US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

after I had seen several stories like this:
Trump tells Reuters he wants to expand nuclear arsenal, make US 'top of the pack'
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I decided to read Trump threats to New START could imperil nuclear modernization programs
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

U.S. President Donald Trump’s comments Thursday about the New START treaty could imperil the political consensus in Washington on modernizing the Pentagon’s nuclear arsenal.

In a Thursday
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, Trump called the New START treaty a “"a one-sided deal” and a “bad deal,” and pledged that “if countries are going to have nukes, we’re going to be at the top of the pack.”

Signed in 2010, the New START treaty limits both the U.S. and Russia agreed to limit their deployed forces to 1,550 warheads over 700 delivery systems, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and bombers, by 2018.

The deal has been praised by both the non-proliferation community and former Pentagon officials as one that increases global security, but has drawn the ire of Trump previously, with media outlets reporting that he railed against the deal during his first call with Russian president Vladimir Putin.

That set off alarm bells for non-proliferation experts such as Kingston Reif of the Arms Control Association, who discussed the issue during the Feb. 19 episode of Defense News TV.

“Any effort to undo the agreement or suggest the administration is not interested in an extension or negotiating a new agreement to replace New START when it expires in 2021 would negatively impact U.S. security and negatively impact an already shaky global nuclear order.”

Notably, both Reif and Rebecca Hersman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies expressed the belief that if New START were to be imperiled, the political consensus in Washington over nuclear modernization could fall apart.

That consensus, Hersman explains, is based on tradeoffs that were made by both sides when New START was being negotiated – in essence, nuclear modernization support for treaty support. And indeed, democrats have largely been supportive of the current nuclear modernization plan, much to the delight of defense contractors who are lining up to take advantage of the expected spending spree.

A recent estimate from the Congressional Budget Office put the cost of modernizing the nuclear enterprise over the next decade at $400 billion, with other estimates putting the overall nuclear modernization at over $1 trillion when all is said and done.

Among the programs that need funding are the new Columbia-class nuclear submarines (designed by Electric Boat and Newport News Shipbuilding), the B-21 Raider bomber (produced by Northrop Grumman), and the new Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD), which will replace the Minuteman III ICBMs (Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman are all in competition for the right to build GBSD, with various other companies attached to their bids.) In addition, the nation’s selection of nuclear warheads and its command and control structure are being rebuilt.

“The trick here is that consensus can be frayed from either the right or the left,” Hersman explained. “Either a push to not follow through on modernization on one of the key elements, or similarly to add too many new things or threaten the New START treaty or go too far down the road in perhaps new capabilities or warheads. Both sides can start to pull blocks out of the Jenga, game and with that the whole consensus can come down.

Adds Reif, “if there is an effort to pull back from New START, I think you’re likely to see many Democrats and some Republicans who would be deeply concerned by that move, and I think that would raise question about the viability of the modernization projects, as well.”

If the political consensus does fail around nuclear weapons, the Long Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO) will likely be the one to find itself in the crosshairs. The replacement of the current nuclear-capable cruise missile, the program is still in a nascent stage where it could be more vulnerable.

The non-proliferation community has targeted LRSO as the most destabilizing of nuclear weapons, and Democrats in both the House and Senate have launched attempts to scuttle it. If Democrats sought a way to strike out as a result of any New START break, the LRSO would be a logical target.

The Pentagon is currently beginning a formal Nuclear Posture Review for the Trump administration, which is expected to continue forward with modernization plans, including on LRSO. There is no formal timetable for that report, which may also call for investments that had not been supported under the Obama administration.
(no, I don't like nukes)

by the way, I haven't noticed Trump's "expected spending spree" yet
Today at 8:44 AM
... I haven't noticed Trump's "expected spending spree" yet
while A 308-ship Navy to cost $566 billion, CBO estimates
A U.S. Navy plan to build a 308 ship fleet will cost a whopping $566 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

As of 2016, the Navy’s fleet of combat capable ships numbered 272, an inadequate number to meet Navy’s role of policing the global commons and responding to near-peer adversaries like Russia and China, according to 2014 Navy assessments.

