Home » Air » Air Force » DoD’s 2013 Budget Preview (Updated with Docs)

DoD’s 2013 Budget Preview (Updated with Docs)

by John Reed on February 13, 2012

Happy budget day! Yup, the Pentagon’s 2013 budget request officially drops today and according to Reuters, it’s going to ask for $187.8 billion to buy planes and ships while chopping cash for ground vehicles.

As we’ve said before, in the 2013 budget, strategic weapons are winning the funding game in the second decade of the 21st Century.

Keep in mind that what you’ll read below is an early report, check in to DoD Buzz today near-live coverage of the Pentagon’s official budget rollout.

While the Air Force and Navy are seeing significant investment in new toys, the overall defense budget is shrinking by just over 12 percent from last year’s defense budget (when war funding, known as overseas contingency operations money, is included), says this report.

The Army and Marines are expected to see investment in replacements for the Humvee and M2 Bradley fighting vehicle but will see significant cuts to their truck fleets with a 32 percent drop in ground vehicle cash, according to Rueters:

The Pentagon’s spending plan includes $10.9 billion for ground vehicles, 32 percent less than the $16 billion requested in fiscal 2012. The new request includes $117 million for continued development of a new light tactical vehicle for the Army and Marine Corps and a heavier new Ground Combat Vehicle.

Funding for the Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles built by Oshkosh Corp would drop to $58.1 million for 1,534 vehicles from $650 million for 9,336 vehicles funded in fiscal 2012.

Click through the jump to read more details and see the Pentagon’s freshly released 2013 budget highlights.

While the Air Force and Navy were spared super steep cuts, overall funds requested for aviation are going to be slightly down, according to the wire service.

As we all know F-35 Joint Strike Fighter procurement is being slowed with $9.17 billion requested for fiscal year 2013, “down slightly from $9.25 billion requested in fiscal 2012,” reports Reuters. The Air Force is also getting $1.82 billion for the new KC-46 tanker.

However, reductions in C-130J buys and 32 percent chop in V-22 Osprey tiltrotor cash means that overall aircraft spending is down 12 percent:

Overall spending on aircraft programs will drop 12 percent to $47.6 billion in fiscal 2013 from $54.2 billion in the fiscal 2012 budget request, mainly due to a 41 percent drop in funding for the Lockheed-built C-130J transport plane, and a 32 percent cut in funding for the V-22 Osprey.

The Pentagon proposed spending $835 million on seven more C-130J airlifters in fiscal 2013, down from $1.43 billion for 12 planes in fiscal 2012.

Funding for the V-22, a tilt-rotor aircraft built by Boeing and Bell Helicopter, a unit of Textron Inc, would drop to $1.91 billion for 21 aircraft, from $2.8 billion for 35 planes in fiscal 2012.

The plan foresees spending of $1.25 billion for six high-altitude unmanned Global Hawk spy planes built by Northrop Grumman — three for NATO and three for the Navy. Panetta announced last month that the Pentagon was cancelling work on the Air Force’s Block 30 variant.

The plan would increase funding for the AH-64 Apache helicopter built by Boeing by 55 percent, funding 40 remanufactured helicopters and 10 new aircraft. Northrop Grumman

and Lockheed also have a big role in the program.

Funding for the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter built by Sikorsky Aircraft, a unit of United Technologies Corp, would continue a five-year procurement agreement with $1.3 billion for 59 of the twin-engine helicopters.

As for ships, they’re alright seeing as how they fit into the Pentagon’s new focus on the western Pacific. You know, the ocean, that thing you need big ships and airplanes to control.

Shipbuilding programs would get $22.6 billion in the fiscal 2013 request, down from $24 billion in the fiscal 2012 request. That will fund 2 Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines, 2 DDG-51 destroyers, and 4 Littoral Combat Ships.

The Navy is also asking for “$781.7 billion for initial construction funding of a new aircraft carrier, and $1.6 billion for the refueling of the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier.”

Here’s the Pentagon’s budget highlight paper that was released this morining:

DoD 2013 Budget Highlights

Here’s a more detailed look at the budget request:

FY2013 Budget Request Overview Book

Share |

{ 78 comments… read them below or add one }

Nick T. February 13, 2012 at 10:25 am

Is there no love for the modern infantryman in this world?

