Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
The Navy's proposed FY2010 budget, submitted in May 2009, originally requested funding for eight new Navy ships. This total included two relatively expensive, high-capability combatant ships (a Virginia-class attack submarine and a DDG-51 class Aegis destroyer) and six relatively inexpensive ships (three Littoral Combat Ships [LCSs], two TAKE-1 auxiliary dry cargo ships, and one Joint High Speed Vessel [JHSV]). The Navy in September 2009 reduced the LCS request to two ships, reducing the total requested number of all types of ships to seven, of which five were relatively inexpensive LCSs, TAKE-1s, and JHSVs. The Navy's proposed FY2010 budget also requested procurement funding for certain Navy ships that were procured but not fully funded in prior years, and advance procurement funding for certain other Navy ships to be procured in future years.
The Administration submitted its proposed FY2010 budget as a single-year budget only, without an accompanying Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) for the period FY2010-FY2015. The Administration also did not submit a 30-year shipbuilding plan for the period FY2010-FY2039, as required by 10 USC 231. Consequently, relatively little budget-submission information was available in 2009 concerning the Administration's plans for Navy ship procurement in fiscal years after FY2010.
December 2009 press reports provided information on a draft version of the FY2011 30-year shipbuilding plan that is to be submitted to Congress in early February 2010, in conjunction with the proposed FY2011 defense budget. Concerns about the Navy's prospective ability to afford its long-range shipbuilding plan, combined with year-to-year changes in Navy shipbuilding plans and significant cost growth and other problems in building certain new Navy ships, have led to strong concerns among some Members about the status of Navy shipbuilding and the potential future size and capabilities of the fleet.
The explanatory statement for the FY2010 DOD appropriations act (H.R. 3326/P.L. 111-118 of December 19, 2009) funds the procurement of the revised total of seven ships requested by the Navy for FY2010.
Date of Report: December 22, 2009
Number of Pages: 43
Order Number: RL32665
Price: $29.95
Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Navy Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
The Navy has been procuring Virginia (SSN-774) class nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) at a rate of one per year for the past several years. The procurement rate is scheduled to increase to two boats per year starting in FY2011. A total of 11 boats have been procured through FY2009. The eight Virginia-class submarines to be procured in the five-year period FY2009- FY2013 (boats 11 through 18) are being procured under a multiyear procurement (MYP) arrangement.
The Navy's proposed FY2010 budget requests $1,964.3 million in procurement funding to complete the procurement cost of a 12th Virginia-class boat. The FY2010 budget estimates the procurement cost of this boat at $2,756.7 million, and the ship has received a total of $792.4 million in prior-year funding. The Navy's proposed FY2010 budget also requests $1,346.4 million in advance procurement (AP) funding for Virginia-class boats to be procured in future years, and $613.3 million in additional AP funding for Economic Order Quantity (EOQ) purchases of long-leadtime items for Virginia-class boats to be procured under the FY2009- FY2013 MYP arrangement.
The explanatory statement on the FY2010 DOD appropriations act (H.R. 3326/P.L. 111-118 of December 19, 2009) approves the Administration's FY2010 request for procurement and advance procurement funding for the Virginia-class program.
Date of Report: December 22, 2009
Number of Pages: 28
Order Number: RL32418
Price: $29.95
Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.
Navy F/A-18E/F and EA-18G Aircraft Procurement and Strike Fighter Shortfall: Background and Issues for Congress
Jeremiah Gertler
Specialist in Military Aviation
The Navy's proposed FY2010 budget requests about $1.0 billion for the procurement of nine F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighters. The Navy's FY2009 budget had projected that 18 F/A- 18E/Fs would be requested in FY2010. The Navy's proposed FY2010 budget also requests about $1.6 billion for the procurement of 22 EA-18G Growler electric attack aircraft. The Navy's proposed FY2010 budget does not request a new multiyear procurement (MYP) arrangement for procuring F/A-18E/Fs and EA-18Gs in FY2010-FY2014. Some Members of Congress are interested in the option of procuring 18 F/A-18E/Fs in FY2010 (the number projected for FY2010 under the FY2009 budget), so as to make a start toward mitigating a projected Navy-Marine Corps strike fighter shortfall. Some Members are also interested in approving a new MYP arrangement for procuring Super Hornets and Growlers in FY2010-FY2014, so as to further mitigate the shortfall and reduce the collective procurement cost of the aircraft.
FY2010 defense authorization bill: The conference report (H.Rept. 111-288 of October 7, 2009) on the FY2010 defense authorization bill (H.R. 2647) authorizes increasing by $512.3 million the Administration's FY2010 procurement funding request for the F/A-18E/F program, so as to support the procurement in FY2010 of 18 F/A-18E/Fs—9 more than the Administration requested—and recommends increasing by $108 million the Administration's FY2010 advance procurement funding request for procuring F/A-18E/Fs in future fiscal years, with the additional $108.0 million to be used for economic order quantity (EOQ) purchases for a new MYP arrangement. Section 128 of the bill provides conditional authority for entering into an MYP arrangement for procuring F/A-18E/Fs and EA-18Gs. Section 131 requires a report on the procurement of "4.5 generation" fighters, including F/A-18s that are equipped with certain features.
FY2010 DOD appropriations bill: In lieu of a conference report, the House Appropriations Committee on December 15, 2009, released an explanatory statement on a final version of H.R. 3326. This version was passed by the House on December 16, 2009, and by the Senate on December 19, 2009, and signed into law on December 19, 2009, as P.L. 111-118. The explanatory statement includes $1,054.5 million in Navy procurement for 18 F/A-18E/Fs in 2010, an increase of nine aircraft and $495 million over the Administration's request. Advance procurement meets the Administration's request of $51.4 million.
EF-18G procurement and advance procurement are set at the Administration's requested levels: $1,611.8 million for 22 Growlers in FY2010, and $20.6 million in Growler advance procurement. The explanatory statement also adds $4 million to Navy research and development funding for F/A-18 countermeasures improvement, and a $9 million decrease to the same account to account for a delay in an infrared search and track system contract.
Title VIII, section 8011 of H.R. 3326 authorizes the use of funds for multiyear procurement of F- 18 variants.
Date of Report: December 22, 2009
Number of Pages: 43
Order Number: RL30624
Price: $29.95
Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
From the earliest days of the republic, America’s armed forces have been compensated by military pay, commonly known as “basic pay”. While the original pay structure was quite simple and straightforward, over time a complex system of pay, allowances, incentives, and bonuses has evolved.
With the advent of the all-volunteer force in 1973, Congress has used military pay and its associated allowances to improve recruiting, retention and the overall quality of the force. Congress, in the National Defense Authorization Act, typically authorizes military pay adjustments for the coming fiscal year. Today’s ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, highlighted by the recent decision to increase the number of servicemembers deployed to Afghanistan, suggest that further changes in pay, allowances, incentives and bonuses will continue to receive congressional scrutiny.
In the nearly nine years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, basic pay has increased by nearly 40%. This figure does not include other increases in allowances, bonuses, or incentives. The cumulative effect is that most analysts now agree that the average annual cost per servicemember exceeds $100,000.
Many observers are currently concerned about the cost of recent manpower increases, the impact of personnel costs on the overall defense budget, and the potential decrement to equipment modernization plans caused by the increased pressure of the personnel account. To date, however, it appears that the increasing cost of personnel has not come at the expense of other elements in the defense budget.
The issue of pay comparability between military and civilian pay, commonly referred to as the “pay gap” continues to receive emphasis. Advocates for higher pay have emphasized the sacrifices being made today by the American military, the high personnel tempo and reduced dwell time, the impact on families caused by frequent deployments, and the positive impact that raises have had on recruiting and retention. Others argue that the “pay gap” is an imprecise measurement that does not fully account for other compensation increases in the form of allowances, incentives and bonuses.
The Department of Defense (DOD), on the other hand, bases its recommendations regarding military pay on its own standard for pay comparability. The DOD standard establishes that members should be compensated at the 70th percentile of wages for civilian employees with similar levels of education, age, experience and responsibility.
This report addresses the role of military pay in manning the armed forces, the types of pay increases used in the past, recent reforms in managing pay, and the role of the Employment Cost Index in determining basic pay increases. The report also reviews the compensation benefits specifically available to military personnel participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF).
Date of Report: December 29, 2009
Number of Pages: 18
Order Number: RL33446
Price: $29.95
Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
Specialist in Military Aviation
The administration’s proposed FY2010 defense budget requested about $10.4 billion in research and development and procurement funding for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. This would fund the procurement of 10 F-35As for the Air Force, 16 F-35Bs for the Marine Corps, and four F-35Cs for the Navy.
The administration’s proposed FY2010 defense budget also proposed terminating the F-35 alternate engine program, which is intended to develop the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 engine as an alternative to the Pratt and Whitney F135 engine that currently powers the F-35. The Obama administration opposes further funding for the alternate engine program and has threatened to veto the FY2010 defense authorization or appropriation bill if either “would seriously disrupt” the F-35 program. The F-35 alternate engine program has emerged as a major item of debate on the FY2010 defense budget.
FY2010 defense authorization act: The conference report (H.Rept. 111-288 of October 7, 2009)on the FY2010 defense authorization act (H.R. 2647/P.L. 111-84) authorizes funding for procuring a total of 30 F-35s in FY2010, as requested. The report authorizes $430 million in Air Force and Navy research and development funding for continued development of the F136 alternate engine, and $130 million in Air Force advance procurement funding to begin F136 procurement. Section 131 of the act requires a report on the procurement of “4.5”-generation fighters that is to include, among other things, “a discussion regarding the availability and feasibility of procuring F-35 aircraft to proportionally and concurrently recapitalize the Air National Guard during fiscal years 2015 through fiscal year 2025.” Section 217 requires future DOD budgets to provide separate line items for the F-35B and F-35C within the Navy aircraft procurement account and the Navy research and development account. Section 244 requires, for the period 2010-2015, an annual Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the status of the F-35 program.
FY2010 DOD appropriations bill: In lieu of a conference report, the House Appropriations Committee on December 15, 2009, released an explanatory statement on a final version of H.R. 3326. This version was passed by the House on December 16, 2009, and by the Senate on December 19, 2009, and signed into law on December 19, 2009, as P.L. 111-118. The explanatory statement includes $6,840.5 million for 30 F-35s in 2010. Additionally, the statement contains $430 million in Navy and Air Force research and development funding for continued development of the F136 alternate engine, and $35 million in Air Force procurement funding designated for the alternate engine program.
Date of Report: December 22, 2009
Number of Pages: 129
Order Number: RL30563
Price: $29.95
Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.
Posts
