DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Money Money Money » Air Force Budget Challenge

Air Force Budget Challenge

c-17-web.jpg

DT obtained a series of after-​​action notes com­piled by Air Force offi­cials dur­ing the March 20 Senate Armed Services Committee hear­ing on Air Force pro­grams in the fis­cal 2008 bud­get request. They out­line some tough choices on trans­port air­craft options, JSF buys and UAV plans…

Summary of the Senate Armed Services Committee hear­ing 20 March

Note: This hear­ing sum­mary con­tains para­phrased excerpts of state­ments, ques­tions and answers.

CHAIRMAN LEVINS OPENING STATEMENT:

Noted that while the Air Force does not have many of the issues in optempo as the Army and Marines the Air Force does have some crit­i­cal acqui­si­tion chal­lenges. Space pro­grams have cost growth and sched­ule delays. Congress did not allow B-​​52 retire­ments down to 56 in FY07 and still awaits the report on bomber require­ments which is now not slated to be out until the end of FY07 and yet the Air Force is still request­ing B-​​52 retire­ments this was not likely until FY08.

Concerns over the pos­si­ble clos­ing of the C-​​17 line while ask­ing to retire C-​​5 aircraft.

Cost increases in the C-​​5 re-​​engining program.

Praised the trans­parency in the ongo­ing tanker acqui­si­tion process.

SENATOR WARNERS OPENING STATEMENT:

Commented that the Air Force should be given the flex­i­bil­ity to man­age the fleet and rec­om­mended they meet qui­etly to resolve the acqui­si­tion and retire­ment issues. Questioned the JSF engine single-​​source decision.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS:

Supplemental Request

Secretary Wynne indi­cated the sup­ple­men­tal did meet require­ments, but if he had addi­tional money he would spend it on C-​​130J and strate­gic deter­rence (5th gen­er­a­tion fight­ers and space). When asked why ten C-​​130Js are in the sup­ple­men­tal and yet only nine are in the nor­mal FY08 bud­get, Secretary Wynne stated the C-​​130Es are excluded from sup­port, C-​​130Hs are being flown dou­ble time and the C-​​130J has shown excel­lent capa­bil­ity for deliv­ery within theater.

Senator Inhofe noted that the 5th gen­er­a­tion fighter [JSF] is not in the sup­ple­men­tal and asked what hap­pened. Secretary Wynne stated that for sev­eral years the strate­gic fight­ers have been the source of fund­ing. In the sup­ple­men­tal there was a surge in ground forces that was not expected so the depart­ment stripped the fixed wing air­craft (to include JSF). He explained the ratio­nal for the request was reluc­tance to acquire new 4th gen­er­a­tion aircraft.

Airlift Programs:

C-​​130J

Senator Levin wanted to know why the Air Force was ask­ing for 17 C-​​130Js in the sup­ple­men­tal vice the reg­u­lar bud­get. Secretary Wynne out­lined the C-​​130 issues in the­ater and indi­cated the C-​​130Js have shown a dra­matic affect within the­ater in reduc­ing the need for con­voys. The need for the mis­sion is now.

C-​​17/​C-​​5

Senator Levin asked about the C-​​17 and C-​​5 bud­get request and how they fit. He asked how do you reject C-​​5 re-​​engining option and put the focus on the C-​​17s in the unfunded pri­or­ity list. General Moseley indi­cated with the increase in the Army and Marines the MCS does not ade­quately sup­port the larger foot­print. We are wait­ing for the land com­po­nent num­bers from the Army and Marines. We know there will be an increase in require­ment for strate­gic lift. MCS saw a min­i­mum of 300 air­lift require­ments. Need to retire 25–30 C-​​5s and work replacements.

Continue AMP on C-​​5s and RERP on C-​​5s with the most life. In a case where the land com­po­nent is grow­ing, strate­gic air­lift is inven­tory sta­tic, C-​​5 hard to main­tain and the C-​​17 line is about to shut down — we have to make some decisions.

Senator Inhofe asked how many C-​​17s it would take to keep the line open. Secretary Wynne said he has been push­ing Boeing for that fig­ure but still does not have it. His assess­ment, based on the F-​​16 line, is less than 1/​month.

Senator Thune asked the Air Force to clar­ify their strate­gic air­lift require­ment and how they pro­pose to meet them if autho­rized to retire C-​​5As. General Moseley responded we dont know what the growth of the Army and Marines will do to the air­lift require­ments. We do know that the MCS did not take into account this growth so we have an unknown. Do not believe the num­ber of air­lift assets would go down. Desire to take the worse actors of the C-​​5 fleet (25–30 air­craft.) and retire them which would pro­vide some rev­enue to con­tinue mods on the C-​​5s and pos­si­bly acquire more C-​​17s.

Secretary Wynne reit­er­ated that the Air Force would like to retire 25–30 C-​​5s. Senator Chambliss expressed that it was not an either/​or issue with the C-​​17 and C-​​5 but the air­craft com­ple­ment each other. He then asked if we did can­cel the C-​​5A RERP when would that yield sav­ings. Secretary Wynne explained that if we were to can­cel the pro­gram (a deci­sion that has not been made) the bulk of the sav­ings would be around 2014–2016. Some imme­di­ate sav­ings would be from not hav­ing to main­tain the air­craft we would retire.

