By Emelie Rutherford
The Pentagon, in a second round of appeals to defense authorization legislation, is pushing back on lawmakers’ cuts to its requests for a new Humvee-replacement vehicle, ship programs, and combat radios.
The second batch of “priority appeals” was received pon Capitol Hill late last week, days before House and Senate lawmakers are expected to meet this week to begin sorting out the differences in the fiscal year 2010 Pentagon policy-setting bills approved by each chamber.
The Pentagon’s latest appeals, dated Sept. 10 and singling out 28 items, take issue with Senate’s proposed $22 million cut to research and development funding for the future multi-service Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), which is now in the technology development phase. Any such funding reduction, the documents say, would harm both the vehicle testing program and Pentagon competitive-prototyping efforts.
The Army awarded contracts to build competing prototype vehicles last November to BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin [LMT], and a General Dynamics [GD]-AM General joint venture called General Tactical Vehicles.
“Both the Department and the Congress endorsed the need for competitive prototyping in JLTV efforts,” the Sept. 10 appeals state. The Senate-proposed cuts would delay or eliminate a “robust” JLTV test program planed for FY ’10 and negatively impact the program before it is reviewed for entry to the system-development and demonstration phase, the Pentagon claims.
When senate authorizers made their JLTV cut, they noted uncertainty with the services’ future plans for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles (MRAPs) built for troops in theater and a desire for incorporating lessons-learned with Afghanistan-bound all-terrain MRAPs (M-ATVs) into the JLTV effort.
The Pentagon replied that “to effectively incorporate ‘lessons learned’ from Afghanistan and the M-ATV Program, the Services must understand the capabilities of the JLTV vehicles.”
“This is best accomplished by a rigorous testing protocol” during the current technology-development phase slated to continue until FY ’11, the appeals argue.
The Pentagon urges defense-authorization conferees to side with the House JLTV funding plan, which proposes a $10 million cut, as opposed to the Senate’s $22 million cut.
The Sept. 10 appeals also urge against the Senate’s proposal to cut one of two of the Navy’s requested T-AKE auxiliary ships, built by General Dynamics’ National Steel and Shipbuilding Company. The Senate proposed reducing T-AKE funding by $400 million because of the ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review of the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future), or MPF(F).
The Pentagon notes the capabilities development document for MPF(F) Increment 1, which includes both T-AKEs, is already validated. In addition, the appeals argue, the Navy has awarded a contact for long-lead material for both ships, and funding the detail design and construction of both of them in FY ’10 will “yield the most efficient build plan.”
The Pentagon in the Sept. 10 document also takes issue with the House’s proposed $150 million cut for the DDG-1000 destroyer program. The money is intended to cover government liability regarding class services priced options for the program the Pentagon recently shrunk from entailing seven to just three ships. General Dynamics’ Bath Iron Works is slated to build the three DDG-1000s under an agreement reached in April, taking over work Northrop Grumman’s Ingalls shipyard was sharing.
If the House cut stands, the Navy will have to renegotiate already definitized contracts, the appeals state.
The second Pentagon appeals package argues against the House’s plan to cut requested Army funds for the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) by $15 million, and the Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS) Family–in the base and war budgets, combined–by $135 million.
The Pentagon also takes issue with House and Senate changes to its request for authority to transfer excess defense articles and up to $750 million of non-excess defense items now in Iraq to the governments of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The Pentagon reacted most strongly the Senate’s proposal. The Senate would allow the transfer of only $500 million in equipment to Iraq and Afghanistan, and both chambers call for additional oversight of and information on such transfer of defense articles.
The Pentagon sent its first package of defense-authorization-bill appeals, which cite 53 items, to the House and Senate armed services committees on Sept. 4. Additional appeals could come later this week.
The first round of appeals target Senate language preventing the Navy from obligating funds for building surface combatants after 2011 until it conducts some analyses.
The Pentagon’s Sept. 4 appeals also object to House language restricting the obligation of funding for Army programs–including Future Combat Systems, Stryker, and WIN-T– before their FY ’09 Selective Acquisition Reports (SARs) are submitted to Congress. The Pentagon does not plan to submit any FY ’09 SARs.
The Pentagon also frowns on Senate language that would restrict the Air Force secretary’s plans to retire C-5A aircraft pending further work and analysis, as well as provisions in both chambers’ bills prohibiting the retirement of strategic airlift aircraft and proscribing a higher minimum number of them. It also objects to a House prohibition on the Air Force retiring legacy fighter aircraft before a report is sent to Congress.
The initial Pentagon appeals also object to House proposals to:
- add further restrictions to spending of funds for the acquisition and deployment of a possible missile-defense site in Europe;
- limit the procurement of Future Combat Systems (FCS) Spin Out Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team equipment to one brigade set;
- restrict the obligation of FCS research and development funds pending a milestone review report that is no longer planned for the morphing Army modernization effort; and
- limit the use of monies for the Integrated Air and Missile Defense System project before a review and certification from the defense secretary.