The 2017 Navy shipbuilding plan, submitted to Congress in July, intends to increase the size of the fleet to 308 ships by building 254 ships over a 30-year period. Figuring in retirement plans of current ships, the U.S. Navy would reach that goal by 2021, according to a report published by the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The CBO projects that the Navy’s plan would cost roughly $566 billion over thirty years. This means nearly $19 billion a year for new ships — a figure 36 percent higher than the historical average of $14 billion the Navy usually spends yearly.

The construction of the ships will be a phased approach starting with seven in 2017, 38 ships between 2017 and 2021, and another 216 ships between 2022 and 2046.

Included in the plan is the construction of six CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carriers, which will allow the Navy to sustain an eleven carrier fleet until 2039 as older carriers reach the end of their service life.

However, submarines are expected to consume most of the shipbuilding budget despite the gargantuan cost of a new aircraft carrier, estimated at $11 billion for the new CVN-79, the John F. Kennedy.

The Navy’s fleet of attack submarines currently stands at 69, which includes 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines capable of firing Trident nuclear missiles — a critical component of America’s nuclear deterrent.

The U.S. Navy intends to add 56 submarines to the fleet, including 12 additional new Columbia-class ballistic missile subs that are expected to replace the aging Ohio-class Trident submarines, nuclear armed submarines that are nearing end of service life.

The new Trident missile submarines are slated to begin construction in 2021, and that program alone is estimated to cost $104 billion, with the remainder of the attack subs adding another $74 billion, the report reads.

However, as a result sequestration — the automatic series of budget cuts enacted by Congress in 2011 — the Navy faces an uphill battle in funding its plan to increase the fleet, forcing the Navy to potentially cut spending in other areas. The 2011 law placed caps on defense and non-defense discretionary spending through 2021.

Based on a 2016 force structure assessment, the Navy has since revised its goal of a 308 ship Navy to 355. The CBO has thus far only provided a detailed analysis of the plan submitted to Congress this past July calling for 308 ships. However, if the Navy got its 355 ship fleet, that cost would skyrocket to $25 billion a year, or 60 percent higher than historical averages, according to CBO estimates.

President Donald Trump has pledged a 350 ship Navy, the largest Navy buildup since the Reagan administration. It is not yet known how the U.S. Navy will meet its shipbuilding goal.

Despite White House support for the endeavor, there are many legal road blocks ahead, including budget hawk Mick Mulvaney, who was confirmed mid-February to run the White House Office of Management and Budget over the objection of fellow Republican Sen. John McCain. The Arizona Senator voted no on Mulvaney's confirmation over his support of defense spending cuts.
source is NavyTimes
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
We are still in the fist weeks of the admin. I wouldn't start looking for Trump program implementation until we hit the six month mark. Right now Trump is just trying to get open offices filled.
well if I didn't miss anything major, the current status would be:

"Trump last month ordered the Pentagon and the Office of Management and Budget to develop — within 90 days — an emergency budget amendment to boost military spending this year, and for Mattis to update and revise existing budget plans for fiscal 2018. Mattis, in a memo afterward, said he plans to send a supplemental request to OMB by March 1.

Concerned a continuing resolution to fund the federal government that expires on April 28 will leave little time to tackle both 2017 and 2018 spending, lawmakers have since encouraged DoD to deliver the supplemental directly to Congress, Thornberry said."

(the quote comes from Feb 18, 2017 post)

and by 'status' I mean money, not words :)
Yesterday at 10:57 PM
... A 308-ship Navy to cost $566 billion, CBO estimates

source is NavyTimes
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Navy’s 355-Ship Fleet Goal Would Cost $25 Billion Per Year
A new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office finds the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
would have to spend $25 billion a year for 30 years to reach its stated goal of a 355-ship fleet, $6 billion a year more than if it stayed on its current track for a 308-ship fleet.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, released this month, assessed the costs of the service’s 2017 30-year shipbuilding plan, finding the Navy would need to spend $566 billion to build a fleet of 308 ships, up from the current 274. But the service can expect to spend much more to reach the new goal of 355 ships, announced in December, the report found.

While the full cost implications of the 355-ship fleet will be addressed in a future CBO report, the study laid out broad estimates for the ambitious shipbuilding goal.

The Navy could reach a fleet of 353 ships by 2046 by increasing ship production, CBO staff found. Building 321 ships over 30 years would cost the service $25 billion a year, compared with $19 billion a year if the Navy stayed on its current path.

Under this strategy, the Navy would buy one aircraft carrier every three years instead of one every five, increase inventory of attack submarines and surface combatants by 20 percent, and build to 38 amphibious ships, instead of the current goal of 34.

If the Navy wanted to reach its new fleet goal faster, the report found, it could do so by delaying the retirement of some existing older ships, opting instead to perform upgrades to extend service life and improve combat capabilities.

“The Navy could also build ships faster than assumed in this illustration, but doing so would increase costs in the near term and midterm,” the report’s authors wrote. “Such an approach could be less expensive overall than the alternative described here, but it might not provide the Navy the capabilities that advocates of a larger fleet have in mind.”

Whether or not the Navy budgets for 355 ships, it can expect to spend significantly more than it has been each year to reach its shipbuilding goals.

Between 2013 and 2016, the report found, the president’s budget request averaged $14.7 billion per year for shipbuilding, though Congress boosted that authorization to an average of $16.3 billion per year.

Because of budget caps implemented as a result of sequestration, the Navy bought only 39 ships across that span of years, though its shipbuilding plan called for 45.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
than the service’s own figures. Navy officials estimate growth to a 308-ship fleet will cost only $509 billion, $57 billion less than the CBO estimate. They have not publicized a cost figure for a 355-ship fleet.

“CBO’s estimates are higher because its estimating methods and assumptions regarding future ships’ design and capabilities differ from those that the Navy uses and because its treatment of growth in the costs of labor and materials for building ships is different from the Navy’s,” the authors write.

They added that their estimates included corollary costs, including carrier refueling and outfitting ships after delivery.

Regardless of current budget conditions, Navy officials have remained adamant: Sequestration must be lifted, and the fleet must be allowed to grow to 355 ships.

Speaking at a Navy League breakfast this week near Washington, D.C., the Navy’s acting acquisition chief, Allison Stiller, said budget toplines for future years will determine the rate at which the service can reach its ideal force size.

“The 355 is the force structure assessment. That is where we need to go,” she said. “How large the budget is will influence when we can get to that.”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Wednesday at 9:04 AM
... I'm not "enthusiastic about inter-service battle networks merging" and so on) PACOM Commander Harris Wants the Army to Sink Ships, Expand Battle Networks
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I'm even less enthusiastic after I read "Today, the Army is in fact developing its own
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, to link its disparate systems such as Patriot and THAAD. ..." etc. inside
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It’s completely possible to plug
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
into the Navy fire control network, a panel of Navy experts said Wednesday. That could make an obscure system called
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(Naval Integrated Fire Control – Counter-Air) the electronic backbone of a seamless defense against
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, or
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
airstrikes and missile salvos. NIFC-CA could potentially coordinate our own offensive strikes.

On Tuesday, the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
had told the AFCEA-USNI
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
conference here that he wanted the two services’ systems to interconnect. “I believe that Army missileers should incorporate their air defense systems into the Navy’s integrated fire control – counter-air, or
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, architecture,”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
“I’ll be the first to tell you that I’m not a technical guy, so I don’t know how to make it work.”

We can make it work, the expert panel said the next day when asked about Harris’s idea. “It’s not hard,” said Anant Patel, a senior program manager in the Navy’s Program Executive Office – Integrated Warfare Systems (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
). “We’ve cracked the nut on how to integrate systems together, we understand what quality of service we need to engage a specific threat, so I think that’s the easy part to go work on with Army.”

The hard part, Patel continued, is “connectivity:)) That’s a tough, tough question because it all depends on the latencies and accuracies of the networks, so you have to look at a specific threat, what kind of reaction time do you have (and therefore what kind of network lag you can afford). It’s not as easy as, I’ll just give you the data.”

Missile defense requires exquisitely accurate data on the target, because you’re trying to hit one missile moving at hundreds of miles an hour with another missile moving at hundreds of missiles an hour. A tiny error can mean a miss. The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in the 1991 Gulf War, a Scud strike on a Dhahran barracks that killed 28 Americans and wounded another 98, occurred because a software glitch made a Patriot missile’s timing 0.3433 seconds off.

