Committee votes to reverse USAF programme cuts

from JDW 17 May 06

Committee votes to reverse USAF programme cuts
STEPHEN TRIMBLE JDW Americas Bureau Chief
Washington, DC
The House Armed Services Committee has rebuffed the F-22 multi-year strategy, but adds USD1.5 billion to the programme The F136 alternate JSF engine programme is now supported The USAF mobility strategy faces a new mandatory fleet size
A US Congress committee voted on 3 May to reverse several of the Bush Administration’s proposals to trim spending on military aircraft programmes, but inserted a host of new cuts for naval and army weapon systems.

The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) passed a defence authorisation bill that sets the stage for a summer-long feud over military spending priorities. A similar vote by the Senate Armed Services Committee was expected to be released as JDW went to press on 5 May.

The HASC took aim at the US Air Force’s (USAF’s) proposal to convert the Lockheed Martin F-22A contract into a multi-year procurement (MYP) deal.

However, the blow would be softened by the HASC’s move to add USD1.4 billion into the programme’s budget in 2007.
The USAF “appears to lose on the proposed incremental funding approach, but it wins on the amount of money appropriated”, said Christopher Bolkcom, a Congressional Research Service analyst. “The outstanding question mark would appear to be on [the status of] the MYP authorisation.”

The HASC’s bill could also force major tweaks to the USAF’s strategic airlift strategy. The bill adds nearly USD690 million for the air force to buy three more Boeing C-17As, to bring the total order to 183 aircraft.

In addition, the service operates 111 Lockheed Martin C-5s, amounting to a total strategic airlift fleet of 294 aircraft.

The bill proposes a requirement for the USAF to maintain a minimum fleet of 299 strategic airlifters, suggesting another five C-17s may have to be purchased. The bill also allows the air force to start retiring C-5As, but this appears to be possible only if more C-17As are ordered to maintain the minimum fleet level.

The committee also moved to blunt the USAF’s plan to retire the Lockheed Martin U-2 reconnaissance fleet until the service can certify that the Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk fleet can meet all demands for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions.

As expected, the HASC voted to rescue the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 alternate engine development programme for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). US defence officials said the alternate powerplant was unnecessary, but the committee “believes [they] did not consider the benefit of competition with respect to future operations and maintenance costs”. Re-instating the F136 programme will cost USD408 million. JSF programme officials have voiced concern that it may have to reprogramme funds to pay for the unplanned bill. The HASC also voted to cut funds for long-lead production items for USAF and US Navy JSF aircraft by USD241 million. It was unclear whether some, or all, of the cut could be used to partially offset the F136 bill.

The HASC also voted to reduce the Boeing/SAIC Future Combat System (FCS) budget by USD325 million, or 6 to 8 per cent of the programme’s total, due to “unjustified programme cost increases and excess management reserve”. The committee also warned that the rising costs of the programme may force the army to slow down procurement or reduce the number of FCS brigade combat teams in the army’s force structure.

The navy’s plan to continue buying Virginia-class submarines at a rate of one per year was also rebuffed by the HASC. The committee voted to add USD400 million to support advanced procurement for a two-submarine order in Fiscal Year 2009.

” *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance their understanding of arms trade activities, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml“