Defense: FY2011 Authorization and
Appropriations
Pat Towell, Coordinator
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
May 25, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41254
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
Summary
The President’s FY2011 budget request, released February 1, 2010, included $733.3 billion in
new budget authority for national defense. In addition to $548.9 billion for the regular (non-war)
operations of the Department of Defense (DOD), the request included $159.3 billion for ongoing
military operations, primarily funding the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, bringing the total
DOD request for FY2011 to $708.3 billion. The balance of the request is $25.1 billion for
defense-related activities by agencies other than DOD, the largest component of which was $17.8
billion for Energy Department programs related to either nuclear weapons or nuclear power
plants for Navy ships.
The President also requested supplemental appropriations for FY2010 totaling $33.6 billion. This
included $33.0 billion for war costs and $655 million to pay DOD’s share of the cost of
humanitarian relief operations in Haiti, which was struck on January 12, 2010 by a devastating
earthquake.
The $548.9 billion requested for DOD’s so-called “base budget” – that is, all activities other than
those associated with ongoing combat operations – is $18.2 billion higher than the amount
appropriated for DOD non-war costs in FY2010. By DOD’s estimate, this 3.4% increase would
amount to a “real” increase of 1.8% in “purchasing power, after taking into account the cost of
inflation.
The budget request would continue the Administration’s policy of expanding the proportion of
DOD’s budget invested in capabilities oriented toward counterinsurgency and other
unconventional types of combat, including helicopters, special operations forces, and unmanned
vehicles. The budget includes no funding to continue production of the C-17 cargo plane or to
continue development of the F-136 alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, two
programs Congress has funded in recent years over the objections of the Bush and Obama
Administrations.
The House Armed Services Committee began formal legislative action on the FY2011 defense
budget request, approving on May 19, 2010 H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act
for FY2011. As reported by the committee (H.Rept. 111-491), the bill would authorize $725.9
billion for DOD and other defense-related activities, a reduction of $2.7 million from the
Administration’s request for programs covered by that legislation.
The bill would add to the budget $485 million to continue development of the alternate engine for
the Joint Strike Fighter, despite warnings by Defense Secretary Robert H. Gates that he would
recommend a veto of any bill that would continue that project. The committee bill included no
funds for the procurement of additional C-17s.
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
Contents
Most Recent Developments......................................................................................................... 1
FY2011 Defense Budget Overview ............................................................................................. 2
Real Growth and ‘Security Agencies’ .................................................................................... 3
War Costs, FY2011 and FY2010 ........................................................................................... 4
National Defense Budget Function (Function 050) ................................................................ 5
FY2011 DOD Base Budget ......................................................................................................... 6
Projected Real Growth .......................................................................................................... 7
Defense Budget as Share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ................................................. 9
Long-term Planning: Strategies and Budgets ............................................................................. 11
Strategic Direction .............................................................................................................. 11
Impending Budget Crunch .................................................................................................. 12
FY2011 Base Budget Highlights and Potential Issues ................................................................ 13
Military Personnel............................................................................................................... 14
Military Pay Raise ........................................................................................................ 15
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell .................................................................................................... 16
Military Health Care Costs.................................................................................................. 17
Procurement and R&D........................................................................................................ 18
Army Combat Force Modernization Programs .............................................................. 18
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans ................................................................ 19
Aircraft Programs ......................................................................................................... 21
Military Construction .......................................................................................................... 24
Aircraft Carrier Homeport............................................................................................. 24
Marine Corps Relocation to Guam ................................................................................ 25
Bill-by-Bill Synopsis of Congressional Action to Date .............................................................. 26
FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5136).................................................... 26
Military Personnel Issues .............................................................................................. 27
Medical Care ................................................................................................................ 28
Ballistic Missile Defense and Strategic Weapons ........................................................... 29
Shipbuilding ................................................................................................................. 30
Aircraft ......................................................................................................................... 32
Ground Combat Systems............................................................................................... 33
Military Construction: Carrier Homeport and Guam...................................................... 33
Guantanamo Bay Detainee Issues.................................................................................. 34
Figures
Figure 1. Total DOD Appropriations, FY2001-FY2011 ............................................................... 6
Figure 2. DOD Budget (Excluding Post-9/11 War Costs), FY1948-FY2011................................. 7
Figure 3. Proposed Spending Categories Relevant to a Budget ‘Freeze’....................................... 9
Figure 4. DOD Appropriations as Share of GDP, FY1976-2015................................................. 10
Figure 5. Active Duty End-strength, FY1987-FY2011 ............................................................... 15
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
Tables
Table 1. FY2009-11 DOD Discretionary Appropriations.............................................................. 2
Table 2. Security Agency and Non-security Agency Discretionary Budget Authority
Enacted and Requested, FY2009-FY2011 ................................................................................ 4
Table 3. DOD War Funding, FY2001-FY2011 Request ............................................................... 5
Table 4. Projected and Alternative DOD Base Budgets, FY2011-FY2015 .................................... 8
Table 5. Defense Outlays as Share of GDP, FY2008-11 ............................................................. 10
Table 6. DOD Base Budget Discretionary Funding Request by Title. FY2010-FY2011.............. 14
Table 7. FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5136) ............................................ 26
Table A-1. Congressional Action on Selected FY2011 Missile Defense Funding:
Authorization......................................................................................................................... 35
Appendixes
Appendix. Selected Program Summary Tables........................................................................... 35
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 43
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
The House Armed Services Committee approved on May 19, 2010 H.R. 5136, a bill that would
authorize $725.9 billion in FY2011 discretionary budget authority for national defense programs
within the jurisdiction of that panel, which is $2.7 million less than President Obama requested
for those programs. The House is scheduled to take up the defense authorization bill on May 28.
Of the total authorized by the bill, $566.6 billion—$2.2 million less than requested—was for the
so-called “base budget” of the Department of Defense (DOD), that is, the regular annual
operating costs excluding costs associated with of ongoing military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The bill also would authorize $159.3 billion for war costs (labeled “overseas
contingency operations”) cutting a total of $432,000 from the President’s request. In addition, the
bill would authorize $17.7 billion, as requested, for defense-related nuclear energy programs
conducted by the Department of Energy. The bill also would authorize $33.7 billion, as requested,
in supplemental FY2010 appropriations for war costs.
As reported by the House Armed Services Committee on May 24, 2010 (H.Rept. 111-491), the
defense authorization bill generally supports the Administration’s budget request. However, the
committee challenged the Administration’s position on several major issues:
• It approved a 1.9% military pay raise, instead of the 1.4% increase requested.
• It authorized $485 million to continue developing an alternate jet engine for the
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a project the Bush and Obama Administrations both
have tried to terminate.
• It barred the use of any funds authorized by the bill to plan and design structures
at the Naval Station in Mayport, Florida,—near Jacksonville – that would allow
the Navy to homeport at that site a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier currently
based in Norfolk, Virginia.
• It included a provision that would prohibit the transfer to U.S. territory of any
detainee currently held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The House committee concurred with the Administration on one other contentious issue: It did
not add to the bill authorization for funds to continue procurement of C-17 long-range cargo jets,
as Congress has done in prior years over the objections of the Bush and Obama Administrations.
The House committee bill authorized $10.9 billion to continue development of the F-35 and
procure 42 of the planes. It did not authorize one additional plane ($205 million) which the
Administration requested as part of the FY2011 war costs on grounds that the plane would
replace a fighter that had been lost during combat operations.
