Congressional amendments to the defense budget

[Entropy]

See here. The big news is that the C-17 gets another reprieve.

"This situation requires action to prevent further decay of the Army's readiness, including a modest reduction in funding for FCS program elements not set to field until 2015 at the earliest, while providing full funding for all FCS program systems intended for fielding by 2011, at the earliest," Abercrombie explained.

Airland's ranking Republican, Rep. Jim Saxton (N.J.), in turn called for Congress and the nation to boost overall defense spending so the armed services don't have to sacrifice procurement and research spending to meet combat needs -- especially the Army.

"The Army's funding crisis cannot be solved by continuing to cut funding for the FCS program or any other modernization program," Saxton said.

More C-17s

Meanwhile, Saxton said that President Bush's planned increases in Army and Marine Corps personnel sizes, as well as increased reliance on C-17s to provide airlift for combat personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, are "clear" indicators that the Defense Department needs more C-17s.

Otherwise, Abercrombie said the legislation meets Bush's requests for major programs under the subcommittee's oversight.

That includes: $2.2 billion for upgrading Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and Stryker vehicles; $3.4 billion for Army tactical wheeled vehicles, including $947 million for up-armored Humvees; $2.6 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles; $3.1 billion for Army helicopters and upgrades; $631 million for Army precision-guided missiles and rockets; $479 million for small arms of numerous types; $749 million for B-2 bomber modernization and upgrades; $3 billion for 20 F-22 Raptors; $1.6 billion for eight Air Force Joint Strike Fighters (Another eight F-35s are expected to be provided by the seapower subcommittee); and $570 million for six C-130s.

Finally, and as expected, airland members also proposed an additional $526 million for the alternative JSF engine program.

[J Wolfsberger]

15 more C-17s is good news.

$570 million for six C-130s is waste. The money would be better spent buying two more C-17s.

[Ron Humphrey]

15 more C-17s is good news.

$570 million for six C-130s is waste. The money would be better spent buying two more C-17s.

Wouldn't there be some areas where 130's are probably just as useful if not better fit to the operations?

[Ken White]

15 more C-17s is good news.

$570 million for six C-130s is waste. The money would be better spent buying two more C-17s.

I'd rather see the money go to C27s. AC27s would be even better...

No question we need more C17s but the 130 fleet is also necessary as Ron points out and it is aging rapidly. We don't need to repeat the T37 / F15 scene if it can be avoided.

Besides, LM has a powerful lobbying tool -- parts for the Herky Bird come from almost every Congressional district...

[Entropy]

Yeah, I agree. Three things are driving the additional C-17's / C-130's (besides domestic politics and support to key districts, of course!):

1. Expansion of the Army and Marines means more airlift in general is needed.

2. The current fleet of aircraft are flying a lot more hours than originally anticipated, so airframes will wear out faster. More airframes mean the fleets will last longer before a (probably expensive) new aircraft is bought.

3. Operational demands. We simply need more to meet the demands of current ops.