Reply

Dan Gao February 13, 2012 at 11:15 am

Hmm, it doesn't even mention anything about infantry modernization either being cut or spared. Hopefully they will still give this area a decent chunk of cash, infantry will always be a critical factor in warfare.

Overall, this isn't so bad. Thankfully most of our modernization programs are still moving forward. Who knows? Maybe the tight budgets will actually help our procurment efforts, because it will force program managers to make more attainable goals. Fat chance, I know, but one can dream.

Reply

blight_ February 13, 2012 at 9:00 pm

What did you want for the modern infantryman? Powered armor? Body armor? I'd love to see a new bullet (6.8 or 6.5, decide, decide!) but our NATO friends would go nuts if forced to replace every single small arm in inventory today.

Reply

Dan Gao February 14, 2012 at 8:10 am

The main things I would like to see are:

1) C4ISR systems like the new smartphone based Nett Warrior, the Rifleman Radio, ENVGs, gunshot detectors, and the like. These could be a huge force multiplier for a smaller infantry force.

2) Improved armor. The ECH is a great example a increasing a soldier's protection without adding a ton of lbs. to his load.

3) Continued efforts to make electronics weigh less and last longer.

4) R&D for unconventional concepts like exoskeletons, vital signs monitoring, augmented reality goggles, nano-UAVs, smart bullets, LSAT tech, and the likes.

Reply

J Hughes February 13, 2012 at 11:00 pm

I dont think we will ever be invading countries with 100,000+ ground troops any more. Dont quote me on that, just a feeling.

Reply

blight_ February 14, 2012 at 1:37 am

That's what I said after GW1, Somalia and Kosovo.

Man, was I so wrong.

Reply

Dan Gao February 14, 2012 at 8:05 am

Hughes, you are right. We should absolutely avoid decade-long nation building adventures like a plague. Save the masses of regular forces for conventional, large scale conflicts like Korea or (God forbid) China. We can fight terrorism with unconventional means like our greatly expanded SOCOM assets, manned and unmanned air strikes, CIA efforts, etc.

Reply

blight_ February 16, 2012 at 1:52 am

It seems like <100,000 nation-building adventures are okay, because if the troops aren't dying, people are happy to pay the DoD for it. Supplemental bills every year for the contractors, tasty. And who votes against the military?

Kind of thought Tora Bora would teach us that you need reliable troops on the ground. As does Libya.

Ryan Graham February 13, 2012 at 10:31 am

Wow, $781.7 BILLION for initial construction costs on a new Ford class carrier. That thing better be the airborne helicarrier from the S.H.I.E.L.D. (comic book) for that kind of money. ;)

Reply

lol February 13, 2012 at 12:27 pm

Buy stock in Huntington Ingalls Ship building right now!!!
Sadly it looks like the info in this story was pulled straight from an article written by Reuters yesterday. Right down to the horribly off spending amounts

Reply

blight_ February 13, 2012 at 2:54 pm

I'm sure they've adjusted for overruns.

Reply

Matt Sturgeon February 13, 2012 at 11:03 am

*Does it really cost $1.6 bn to refuel a carrier? I mean you are basically just removing old and bringing in new fuel rods, correct? A brand new fuel rod is only worth a couple million in the real world. Assuming they put in 40 rods @ $2m a peice that is still only $80m in materials…. lets say $100m in materials… is that really 1.5 BN in LABOR?

* = This is not a professional assessment I dont know how many fuel rods go into the reactor of a carrier, or if it even accepts fuel rods, but still. I know about how much a fuel rod is worth.

Reply

FormerDirtDart February 13, 2012 at 11:08 am

No, they have to practically cut the reactor out of the carrier to conduct refueling. While it can appear an extravagant pain, it does ensure greater protection and security of the reactor.

Reply

Jeff February 13, 2012 at 11:25 am

The simple reality is building the reactor is the cheapest part. Installing is expensive, and refueling it is only a bit less expensive and the the cost of retiring equals all that combined. Even after that its still more cost effective than if they were diesel powered. And the cost benefits are only heightened when you consider you'd need far more carriers to have an equal capability at that reduced operating tempo.

$1.6BN is actually a less than previous, seeing as refueling some of the older reactors last cost $2.4BN.

Reply

Matt Sturgeon February 13, 2012 at 11:57 am

In that case I am guessing it was not an efficient design to begin with…

Reply

FormerDirtDart February 13, 2012 at 12:22 pm

It should be noted, that by "refueling", they really mean Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH), where they essentially bring most of the ships systems up to modern standards. One major item the Lincoln will have replace is its hydraulic arresting gear. Which will be swapped out for the electric motor system designed for the Ford class carriers.

Reply

ziv February 13, 2012 at 1:38 pm

After an aircraft carrier is retired from the active force, could it be kept in a semi-ready state so that if a Fukushima or Katrina type event occurs, the ship could be sailed to a port nearby and supply electricity to the power grid, while also serving as a heli-port and clinic? Or would the power provided be generated in a form that would need converters that would make it cost prohibitive?
The armed services should be used primarily to fight our enemies, but a little public relations from a ship(s) when one of allies, or one of our own states, has been hard hit would be worth the cost of keeping the ships reactors functioning while keeping the ship itself at somewhat less than ready for fighting.

Reply

lol February 13, 2012 at 2:44 pm

Only issue with that is where would you get the crew from?
If I remember correctly what you described was exactly what the US Navy did following the Haiti Earthquake.Providing power, water, supplies and medical services

Reply

ziv February 13, 2012 at 6:50 pm

I thought that they would sail with a minimum crew of officers and enlisted men that had sailed on the ship previously, plus a very small air arm of helicopters and then poach a fraction of a normal crew from carriers that had recently returned. Offer the crewmen who were not scheduled to re-deploy on their old carrier a bonus so that they would join on a 'volunteer' basis. Then reinforce the crew with COD flights enroute and fly the rest of the crew to an airport within a few hundred miles of the port the carrier would be berthed.
I drive by USNS Fisher every month or so, it is in reduced operating status but can sail within 4 days if activated. Admittedly, the Enterprise is not the Fisher, but would a nuclear powered carrier in reduced operating status be able to be activated within a relatively short time? Probably not, but it would be great to get another 8 to 10 years of use out of the Enterprise. Even if it was just as an insurance policy sitting at anchor in Pearl Harbor. We have sunk such a huge amount into the Nimitz carriers, and they have done such a great job, it will be hard to see them de-commissioned.

Reply

ziv February 13, 2012 at 7:15 pm

Hmm… Maybe that should end with, "We have sunk such a huge amount into the Enterprise and the Nimitz class", since Enterprise isn't a Nimitz… Or maybe, "our nuclear powered carrier fleet"…

Reply

blight_ February 13, 2012 at 2:52 pm

Matt: This is like upgrading cars by model year by taking them to the dealership and then doing a drivetrain/parts swap. It is certainly more involved than simply refueling. I guess if they wanted to save money, they could redesign the ships for easier refueling at the risk of compromising them to a golden BB attack.

Cheaper than a new car up to a point, but also quite expensive.

The other fact is that American labor is expensive, but do you trust foreigners to do the shipyard work on America's striking arm? We can't outsource everything now…

Reply

Matt Sturgeon February 13, 2012 at 5:37 pm

Maybe I am too accustomed to the power plant operations Homer runs on The Simpsons

Reply

blight_ February 13, 2012 at 6:01 pm

For some perspective of what can happen in an RCOH: Island replacement.
http://www.wavy.com/dpp/military/USS-Theodore-Roo

Anyways. Someone help me out here in my ignorance:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Newport+News,+VA&am
http://binged.it/ykHJIT

Is this a ship undergoing RCOH or new construction?

I'm guessing the vessel in the slip in both google maps and bing is the Ford. The google map shows CVN-65 (the Enterprise), the bing map shows a different vessel in the same spot. However, I didn't think any decisions had been made yet on CVN-65.

Reply

Pat February 13, 2012 at 11:11 am

i think they need to put money into the marines so they dont need to use the m16 and use the m4

Reply

blight_ February 13, 2012 at 2:56 pm

Thought the marines chose the M16, refusing to go with a shorter, less accurate, and presumably less effective weapon.

If anything, they need to stop using the AAAV as their standard battle-taxi and make provisions for using the Bradley when they are fighting as Army Junior like they were in Iraq. It might present training complications, but they switched to the Abrams just fine, and it's not like we're pretending the Abrams can be used amphibiously…

Reply

Lance February 14, 2012 at 1:37 am

The USMC chose the M-16A4 and the Navy chose the M-16A3 and older M-16A2 because there tactics are different from the Army and they operate in environments where full sized rifles are better than a smaller carbine. Marines and some Sailors do have M-4s just riflemen don't use them they use a carbine for a carbines job a extension of the pistol.

Reply

blight_ February 14, 2012 at 1:45 am

Considering the marines and navy are more likely to be engaged in boarding actions where a M4 makes sense…but I bet boarding teams have their own specialized weapons.

It's commonly assumed that the Marines chose M-16's because they are more accurate and have greater effective range. Certainly makes more sense in Afghanistan, where greater amounts of our troops are dismounted and fighting at longer ranges or behind fortifications, versus Iraq where soldiers are fighting from vehicles and in congested environments.

Reply

Lance February 14, 2012 at 1:40 am

Ohh I doubt the AAV-7 is going away its better using a M-113 or Bradly or a AAV-7 to taxi in combat than the dumb army approach of using a HUMVEE or s bigger target the JLTV. use a APC for a APC job and a HUMVEEs job for what a HUMVEEs made for.

Reply

blight_ February 14, 2012 at 1:43 am

In the defense of the army, there are only enough abrams and bradleys to equip the tip of the spear. There are a ton of humvees though. And if you need to put boots on the ground everywhere, then humvees are it.

A Marine unit will likely have the same disparity of forces-mostly Humvees and trucks and a tiny sliver of tanks and AAAV's.

Reply

Lance February 14, 2012 at 2:40 pm

True but we have tones of M-113 and M-2s in storage here in the states makes more sense to bring them back into service when the war is over sell them to Iraq.

Belesari February 13, 2012 at 11:19 am

Um DT 90% sure thats 781.7mil not bil just saying.

Oh look more little coffin ships…….joy.

Reply

Zeyn February 13, 2012 at 12:57 pm

Good idea!!! lest keep ignoring ground forces!

strategic weapons are useless, we will never go to war with a superpower due to MAD from nukes.
but we could go to war with a smaller nation like Iran where ground troops dont need then the Navy and half of the Air force.

Reply

blight_ February 13, 2012 at 2:54 pm

I think people just assume the Abrams/Bradley tag-team is still good enough to kick ass in conventional nation-state war, thus they won't be replaced. We seriously underestimate that from a technical standpoint, that the American armed forces are reasonably well-equipped in relation to their size. There aren't many larger armies, and if there are they are poorly equipped. There are many better equipped armies, but they are smaller.

Reply

Lance February 13, 2012 at 1:43 pm

With over 7% cuts in its funding I doubt JLTV and GCV will be online in 2017. They may be pushed back till mid 2020s by this cuts in funding. Congress may still kill it like they asked the DoD to do last year remember the Congress has the final say in what goes and dies in the budget. This is just the beginning not the final say.

Reply

Neil February 13, 2012 at 2:04 pm

Lasers, Railgun and FEL???

Reply

Moose February 13, 2012 at 4:38 pm

All three are still going.

Reply

William C. February 14, 2012 at 2:13 am

They ought to be, that's the future right there.

Reply

Black Owl February 13, 2012 at 3:05 pm

We seriously need to scale back defense spending. This is ridiculous. The F-35 also needs to go since it is littered with so many design flaws it would take billions more dollars to get it to do what it's supposed to. The F-35B still breaks a part when we try to fly it and the F-35C can't even land on a carrier because it's tailhook is flawed. If we cancelled these two models alone we might come close to saving the money that we need to for good machines and aircraft that work, such as the Super Hornet and new aircraft carriers. I also can't believe that JAGM got cancelled. The JAGM missile would have been ideal for the types of warfare that we are fighting now and will continue to fight in the future.

Also if you want to give me thumb downs for this comment well in the words of Jersey Shore: "Come at me, bro!"