The House is scheduled to take up on May 28, 2010 the defense authorization bill approved May
19 by the Armed Services committee For highlights of the bill, see “National Defense
Authorization Act,” below.
The Senate Armed Services Committee is scheduled to mark up its version of the FY2011 defense
authorization bill during the week of May 24, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
1
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
FY2011 Defense Budget Overview
The President’s FY2011 budget request, released February 1, 2010, included $733.3 billion in
new budget authority for national defense. In addition to $548.9 billion for the regular (non-war)
operations of the Department of Defense (DOD), the request included $159.3 billion for ongoing
military operations, primarily funding the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, bringing the total
DOD request for FY2011 to $708.3 billion (Table 1). The request included an additional $25.1
billion for defense-related activities by agencies other than DOD, the largest component of which
was $17.8 billion for Energy Department programs related to either nuclear weapons or nuclear
powerplants for Navy ships.
The FY2011 budget for DOD also includes $5 billion in mandatory spending for those military
retirees who are authorized to receive “concurrent receipt” of their full military pension and a
disability pension from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The cost of this and other mandatory
spending is partly offset by various receipts and income from trust funds, which reduce to $3.9
billion the net budgetary impact of mandatory spending by DOD in FY2011. Including both
discretionary and mandatory spending, the Administration’s total DOD budget request for
FY2011 is $552.8 billion.
The Administration also requested $33 billion in supplemental DOD appropriations for FY2010
war costs, in order to cover the cost of the President’s decision, announced on November 30,
2009, to deploy an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. This “surge” would bring to 98,000
the total number of U.S. troops in that country at the end of FY2011. Added to the funds
previously appropriated for war costs in the FY2010 DOD appropriations bill enacted December
19, 2009 (H.R. 3326/P.L. 111-118), the requested supplemental funds would bring the total
amount appropriated for FY2010 war costs to $162.6 billion.
Table 1. FY2009-11 DOD Discretionary Appropriations
(amounts in billions of dollars)
FY2010
FY2009
FY2010
Supplemental
FY2011
Enacted
Enacted
Request
Requested
Base Budget
513.1
530.7
n/a
548.9
“Economic
Stimulus”
package
7.4 n/a n/a n/a
War Costs/Overseas
Contingency Operations
145.8 129.6 33.0 159.3
Haiti Relief Operations
n/a
n/a
.6
n/a
Total 666.3
660.3
33.6
708.3
Sources: CRS calculations based on National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2011 (“The Green Book”). Office of
the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller), March 2010, Table1-9, “National Defense Budget Authority-
Function 050,” pp. 14-15 and CRS Report R40531, FY2009 Spring Supplemental Appropriations for Overseas
Contingency Operations, coordinated by Stephen Daggett and Susan B. Epstein, Table F-1, pp. 62-72. Totals may
not add due to rounding.
Note: Base budget amounts Include accrual payments to support medical care for military retirees under the so-
cal ed Tricare-for-Life program, which is funded pursuant to a permanent appropriation.
Congressional Research Service
2
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
The FY2011 base budget request would support roughly the same size active-duty force as the
FY2010 budget: an end-strength of 1.4 million active duty personnel plus 79,000 reserve
component and National Guard members serving on active duty.
The FY2011 war cost budget request would support an additional 26,000 personnel constituting
what DOD treats as a temporary expansion of the force to fill billets associated with operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan. So the total number of military personnel the budget request would support
on active duty by the end of FY2011 is 1.5 million.
The request also would continue the Administration’s policy of expanding the share of the DOD
budget invested in capabilities oriented toward counterinsurgency and other unconventional types
of combat, including helicopters, special operations forces, and unmanned vehicles. The budget
includes no funding to continue production of the C-17 cargo plane, or to continue development
of the F-136 alternate engine for the F-35 joint strike fighter, two programs Congress has funded
in recent years over the objections of the Bush and Obama Administrations.
Real Growth and ‘Security Agencies’
Compared with the amount appropriated for the DOD base budget in FY2010, the requested
FY2011 base budget would be an increase of 3.4%, amounting to a 1.8% “real growth” in
purchasing power (that is, taking account of the cost of inflation).
DOD is one of the federal agencies the Administration has defined as “security agencies” that are
exempt from the budget freeze on discretionary spending by non-security agencies. The budget
request also would provide real growth in spending for other “security agencies” – a category that
it defined as including the Department of State and “other international programs,” the
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security and the National Nuclear Security
Agency (NNSA) of the Department of Energy.1 (Table 2)
1 For the Energy Department’s Nuclear National Security Agency (NNSA), which was designated as a “security
agency” and, thus, exempt from its budget freeze, the Administration requested $11.2 billion in FY2011, 13.5% more
than was appropriated for the agency in FY2010. However, the administration also requested $6.5 billion for other
defense-related Energy Department activities which OMB designates as part of the “National Security” function of the
budget (Function 050) and which are covered by the annual National Defense Authorization Act, but which the
Administration did not designate as “security agencies” that were exempt from the budget freeze. Office of
Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Table 5.1, “Budget
Authority by Function and Subfunction, 1976-2015,” p. 94, and Department of Energy, “Summary Table: Budget by
Appropriation,” accessed at http://www.mbe.doe.gov/budget/11budget/Content/Apprsum.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 2. Security Agency and Non-security Agency Discretionary Budget Authority
Enacted and Requested, FY2009-FY2011
amounts are in billions of dollars
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
enacted
enacted
requested
American
Recovery and
Reinvestment
Act
regular
(“Stimulus
appropriations
Package”)
Security Agencies
DOD 513.2
7.4
530.8
548.9
National Nuclear Security Administration
9.1 --
9.9
11.2
(Department of Energy)
Department of Homeland Security
42.1
2.8
39.4
43.6
Department of Veterans Affairs
47.6
1.4
53.1
57.0
State and other International Programs
38.1
0.4
50.6
58.5
Subtotal, Security Agencies
650.1
12.0
683.7
719.2
Subtotal, Nonsecurity Agencies
354.1
253.1
392.1
386.4
Source: Office of Management and Budget, The Budget for Fiscal Year 2011, Table S-7, “Funding Levels for
Appropriated (“Discretionary”) Programs by Agency,” pp. 130-31.
Note: Nonsecurity Agencies are all federal agencies not listed as “Security Agencies.”
In sum, the Administration requested $719.2 billion for discretionary programs of the security
agencies (excluding war costs), which is 5.2% more than was appropriated for those programs in
FY2010. For non-security agencies – that is, all other discretionary programs – the
Administration requested $386.4 billion, a 1.5% decrease from their FY2010 appropriations.
War Costs, FY2011 and FY2010
The Administration’s $159.3 billion request for war costs in FY2011 is roughly $3 billion lower
than the FY2010 war budget (including the pending supplemental request that would increase the
FY2010 amount by $33 billion). For the third year in a row, the budget request reflects a shift in
emphasis from operations in Iraq to those in Afghanistan. (Table 3)
Congressional Research Service
4
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 3. DOD War Funding, FY2001-FY2011 Request
In billions of dollars and shares of total
Total:
FY2010
FY2010
FY2001-
FY2010
Supplemental
Total with
FY2011
FY2008 FY2009 Enacted
Request
Request
Request
IRAQ
Funding $553.5
$92.0
$59.6
$1.0 $60.6
$45.8
Share
of
Total
78% 62% 46% 3%
38% 29%
AFGHANISTAN
Funding $159.2
$56.1
$69.1
$30.0
$99.1
$113.5
Share
of
Total
22% 38% 54% 97% 62% 71%
TOTAL
Funding
$712.7 $148.2 $128.7 $31.0
$159.7 $159.3
Share
of
Total
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: CRS Report R41232, FY2010 Supplemental for Wars, Disaster Assistance, Haiti Relief, and Court Cases,
coordinated by Amy Belasco, based on Table 8-5 in DOD, FY2011 Budget Request Overview, Febraury 1, 2010;
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2011/FY2011_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf.
Notes: CRS calculations exclude non-war funding in supplementals, and include funds from DOD’s regular
budget used for war needs.
Haiti Operations Supplemental
On March 24, 2010, the Administration amended its FY2010 DOD supplemental funding request
to include an additional $655 million to pay for humanitarian relief operations in Haiti, which was
struck on January 12, 2010 by a devastating earthquake. The DOD relief effort included the
deployment of 18 Navy ships, 830 cargo flights and nearly 21,000 military personnel.
National Defense Budget Function (Function 050)
In addition to the total of $708 billion requested to cover DOD base budget and war costs in
FY2011, the Administration requested a total of $25.1 billion in discretionary funding for other
defense-related activities which, together with DOD, comprise the “national defense function” of
the federal budget (designated as “function 050”).2
More than 70% of the additional funds ($17.8 billion) are for Energy Department programs
dealing either with nuclear weapons or with nuclear powerplants for warships. Of the remaining
defense-related funds ($7.3 billion), the lion’s share ($4.7 billion) is for national security-related
activities of the FBI. The Administration’s total FY2011 discretionary funding request for budget
function 050 is $738.7 billion.
2 The Administration has not explained why the set of agencies and activities encompassed by the 050 budget function
is slightly different from the set of agencies and activities encompassed by the Administration’s definition of “security
agencies.”
Congressional Research Service
5
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
War Funding
For an analysis of some issues raised by the Administration’s funding request for military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan and for congressional action on the FY2010 supplemental appropriations request for war costs, see CRS
Report R41232, FY2010 Supplemental for Wars, Disaster Assistance, Haiti Relief, and Court Cases, coordinated by Amy
Belasco. For further information on war costs, see CRS Report RL33110, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global
War on Terror Operations Since 9/11, by Amy Belasco.
FY2011 DOD Base Budget
The President’s $708.2 billion DOD budget request for FY2011 is $14.9 billion higher than the
department’s total FY2010 budget, if Congress approves the $33.0 billion supplemental funding
request for FY2010 (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Total DOD Appropriations, FY2001-FY2011
(dollars in billions)
Source: DOD; Briefing on the FY2011 Budget Request, February 2010, accessed at:
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2011/fy2011_BudgetBriefing.pdf
The $548.9 billion requested for the DOD base budget is $18.2 billion higher than the $531.0
billion appropriated for DOD non-war costs in FY2010. By DOD’s estimate, this 3.4% increase
would provide a 1.8% increase in real purchasing power, after taking into account the cost of
inflation. The request would continue the relatively steady upward trend in DOD base budgets
since FY1998, which was the low-water mark of the post-Cold War retrenchment in defense
funding.
Congressional Research Service
6
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
Adjusted for inflation (using DOD deflators), the requested FY2011 base budget would be DOD’s
third largest since the end of the Korean War, after the amounts appropriated for FY1985 and
FY1986, at the peak of the Reagan Administration’s defense buildup (Figure 2).
Figure 2. DOD Budget (Excluding Post-9/11 War Costs), FY1948-FY2011
amounts in millions of dollars
Source: Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller), National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2011
(“The Green Book”), Table 6-8, “Department of Defense BA by Title,” pp. 109-114. Data for FY2001-FY2011
from CRS analysis based on distinction between base budget and war costs for those years in DOD; Briefing on
the FY2011 Budget Request, February 2010 (see Figure 1, above).
Notes: Data for FY2010 and FY2011 based on Administration’s February 2010 budget request. Data for the
FY1976 transition quarter are omitted.
Projected Real Growth
For the four years following FY2011 (FY2012-FY2015), the Administration projects annual
increases in the DOD base budget that would exceed inflation, on average, by 0.8%. This falls
short of the 2% real growth rate that Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, in congressional
testimony on May 14, 2009, would be needed to pay for the investments the Department planned
to make through FY20153 (Table 4).
On February 1, 2010, in response to a reporter’s question about the difference between Secretary
Gates’s earlier statement and the real growth in the FY2011 request, DOD Comptroller Robert
3Transcript, Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the FY2010 DOD budget request, May 14, 2009. Accessed
at
http://www.cq.com/display.do?dockey=/cqonline/prod/data/docs/html/transcripts/congressional/111/congressionaltrans
cripts111-000003117540.html@committees&metapub=CQ-CONGTRANSCRIPTS&searchIndex=1&seqNum=1.
Congressional Research Service
7
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
Hale said that DOD could live with a lower growth rate for the time being as one element of the
Administration’s deficit reduction effort. But Hale intimated that,
We can accommodate 1% annual growth in the short-term and still maintain the current
forces, and we're doing it, frankly, to try to be mindful of a serious economic problem and
make our contribution to that by holding down our growth....In the longer run, I think we'll
have to look at it again.4
Table 4. Projected and Alternative DOD Base Budgets, FY2011-FY2015
(total budget authority, including mandatory. in billions of dollars)
FY2011-
FY2015,
FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
total
Administration Plan (current dol ars)
552.8
570.1
585.7
601.8
620.2
2,930.6
Administration Plan (constant FY2011
dollars)
552.8 558.8 562.7 566.3 571.5 2,812.1
percent
real
growth
1.8% 1.1% 0.7% 0.6% 0.9%
n/a
Amount that would provide 2% real
growth, compounded (current dol ars)
553.9 576.4 600.0 624.6 650.7 3,005.6
Amount by which 2% real growth budget
would exceed Administration Plan
1.1 6.3 14.3 22.8 30.5 75.0
(current dol ars)
Source: Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller), National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2011
(“The Green Book”), Table 6-8, “Department of Defense BA by Title,” p. 114. Data concerning 2% real growth
rate are CRS calculations based on data in Table 6-8. Figures may not add due to rounding.
Some members of Congress contend that the Administration’s projected real budget increases,
even if realized, would be inadequate, given the steadily rising cost of personnel and operations.
For example, Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, the ranking minority member of the House
Armed Services Committee, warned in a Feb. 4, 2010, Heritage Foundation lecture that the
planned budgets would force DOD to scale back some planned acquisition programs:
One percent real growth in the defense budget over the next five years is a net cut for
investment and procurement accounts. 5
On the other hand, some members object to exempting DOD (and other “security agencies”) from
the Administration-imposed budget freeze on discretionary spending (Figure 3). For example,
Rep. Barney Frank has called for reductions in the DOD budget based on the termination of
unnecessary weapons programs and a retrenchment from some of the overseas military
commitments that DOD cites as justifying its current budget level:
[President Obama’s] announcement that he is going to begin deficit reduction, while
exempting the ever-increasing military budget from the same scrutiny that goes to other
4 Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), NewsTranscript, “DoD News Briefing with
Undersecretary Hale and Vice Admiral Stanley,” February 1, 2010, accessed at:
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4551.
5 Hon. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, “Building a Robust National Defense,” accessed at
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/Building-a-Robust-National-Defense.
Congressional Research Service
8
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
federal expenditures means either that deficit reduction in both the near and long term is
doomed to failure, or that devastating cuts will occur in virtually every federal program that
aims at improving the quality of our lives.6
Figure 3. Proposed Spending Categories Relevant to a Budget ‘Freeze’
amounts in billions of current dollars
Source: Office of Management and Budget, The Budget for Fiscal Year 2011. Data for Security Agencies
(excluding war costs) and Non-Security Agencies drawn from Table S-11, “Funding Levels for Appropriated
(“Discretionary”) Programs by Agency,” p. 174. Data for Mandatory Spending and Net Interest drawn from
Table
Notes: Besides DOD, the Obama Administration defines as “security agencies” the fol owing: the Department
of Homeland Security, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of State “and other international
programs,” and the National Nuclear Security Administration within the Department of Energy. Ibid.,Table S-11,
“Funding Levels for Appropriated (“Discretionary”) Programs by Agency,” p. 174.
Defense Budget as Share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
The FY2011 DOD base budget request amounts to 3.6% of the GDP, by the Administration’s
calculations – the same percentage as the FY2010 base budget. (Table 5)
6 Rep. Barney Frank, "You Can't Succeed at Deficit Reduction Without Really Trying," Congressional Record, daily
edition, February 4, 2010, p. E157.http://www.house.gov/frank/speeches/2010/02-02-10-deficit-reduction-military-
speech.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
9
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 5. Defense Outlays as Share of GDP, FY2008-11
2008
2009
2010
2011
DOD Base Budget
(without war costs)
3.3% 3.5% 3.6% 3.6%
DOD Total Budget
4.1%
4.5%
4.7%
4.7%
Source: Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller), National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2011
(“The Green Book”), Table 7-7, “Defense Shares of Economic and Budgetary Aggregates,” pp. 223-24, and Office
of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller), Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request, briefing slides accessed at
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2011/fy2011_BudgetBriefing.pdf.
Viewed over the long haul, the FY2011 request would mark the leveling off of a relatively steady
upward trend in the DOD share of GDP since the attacks of September 11, 2001 (Error!
Reference source not found.).
Figure 4. DOD Appropriations as Share of GDP, FY1976-2015
Source: CRS calculations based on Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptrol er), National Defense
Budget Estimates for FY2011 (“The Green Book”), Table 7-7, “Defense Shares of Economic and Budgetary
Aggregates,” pp. 223-24.
Notes: Discussions of the DOD share of the GDP typical y use data based on DOD outlays for each fiscal year,
as in Table 5, above, This chart is based on annual levels of DOD budget authority, because available outlay data
do not separate war costs from base budget expenditures. Year to year changes in outlays lag corresponding
movements in budget authority, but over a long period, trends in the ratio of DOD budget authority to GDP
should closely track trends in the ratio of DOD outlays to GDP.
Congressional Research Service
10
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
Long-term Planning: Strategies and Budgets
The Administration did not propose in its FY2011 DOD budget request as many dramatic
changes to major weapons programs as had been incorporated into its FY2010 request. But the
FY2011 budget sustains the initiatives launched in the previous budget. Moreover, the budget
request supports the strategy and force planning assumptions that are embodied in DOD’s
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), a legislatively mandated assessment of defense strategy and
priorities, the most recent of which was released on February 1, 2010 to accompany the FY2011
budget request.
Strategic Direction
The four QDRs produced in 1997, 2001, 2005, and 2010 document an ongoing evolution of DOD
strategic thinking that has seen a shift away from emphasizing the readiness of U.S. forces to
wage smaller versions of Cold War-era conventional wars, such as the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Increasingly, U.S. planners have focused on the need for U.S. forces to be ready for a diverse
array of missions.7 Two themes running through the 2010 QDR are particularly relevant to the
Administration’s budgetary priorities.
A key premise of the report is that DOD’s top priority is fighting and winning the ongoing
campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. Accordingly, the report says, the department must rebalance
its priorities to put more emphasis on support for forces engaged in current operations, and
institutionalize capabilities for counterinsurgency, stability, and counter-terrorism operations,
such as those currently being conducted by U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Among the near-term initiatives recommended by the QDR toward this end are increased funding
to acquire helicopters, UAVs, improved intelligence and analysis capabilities, counter IED
technologies, and AC-130 aircraft gunships.8 The report also recommends some longer-term
initiatives, including the conversion of one heavy Army brigade combat team (BCT) into a
Stryker brigade – such brigades use wheeled Stryker armored vehicles for mobility. The report
says that “several more BCTs” may be converted “as resources become available and future
global demands become clearer.”
A second basic assumption asserted by the 2010 QDR is that no future adversary is likely to
directly confront U.S. conventional, military capabilities as embodied in armored brigades,
aircraft carrier task forces, and squadrons of advanced jet fighters. Instead, the argument goes,
any foe—whether a violent, radical non-state terrorist group or a technologically advanced near-
peer competitor—will try to challenge U.S. forces “asymmetrically” that is, by using
unconventional tactics and technologies to exploit U.S. limitations. The report challenges the
widely-held notion that there is a spectrum of conflict, ranging from unsophisticated insurgents or
terrorists at the low end to sophisticated national armies at the high end. Instead, the QDR says,
“low-end” terrorist groups may use advanced technologies such as precision-guided missiles and
7 Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report, 2010, at
http://www.defense.gov/qdr/images/QDR_as_of_12Feb10_1000.pdf.
8 “UAVs” refers to unmanned or unpiloted aerial vehicles, particularly used for intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) missions. IEDs are improvised explosive devices, including roadside, car, and truck bombs.
Congressional Research Service
11
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
near-peer competitors may use guerrilla-like “indirect means” of attack, such as a cyber-war
campaign to degrade the computer networks on which U.S. forces rely heavily.
The 2010 QDR does not abandon the long-standing policy that U.S. forces should be able to win
two major regional wars that occur nearly simultaneously in widely separated theaters of action.
However, the report assigns equal importance to ensuring that U.S. forces can respond flexibly
and effectively when required to conduct concurrently, at various points around the globe, several
missions of different types. For example, one scenario the QDR said U.S. forces should be able to
handle combined a major operation to stabilize another country, sustaining deterrence of a
potential aggressor in another region, conducting a medium-sized counter-insurgency mission in
yet another country, and providing support to U.S. civil authorities in the wake of some major
disaster or terrorist attack.
The 2010 QDR emphasizes the importance of preparing U.S. forces to deal with one particular
type of asymmetric threat that has potentially significant implications for conventional U.S.
forces: a so-called “anti-access, area-denial” capability, which China and other potential
adversaries appear to be developing. The argument is that China or Iran could use a variety of
both simple and sophisticated technologies to target U.S. forward bases in nearby nations and
naval forces operating relatively close to shore, which are the basis of the U.S. ability to project
power in regions far from the U.S. homeland. Such power projection capabilities are the bedrock
of U.S. alliances in Europe and Asia, and the key to U.S. efforts to bolster stability in other
important regions as well. Such capabilities are also expensive. The cost of power projection
capabilities is one reason why U.S. defense spending dramatically exceeds that of any other
nation.
Those sinews of U.S. power projections may be increasingly vulnerable to attack. Overseas
ground bases may be increasingly vulnerable to ballistic missile, cruise missile, and bomber
attacks. Naval forces, particularly aircraft carriers and other service combatants, may be
increasingly vulnerable to anti-ship cruise missiles; modern, quiet diesel electric submarines;
smart mines that can be activated on command and maneuvered into place; small, fast boats laden
with explosives; or, at the high end of the technological spectrum, ballistic missiles with
maneuverable warheads that can be redirected in flight to strike moving ships.
The QDR makes a number of recommendations for countering anti-access strategies, including
increased reliance on long-range strike weapons and submarines that would be less vulnerable to
such methods. For instance, long-range strike forces might include a new manned or unmanned
bomber, perhaps armed with long-range cruise missiles for stand-off attacks. Measures to defeat
enemy sensors and engagement systems include development of offensive “electronic attack”
capabilities, which remain highly classified. Missile defense may be a major and expensive part
of measures to protect forward deployed forces.
Impending Budget Crunch
While promoting a reshaping of U.S. forces and strategy through the QDR. Secretary Gates also
has warned his subordinates that the DOD budget also faces far-reaching changes. In a May 8,
2010 speech,9 Secretary Gates said that DOD would have to permanently reduce its overhead
9 Secretary Gates delivered this address at the Eisenhower Library in Abilene, Kansas. Office of the Assistant Secretary
of Defense (Public Affairs), “Remarks as Delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Abilene, KAS, May 8,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
costs by $10 billion annually in order to sustain its current forces with the budgets he expected in
the future, given the country’s current difficult economic circumstances. Sustaining the current
force, Secretary Gates said, would require, “real growth in the defense budget ranging from two
to 3% above inflation....But, realistically, it is highly unlikely that we will achieve the real growth
rates necessary to sustain the current force structure.”
The solution Secretary Gates proposed is to shift funds within the budget, providing the necessary
real growth in those accounts that directly support combat forces, but offsetting the additional
cost by an equivalent reduction in spending for administrative and support activities such as
personnel management, acquisition oversight, and DOD’s medical program. Phrased in terms of
military jargon, Secretary Gates proposed increasing the amount spent on DOD’s fighting force –
the “tooth”—by decreasing the amount spent on administrative and support functions – the “tail”.
The goal is to cut our overhead costs and to transfer those savings to force structure and
modernization within the programmed budget: In other words, to convert sufficient “tail” to
“tooth” to provide the equivalent of roughly two to three percent real growth....Simply taking
a few percent off the top of everything on a one-time basis will not do. These savings must
stem from root-and-branch changes that can be sustained and added to over time.10
Citing an estimate by the Defense Business Board that DOD’s tail absorbs roughly 40% of the
department’s annual budget,11 Gates told reporters that a shift of about $10 billion from those
support functions to the part of the budget that directly supports combat units would provide a
total real increase of about 3% in the “tooth”-related part of the FY2012 DOD budget request.12
Gates proposed no specific reductions in overhead expenses but listed, as possible targets for
spending reductions, the number of generals and admirals, and the number of intermediate layers
of management in DOD and in each of the services. As an incentive for the services to find such
savings, Gates said, each service would be allowed to retain, for support of its own combat forces,
any savings it achieved by reducing the cost of its support and administrative functions.
FY2011 Base Budget Highlights and Potential Issues
The FY2011 base budget request reflects some major initiatives of long standing, and others –
particularly in acquisition – that were launched by the Obama Administration in its FY2010
budget. (Table 6) Following are some highlights:
(...continued)
2010”, accessed at: http://www.defense.gov/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=1467.
10 Ibid.
11 Defense Business Board, Report to the Secretary of Defense: Task Group Report on Tooth-to-Tail Analysis, April
2008, accessed at http://dbb.defense.gov/pdf/Tooth_to_Tail_Final_Report.pdf.
12 Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), “Media Availability with Secretary Gates en route to
Kansas City, MO, May 7, 2010, accessed at http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4621.
Congressional Research Service
13
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 6. DOD Base Budget Discretionary Funding Request by Title. FY2010-FY2011
current dollar amounts in billions
Change, FY210-
FY2010
FY2011
FY211
Military Personnel
$135.0 $138.5 +2.6%
Operations and Maintenance
184.5
200.2
+8.5%
Procurement 104.8
112.9
+7.7%
Research and Development
80.1
76.1
-5.0%
Military Construction and
Family Housing
23.3 18.7 -19.6%
Revolving and Management
Funds
3,1 2.4
-23.7%
Total $530.7
$548.9
+3.4%
Source: DOD; Briefing on the FY2011 Budget Request, February 2010, accessed at:
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2011/fy2011_BudgetBriefing.pdf
Military Personnel13
The FY2011 budget request would fund 1.43 million active duty personnel in the regular
components.14 This amounts to a 4.7% increase over the end-strength of 1.38 million in FY2000,
which was the low point in a reduction in active-duty manpower that began in FY 1987 and
accelerated during the 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
From an active-duty end-strength of 2.18 million in FY1987, the high-water mark of the Reagan
defense buildup, active duty end-strength has been reduced by about one-third across each of the
services during the drawdown of the early 1990s. Since the start of combat operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq, the end strength of the Army and Marine Corps rebounded to 562,400 and
27,000, respectively. Both goals have been met, three years earlier than had been planned (Figure
5).
In 2010, Congress authorized an additional, temporary increase in the Army’s active duty
strength, which is reflected in the FY2011 request for an Army end-strength of 569,400.
13 Prepared in collaboration with Charles A. Henning, Specialist in Military Manpower Policy.
14 This total includes 26,000 personnel who comprise what DOD regards as a temporary expansion to fill billets
associated with ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It does not include 79,000 members of the reserve
components (including the National Guard) who are serving full-time, nor does it include the much larger number of
reserve component personnel who have been temporarily called to active duty in connection with ongoing combat
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Congressional Research Service
14
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
Figure 5. Active Duty End-strength, FY1987-FY2011
Source: Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller), National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2011
(“The Green Book”), Table 7-5, “Department of Defense Manpower,” pp. 216-18.
Notes: Totals exclude reserve component members serving on active duty. The FY2011 totals, which are
estimates based on the FY2011 budget request, include 22,000 Army personnel and 4,000 Navy personnel who
are funded in the FY2011 war cost budget request.
Military Pay Raise
The budget includes nearly $1 billion to give military personnel a 1.4 % raise in basic pay
effective January 1, 2011. This increase would equal the average increase in private-sector pay
and benefits as measured by the Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index (ECI), as required
by law.15 In addition, the Basic Allowance for Housing, a non-taxable cash payment to service
members who do not live in government-provided housing (which can amount to about 20% of a
service members basic pay), is scheduled to increase by 4.2% in FY2011.
In each year but one since FY2004, Congress has approved raises in military basic pay that were
0.5% higher than the ECI increase, on the grounds that military pay increases had lagged behind
civilian pay hikes during the 1980s.16
DOD officials contend that service members currently are better paid than 70% of private sector
workers with comparable experience and responsibility, and that the $340 million it would cost to
provide the higher 1.9% raise across-the-board would provide more benefit to the department if it
15 Title 37 U.S.C. 1009.
16 Congress did not increase the proposed pay raise in FY2007.
Congressional Research Service
15
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
were spent, instead, on reenlistment bonuses and special pays for military personnel in critical
specialties. Military advocacy groups insist, however, that service members need the higher
increase to close a “pay gap” between military personnel and their civilian peers.17
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
The FY2011 DOD funding bills may provide a vehicle for legislative initiatives by supporters and
opponents of President Obama’s decision to revise a 1993 law18 and DOD regulations that, in
effect, bar from military service those who are openly homosexual. Under a compromise policy
reached in 1993, colloquially referred to as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” service members are not to be
asked about nor allowed to discuss their same-sex orientation.
In his January 27, 2010, State of the Union Address, President Obama called for repealing the
1993 legislation and adopting a policy of nondiscrimination against persons with a same-sex
orientation. DOD has begun a study, due for completion by the end of 2010, on how such a
change in law and policy would be implemented. Secretary Gates has opposed repeal of the 1993
law pending completion of that study. On March 25, 2010, he announced changes in the
department’s procedures for enforcement of the current law, providing that only a general or flag
officer would have the authority to separate someone who had engaged in homosexual conduct,
and that third party information alleging homosexual conduct by a service member must be given
under oath.
Some Members of Congress contend that the presence in combat units of openly homosexual
personnel would undermine the units’ cohesion and combat effectiveness. Some critics oppose
changing the current policy while the tempo of deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan is imposing
stress on the services. Other legislators have called for immediate repeal of the 1993 law or, at
least, a moratorium in the discharge of service members for violating the don’t ask, don’t tell
policy.19
In a May 24, 2010 letter to President Obama, Senators Carl Levin and Joseph I. Lieberman and
Representative Patrick J. Murphy proposed an amendment to the FY2011 Defense Authorization
Act that would repeal the 1993 legislation barring openly homosexual persons from military
service after (1) the current DOD review has been completed and (2) the President, the Secretary
of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have certified to Congress that policies
and regulations have been prepared that would allow the repeal of the ban to be implemented in a
way that is, “consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit
cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the armed forces.”20
17 See CRS Report RL33446, Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers, by Charles A. Henning and CRS
Report R40711, FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated
by Don J. Jansen.
18 Title 10 U.S.C. 654.
19 CRS Report R40782, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:” The Law and Military Policy on Same-Sex Behavior, by David F.
Burrelli and CRS Report R40795, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: A Legal Analysis, by Jody Feder. Two bills introduced in
the 111th Congress would repeal the law and replace it with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation—H.R. 1283 and S. 3065.
20 Draft legislative amendment accessed on the White House Press Office website at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/Lieberman_NDAA_DADT_Amendment.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
16
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
In a letter responding to the three members, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter R.
Orzag said that, while the Administration would have preferred that congressional action on the
issue await completion of the current DOD study, the Administration “understands that Congress
has chosen to move forward with legislation now,” and that the Administration supports the draft
amendment.21
In a statement to reporters on May 25, 2010, DOD press spokesman Geoff Morrell reportedly
said:
Secretary Gates continues to believe that ideally, the [Defense Department] review should be
completed before there is any legislation to repeal the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ law. With
Congress having indicated that is not possible, the secretary can accept the language in the
proposed amendment.22
Military Health Care Costs23
The FY2011 budget request includes $50.7 billion for the DOD health care system that employs
85,000 military personnel and 53,000 civilian DOD employees. The system serves 9.5 million
eligible beneficiaries through 56 hospitals, 363 out-patient medical facilities, and 275 dental
clinics.
The system’s cost, which was $19 billion in FY2001, has more than doubled in the 10 years since
then. The cost of the medical program is projected by DOD to increase annually at a rate of 5-7%
through FY2015, when it is projected to account for 10% of the planned DOD budget.
In addition to the cost of general inflation and new developments in medical technology, DOD
officials attribute the steady increase in military health care costs to several factors, including:
• an increase in the number of retirees using DOD’s Tricare medical insurance
rather than other, less generous insurance plans for which they are eligible; and
• an increase in the frequency with which eligible beneficiaries use DOD medical
services.
• legislatively mandated increases in benefits, such as Tricare-for-Life for
reservists.
• no increase in fees and copayments for Tricare beneficiaries since 1995, when the
Tricare program was created.
The Bush Administration’s DOD budget requests for FY2007, FY2008, and FY2009 proposed to
increase enrollment fees and copayment requirements for those Tricare beneficiaries who were
not eligible for Medicare. Each year Tricare fee increases were proposed, Congress passed
legislation to prohibit them. 24
21 Peter R. Orzag, letter to Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, accessed on the White House Press Office website at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/Sen_Lieberman.pdf.
22 Donna Miles, “Gates Can Accept ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Amendment,” Armed Forces Press Service, May 25, 2010.
accessed at http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=59321.
23 Prepared in collaboration with Don J. Jansen, Analyst in Military Health Care Policy.
24 CRS Report RS22402, Increases in Tricare Costs: Background and Options for Congress, by Don J. Jansen; and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
17
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
Although the Obama Administration’s 2011 budget does not include any legislative proposals to
increase TRICARE annual fees or copayments, Secretary Gates stated in a February 1, 2010,
press conference, “We certainly would like to work with the Congress in figuring out a way to try
and bring some modest control to this program .... We absolutely want to take care of our men
and women in uniform and our retirees, but at some point, there has to be some reasonable
tradeoff between reasonable cost increases or premium increases or co-pays or something and the
cost of the program.”25
Procurement and R&D
The FY2011 request would increase the total amount provided for development and procurement
of weapons and equipment from $184.9 billion in FY2010 to $189.0 billion in FY2011. The
proportion of the total DOD budget dedicated to procurement would slightly increase from 56%
to 60% while the proportion going to R&D would decline from 44% to 40%.
In part, that shift reflects the transition into production of some major programs that have had
relatively large R&D budgets in recent years, the largest of which is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
For that program, a total of $11.2 billion was appropriated in FY2010: $4.0 billion for R&D and
$7.2 billion for procurement. For FY2011, the total budget request is only slightly higher—$11.2
billion – however that total includes $2.3 billion for R&D and $9.0 billion for procurement.26
The Administration has proposed few new cuts in major weapons programs beyond those it
proposed in its FY2010 DOD budget.27 But it has reiterated two of the proposed cuts that
Congress rejected in 2009.The FY2011 budget request includes no funds either for production of
additional C-17 wide-body cargo jets, or for development of an alternate jet engine for the F-35.
In 2009, when the Obama Administration also requested no funding for either of those programs,
Congress added $2.5 billion to the FY2010 DOD funding bills for 10 C-17s and $465 million to
continue work on the alternate engine.
Army Combat Force Modernization Programs28
Some Members of Congress may question elements of the Administration’s $3.2 billion request
for the Army’s BCT Modernization program, which is intended to develop a new generation of
combat equipment.
(...continued)
CRS Report R40711, FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues,
coordinated by Don J. Jansen.
25Department of Defense, “DoD News Briefing with Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen from the
Pentagon,” press release, February 1, 2010,
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4549.
26 Figures do not add due to rounding.
27 Opposition to additional procurement of F-22 fighters was not an initiative of the Obama Administration. The
preceding Bush Administration had decided cap the number of F-22s at the 183 planes already funded. There was a
strong effort to add funding for additional F-22s to the FY2010 DOD appropriations bill, but the effort was dropped
after President Obama threatened to veto any bill funding additional F-22s. See CRS Report RL31673, Air Force F-22
Fighter Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Jeremiah Gertler.
28 Prepared in collaboration with Steve Bowman, Specialist in National Security.
Congressional Research Service
18
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
This program replaces the Future Combat System (FCS) program, which had been intended to
develop a new generation of combat equipment to replace current systems, such as the M-1
Abrams tank and the M-2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. By 2009, FCS involved efforts to
develop 14 manned and unmanned systems tied together by an extensive communications and
information network. On April 6, 2009, however, Secretary of Defense Gates recommended
cancelling the manned ground vehicle (MGV) component of FCS, which was intended to field
eight separate tracked combat vehicle variants built on a common chassis. Secretary Gates said he
acted because there were significant unanswered questions in the FCS vehicle design strategy and
because, despite some adjustments to the MGVs, the emerging vehicles did not adequately reflect
the lessons of counterinsurgency and close-quarters combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In place of MGV, the Army has launched a Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program intended to
field by 2015-17 a family of fighting vehicles based on mature technologies and designed to
readily incorporate future network capabilities. One potential oversight issue for Congress is
whether the Army is rushing the development of the GCV, thereby inviting undue risk that would
set the stage for another unsuccessful acquisition program.29
While the MGV component of FCS was terminated, other elements of the FCS program including
sensors, unmanned aerial and ground vehicles, and a modified FCS network were incorporated
into the Army’s (BCT) Modernization program under which the service plans to “spin out” the
components, as they become available, to all 73 Army BCTs by 2025. According to the
Government Accountability Office (GAO), the FCS components which the Army deems ready for
deployment under the “spin out” approach have not demonstrated their effectiveness in field
exercises.30
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans31
The Navy’s FY2011 budget submission retains, for the time being at least, the goal of achieving
and maintaining a 313-ship fleet that the Navy first presented to Congress in February 2006.
Although the 313-ship goal remains in place, some elements of Navy force planning that have
emerged since 2006 appear to diverge from the original plan. The Navy’s report on its FY2011
30-year (FY2011-FY2040) shipbuilding plan refers to a forthcoming force structure assessment
(FSA). Such an assessment could produce a replacement for the 313-ship plan. It is not clear
when the FSA might be conducted, or when a replacement for the 313-ship plan might be issued.
The Navy’s proposed FY2011 budget requests funding for the procurement of nine new battle
force ships (i.e., ships that count against the 313-ship goal). The nine ships include two attack
submarines, two destroyers, two Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs), one amphibious assault ship, one
Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) ship (i.e., a maritime prepositioning ship), and one Joint High
Speed Vessel (JHSV). The Navy’s five-year (FY2011-FY2015) shipbuilding plan includes a total
of 50 new battle force ships, or an average of 10 per year. Of the 50 ships in the plan, half are
relatively inexpensive LCSs or JHSVs.
29 CRS Report RL32888, Army Future Combat System (FCS) “Spin-Outs” and Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV):
Background and Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert and Nathan Jacob Lucas.
30 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions: Opportunities Exist to Position Army's Ground Force
Modernization Effort for Success, GAO-10-406, March 2010.
31 Prepared in collaboration with Ronald O’Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
19
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
The Navy’s FY2011 30-year (FY2011-FY2040) shipbuilding plan includes 276 ships. The Navy
estimates that executing the plan would require an average of $15.9 billion per year in constant
FY2010 dollars. In past years, the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO’s) estimate of the cost of
implementing the 30-year shipbuilding plan has been higher than the Navy’s estimate, reinforcing
concerns among some observers about the prospective affordability of the plan. CBO is now
assessing the potential cost of the Navy’s FY2011 30-year shipbuilding plan.
Specific shipbuilding issues that have been discussed at hearings this year on the Navy’s proposed
FY2011 budget include the following:
Next Generation Ballistic Missile Submarine SSBN(X)
The Navy is currently conducting development and design work on a planned class of 12 next-
generation ballistic missile submarines, or SSBN(X)s,1 which the service wants to procure as
replacements for its current force of 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines. The SSBN(X)
program, also known as the Ohio-class replacement program, received $497.4 million in research
and development funding in the Navy's FY2010 budget, and the Navy's FY2011 budget requests
an additional $672.3 million in research and development funding for the program. Navy plans
call for procuring the first SSBN(X) in FY2019, with advance procurement funding for the boat
beginning in FY2015.
The Navy preliminarily estimates the procurement cost of each SSBN(X) at $6 billion to $7
billion in FY2010 dollars—a figure equivalent to roughly one-half of the Navy's budget each year
for procuring new ships. Some observers are concerned that the SSBN(X) program will
significantly compound the challenge the Navy faces in ensuring the affordability of its long-term
shipbuilding program. These observers are concerned that procuring 12 SSBN(X)s during the 15-
year period FY2019-FY2033, as called for in Navy plans, could lead to reductions in procurement
rates for other types of Navy ships during those years. The Navy's report on its 30-year (FY2011-
FY2040) shipbuilding plan states: "While the SSBN(X) is being procured, the Navy will be
limited in its ability to procure other ship classes."2
Among the options available to Congress for dealing with the SSBN(X) funding issue are to
withhold approval of, or limiting the obligation or expenditure of, SSBN(X) funds until the Navy
makes available to Congress and its three technical support agencies (GAO, CBO, and CRS) its
formal analysis of alternative ways to replace the current fleet of aging missile subs.32
DDG-51 Destroyers and Ballistic Missile Defense
Because of a series of decisions announced since mid-2008, the Administration has resumed
production of DDG-51 destroyers, incorporating modifications to improve their anti-missile
capabilities.
• In mid-2008, the Navy announced it would end procurement of DDG-1000
destroyers after acquiring three of the ships and would resume procurement of
DDG-51 class destroyers. Navy officials stated that modified DDG-51s could
perform the missions it wanted to emphasize, including ballistic missile defense
32 For more on the SSBN(X) program, see CRS Report R41129, Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
20
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
(BMD), anti-aircraft defense and open-ocean anti-submarine warfare and that,
while the DDG-1000 design could also be configured to provide these
capabilities, the Navy could procure more DDG-51s than reconfigured DDG-
1000s over the next several years for the same total amount of funding.33
• The FY2011 budget terminated, for cost reasons, the Navy’s plan to begin a class
of cruisers designated CG(X) that would be designed to carry a very powerful Air
and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) for missile defense and anti-aircraft
missions. Instead, the Navy now plans to begin procuring in FY2016 another
version of DDG-51, designated the “Flight III” version, that would incorporate
additional modifications including a smaller version of the AMDR.
• The Administration’s Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) for BMD operations,
announced in September 2009, calls for operating BMD-capable Aegis ships,
such as DDG-51s, in European waters to defend Europe from potential ballistic
missile attacks from countries such as Iran. BMD-capable Aegis ships will also
continue to operate in the Western Pacific and the Persian Gulf to provide
regional defense against potential ballistic missile attacks from countries such as
Iran and North Korea.