So before you add a new sensor to your missile defense system, you need to know how accurate that sensor’s data is and how quickly your network will transmit that data from sensor to weapon. Accurate data that’s delayed by a slow connection is as bad as inaccurate data that arrives at once. Adding more sensors of different types and from different locations gives you more perspectives on your target and can improve accuracy, but you’d better understand those sensors first.

That takes testing, said Cmdr. Andrew Thomson, who also works for PEO-IWS. “That takes time to really take that sensor to sea or wherever it is and understand it, make sure that it’s delivering the quality of service that you need, what the latencies are and what the accuracies are in the networks you’re using, and then what the weapon system is going to be able to do with that,” Thomson said. “Every time when you bring in a new sensor or you bring in a new weapon or sensor, you’ve got to kind of work through flow.”

“I don’t think we’re going to get to a place where we’re quite plug and play,” Thomson said. “It’s always going to take that engineering.”

NIFC-CA has already made some progress with the Army. In
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the Army’s now notorious blimp-mounted
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
— “a great radar,” said Patel — provided targeting data via NIFC-CA to a Navy SM-6 Standard missile. In another test, the Aegis destroyer Hopper connected to Army
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
— normally used for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
— and shared track data back and forth, said Capt.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, then commander of the Hopper but now director of integration and interoperability on the Navy staff (OPNAV N9I). The Hopper’s success, in turn, built on close Army-Navy cooperation during THAAD’s development to ensure it would be interoperable with Aegis, said retired Rear Adm.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, now with Lockheed Martin.

Ironically, back at the start of the NIFC-CA effort, the Navy tried to get the Army and Air Force to participate and make it a joint effort, but that “failed miserably,” Hicks said. Today, the Army is in fact developing its own
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, to link its disparate systems such as Patriot and THAAD. “It’s late. It’s over budget. They’re going to get there eventually,” Hicks said of IBCS. “In theory it’s joint, but we don’t know yet because there’s nothing in their test program to make it joint that I’ve seen.” It would be great, he said, to have close cooperation between the Navy and Army on developing IBCS, just as happened on THAAD.

Bringing Army missile defense into NIFC-CA “probably” doesn’t require waiting for ICBS to be developed, however, Patel said: You could connect existing Army systems to NIFC-CA one by one in an incremental “baby step” approach.

In the longer run, NIFC-CA could even evolve beyond the “counter-air” focus embodied in its name and become an offensive fire control network, not just a defensive one. The Navy and the Pentagon’s
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
have worked together to modify the SM-6 version of the Standard Missile, a high-performance interceptor designed to shoot down incoming missiles and planes, and make it capable of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
as well. The targeting data for the successful test was relayed via NIFC-CA network, which didn’t require any modifications to do that mission, Patel said.

If NIFC-CA can similarly bring in other surface-to-surface missiles, like the Army’s
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, it might evolve into an all-purpose, all-service system of fire control that can either
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
enemy missiles in flight or blow them up
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on the launcher.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Tyrant King
Improved military vehicle demonstration held at BAE Systems
U.S. Senator Gary Peters discusses defense industry technology
  • By Emilee Gorshe [email protected] @emileegorshe on Twitter
  • Feb 24, 2017 Updated Feb 24, 2017
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

  • Emilee Gorshe - The Source
The Bradley A3 Fighting Vehicle and the defense industry were discussed Feb. 23 at BAE Systems in Sterling Heights. The Bradley program has undergone several survivability upgrades, including installation of underbelly protection and the Bradley Urban Survivability Kits, which further enhance the safety of one of the most survivable vehicles in the fleet.

  • Emilee Gorshe - The Source
U.S. Senator Gary Peters stands with Mark Signorelli, vice president and general manager for combat vehicles at BAE Systems, by the Bradley A3 Fighting Vehicle.

U.S. Senator Gary Peters of Michigan visited BAE Systems, a military contractor, to see a demonstration of the Bradley A3 Fighting Vehicle – an armored combat vehicle manufactured by BAE – and discuss innovation in the defense industry on the morning on Feb. 23.

Peters held a discussion with local defense suppliers to hear how he can support Michigan’s growing defense manufacturing sector that benefits both America’s military and Michigan’s economy.

“It’s great to be out here to see the Bradley fighting vehicle,” Peters said.

Peters said he considers BAE Systems as a leader in defense industry technology.

