The Army quickly followed the Air Force this week in releasing detailed budget justification documentation for its fiscal 2015 budget request, and all Army-related program reports at Virtual Analyst have been updated with budget figures. Several programs saw some significant changes, especially over the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP). Here are the programs that may attract the most congressional attention in the coming months:
Army heavily boosts AH-64, UH-60, UH-72 buys
Photo: U.S. Army
The Army’s move to reshuffle its helicopter fleet manifested itself with massive changes in procurement quantities for AH-64, UH-60, and UH-72 helos.
It was only the last budget cycle when the Army attempted to end UH-72 purchases with a final buy of 10 helos in fiscal 2014, prompting an outcry from Congress, which eventually added 10 helicopters to the appropriations bill. Now, the service has switched course and wants to buy 100 helicopters over the next two years, starting with 55 this year. The Army plans to use them to replace its TH-67 training helicopters, which is one of the helicopter types the Army is trying to get rid of.
The other helicopter on the chopping block is the OH-58 Kiowa, and the Army will replace those with Apaches moved from the National Guard to active duty. The Army’s budget request also seeks an increase in AH-64 remanufactures through fiscal 2018, cutting a total of 31 Apaches from this year’s and next year’s budget, but adding 45 in fiscal 2017 and 2018, and buying 53 helos in fiscal 2019.
Finally, as the Army prepares to move UH-60 Blackhawks to the Guard to make up for the removal of Apaches, the budget request includes a massive increase in Blackhawk procurement through the FYDP. Last year, the Army had only intended to buy 223 UH-60s from fiscal 2015 through 2018, but this year the Army expects to buy 324 helicopters, and another 86 in fiscal 2016. That includes 104 UH-60s to be purchased in fiscal 2018, more than three times what the Army had called for in last year’s budget request.
Once again, the Army is not requesting any money for upgrades to M1 Abrams tanks, and time will tell whether Congress will once again make them spend money on the program. Last year, both appropriators and authorizers added $90 million for upgrades, and the authorization bill included the following language: “We believe that the Army should accelerate the next series of Abrams upgrades where warranted by capability gaps or opportunities, technological maturity, and affordability. In this regard, the Army and Marine Corps should consider replacement of the current engine with a modern, fuel efficient power train. Therefore, the Secretary of the Army, in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy, is directed to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than June 1, 2014, on a business case analysis and an investment strategy that could accelerate the technology development and engineering change proposal processes to include a modern fuel efficient engine and transmission for the M1 Abrams series main battle tank.”
The Army has cut back on WIN-T buys in this year’s budget, but it will make up for it with a massive increase in buys in the next few years. This year’s budget proposal calls for only 1,280 units instead of the 1,742 originally planned, but it also asks for 1,755 units in fiscal 2017 instead of 691 and 2,486 units in 2018 instead of just 195. The move comes just a couple months after appropriators cut $204 million from procurement and $150 million from research and development, declaring that the program was moving too fast for its own good.
“The Committee questions the fiscal soundness of adding close to $450,000,000 to this program in the next 2 fiscal years,” the Senate Appropriations Committee wrote in its mark-up last year, although the language was not adopted in the final bill. “The Committee notes that a follow-on development contract award scheduled for earlier this year has been delayed and that the program’s acquisition program baseline is expected to be revised later this year. Therefore, the Committee finds this increase in resources premature and recommends continuing the program at fiscal year 2013 levels.”