Sea Power - June 2017

The final defense agreement dropped a House proposal to dip into war spending to pay for more than $15 billion in weapons and other military programs — a maneuver Democrats considered an end-run around those caps. But the bill does add $15 billion in war-related spending, roughly half of the supplemental request proposed by President Donald Trump’s administration earlier this year.

The increase in defense funds, combined with hundreds of small cuts throughout the massive Pentagon budget, allowed appropriators to shift funds to make room for some additional ships for the Navy and a down payment for a polar icebreaker for the Coast Guard.

In total, the shipbuilding accounts came to $21.2 billion, $2.8 billion above the amount requested. That includes an LPD 17 amphibious transport dock ship, a DDG 51 guided-missile destroyer and a shore-hugging littoral combat ship not included in the original budget proposal for this year. Congress also added $150 million for long-lead items for the polar icebreaker.

The omnibus includes $1.1 billion for 14 Super Hornet fighters for the Navy, 12 more than requested. The jets are a perennial favorite on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers see them as a cost-effective and quick way to mitigate the Navy’s strike-fighter shortfall.

But Congress also opted to invest heavily in fifth-generation fighters, setting aside $8.2 billion for 74 F-35s, 11 more than the Obama administration requested. That plus-up includes $74 million for four F-35C aircraft carrier variants for the Navy and Marine Corps and two of the Marine Corps’ F-35B vertical takeoff variants.

Other additions include $207 million for two C- 40 aircraft for the Navy Reserve and $148 million for two MV- 22 Osprey tiltrotors for the Marine Corps. The spending bill also gives the Marine Corps an additional $205 million for aviation spares and repair parts to address the service’s maintenance backlog and readiness issues.

Outside the defense bill, the Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration received $523 million in the omnibus, $100 million above the fiscal 2017 request and $123 million more than last year’s spending levels. The additional money is aimed at increasing productivity, efficiency and safety of the country’s ports and intermodal water and land transportation.

Meanwhile, the Coast Guard received $10.5 billion in the omnibus, which comes to $344 million above the request. Total funding for the Coast Guard, however, is still down $467.3 million from last year.

Nonetheless, the increase above the request primarily would help the Coast Guard modernize, with $233 million of the additional funding allocated for recapitalization of ships, aircraft and facilities. In addition to the icebreaker, the bill procures an Offshore Patrol Cutter, an HC-130J aircraft, six Fast-Response Cutters and facility improvements at several sites around the country.

The bill also keeps the Coast Guard on schedule for a new cutter fleet, including post-delivery items for the ninth National Security Cutter and a down payment for the 10th.

Lawmakers completed work on the fiscal 2017 request just weeks before the Trump administration delivered the details of its budget proposal for fiscal 2018 to Capitol Hill. The proposal would blow past defense budget caps by some $54 billion to pay for White House priorities like new ships and advanced fighter jets.

Congress, however, is unlikely to come to an agreement to raise the defense caps by that much, so lawmakers will likely have to pick and choose among the Pentagon’s — and their own — priorities as work gets under way this summer on the annual defense authorization and appropriations bills for fiscal 2018, which begins Oct. 1.

The House Armed Services Committee will, as usual, provide the first glimpse of how Congress will handle the request when the panel meets to consider the authorization measure during a marathon markup in late June. The Senate Armed Services Committee and the House and Senate Appropriations committees will follow suit later this summer.

Cyber Commander:
No to Separate Cyber Service

The commander of U.S. Cyber Command said he is not in favor of a separate cyber service, citing the need not only for technical proficiency in the military’s cyber warriors, but also for a deep understanding of the broader context of military operations.

“I’m not a proponent of the idea of a separate cyber force or service,” Adm. Michael S. Rogers, commander of U.S. Cyber Command and director of the National Security Agency (NSA), testified May 9 before the Senate Armed Services Committee. “In my experience, to be successful in cyber you not only need to understand the technical aspects of this, but you need to understand the broader context in which cyber evolutions occur.