Drones, Helos and Ships Win in 2015 Budget

Drones, Helos and Ships Win in 2015 Budget

The U.S. Defense Department’s proposed budget for fiscal 2015 would significantly boost funding for certain types of drones, helicopters and ships.

The spending plan unveiled on March 4 calls for double-digit percentage increases in spending on a handful of acquisition programs for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, particularly for the Navy.

Here are the top five gainers and losers among programs slated to receive at least $1 billion on a year-over-year percentage basis, based on a Military​.com analysis of Pentagon budget documents:

Biggest gainers

1. RQ-4 Global Hawk, made by Northrop Grumman Corp.

The Air Force’s RQ-4 Global Hawk drone, also known as the MQ-4C Triton in the Navy and the Alliance Ground Surveillance system in NATO, would receive almost $1.1 billion, an increase of 43 percent from this year. The funding would support the development of Block 30 and Block 40 versions, ground stations and radar technology.

2. DDG-51 Aegis Destroyer, made by General Dynamics Corp. and Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc.

The Navy’s DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer — the first type of destroyer with ballistic missile defense technology — would get nearly $3.1 billion, a rise of 36 percent from this year. The money would buy two of the ships as part of a multi-year procurement for nine vessels. The funding would also help pay for ships starting construction in fiscal 2016.

3. MH-60R Seahawk, made by United Technologies Corp.‘s Sikorsky Aircraft

The Navy’s MH-60R Seahawk multi-mission helicopter would receive almost $1.1 billion, an increase of 32 percent from this year. The funding would help buy 29 helicopters as part of an ongoing multi-year procurement of the aircraft. It includes money for cockpits and avionics upgrades such as airborne low-frequency sonar.

4. CVN-78 Aircraft Carrier, made by Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc.

The Navy’s CVN-78 Ford-class nuclear aircraft carrier would get more than $2.1 billion, a boost of 26 percent from this year. The money would fund the third year of construction for the USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79), completion costs for the inaugural ship in the class, the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) and development of ship systems.

5. Ohio-class Submarine Replacement

The Navy’s program to develop a replacement for its Ohio-class nuclear submarines would receive nearly $1.3 billion, a 13 percent increase from this year. The money would fund the research and development of nuclear technologies and system for future ships. The service plans to begin building the ships in 2021.

Biggest losers

1. P-8A Poseidon, made by Boeing Co.

The Navy’s P-8A Poseidon surveillance aircraft would get about $2.4 billion, a 35 percent decrease from this year. The funding would purchase eight of the commercially derived jet aircraft — down from 16 in fiscal 2014 — as well as support equipment and spares. Some of the money would also be used to purchase aircraft in fiscal 2016.

2. C-130J Hercules, made by Lockheed Martin Corp.

The Air Force’s C-130J Hercules cargo plane would receive $1.4 billion, a 24 percent drop from this year. The money would buy 14 of the four-engine prop planes in fiscal 2015 as part of an multi-year procurement of the aircraft. The plane has been widely used for missions in Afghanistan, from troop transport to cargo delivery.

3. CH-47 Chinook, made by Boeing Co.

The Army’s CH-47 Chinook twin-rotor helicopter would get more than $1 billion, a 21 percent slide from this year. The funding would purchase a total of 32 choppers, including 6 new aircraft and 26 rebuilt versions as part of a service life-extension program. It will remain the service’s heavy-lift helicopter for decades to come.

4. Global Positioning System, made by Lockheed Martin Corp.

The Air Force’s Global Positioning System, or GPS, would receive more than $1 billion, a 16 percent decrease from this year. The funding would purchase another spacecraft, known as GPS III Satellite 9, and put some money toward the next version. The system provides military and civilian access to position, navigation and timing data.

5. Littoral Combat Ship, made by Lockheed Martin Corp. and Austal Ltd.

The Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship would get almost $2.1 billion, a 13 percent drop from this year. The funding would buy three of the high-speed surface ships and various mission modules. The service is buying two types of the ship in one acquisition effort, and the mission modules in another.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Join the Conversation

You see the Obama mind set here No good CAS planes less upgrades for current fighter fleet, no new F-22s. More on drones to be used against everyone and are less capable and carry far less ordinance and is a total joke in war against Russia or China. More JSF which is inferior to all cotemporary 5th gen and for most cases even 4th gen fighters. See our national security go down the sewer with this budget.