Senator McCaskill asked if the Secretary has read the recent GAO report on airlift/​tanker pro­grams. She stated the MCS study is flawed yet the Air Force is bas­ing their tanker acqui­si­tion on it. She also out­lined the C-​​130 AMP over­runs (+$700M) and reduc­tion in the buy (435 down to 268). Secretary Wynne indi­cated he has not read the report in-​​depth. He fur­ther explained that while there is dis­agree­ment with how GAO sees these pro­grams, the Air Force is com­ply­ing with DOD-​​5000 reg­u­la­tions and the Air Force is mak­ing best judg­ments on programs.

Joint Cargo Aircraft

Senator Prior asked the sta­tus of the JCA. Secretary Wynne out­lined the Army has the lead and the Air Force is work­ing with them on require­ments. He asked that a let­ter to for­eign Air Chiefs and state gov­er­nors ask­ing for any require­ments they may have be placed in the record.

Tactical Aircraft:

JSF Alternate Engine

Senator Warner asked if it wouldnt be wiser to keep com­pe­ti­tion and two sup­pli­ers for the JSF engines because it is proven that com­pe­ti­tion reduces cost and improves qual­ity. He later added, couldnt we just buy fewer JSF to pay for the alter­nate engine. He expressed con­cern about the addi­tional thrust needed for the STOVL ver­sion. He stated we may need to buy fewer air­craft. General Moseley stated it is about $2B we dont have. He stated there is value in com­pe­ti­tion and addi­tional sources, but the money is the issue. Senator Lieberman asked if Congress ordered the Air Force to have an alter­nate engine pro­gram where would the Air Force get the $2B. Secretary Wynne he didnt know how it would be funded and if it came out of the JSF bud­get it would have an impact, espe­cially at very low rate production.

F-​​22

Senator Chambliss asked about sta­tus of the study that sup­ports the F-​​22 multi-​​year deci­sion Congress approved last year. Secretary Wynne indi­cate the study was on track and the FFRDCs and con­trac­tors are respon­sive and he felt the study will show we will achieve greater (or as a min­i­mum the fore­cast) sav­ings. He indi­cated he expects to award the multi-​​year pro­cure­ment this year.

Synthetic Fuels

Senator Thune asked about the syn­thetic fuel test on the B-​​52. Secretary Wynne indi­cated the Air Force was pleased with the test and will now look at the engines to see if there is a life cycle ben­e­fit. Looking to qual­ify other air­craft and would like to have the Air Force fleet avail­able for syn­thetic fuel, part­nered with JP-​​8, by 2010.

CSAR-​​X

Senator Clinton asked about the GAOs uphold­ing a bid protest and Secretary Wynnes state­ment that he would like to stay with what we have got and get on and get this prod­uct going. Secretary Wynne explained the Air Force will work with the GAO and the com­peti­tors to make sure we are in a trans­par­ent and open method. We are work­ing for a bet­ter read on the protest items and when we re-​​solicit it will be against the find­ings the GAO brought up. Senator Clinton asked if there was an AOA for the CSAR-​​X. General Moseley stated there was an AOA and it was for­warded through the joint sys­tem. He indi­cated there were a JROC, AOA, RFI and a RFP.

UAV

Senator Inhofe asked about the Army and Air Force UAV pro­gram. General Moseley believed there was a bet­ter way to field and fight with UAVs. He offered to pro­vide a let­ter he had authored to explain his position.

(Gouge: NC)

– Christian

Share |

March 22nd, 2007 | Money Money Money | 23994 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2007/03/22/air-force-budget-challenge/Air+Force+Budget+Challenge2007-03-22+11%3A55%3A12Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Doc-​​Ex | Paki “Babur” » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Byron Skinner says:
    March 22, 2007 at 1:19 pm

    Good Morning Folks,
    Gee, wasn’t it just last Fall when every­one was wor­ring that if the Democrats took over con­gress some of these use­less and over bud­geted defense con­tracts would be can­celed. It appears that the pig is safe.
    ALLONS,
    Byron Skinner

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      I wonder if anyone noticed: This attack happened right after...
      freefallingbomb
    • Keep it Simple
      To the poster "Zandor" : You wrote: "Your last post...
      freefallingbomb
    • Airbag Defense
      Part III : You wrote: "These airbags are made similarly, so the...
      freefallingbomb
    • Airbag Defense
      To the educated guesser: Part I : …………...
      freefallingbomb
    • Special Forces Say ‘No’ to M4 Barrel
      Only two companies in the world are...
      Frank Hols
    • Adapting Women to Subs
      Dear Designer; It is somewhat strange that the German Armed forces...
      Zandor
    • Special Forces Say ‘No’ to M4 Barrel
      The first priority is to get a reliable...
      Brian
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      I've seen them to. Believe me, I hate those 19 just as much as...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      You are funny.
      Zandor
    • Adapting Women to Subs
      Wow after reading these varied comments, I am surprised and educated. I...
      John
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage