Air Force, Navy Decry Year-Long CR: $18.7B Would Be Lost

WASHINGTON: Air Force Chief of Staff David Goldfein today presented a dire picture of the effects of an extended Continuing Resolution on Air Force programs in fiscal 2020. Goldfein’s litany of woe has been echoed by Navy leadership, who also are making their concerns known to Congress.

A year-long CR, Goldfein told the Air Force Association this morning, would result in a whopping $11.8 billion in lost buying power in 2020, and block all 88 new start programs now planned including development of the Joint Air-to-Ground Munition.

Colleague Mallory Shelbourne reported today that a Navy fact sheet says a one-year CR would result in a $5.9 billion deficit for the Navy’s shipbuilding account and a $1 billion deficit for its aircraft procurement account.

The assessment presented by Goldfein is the most detailed Air Force response to the looming threat that Congress won’t pass a 2020 defense appropriations bill — and perhaps not even a full National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) — this year.

A one-year CR would pitch the high priority Global Position System III Follow On (GPS IIIF) satellite development program into contract breach, according to Goldfein’s detailed paper obtained by Breaking D. Under the $7.2 billion 2018 contract, Lockheed Martin is to produce 22 GPS IIIF satellites to replace and improve the GPS III constellation, with first flight scheduled for 2026. The Air Force successfully launched the second GPS III satellite in August, finally cementing progress in the long-troubled program.

Goldfein’s paper breaks down the $11.8 billion, which represents the difference between 2019 spending enacted by Congress and the 2020 base level requested by the Pentagon, thusly:

• $4.7B Operations and Maintenance
• $4.5B Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
• $2.3B Military Personnel
• $0.4B Military Construction, and
• Procurement
  • $0.3B Missile
  • $0.2B Ammunition
  • $0.1B Space

House and Senate appropriators are at loggerheads over President Donald Trump’s shift of some $3.6 billion from military construction accounts to fund his southern border wall — even though the Senate has yet to pass its own version of the defense appropriations bill due to the same partisan split. The Senate tried to push a defense appropriations package through (along with those covering other departments such as Health and Human Services and Energy) at the end of October, but the effort crashed and burned.

Likewise, the two sides are polarized over House NDAA language to bar the president from shifting military funding to the wall, as well as restrictions on DoD nuclear modernization plans. House Armed Services Chairman Adam Smith has so far rejected a push by his Senate counterpart James Inhofe to pass a so-called “skinny NDAA.” This stripped-down version would authorize funds only for efforts required to keep DoD and the military functional, such as pay raises, but would not include any policy provisions. Since an authorizing bill’s entire purpose is to provide detailed congressional oversight, that would seem a bit of a dodge.

Add House impeachment proceedings into the mix, and you’ve got a perfect storm — meaning a year-long CR is more likely than not, as Breaking D readers knew before anyone else.

The current Continuing Resolution lasts until Nov. 21, one week before Thanksgiving.

HASC Ranking Member Mac Thornberry today, in an op-ed published by the Dallas Morning News, expressed his deep concern that a year-long CR is on the horizon. He wrote: “Every day under a CR damages our military and undermines the recent fragile progress of repairing and rebuilding it. If Congress and the White House do not change course soon, I am deeply concerned the Pentagon will find itself under a CR for a full year.”

But before everyone get’s too excited, DoD has never actually had to suffer a year-long CR, points out Todd Harrison, director of Defense Budget Analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

“Every year people start warning about what the effects of a full-year continuing resolution would be, yet DoD has never had a full year continuing resolution,” he said. “Talking about what would happen to the GPS III program if we had a full year CR is kind of like talking about what would happen if pigs could fly. I suppose it is possible it could happen, but it never has happened and it is unlikely it ever will.”

Harrison added: “We should instead be talking about what the impact of a 3-month or 6-month CR would be, because that may very well happen.”

The Air Force did its homework on a six-month CR and found it would delay 26 Air Force new start programs and seven production increases. Of most concern, the paper says, a half-year CR’s affects are:

Postpones F-15EX development and production ($1.1B) which may negatively impact Boeing’s aggressive pricing. Also means operating and sustaining aging F-15C fleet longer than planned, incurring added extensive maintenance actions due to structural health issues.

Reduces munitions procurement by 1,000 Joint Direct Attack Munition tail kits, 99 Sidewinder Air-to-Air Missiles and 665 Small Diameter Bomb II munitions, constraining industrial production capacities, delaying inventory buildup and forcing contract renegotiations.

Defers F-35 reliability and maintainability improvement projects ($188M). Deficiency corrections include Frameless Wingtip Lens and Leading Edge Flap Blade Seal. Correcting these impacts 31% of the fleet and will lead to a potential Mission Capability increase of 3.5%. (One assumes that means the six-month CR would then lead to a 3.5 percent decrease in readiness.)

As for the Navy, a six-month CR would would postpone the Navy’s ability to refuel its Nimitz-class, John Stennis (CVN-74 aircraft carrier, and its plan to buy one Virginia-class submarine. It also would stall the service’s planned buy  32 Advanced Helicopter Training System aircraft and five F-35C Joint Strike Fighters.