Reply

blight_ February 13, 2012 at 3:43 pm

We should give Boeing a call and tell them to put out a JSF-A and a JSF-C back into the game (echoing our double competitor LCS). Then again, LCS is not exactly a great role model

Reply

Bryan Daley February 13, 2012 at 5:03 pm

That number can't be right in regards tot he carrier. That is clearly a typo

Reply

Bryan Daley February 13, 2012 at 5:06 pm

to the carrier*

Reply

Papi1960R February 13, 2012 at 5:16 pm

Well we appearently do not learn lessons very well. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that the USMC cannot deploy, conduct and sustain combat operations without the trucks, drivers and fuelers of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. Now with these cuts the Active Army will join the Marines as logistically challenged. All this while the Kremlin's favorite Democrat, Leon Panetta, is planning to cut the Guard and Reserves of all the branches severely. Am I the only one who realises that M1s, LAVs and Bradleys don't work without 2 1/2, 5ton, HEMMTs and PLS trucks.

Reply

blight_ February 13, 2012 at 5:27 pm

Yes, you are. I guess it's back to the days of rounding up locals and mules to move supplies? Or will these magical "contractors" pick up the slack?

Reply

blight_ February 14, 2012 at 1:37 am

I regret I only have one +1 to give.

Reply

TMB February 14, 2012 at 2:21 am

The Marines were never meant to conduct sustained operations over the long haul without external support, and the Army has relied on the National Guard and Army Reserve for long term logistics since Desert Storm by design.

Reply

blight_ February 14, 2012 at 8:29 am

Don't say that too loud. It's true but Marines rarely mention it.

Reply

orly? February 15, 2012 at 10:01 am

Everyone keeps thinking all this equipment floats or flys over the world's oceans by the Army/USMC.

Everyone relies on Air Force/Navy to make the delivery.

Reply

blight_ February 15, 2012 at 7:20 pm

AirForce/Navy to get to theater, and usually army transportation units to get to their destinations. I imagine there is Marine Corps breakbulk, but…

Reply

Ben February 13, 2012 at 6:24 pm

I'm a complete layman when it comes to such matters, but why are nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers only given enough nuclear fuel, when they are first commissioned, to last them 20 years or so (thus ensuring that they will require refueling at some point?)

Why not simply put enough nuclear fuel at the beginning to last them 40-60 years and never have to refuel at all?

Reply

blight_ February 13, 2012 at 6:56 pm

Doesn't change the need for COH. A refueling alone I think takes one to two years.

Additionally, how many fuel rods do you want to carry? How big does this carrier get? And if it's bigger, then it gets slower, or needs larger engine spaces, which might require a larger reactor.

Reply

fromage February 13, 2012 at 7:06 pm

Really?

Reply

TMB February 14, 2012 at 2:23 am

20 years isn't enough for you? The only other option is diesel which means they would have to put in for refueling all the damn time.

Reply

Gregory Savage February 14, 2012 at 6:48 pm

More fuel would just react with the other fuel. I highly doubt the output could be doubled just from doubling the capacity of the fuel.

Reply

blight_ February 15, 2012 at 7:23 pm

I think he wants larger fuel rod capacity to increase the time between refuellings. But the COH part is the time-consuming one. I mean, if you're cutting open the carrier to get to the reactor, you might as well replace the island and go over everything else. When else will you have a carrier out for a long period time?

Reply

ben February 15, 2012 at 9:11 pm

they are probably just cutting from the reactor up to the hangar floor, and then taking the components out the elevator ports.

Otherwise you have to cut through the major structural connections and armor plate in the flight deck.

Reply

blight_ February 15, 2012 at 9:19 pm

That sounds pretty invasive. I wonder if it has structural consequences. Then again, a carrier only has to be cut up once, and if a bomb penetrates the elevator and gets into the reactor areas you probably have bigger problems.

I wonder if they ever tested schemes such as an armored door leading to the reactor; but it would just be a giant "hit me" for adversaries…unless it's location was one of those well-kept secrets.

blight_ February 16, 2012 at 1:44 am

In armchair lalaland, a possibility would be designing a breeder reactor that could partially recycle the waste. However, research into breeders has hit a brick wall because you can use breeders for production of weapons grade nuclear material.

It would definitely involve change to the reactor designs, and it's hard to predict the downstream consequences in hypotheticals.

Reply

10th February 13, 2012 at 7:08 pm

"The request asks for $781 million in carrier construction money, including $608.2 million in procurement for CVN 79 and $173.5 million for research and development (R&D)."

Since it is part of a $12.8 billion dollar request, the carrier cost is in millions…

Reply

bobbymike February 13, 2012 at 8:46 pm

I would increase defense spending to $900 billion by cutting food stamps, welfare and unemployment. Put all eligible men and women into the armed forces building weapons, learning maintenance, computers, whatever.

That would be a WWII type stimulus that might work :) OK not a serious proposal but whatever.

Reply

blight_ February 13, 2012 at 8:58 pm

"building weapons": Built by private sector now

"learning maintenance": Outsourced to contractors

Reply

William C. February 14, 2012 at 2:17 am

I'm not as extreme as Bobbymike but contractors employ more people than the government paying for people's foreclosed homes (again…) will.

The defense industry needs some new blood and new companies. Look at all of the competition we had back in the '60s, '70s, and early '80s. Now we are down to Northrop-Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and General Dynamics.

Reply

TMB February 14, 2012 at 2:24 am

And soon as that start-up gets a good contract and makes some money, one of those big companies you listed would buy them up.

Reply

blight_ February 16, 2012 at 1:53 am

I'm surprised GA hasn't been bought out yet. But most companies are run by venture capital looking to cash out, and they're happy to turn their shares over to a company and run off into the sunset with money.

J Hughes February 13, 2012 at 10:51 pm

This isnt even a pathetic 5% of our national GDP

Reply

J Hughes February 14, 2012 at 1:16 am

who is the America hater that voted my TRUE comment down? man up and show yourself

Reply

TMB February 14, 2012 at 2:25 am

I voted you down. Prove how spending a particular percentage of GDP equals a good national defense.

Reply

blight_ February 16, 2012 at 1:50 am

For giggles:
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/31/world/soviet-mi

The Soviets croaked even at below 12% of GDP.

Reply

J Hughes February 13, 2012 at 10:55 pm
blight_ February 13, 2012 at 11:02 pm

"…asks for $2.9 billion for what it calls “Post-Operation NEW DAWN (OND)/Iraq Activities.”"

Bribes? Embassy security? How much of this should be going to State or the CIA's black budget? Maybe it's a line item for troops in Kuwait…

Reply

TMB February 14, 2012 at 2:26 am

We still have a couple brigades in Kuwait on stand-by/burning off the rest of their OND deployment.

Reply

TMB February 14, 2012 at 2:27 am

And Kuwait is probably still full of all kinds of vehicles and equipment waiting to be shipped home.

Reply

itfunk February 14, 2012 at 2:13 pm

We don't need ground forces, we are running away from 2 lost ground wars.

Reply

blight February 14, 2012 at 2:21 pm

Those two "lost ground wars" were limited wars. The problem with limited wars is that you have a stake, but not a stake where the nation's safety is in peril, but not too little that you have the option of not intervening (or so we all thought).

Take Vietnam. At the time, domino theory suggested that with the demise of Vietnam, SE Asia would become Red. Doing nothing wasn't an option. Nuking China to preserve RVN wasn't an option either. So the only option left was ground troops, until it became politically untenable.

Reply

Neil February 15, 2012 at 2:02 am

High Energy Laser (HEL), Railgun and Free electron laser (FEL)???

Reply

my site December 8, 2013 at 1:49 am
blight February 14, 2012 at 3:02 pm

Doesn't change the fact that a division footprint would grow stupenously if you just swapped an entire motor pool's Humvees for M-113's, MTVL's or Bradleys.

There really is nothing wrong with a Humvee: as long as it isn't being shot at.

Reply

Lance February 15, 2012 at 12:11 am

That's why a total replace meant is waste of money and a JLTV could replace the MRAP instead.

Reply

blight_ February 15, 2012 at 7:22 pm

MRAPs will eventually disappear and turn into a division level unit. Or they will go to the Military Police, just like the armored humvees were MP only in the '90s.

Many of the military's vehicles will never leave the FOB. These don't need to be MRAPs. Ironically, the vehicles which do the convoy work and will get targeted the most aren't designed to survive it. FMTVs spend a lot of time outside the FOB, but aren't ready for it.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: