What's new

The U.S. Military's 2017 Defense Budget Protects Its Most Important Weapon: Submarines

F-22Raptor

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
16,980
Reaction score
3
Country
United States
Location
United States
The final version of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, which just passed the House of Representatives earlier today, protects the U.S. Navy’s submarine fleet and fully funds America’s new Ohio Replacement Program (ORP) ballistic missile submarines. The bill passed by a wide bipartisan margin after tough negotiations with the U.S. Senate.

“As we begin transitioning to a new administration, this measure makes a solid down payment on growing the fleet and meeting our security challenges on, below, and above the seas, by sustaining our path to a 308 ship fleet by 2021,” Congressman Joe Courtney (CT-02), ranking member of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, told The National Interest in a statement. “I hope that the Senate will now quickly pass the conference report and send it to the President for his signature.”

Courtney said that he was especially pleased with the new defense bill. The new NDAA starts to address the severe shortfalls facing the U.S. Navy’s submarine fleet as it struggles to continue building two Virginia-class submarines while also building the ORP. “This report maintains two critical elements that I fought to retain from the House bill passed last May, but were not in the Senate bill: the expansion of the National Sea-based Deterrence Fund (NSBDF) to authorize continuous production of components on the Ohio-class Replacement Program, and the restoration of advanced procurement funding for future Virginia-class submarines that will keep the program on track,” Courtney said. “I have worked closely with Chairman [J. Randy] Forbes in advancing these initiatives, and I am proud that this agreement retains our hard work.”

For the Virginia-class submarine program, the NDAA authorizes two new boats for 2017 while adding advanced procurement money for sustaining a two per year build rate in 2018 and 2019. The total amount of funding goes $85 million over President Barack Obama’s budget request to ensure that the submarine industrial base can support the incorporation of the Virginia Payload Module in the forthcoming Block V Virginia-class submarines.

The new NDAA also fully funds the $1.9 billion the President requested for the ORP program. Indeed, Courtney led the effort to ensure that the ORP would not go unfunded due to a protracted continuing resolution. “The report fully authorizes the $1.9 billion budget request for the Ohio Replacement, and retains a provision included in the House version by Courtney and Forbes to expand the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund to allow for the continuous production of components related to the missile compartment on the new submarines,” reads a statement from Courtney’s office. “Navy estimates have found that continuous production would save 25 percent of the cost of procuring missile tubes alone by buying them in a cost efficient and level loaded approach.”

Courtney and Forbes designed the NSBDF several years ago to ensure that the Navy can produce the new fleet while also meeting its other critical shipbuilding priorities.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...s-2017-defense-budget-protects-its-most-18589
 
I suspect that there will be some increases. I think funding prioritises will be shifted, however. Maybe down the road, if President Trump can reduce our involvement with NATO, far east security, there will be cuts.

If i am not wrong i heard his speech where he hinted to bring back troops from Germany and Japan .. I am not sure if a President can take such Policy Changing decision which will effect the region and Geopolitics of the world ..
even if Trump Cuts a good amount of $$ still US will remain unmatched for coming 10 decades when it comes to Military ..
 
Defense cuts are unlikely under Trump IMO. He campaigned for a larger military, so it's possible we could see a 50-100 billion increase in defense spending per year.
 
If i am not wrong i heard his speech where he hinted to bring back troops from Germany and Japan .. I am not sure if a President can take such Policy Changing decision which will effect the region and Geopolitics of the world ..
even if Trump Cuts a good amount of $$ still US will remain unmatched for coming 10 decades when it comes to Military ..

True, and as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, he can move them wherever he wants. We will be seeing a smaller American footprint around the world, not just one area.

We really can make cuts, for example, do we really need over 8,300 MBT's (?) when we there is no threat to western Europe by Russia, we aren’t about to fight a land war in China, even if that were a possibility, and it is highly unlikely any major American intervention will happen in the Middle-East in the near future.

The problem with any such cuts.......is political. Spending means jobs.
 