“I am proud that Michigan workers at companies like BAE Systems and its suppliers are developing solutions to meet the challenges of the future of warfare,” Peters said in a media release. “As a new member of the Armed Services Committee, I am committed to supporting these manufacturers so they can continue to supply our servicemembers with the best equipment and vehicles.”

BAE Systems designs and develops combat vehicles, guns and other equipment for the military.

The Bradley A3 is being modernized in the coming years with upgraded communications abilities and system performance.

The vehicle is a combat-proven platform that provides outstanding survivability, mobility and lethality, and it is an integral part of the U.S. Army’s Armored Brigade Combat Team, according to the BAE Systems website.

The Bradley program has undergone several survivability upgrades, including installation of underbelly protection and the Bradley Urban Survivability Kits, which further enhance the safety of one of the most survivable vehicles in the fleet.

The modernized vehicle has enhanced armor protection, which includes Bradley Urban Survivability Kit upgrades, roof fragmentation protection, squad ventilated facepiece and mounts for armor tiles.

It has increased driver field of vision and situational awareness and maneuverability. Several additional features were modified to increase lethality, including improved sights, full ballistic fire control, aided dual-target tracking, automatic gun target adjustment, automatic boresighting and hunter killer capability. The Bushmaster 25 mm cannon on the vehicle has the capability to fire both explosive and armor piercing rounds, and the 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun provides high-volume fires at close ranges.

Engineers improved network connectivity and Beyond Line-of-Sight capability by adding digital satellite communications hardware and software.

Mark Signorelli, vice president and general manager for combat vehicles at BAE Systems, said his main goal is to help the Army and Marine Corps move into the future.

For more than 30 years, BAE Systems has been the manufacturer and systems integrator of the Bradley program.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Feb 19, 2017
Pentagon refutes reports Trump's Navy secretary pick is about to withdraw

source is MilitaryTimes
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and Philip Bilden withdraws from Navy secretary consideration
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

President Trump's nominee for secretary of the Navy withdrew from consideration because of extensive financial ties that would not meet the Defense Department's rigorous ethics standards, the Pentagon confirmed Sunday evening.

Philip Bilden, who spent most of his professional career as a Hong Kong-based financier, withdrew from consideration because his ties in Asia "would likely not meet the Office of Government Ethics standards to serve in the position," according to a report from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, which broke the news.

In a statement, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis expressed his disappointment and said he'd make a recommendation in the coming days for a Navy secretary.

"This was a personal decision driven by privacy concerns and significant challenges he faced in separating himself from his business interests," Mattis said, in reference to Bilden's withdrawal. "While I am disappointed, I understand and his respect his decision, and know that he will continue to support our nation in other ways.

"In the coming days I will make a recommendation to President Trump for a leader who can guide our Navy and Marine Corps team as we execute the president's vision to rebuild our military."

Rumors broke last weekend that Bilden was set to withdraw but were quickly stamped out by the White House.

A request for comment from the White House was not immediately returned.

Bilden is the second service secretary nominee to withdraw because of complicated financial holdings and business holding. On Feb. 4, news broke that businessman Vincent Viola
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, citing difficulty disentangling business holdings.

Bilden served in the Army Reserve from 1986 through 1996. He has been active in supporting both the Naval Academy and the Naval War College, and has a child at the Naval Academy.

Bilden's withdrawal will likely renew speculation that former House Armed Services Committee member Randy Forbes could get the job. Forbes led the committee's Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee and is intimately familiar with the issues confronting the Navy and Marine Corps. Forbes also served as an adviser to the Trump campaign.

Sean Stackley, who was for years the Navy's top acquisition boss, is currently the acting secretary of the Navy.
so Feb 15, 2017
:) I feel I should quote
Friday at 8:44 AM


by the way, I haven't noticed Trump's "expected spending spree" yet
Trump budget will hike defense spending by $54B, says White House
The White House says President Trump's upcoming budget will propose a whopping $54 billion increase in defense spending and impose corresponding cuts to domestic programs and foreign aid.

White House budget officials outlined the information during a telephone call with reporters given on condition of anonymity. The budget officials on the call ignored requests to put the briefing on the record, even though Trump decried on Friday the use of anonymous sources by the media.

Trump's defense budget and spending levels for domestic agency operating budgets will be revealed in a partial submission to Congress next month, with proposals on taxes and other programs coming later.

