Reports stating the Defense Department asked Congress to eliminate funding for 12 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft in next year’s budget have misrepresented the situation, a Navy spokesman told Defense Daily today. The service still would like those jets, but only if Congress funds the entire defense budget in accordance with the president’s request.

The office of the secretary of defense (OSD) sent a “Department of Defense Conference Appeal” to the House and Senate armed services committees, who are currently reconciling their versions of the National Defense Authorization Act. The letter requested lawmakers take $1.15 billion slated to buy Super Hornets and redirect that funding to other parts of the budget, Inside Defense and USNI News reported last week.

The Navy wants those dozen Super Hornets—which were listed on Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert’s list of “unfunded priorities this year—as long as all programs are fully funded as directed in the president’s fiscal year 2016 budget, spokesman Lt. Rob Myers said. OSD’s appeals letter to Congress merely restates Defense Secretary Ashton Carter’s mandate that items on the unfunded priorities list should not be bankrolled unless the total enacted budget is financed at levels higher than the president’s request.

“To go out and say the Navy doesn’t want strike fighters isn’t true, because we obviously put it on our unfunded list. We submitted that unfunded list,” he said. However “the secretary of defense made it clear that anything on the unfunded list should be funded after the ’16 budget is approved. That was his request to Congress.”

The appeals document states that “the additional $1,150.0 million added to the Senate authorization for the additional 12 F/A-18E/F aircraft unfunded requirement is not required.”

“The F/A-18E/F is the premier operational strike fighter aircraft for the Department of the Navy. However, the F-35B is scheduled to be IOC [initial operational capability] in July 2015, with the F-35C IOC scheduled for August 2018. There is no validated requirement for additional F/A-18E/F,” it added. “Keeping the F/A- 18E/F production line open is cost prohibitive for the Department. The Department recommends $1,150.0 million be redirected from this congressional enhancement to restore the congressional mark.”

Myers said he could not comment on whether keeping the Super Hornet production line open is seen as cost prohibitive by the Navy.

The House and Senate fiscal 2016 defense authorization bills would fund the military at similar levels as the president’s budget request, but both versions of the legislation made cuts to certain programs and accounts in order to pay for unfunded priorities or other pet weapon systems.

In a portion of the appeals document obtained by Defense Daily, OSD raised objections to such funding, including about $1 billion from both chambers for additional F-35B aircraft, $48 million from the Senate to procure active electronically scanned array radar for F-15C and $725 million from the Senate to continue the unmanned combat air system demonstrator program.

“In this fiscally constrained environment, the administration objects to the authorization of unnecessary funding offset by equal cuts to higher priority items requested in the president’s budget,” stated the appeals document in regard to the extra F-35B funding.

The Navy could face a fighter shortfall in the early 2020s because of delays in extending the service life of its fleet of legacy Hornets, Greenert told Congress earlier this year. An additional two or three strike fighter squadrons could bridge that gap.

“Our legacy strike fighters (F/A-18A-D) are reaching end of life faster than planned due to use and wear,” he stated in his unfunded priorities list. “Improving the inventory of F/A-18F and F-35C aircraft will help reconcile a near term (2018-2020) strike fighter inventory capacity challenge and longer term (2020-2035) strike fighter model balance within the carrier air wing. It will reduce our reliance on legacy model aircraft which are becoming increasingly expensive and less reliable.” 

Reports stating the Defense Department asked Congress to eliminate funding for 12 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft in next year’s budget have misrepresented the situation, a Navy spokesman told Defense Daily today. The service still would like those jets, but only if Congress funds the entire defense budget in accordance with the president’s request.

The office of the secretary of defense (OSD) sent a “Department of Defense Conference Appeal” to the House and Senate armed services committees, who are currently reconciling their versions of the National Defense Authorization Act. The letter requested lawmakers take $1.15 billion slated to buy Super Hornets and redirect that funding to other parts of the budget, Inside Defense and USNI News reported last week.

The Navy wants those dozen Super Hornets—which were listed on Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert’s list of “unfunded priorities this year—as long as all programs are fully funded as directed in the president’s fiscal year 2016 budget, spokesman Lt. Rob Myers said. OSD’s appeals letter to Congress merely restates Defense Secretary Ashton Carter’s mandate that items on the unfunded priorities list should not be bankrolled unless the total enacted budget is financed at levels higher than the president’s request.

“To go out and say the Navy doesn’t want strike fighters isn’t true, because we obviously put it on our unfunded list. We submitted that unfunded list,” he said. However “the secretary of defense made it clear that anything on the unfunded list should be funded after the ’16 budget is approved. That was his request to Congress.”

The appeals document states that “the additional $1,150.0 million added to the Senate authorization for the additional 12 F/A-18E/F aircraft unfunded requirement is not required.”

“The F/A-18E/F is the premier operational strike fighter aircraft for the Department of the Navy. However, the F-35B is scheduled to be IOC [initial operational capability] in July 2015, with the F-35C IOC scheduled for August 2018. There is no validated requirement for additional F/A-18E/F,” it added. “Keeping the F/A- 18E/F production line open is cost prohibitive for the Department. The Department recommends $1,150.0 million be redirected from this congressional enhancement to restore the congressional mark.”

Myers said he could not comment on whether keeping the Super Hornet production line open is seen as cost prohibitive by the Navy.

The House and Senate fiscal 2016 defense authorization bills would fund the military at similar levels as the president’s budget request, but both versions of the legislation made cuts to certain programs and accounts in order to pay for unfunded priorities or other pet weapon systems.

In a portion of the appeals document obtained by Defense Daily, OSD raised objections to such funding, including about $1 billion from both chambers for additional F-35B aircraft, $48 million from the Senate to procure active electronically scanned array radar for F-15C and $725 million from the Senate to continue the unmanned combat air system demonstrator program.

“In this fiscally constrained environment, the administration objects to the authorization of unnecessary funding offset by equal cuts to higher priority items requested in the president’s budget,” stated the appeals document in regard to the extra F-35B funding.

The Navy could face a fighter shortfall in the early 2020s because of delays in extending the service life of its fleet of legacy Hornets, Greenert told Congress earlier this year. An additional two or three strike fighter squadrons could bridge that gap.

“Our legacy strike fighters (F/A-18A-D) are reaching end of life faster than planned due to use and wear,” he stated in his unfunded priorities list. “Improving the inventory of F/A-18F and F-35C aircraft will help reconcile a near term (2018-2020) strike fighter inventory capacity challenge and longer term (2020-2035) strike fighter model balance within the carrier air wing. It will reduce our reliance on legacy model aircraft which are becoming increasingly expensive and less reliable.”