With the fiscal 2015 spending bill in the books and the fiscal 2016 budget request just around the corner, how are Pentagon programs faring? In today’s analysis, we take a look at the prospects of selected Navy programs — how Congress treated them in their most recent appropriations and authorization bills, and what is likely to happen in this upcoming budget cycle.
E-2D — The Pentagon slowed down a number of programs to deal with a constrained budget environment, and the E-2D was one of them — but Congress is seeking to reverse that. The Navy was supposed to buy five per year up through fiscal 2015 and then start to ramp up to six in fiscal 2016 and eight buys for the next two years. However, the service backed away from that and dropped the fiscal 2015 buy to four aircraft and slowed the ramp, increasing to six aircraft in fiscal 2017 before dropping back to five. This move evidently was no good for appropriators, who added $167 million back into the budget to buy the aircraft back, offsetting a portion of the price tag through multiyear procurement savings and other cuts. The question going into the fiscal 2016 budget will be whether the Navy will stay with the reduced ramp and, if so, if Congress will continue to add aircraft. Read more E-2D analysis >>>
LCS — The Navy opted to reduce its buy of Littoral Combat Ships from four to three ships in the fiscal 2015 budget, and there was talk in Congress of reducing it even further, but ultimately appropriators signed off on the three-ship buy, adding $80 million for long-lead materials to bring the total procurement bill to just over $1.5 billion. House appropriators had wanted to cut it to two ships in their markup of the bill, but the final version went with the Senate’s proposal. In the Senate’s markup, lawmakers stated in language added to the report that the committee was adding $80 million because the Navy had adjusted its current block buy so that it ends in fiscal 2016, rather than this year. Now that the Navy has settled on keeping the LCS around after previously deciding to truncate the program from 52 ships to 32, the question will be whether the Navy sticks with its new revamped purchase schedule. Read more LCS analysis >>>
RMS — With the Littoral Combat Ship program in flux, it appears the Remote Minehunting System is experiencing some collateral damage. The RMS, which is meant to be used by the LCS for detecting sea mines, had $42.3 million budgeted for procurement this year and $21.1 million for research and development, but appropriators cut all procurement funding with the reasoning, “Ahead of need.” In language addressing the LCS, it noted that testing concerns raised by the Government Accountability Office and the “strategic pause” with the LCS program had prompted them to put a halt on LCS mission modules. Now that the LCS situation is more solidified, the upcoming fiscal 2016 request should tell us a lot about what the future of the RMS is. Read more RMS analysis >>>
Ohio-class replacement — With still no answers on how the Navy will afford the expensive Ohio-class replacement program in the coming years without crowding out the shipbuilding budget, authorizers believe the way to go is to fund it outside the Navy’s budget, and have set up a “National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund” to do just that. Appropriators were largely silent on the issue this year, with Senate appropriators merely urging the Navy to keep the program on schedule and budget, but authorizers felt that the time was now to figure out how to pay for the vessel. The final bill merely lays out the parameters for the fund, but language in the Senate authorizers’ markup explains the reasoning: “The committee believes that establishing a separate fund for pursuing construction of the Ohio-class replacement submarines is a first important step to ensuring that the program has the appropriate visibility within the administration and within Congress to ensure that the Ohio Replacement Program moves forward with the appropriate level of visibility and management attention.” Read more Ohio-class analysis >>>
Tomahawk — The Obama Administration’s proposal to kill the Tomahawk program landed with a resounding thud in Congress, with all four defense subcommittees replacing the 96 missiles cut from the fiscal 2015 budget. The Pentagon’s five-year plan has consistently included plans for purchasing exactly 196 missiles per year for the foreseeable future, but this year the budget cut the buy to 100 missiles and zeroed out the buy for all subsequent years. However, this move is clearly a non-starter with Congress, and the question will be whether the administration will even try to cut the buy again in fiscal 2016 with so much opposition to the move. Read more Tomahawk analysis >>>
P-8 — The P-8 Poseidon was one program that was hit particularly hard by budget cutbacks, as the Pentagon scaled back its planned purchase of aircraft heavily in its five year plan, especially in fiscal 2015, slashing buys from 16 to eight aircraft. However, appropriators provided some relief to the program, adding $119.4 million to buy one additional aircraft. Fortunately, the program has been performing well, fills a necessary role for the service, is well into its production, and enjoys support from both Congress and the Pentagon, so the delay in buys won’t affect the overall program numbers in the end. Read more P-8 analysis >>>
EA-18G — Congress kept the line open for F/A-18s and EA-18Gs with the purchase of 15 Growlers at a cost of $1.5 billion in the most recent appropriations bill — will lawmakers do so again? The program has represented an interesting tension between the Pentagon top brass and the Navy, the former of which saying it’s done with the program with the F-35 on the way, and the latter indicating it could use some more aircraft. It seems unlikely that the upcoming fiscal 2016 budget request will include any more money for more F/A-18 or EA-18G orders, but it remains to be seen whether Congress feels the service has purchased enough of these aircraft with uncertainty still hovering over the F-35 program. Read more EA-18G analysis >>>