See why the Russians are laughing at us right now.

Well, we’re still losing, because we’ll still building more little crappy ships

I say stop the LCS madness and put those dollars into mid-refits for the Aeigis cruisers-we’re going to need them soon. A single Aegis cruiser is more powerful than all 32 LCS combined.

No money for F-22 ok. We should cancel the F-35 and reopen the F-15 and F-18 lines. Many more planes for the buck.

I wish we would just ditch the F-35 already.

F-16 line is still open. Buy a whole bunch of Block 60 type aircraft or develop a Block 70 if you want. They’d be 1/3 or 1/2 the cost of an F-35 and we know they actually work.

F-15E/K/SA line is still open. Order a bunch to replace the F-15C’s that’ll need it soon.

Keep ordering more F/A-18E/F’s.

This would save SO much money and we’d still have the best Air Force in the world by far for the next 2 decades

Hey everyone, let’s re-name our fav. programs to reflect their true natures

The LCS or Littoral Combat Ship is now the
“Little Crappy (piece of) S h i t”

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is now the
“F-35 Junk Stupid Fighter”

I notice the President got his new helicopters in the budget too.….….. More good news for Sikorsky, who just got handed an Air Force contract for a helicopter the service didn’t want or prioritize and are getting pretty much the same H-60s the USAF said weren’t up to the mission anyway.

I guess USMC V-22s will just have to continue to do that mission for the USAF until the NY/Conn Congressional delegation finally stops running DoD.

Frank: While no fan of POTUS Obama, the Navy will be gettin’ the CH-53J, the same Sea Stallion, but lighter, faster & a heavy payload thanks to composites. Sikorsky is in deed buildin’ it, but in Florida.….Sikorsky (part of United Technologies) laid off 300+ employee’s 2 months ago, the only thing that will be left in CT is design & support services…just an fyi…peace

Interesting, not a single positive comment.….

The ORP gettin’ more $$$??? The Navy put more money in the budget for what is supposed to be a fixed rate (6 billion/ship) program.….its not off the drawing board & more $$$ is going to Gen Dyn/EB Div? What’s up with that!!!!!

In two decades you’re looking at threat aircraft like the T-50, J-20, and J-21. Where is our counterpart? Upgrades of ‘70s era designs aren’t going to cut it.

F-15s and F/A-18s don’t cut it. Some people seem to have a hard time understanding that in the future those designs will be outclassed by the competition. That’s the entire reason the ATF (F-22) and JSF (F-35) programs came into existence.

I have not seen the drone in action and I have some reservations as to what payload it can drop on a target for boots on the ground support. I have been on the ground when the c130 cut loose with that rotary and cannon now that was impressive and stopped the advance of the oncoming. for a boots on the ground the c130 would be really nice to be able to call lots of them up. I am really glad we got the things we did get. I will not be boots on the ground again but like to see them get as much as possible.

William, by the time the F-35 is fully operatonal, China and Russia will have Gen 6.5 birds in the air

Actually the biggest losers in this budget would be the troops, families, and retirees once again. I really do miss the days when we had a SecDef that actually fought FOR the troops instead of throwing them under the bus at the command of the White House.

And neither will a money sucking project that can’t even meet 50% of its intended performance goals and is running 7 years behind schedule.

HUAH!!!!!! EXACTLY!!!!!

You’re worried about Chinese aircraft? Really? They’re pieces of junk, even worse than the F-35. Let’s keep things real and not in fantasy land.

Really? And how many of these planes are in existence in combat squadrons? Oh wait none that’s right and they certainly won’t be in any significant numbers that would pose the threat you seem to think they have.

After working 30 years total for Sikorsky on the Blackhawk and the CH53 in 1975, and Avco/Textron Lycoming/Allied Signal in the 70’s 80’s and 90’s building the AGT 1500 M1 Tank engine and my “baby” the TF40 B for the LCAC hovercraft, let me say this.
The Problem is the “WASTE, FRUAD., ABUSE and COST OVERUNS. Also the pressure to “get the engines out the door”. We constantly fought with management over questionable parts and they tried to fire me because a bunch of us complained about quality issues. One month we shipped 110 gas turbine tank engines to the Army alone. 3 shifts, 7 days a week. mandatory overtime. In my humble opinion the F35 is a classic case. Get in out the door, ready or not, pass go, cash the check, we’ll fix it later. And we were small change compared to the big boys, Lockheed, GD.ect. I’m interested in hearing from other guys who have seen this also.

I wasn’t aware the Navy was getting another MH-53 variant. I heard the Navy were divesting themselves of the 53?

Why doesn’t the president just fly what the FMF USMC flies, a V-22? I saw that the Presidential unit flies them as support aircraft anyway, surely the USMC can convert a couple rather than buy a whole NEW PRES. helicopter at a time when all the services are cutting?

The Global Hawk is an ISR platform. Not (suppose to be) a “Hunter Killer”. It’s purpose is that similar to a spy sattelite of sorts. High altitude, multiple sensor payloads, and able to be modded for the mission. It may walk an AC-130 on target, but it ain’t competing for it’s job… Google it.

Don’t have time for creating a new list.

LCS: Lost Cause Ship

F-35: Joint Systemic Failure

Even better, let’s shut down the F-15 and F-18 lines and reopen the P-51 lines. Many more planes for the buck. (Yes, your comment is that dumb.)

There’s this little thing called “training”. If you don’t think those F-35s are performing an extremely valuable mission might I suggest you have no business posting on a military forum?

he did exactly that. you know he interviewed with his boss before he was recommended for the position sooo you know who is behind this. everyone has a boss and puppets must do what the strings tell it to do

B-D: Big Dumba$$.

can’t ditch it we are in to far. we could do the cutting labor thing by getting rid of the O-6 and above. everyone of those we got rid of could buy part of a new aircraft, after a few are gone we could get our free plane.


You can thank your union.

He is just a Lap Dog to do the bidding of the Clown in Chief of Weaking the US so we can have a Red Dawn type of event. If this happens before 2016 we the people should demand his and all the Generals resignations for failing to Provide for the Common Defense as specified in the Constitution which they swore to do

The F-15 and F-18 lines are STILL open, never closed. Why do you think they closed?
http://​www​.boeing​.com/​b​o​e​i​n​g​/​d​e​f​e​n​s​e​-​s​p​a​c​e​/​m​i​l​itahttp://​www​.boeing​.com/​b​o​e​i​n​g​/​d​e​f​e​n​s​e​-​s​p​a​c​e​/​m​i​l​ita…? http://​www​.boeing​.com/​b​o​e​i​n​g​/​d​e​f​e​n​s​e​-​s​p​a​c​e​/​m​i​l​ita

Why do you say we should cancel the F-35 program? Wouldn’t that be losing billions of dollars, and hundreds of thousands of man-hours for nothing to show?

It’s never wise to underestimate the threat. In the past two decades we’ve seen China jump from cheap MiG-21 clones, to clones of the capable Flanker series, to somewhat indigenous designs incorporating stealth features. It doesn’t matter how much of their work is stolen and how much is their own, they certainly don’t care, they’ll build it and use it anyway.

We have the clear advantage in stealth, avionics, engines, and in the weapons our aircraft use. Of course that stealth advantage isn’t there when you’re producing F-16s instead of F-22s or F-35s. The gap in avionics, engines, and weapons isn’t as great as it used to be either. China will catch up to what modernized F-15s and F-16s can quickly enough. As for the Russians, their latest Flanker and Fulcrum variants are on the same level already.

The F-35 has its flaws for sure, but the avionics suite planned for the aircraft provides a genuine leap over whats currently in service. If you want to incorporate that same level of sensor fusion, networking and electronic warfare capabilities into the F-15 and F-16 you’re probably going to have to redesign a lot of the aircraft. And at that point why the hell aren’t you just building a new aircraft? Integrating all of those features is also the primary reason why the F-35 is taking so long. Yet the work has to be done in one program or another.

Somehow I am not comforted by your assurance that Russia and China will stop developing these prototypes, will not build any production models, and will stop any other programs for new or modernized aircraft they have planned.

You do realize we’re looking at the long term right? Hence the continuation of the F-35 despite the problems it has faced and the risks and cost involved.

Yes and exactly how many of those Flankers do they have? 200 maybe? We have 3,000 F-16’s and over 400 F-15’s. What threat do they pose to us? Oh wait they don’t. And if they DO decide to get out of line we can bring in the F-22’s that we already have.

The F-35 “stealth” capabilities are mute at this point because it’s already been proven that it can’t carry much ordinance internally (2 bombs I believe), which means hanging weapons on the wings, which means no more stealth. So now the F-35 is just a $175 million poor manuevering bomb truck. Which is dumb when we can have $50 million F-16’s that can actually manuever and carry more bombs on their wings.

If you read the papers back in the 70’s they were saying the EXACT same things abut the F-14 and F-18 programs. If you took everythign to heart you’d never think either one of those aircraft would ever be ready for combat. The only difference with the F-35 is that everything is MUCH more expensive.

OK, let’s be logical here VT.…I’m not sure about the internal storage, but if it’s only two to maintain it’s strealth, that would be fine for a bombing mission. As a fighter, it can carry external ordinance like Sidewinders and AMRAAM, but not be stealthy. If you’re ina dogfight, no need to be stealthy.…I’m not defending it, but there are reasons for differnt load-outs.

Ok but if you’re going to be hanging ordnance under the wing anyway whats the point of spending $170 million per copy on a “stealth” aircraft?? Especially since the F-35 can’t carry as much externally as an F-16 or F-15E and it’s less manueverable than these as well.

If all you’re going to do is drop 2 bombs I’m sure theres a way to strap them to an F-22 in stead of spending $800 billion on the F-35. Otherwise lets update the engines and software in the F-16’s, F-15’s and F/A-18’s and produce a whole bunch of them and start on a 5th generation fighter that can do something useful.

NO! You can thank the GREEDY Military Industrial Complex and their minions in D.C..

Acquisition 101. What to do with a failed program, with costs spiraling out of controls:
A. Descope (delete requirements)
B. Add additional Funding
C. Kill

The last choice is often the correct answer. Sunk cost is just that: sunk cost. You can’t think that throwing money at a program that is in trouble will get you anything other than a program that costs a lot more that is still in trouble.

I agree. Its somewhat amazing that so many people want to tramp on this airplane, when first off, they are not even 1/2 done with testing yet. 2. There has been no deployment of them, 3. Looking at new planes over the past 20 years, it takes a good 6–10 yrs to get operational once the prototype has been accepted, and finally ( that I can think of :-) who really knows what the full capabilities of this warplane are.?

I mean, I understand that our military buys some bo bo’s every once in awhile, or wastes money on systems we do not need. But if you examine one of the main reasons we have been successful in warfare ( at least winning the battles and the initial war-after that is a diff. story, hahahah ) it has been because of our consistant ability to maintain air superiority. This means we need to be 10–15 years ahead of the curve to keep this momentum going. Think of Gulf War I, the ground war ended in 4 days due to a month worth of air bombardment and ground pounding due to owning the air. And the CAS from A-10’s and such, was only because of this also. Think about how much these inexpensive planes benefitted our ability to kill their armor and demoralize their troops. Even in Afgan. today, I think the Taliwaggers would LOVE to see the A10 be no more. :-)

It is still difficult for me to wrap my head around a $400 billion buy of these things.!! I mean, I think we need the airplane, but, I really do not see how it is going to replace like.…4 or 5 planes we use now. There is NO WAY this can substitute for an A10 for CAS, but, to replace the F16, which is a big number aircraft program, I can see maybe 1/2 of this purchase. I can think of many other things the $200 billion saved could be spent on also.

Even worse than the F35, Hmmmmmmm.….that is a interesting statement.

No my comment is not dumb. The 15’s and 16’s are still the best fighter aircraft fielded by any air force. Nice try

The biggest losers in the 2015 budget happen to be the men, women and families, both active and retired.

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