True, and as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, he can move them wherever he wants. We will be seeing a smaller American footprint around the world, not just one area.

We really can make cuts, for example, do we really need over 8,300 MBT's (?) when we there is no threat to western Europe by Russia, we aren’t about to fight a land war in China, even if that were a possibility, and it is highly unlikely any major American intervention will happen in the Middle-East in the near future.

The problem with any such cuts.......is political. Spending means jobs.

It's way to early to say we'll see a smaller footprint around the world under Trump. We've already seen him backtrack on several of his campaign promises, and he's already promised South Korea that we'll ensure their security. IMO, not much will change in our forward posture.

An it's Congress who controls spending, an it happens to be a Republican lead one. Trump wants a larger military, so I expect defense spending to rise. That's much more likely to happen, than the $1 trillion Trump proposed for infrastructure IMO.
 
It's way to early to say we'll see a smaller footprint around the world under Trump. We've already seen him backtrack on several of his campaign promises, and he's already promised South Korea that we'll ensure their security. IMO, not much will change in our forward posture.

You may be right. I am very much in favour of a smaller US "footprint", but I think your assessment of Trump is accurate. I don't think his supporters would revolt based on that, either.

An it's Congress who controls spending, an it happens to be a Republican lead one. Trump wants a larger military, so I expect defense spending to rise. That's much more likely to happen, than the $1 trillion Trump proposed for infrastructure IMO.

True and in the immediate future, we will see defence increases.
 
True, and as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, he can move them wherever he wants. We will be seeing a smaller American footprint around the world, not just one area.

We really can make cuts, for example, do we really need over 8,300 MBT's (?) when we there is no threat to western Europe by Russia, we aren’t about to fight a land war in China, even if that were a possibility, and it is highly unlikely any major American intervention will happen in the Middle-East in the near future.

The problem with any such cuts.......is political. Spending means jobs.

But in order to Move forces ( in case of Invading ) the President is to take Congress approval right ??
rest i agree with you ..
I don't see US invading any Major regional or World Power where it needs to deploy a large number of Land troops , even in a War USA Navy and Airforce will be enough to tackle any threat ..
I have my differences with Trump and his statement but i am pretty much looking for the policies he will make , and how he will convince his supporter even if he backtrack on things he said in past .
 
No. The president alone is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. If he says, "move", they move.

Oh i didn't know that , Thanks bro .. :tup:
but one more question you think that it should be done with consensus ? taking such extreme hard and important decision must be done with some sort of Discussion ..
 
Oh i didn't know that , Thanks bro .. :tup:
but one more question you think that it should be done with consensus ? taking such extreme hard and important decision must be done with some sort of Discussion ..

It should, but normally, the advice the president asks for is from his own national security team and cabinet, not Congress. Certain members of Congress may be advised of a military move or action, but they are not normally involved in the decision making.

But that is not the same as changing our relationship with say, NATO. That would involve discussions, mainly with our Senate, as they are the body that deals directly with treaties and "advice and consent" on foreign policy matters. The House's power is money. They are the "bank". ;)

(But still, if any president ordered every single American soldier out of Europe, the military would follow that order and go. All Congress could do to stop it, would be try to cut off funding for the move, or impeach and remove the president.)
 
It should, but normally, the advice the president asks for is from his own national security team and cabinet, not Congress. Certain members of Congress may be advised of a military move or action, but they are not normally involved in the decision making.

But that is not the same as changing our relationship with say, NATO. That would involve discussions, mainly with our Senate, as they are the body that deals directly with treaties and "advice and consent" on foreign policy matters. The House's power is money. They are the "bank". ;)

(But still, if any president ordered every single American soldier out of Europe, the military would follow that order and go. All Congress could do to stop it, would be try to cut off funding for the move, or impeach and remove the president.)

Thanks , and you already answer my possible next question too :D :D i hope you were not a Fortune teller :angel:
 
Back
Top Bottom