent and AETD programs and began testing the first adaptive three-stream technology demonstrator engine in November, says it has invested over $1 billion in adaptive cycle design.

Meanwhile, Pratt has proven a three-stream airflow architecture for its fan design, demonstrating the potential for improved airflow allocation and performance at extremes in the flight envelope, says Jimmy Kenyon, the company's general manager for next-gen fighter engines. Work in this area is highly competitive, not only to power the F-35 and a potential sixth-generation fighter, but also to support the work of the engine companies in producing more efficient technologies for the lucrative commercial aviation sector.

STOPS, STARTS IN SPACE

Shifts in military space are sure to get congressional attention, in part owing to what is likely to be an aggressive lobbying effort by Lockheed Martin to protect its satellite efforts.

The Air Force is relaxing on its “back-to-basics” approach for development of the next-generation GPS satellite, sliding activities for the Lockheed project to the right nearly two years. Another $2.1 billion is being cut from the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) program, also led by Lockheed, for Satellites 7-8 while the service looks at alternative, “disaggregated” architectures for hosting the protected strategic and tactical communications missions on separate satellites.

Air Force Undersecretary Eric Fanning says roughly $777 million and $205 million in the budget plan are sidelined for the strategic and tactical missions, respectively. The analysis is slated for completion in the summer, enabling the Air Force to forge a way forward in the fiscal 2016 budget going to Congress next year. AEHF satellites in orbit are lasting longer than expected, so a replenishment is not needed until 2027, Fanning says.

But, before a decision is made, the company is likely going to push lawmakers to preserve its AEHF team. Shifting to a disaggregated approach is a threat to major space primes, who have structured their design teams around large, multi-sensor satellite efforts for decades.

Unplanned satellite longevity is also allowing the service to slip the initial delivery of the first GPS III satellite to the right nearly two years, Fanning says. This will begin to erode the “back to basics” procurement practices—including consistent funding and predictable buys—applied to the GPS III program. Officials are not saying how much funding was pulled from the account through the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), but GPS III was already tightly managed due to late delivery of the payload by Exelis. Should Budget Control Act spending limits stay in place for fiscal 2016 and beyond, one of the satellites will slip later than 2019, says Maj. Gen. Robert McMurry, chief of the Air Force space procurement office.

The service is also exploring with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) whether it is financially advantageous to mothball an already-built Lockheed Martin Defense Meteorological Satellite Program weather spacecraft if the penultimate launch (F19) is successful in April, Fanning says. Funding is in place to keep the final satellite, F20, ready for launch if needed in the event of a mishap with F19.

But McMurry says the Air Force has set aside $35 million to look at crafting a simple, small satellite to collect ocean-surface wind data among a few other military requirements, and it could cost less to simply leapfrog to this new system. A so-called Defense Weather Satellite System would handle the Pentagon's mission leftover from the defunct National Polar Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (Npoess) program, which was once shared with NOAA and NASA. The Air Force is conducting an analysis of alternatives to examine options for the mission.

Fanning says the service will have to sideline the weather satellite follow-on program if spending limits are imposed for fiscal 2016 and beyond.

Tap the icon in the digital edition of AW&ST to see the Top 10 Major Defense Acquisition Programs compared to the total procurement and RDT&E requests, or go to AviationWeek.com/top10MDAPs

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Budget Breakdown: Fiscal 2014-15
Fiscal 2014Total Fiscal 2015Base
F-35A (Air Force) $3.98 billion $4.62 billion
Net Current-Year Procurement1 19* 2.89 billion 26 3.55 billion
Advance Procurement 3.39 million 292 million
F-35 Modifications 128 million 188 million
F-35 R&D (EMD & SDD) 630 million 563 million
F-35 Squadrons R&D (OSD) 3 million 44 million
F-35 R&D (EMD & ACD&P) 0 5 million
Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System R&D (OSD) 0 0
F-35 B & C (Navy and Marine Corps) $3.35 billion $3.32 billion
F-35C
Net Current-Year Procurement1 4 1.03 billion 2 611 million
Advance Procurement 79 million 29 million
F-35C Modifications 29 million 21 million
F-35B (Stovl)
Net Current-Year Procurement 6 1.12 billion 6 1.02 billion
Advance Procurement 103 million 144 million
F-35 Stovl Modifications 111 million 286 million
R&D (EMD & SDD) 857 million 1.03 billion
F-35 Program Total 29 $7.37 billion 34 $7.96 billion
EMD = Engineering and Manufacturing DevelopmentSDD = System Development and DemonstrationOSD = Operational Systems DevelopmentACD&P = Advanced Component Development and Prototypes1 Net Current-Year Procurement = Procurement for currentyear new end items minus applicable advance procurement* Number of UnitsAll numbers represent Total Obligational Authority. Fiscal 2014 figures are enacted budgets; fiscal 2015 figures are from the presidential request. Program totals were calculated by Aviation Week. No inflation adjustments have been made. Sources: Office of the Secretary of Defense and Dan Katz/Aviation Week Intelligence Network
 
Top