The approximately 10 percent increase for the Pentagon would fulfill a Trump campaign promise to build up the military. One official said there will be a reduction in foreign aid and that most domestic agencies will face cuts.

As the White House proposes boosting defense spending, it will reportedly slash funding for longtime Republican targets like the Environmental Protection Agency in a set of marching orders to agencies as it prepares its budget for the upcoming fiscal year.

Trump's budget won't make significant changes to Social Security or Medicare, according to an administration official.

Trump's draft proposal for the 2018 budget year, which will be sent to agencies Monday, is sure to set off a huge Washington battle when it is finalized and submitted to Congress in mid-March.

Capitol Hill aides confirmed some details of the upcoming blueprint on the condition of anonymity to discuss nonpublic information and a sensitive process.

Trump's first major fiscal marker will land in the agencies one day before his first address to a joint session of Congress. For Trump, the primetime speech is an opportunity to refocus his young presidency on the core economic issues that were a centerpiece of his White House run.

The Pentagon is due for a huge boost, as Trump promised during the campaign. But many nondefense agencies and foreign aid programs are facing cuts, including at the State Department. The specific numbers aren't final and agencies will have a chance to argue against the cuts as part of a longstanding tradition at the budget office.

The upcoming submission covers the budget year starting Oct. 1. But first there's an April 28 deadline to finish up the unfinished spending bills for the ongoing 2017 budget year, which is almost half over, and any stumble or protracted battle could risk a government shutdown.

The March release is also expected to include an immediate infusion of 2017 cash for the Pentagon that's expected to register about $20 billion or so and contain the first wave of funding for Trump's promised border wall and other initiatives like hiring immigration agents.

The president previewed a boost in military spending during a speech Friday to conservative activists, pledging "one of the greatest buildups in American history."

"We will be substantially upgrading all of our military, all of our military, offensive, defensive, everything, bigger and better and stronger than ever before," he said.

In an interview with Fox News Channel's "Sunday Morning Futures," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said cuts to Social Security and Medicare would not be part of the administration's first budget. Trump's priority is passing legislation to reduce middle-class and corporate taxes, he said.

As a candidate, Trump promised to leave major entitlements untouched, breaking with some Republican leaders who believe the costly programs need to be reformed.

The White House budget office issued a statement confirming that an interim budget submission will be released in mid-March but declining to comment on an "internal discussion."

"The president and his Cabinet are working collaboratively to create a budget that keeps the president's promises to secure the country and restore fiscal sanity to how we spend American taxpayers' money," said Office of Management and Budget spokesman John Czwartacki.

Czwartacki said that the March submission would only address agency operating budgets funded by Congress and that proposals on tax reform and so-called mandatory programs — they include food stamps, student loans, health programs and farm subsidies — will be released later.

By increasing defense and leaving Medicare and Social Security untouched, the Trump final budget plan is sure to project sizable deficits. In the campaign, Trump promised huge tax cuts, but top GOP leaders like House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin don't want this year's tax reform drive to add to the budget deficit.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
now I read
AWACS, 2035
Though there’s a “lot of life” in the current fleet of E-3 AWACS airborne battle management aircraft, the shape of how the AWACS mission will be done in the future will flow from a “multi-domain command and control enterprise collaboration team” study now underway, Air Combat Command chief Gen. Hawk Carlisle said Friday. Carlisle said the AWACS mission “may be disaggregated”—meaning performed by a number of smaller platforms—but he suspects there will still be a “central node” that is airborne, and it will likely coordinate the functions of both manned and unmanned aircraft, all with sensors and communications relays. From the study, which will take about a year, “I think we’ll learn a lot” about “the technology and where we’re headed; how we do command and control, how we get resilient capability, and what … multi-domain command and control looks like in the future.” Carlisle said there will be a recapitalization of the Airborne Battlefield Management Command and Control Capability (the EC-130 ABCCC), but the E-3 will likely last “into the 2030s,” he said, attributing the longevity of the 30-year-old aircraft to thorough depot maintenance. “I’d like to start working on the next generation sooner than that,” Carlisle added, and the ECCT review will create a roadmap that will only depend on funding. For now, though, the budget topline can’t accommodate a new AWACS, he said.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!