Navy hauls in budget’s largest share among services

Navy hauls in budget’s largest share among services

The U.S. Navy receive the largest chunk of funding among the three services out of the $527 billion within the president’s 2014 baseline budget request unveiled on Wednesday.

The $155 billion the Pentagon requested for the Navy outpaces the $144 billion requested for the Air Force and the $129 billion requested for the Army.

Of course, the base line budget request did not account for the Overseas Contingency Operations funds that pay for the war in Afghanistan in which the Army will receive the largest chunk. The Pentagon plans to unveil that budget later, but it will add another $14 billion in funding for the Navy.

Many predicted the Navy might receive the largest portion of the baseline budget as the sea service pivots its forces to the Pacific and grows to a 300-ship Navy. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said Wednesday at the Sea Air Space Expo that the budget allows the service to continue buying ships and furthering the Navy’s forward presence.

Overall, the President’s 2014 budget request for the Navy aims to shore up needed investment in key areas of technological capability and preserve a forward-leaning force posture for the service in support of the Pentagon’s broader strategy involving a pivot to the Pacific theater, service officials said.

The total obligation authority for the Navy’s budget request for the baseline budget is $155 billion, an amount which includes a wide range of areas to include modernization, operations and maintenance, personnel and construction.

A key thrust of the Navy’s budget priorities include not only investing in modernization and the development of next-generation technologies – but an interest in maintaining a strong forward global presence, Mulloy explained.

“Right now there are 27,000 deployed sailors along with 3,100 Marines. We also have 29,000 Navy personnel living forward and 26,000 Marine personnel living forward. We have 101 ships deployed including three aircraft carriers and four large deck amphibs. You can also see the 52 ships that are in the Pacific and about 30 ships in the Mid-East. This is our role as part of the national strategy,” Mulloy added.

Although the ongoing sequester continues to cause budget uncertainty for the Navy and challenge plans for certain maintenance, readiness and training activities, Congress’ recent passage of an FY 13 appropriations bill has improved the service’s overall budget outlook, service officials said.

The appropriations bill, passed by Congress in late March, funds the military for the rest of the year and ends the Continuing Resolution, a circumstance limiting service budgets to FY12-year budget amounts and preventing “new-start” acquisition programs as well as multi-year contracts.

“It solved about half of my O&M problem. I’m still sequestered a total of $4.5 billion but I’m not at an $8.6 billion deficit. With the CR and a sequester, the Navy was tremendously short in O&M [Operations & Maintenance]. Ship construction was broken under a CR,” said Rear Adm. Joseph Mulloy, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Budget.

In fact, the FY14 budget request doesn’t reflect the implementation of sequestration, said Navy spokeswoman Lt. Courtney Hillson.

“The budget submission is part of the president’s balanced deficit reduction plan. Should we be asked to resubmit the ‘14 budget and include sequestration, we remain flexible and ready to do so,” she said.

The president’s 2014 budget request includes $8.4 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter program and increases the expenditure on cyberspace operations over 2013 by boosting the request up to $4.7 billion from $3.9 million

The Navy will increase its electronic warfare capabilities with the acquisition of 21 new EA-18G Growler aircraft and a carrier-based electronic warfare variant of the F/A-18F Super Horne. The president’s budget request for Growler aircraft jumped by one-billion dollars compared to last year, going from $1 billion up to $2 billion.

“Between OSD and the Navy, there is a desire to grow the electronic jamming force and the Navy has picked that up essentially as a national force. This is a significant investment by the Secretary of Defense to say electronic jamming is important to the U.S. military and the projection of our airplanes,” Mulloy said.

The Growler funds will also include money for additional EA-18G Growler support ground squadrons, he said. The Navy flew EA-18Gs from Iraq to Aviano Air Base, Italy in 2011, and were instrumental in supporting NATO during the military operations and the enforcement of a no-fly-zone in Lybia, Mulloy added.

The Navy is also hoping to plus up funding for its Virginia-class submarines by increasing its $5.0 billion request in 2013 up to $5.4 billion in FY 2014.

The end of the CR means the Navy can now formally request budget authority to add two more Virginia-class submarines to the eight approved in last-year’s budget, through a multi-year contract, Navy spokeswoman Lt. Courtney Hillson said.

“We’re requesting authority for follow-on multi-year procurement for up to 10 submarines, beginning in fiscal year 15,” she added.

Other key Navy priorities in the FY 2014 budget request include $945 million to finance the design and construction of the John F. Kennedy  (CVN 79) as well as $588 million to build the Gerald. R. Ford (CVN 78).  Each of these carriers are part of what’s referred to as Ford-class carriers, a new variant of Navy carriers being engineered and developed with a host of next-generation capabilities, according to the Navy’s budget manual.

The FY14 request also includes $1.7 billion in advanced procurement funding for the Refueling Complex Overhaul (RCOH) ship repair and modernization efforts for the Abraham Lincoln, work which is slated to begin in March of this year, service officials explained.  The FY 14 request also allocates $246 million of advance procurement RCOH funding for the USS George Washington, work which is slated to begin in FY 2016.

As for delays and potential budget setbacks, Mulloy said funding for the Navy’s Broad Area Maritime Surveillance UAS program, a service effort to build and deliver a maritime variant of the Air Force’s Global Hawk, has been slightly delayed to allow time for additional design work and integration of the software and sensors.

“There are two technical issues causing a delay in testing. The Naval variant is designed to work with our P-8 and fly over the Pacific with a different set of sensors than the Air Force variant,” he added.

Tags: , , , ,

Join the Conversation

Your enemies will thank you for continuing the production of the “sardine can” …or LCS.

of the $155B for the Navy this the budget breakdown

-$100B goes to LCS “maintenance“
–20B goes to construction of 2 more LCS hulls (that doesn’t include the costs of it’s massive weapons suite which is $10B)
-$10B goes towards the F-35C
-$5B goes toward personal
-$3B goes toward the admiralty staff
-$1B goes towards fleet maintenance
-$1B goes toward diversity training
–and what left goes toward food
(this is sarcasm, ya know)

The deal was already struck on the LCS so we are stuck with the first 24. The recent story with the study in regards to the surface force offers a glimmer of hope the program is at the vest least going to be changed, with luck dumped altogether.

let’s hope the Navy gets wise and flushes the whole LCS fleet, followed closely by the F-35C

Even Everett Pyatt, one of Sean Stackley’s predecessors heading up Navy shipbuilding, said in this week’s Defense News that we needed to build a REAL frigate, one that can fight. Instead what we got was a $100 million per ship design that cost $500 million and still can’t fight pet rock. This is how, in the Navy’s case, they failed to lead, to make good decisions, to get the right mix of combat capability for the right price.

The only way to stop such stupid behavior is to simply take the money away from them. They only went down the LCS path because they had “money to burn.” And we can cancel the current contract at any time.

I’ll bet the Chinese know better than to build an expensive “target ship.”

Every thing that floats above the surface is known as a “target”. Ask anyone that ever loaded a torpedo tube.

And excellent point :-D

that’s true, but some targets have teeth, all the LCS has is “gums”

I say give the Navy all the money. Fold the Air Force, Coast Guard and Army into the Navy. Save several 100 Billion a year and have a better fighting force.

I’m sitting here looking at the picture posted with this article and noticed something that all you guy’s probably missed.The Ship was possibily in a starboard turn or due to badly maintained Sea flood Control Valves on the starboard side that the ship had a 2–3 degree starboard list.

spot on conrad, when was the last time u had an unanounced urine sample analized? Coast Guard excellent costal defense force, AF.….thats right.….its the air-sea battle doctrine.…a great stratg. if lets say Turkey invokes article IV of the Nato charter requir’in U.S. intervention, NK/SK border clashes hell just park a carrier off shore with a LHA around & hope the chinese don’t accidently fire a DF-21D, and then there’s the middle east, just a few marine fast teams & an a Aegis gots that covered, the covert COINOPS in mexico.…seals right.….Iran hell there be scared sheetless by the way where handlin’ the nk’s delaying a Min. Man III launch not to agitate Kim Ll Dung and then there’s those dam Iranians in Venezeula, agricultral assistance right? not building infrastructure for aL-Shabab’s now I finally figured out POTUS Obama’s Foreign Policy!!!! And then there’s SECSTATE Kerry, your “war hero”, why the long face john?

I second the motion on the REAL frigate

Perhaps what the Navy could do, to quickly bring up numbers, at lows costs, is to adapt the National Endurance cutter to Naval standards, put a 127mm on the front, SeaRam, 2 25mm auto mounts, and a rack of Harpoons, TACTAS, a helo, and call it a patrol frigate “PF”

Then the Navy could possibly take the Perry hull design, which by the way is a very sound hull and engineering plant, redesign the topside to include 127mm on the bow, a VLS in amidship with a mix of standard, ESSM, and ASROC, a rack of Harpoons, 2 25mm auto mounts, a SeaRam, sonar and TACTAS, 2 helos, nice radar and electronic and call that a Frigate “FF”

hey Leo, are you an old HT?

True. But then the same can be said for anyone who has ever fired a missile out of a VLS tube. But missiles don’t mean planes are dead. Even without stealth.

There are no more “one ship to rule them all” fleets. The age of a disciplined, organized, and varied mix of ships, planes, and subs.

Or the weight of the parked aircraft on the starboard side?

And yet there was no money in the budget to refurb FFG OHP Frigates (armed with actual missiles), let alone able to afford a new-build Frigate.

Let’s just say, one would not want to have to face an adversary allocated with a $150B Naval forces budget.

Anyhow, for the sake of thinking something outside the box… I’d propose that Congress should set up a contest for Universities to allocate funds for the Services. Award $500m to the winning University’s plan, $300m for runner-up, $100m for 2nd runner-up, and $50m for 3rd runner-up?

With respect to the USN’s appropriation… simply give an outline of how many personnel you wish to employ as a requirement and certain other national strategy requirements in terms of maintaining capability and deterrent… and then let the Universities go to work from there.

Stipulate that the winning plan will need to acquire/deploy the biggest capacity for fire power, reliability, economical and sustained capabilities… all for the least total cost (and Life Cycle Cost) — including Naval Air power capacity, stand –off strike munitions, High-altitude based, experimental, surface combatant force, submarine force capacity and support fleet, etc. Give a not-to-exceed-cap budget, but extra weight would be awarded to plans coming in under said cap.

Simply include some basic criteria such as various services to be provided to personnel and dependents and benefit to continued US Industrial innovative-technological advances and effective Industrial productivity/sustainment.

The plans would be judged by a panel of Joint Chiefs, DIA, Service Branch deputy secretaries, NSA, CBO, GAO and Congressional Armed-service members. Winning plan would be implemented per Congressional mandate?

Just a suggestion. Feel free to add to it, or take away.

The Navy should go back to designing their own ships and should not get another dime to spend until they do.

Awww hell a few cases of Rust-O-Leum and the Navy is ready to sally forth!

It’s been cash cowed for the other service needsfor over a decade but what the hell .…. Navy doesn’t go into harms way!

Oh they don’t because they are so good at their job no one stands up to them .… well nothing is forever!

that would be a good start (and Navy shipyards)

perhaps so, but China is the new taunting bully down the block calling out the US Navy for a fight, and sooner or later there will be a fight because you simply can’t ignore a bully who keeps saying he’s targeting you!

One must remember the US Navy is also responsible for the Marine Corps that are part of the Navy department. I would think due to the technically complicated mission ( Sea, Undersea, Air, Space, EOD SEALS, Seabees, nuclear deterrent subs, ballistic missile defense and the Marine Corps power projection on land) the Department of the Navy has would warrant the largest budget of the service branches.

Put down the wacky weed. What was the last ship built by a US Navy Shipyard? How about the last major ship (Carrier/Cruiser) ??
This is not a skill or industrial plant that can just be thrown together. Remember that Brooklyn Navy Yard, Philadeplphia, Charleston, Long Beach and Mare Island are gone.

I’m not in the military …

But on the face of it — your idea is about as dumb as Custer at Little Big Horn.

Zero Common Sense.

Hey Hank,
Tell all the Seabee’s and SEALS who have served in Iraq and Afganistan that got wounded or killed they weren’t in Harms way! Your a very uninformed person.

Like the part about the admiral staff/diversity training,sadly your not TOO far off though.

Anybody else get a $100 billion variance? 155 + 144 + 129 = 428, not 527

The Navy should at least design its own ships. It will force the service to think about what they really want, instead of having some guy huffing dry erase markers doodling on a board and committing “concepts” to Powerpoint for Huntington Ingalls to spend R&D money on.

The old Arthur W Radford DD-968 always had a 2–3 degree lean to Starboard when I was on her in the mid 1980’s.

The article stated “grows to a 300-ship Navy”. Does anyone else remember the Regan Administration goal of a 600 ship Navy? It makes me wonder if senior management has any kind of real long term planning?

My first ship, the USS FORRESTAL had a Service Life Extension Program rebuild for 550 million dollars starting in 1983. FID was supposed to be a fleet carrier for multiple decades but instead was decommissioned on 11 September 1993. This is an infuriating and poor return on investment. It also makes me wonder how often this kind of mismanagement is happeneing today.

I served on FID from 3 July 1971 to mid November 1973. It was a safe environment compared to my home life and a place I was proud to say I was from. I remember reading the Navy was going to waste those tens of thousands of tons of highly refined metals to creat an artificual reef. I’ve since read the Navy is trying to have FID broken up. Personally, I would rather shave with a razor blade made from FID’s metal than to think it was being wasted as an artificual reef.

Consider, if you will, just how much FID’s metal would be worth on the market today.

Careful Hawk…you can’t summarize all Navy personnel into non-combatants roles.
1) That budget includes the U.S. Marine Corps
2) There are active ground-pounding combat Sailors out there. More than you obviously know; they would be called Navy Corpsmen, Religious Program Specialist, Seabees, SEALS, EOD, Master at Arms, and Individuals Augmentees.
3) If you study your history, during the actual build up in Iraq there were more Navy boots on-ground, than any other branch.

I would agree that the Navy may be a “cash cow” but it’s only because they are the ONLY self-sustaining military force in the U.S. Next time, make sure you have a clue before commenting on something.

SEALS and Seabee’s are just the beginning of your list…


Look at the wake. She’s in a turn.

We should save a ton of $$$ and do a slep on the fbm fleet 2!

Ray you are a nut case! Please get some help.



NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.