Some observers are concerned—particularly following the Administration’s announcement of its
intention to use Aegis-BMD ships to defend Europe against potential ballistic missile attacks—
that demands from U.S. regional military commanders for BMD-capable Aegis ships are growing
faster than their number. They are also concerned that demands from U.S. regional military
commanders for Aegis ships for conducting BMD operations could strain the Navy’s ability to
provide regional military commanders with Aegis ships for performing non- BMD missions.34
FY2011 options for Congress regarding the Aegis BMD program include, among other things,
accelerating the modification of existing DDG-51s and other Aegis ships to BMD-capable
configurations and increasing procurement of DDG-51 destroyers.
Aircraft Programs35
Fighter aircraft are a major component of U.S. military capability and account for a significant
portion of U.S. defense spending. In early 2009, the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps
collectively had an inventory of about 3,500 fighters. Because fighters built in large numbers
during the 1980s are nearing the end of their service life, there is a concern that the services may
fall short of the number of planes needed because of budgetary limits on the rate at which
replacement fighters can be procured. Air Force officials in 2008 testimony projected an Air
Force fighter shortfall of up to 800 aircraft by 2024. Navy officials have projected a Navy-Marine
Corps strike fighter shortfall peaking at more than 100 aircraft, and possibly more than 200
aircraft, by about 2018.
33 CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, by
Ronald O'Rourke.
34 CRS Report RL33745, Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress,
by Ronald O'Rourke.
35 Prepared in collaboration with Jeremiah Gertler, Specialist in Military Aviation.
Congressional Research Service
21
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
A key issue for Congress regarding tactical aircraft is the overall affordability of DOD's plans for
modernizing the tactical aircraft force. The issue has been a concern in Congress and elsewhere
for many years, with some observers predicting that tactical aircraft modernization is heading for
an eventual budget "train wreck" as tactical aircraft acquisition plans collide with insufficient
amounts of funding available for tactical aircraft acquisition.36
F-35
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), being procured in different versions for the Air Force, Marine
Corps, and Navy, is the key to DOD’s tactical aircraft modernization plans, which call for
acquiring a total of 2,443 JSFs at an estimated total acquisition cost (as of December 31, 2009) of
about $238 billion in constant (i.e., inflation-adjusted) FY2002 dollars, or more than $300 billion
in current prices. The F-35 program is DOD's largest weapon procurement program in terms of
total estimated acquisition cost. Hundreds of additional F-35s are expected to be purchased by
several U.S. allies, eight of which are cost-sharing partners in the program.37
The Administration's FY2011 budget requests a total of $10.4 billion for the F-35 program,
including $2.5 billion in Air Force and Navy research and development funding and $7.9 billion
in Air Force and Navy procurement funding.38
Although the F-35 was conceived as a relatively affordable strike fighter, some observers are
concerned that in a situation of constrained DOD resources, F-35s might not be affordable in the
annual quantities planned by DOD, at least not without reducing funding for other DOD
programs. As the annual production rate of the F-35 increases, the program will require more than
$10 billion per year in acquisition funding at the same time that DOD will face other budgetary
challenges. Supporters of the F-35 might argue that, as a relatively affordable aircraft that can be
procured in similar, though not identical, versions for the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy, the
F-35 represents the most economical and cost-effective strategy for avoiding or mitigating such
shortfalls.
F-35 Alternate Engine
For four successive years, Congress has rejected Administration proposals to terminate the
program to develop the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 engine as an alternative to the Pratt &
Whitney F135 engine that currently powers the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The
administration's FY2011 budget submission again proposes to terminate the program.
Through FY2009, Congress has provided approximately $2.5 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter
alternate engine program. The program is expected to need an additional $2.9 billion through
2017 to complete the development of the F136 engine.39
36 CRS Report RL33543, Tactical Aircraft Modernization: Issues for Congress, by Jeremiah Gertler.
37 CRS Report RL30563, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Jeremiah
Gertler.
38Development and procurement of Marine Corps aircraft are funded through the Navy's budget.
39 CRS Report R41131, F-35 Alternate Engine Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Jeremiah Gertler.
Congressional Research Service
22
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
Critics of the proposal to terminate the F136 alternate engine argue that termination was driven
more by immediate budget pressures on the department than the long-term pros and cons of the
F136 program. They argue that engine competition on the F-15 and F-16 programs saved money
and resulted in greater reliability. Some who applaud the proposed termination say that single-
source engine production contracts have been the norm, not the exception. Long-term engine
affordability, they claim, is best achieved by procuring engines through multiyear contracts from
a single source.
Cancelling the F136 engine poses questions on the operational risk—particularly of fleet
grounding—posed by having a single engine design and supplier. Additional issues include the
potential impact this termination might have on the U.S. defense industrial base and on U.S.
relations with key allied countries involved in the alternate engine program. Finally, eliminating
competitive market forces for DOD business worth billions of dollars may concern those who
seek efficiency from DOD's acquisition system and raises the challenge of cost control in a
single-supplier environment.
Continuing F136 development raises issues of impact on the F-35 acquisition program, including
possible reduction of the numbers of F-35s that could be acquired if program funds are used for
the alternate engine. It also raises issues of the outyear costs and operational concerns stemming
from the requirement to support two different engines in the field.
C-17
The Administration’s proposed FY2011 defense budget would terminate C-17 procurement.
Further, Secretary Gates, in testimony to the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations
Committee, stated, “Should Congress add funds to continue this program, I will strongly
recommend a presidential veto.”40 The Administration argues that enough C-17s have now been
procured to meet future operational needs. Supporters of procuring additional C-17s in FY2011
contend that additional C-17s will be needed to meet future operational needs. A primary issue for
Congress in FY2011 is whether to procure additional C-17s.41
KC-X
The administration's proposed FY2011 defense budget requested $863.9 million in Air Force
research and development funding for its third attempt since 2003 to acquire a new fleet of mid-
air refueling tankers, designated KC-X, that would replace its aging fleet of KC-135 tankers. An
initial effort, that involved leasing new tankers from Boeing, was blocked by Congress. A
subsequent competition pitted Boeing, which offered a tanker based on its 767 jetliner, against the
team of Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS),
which offered a tanker based on the EADS Airbus A330.
On February 24, 2010, the Department of Defense (DOD) released its Request for Proposals for a
program to build 179 new KC-X aerial refueling tankers for the Air Force, a contract valued at
roughly $35 billion.
40 Hearing of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, March 24, 2010.
41 CRS Report RS22763, Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, by Jeremiah
Gertler.
Congressional Research Service
23
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
On March 8, 2010, the team of Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defense and
Space Company (EADS) announced that it would not bid for the contract, leaving Boeing as the
only expected bidder. DOD then extended the bid deadline by 60 days, to July 9, 2010.
Subsequently, on April 20, 2010, EADS announced that it would submit an independent bid for
the KC-X contract. Boeing will again offer a KC-X design based on its 767 airliner, to be built in
Seattle, WA, and Wichita, KS. EADS is expected to again offer a KC-X design based on the
Airbus A330 airliner, to be built in Mobile, AL.42
The KC-X acquisition program has been a subject of intense interest because of the dollar value
of the contract, the number of jobs it would create, the importance of tanker aircraft to U.S.
military operations, and because DOD's attempts to acquire a new tanker over the past several
years have been highly contentious. The history of those earlier attempts forms an important part
of the context for DOD's proposed new KC-X competition, particularly in terms of defining the
required capabilities for the KC-X, and designing and conducting a fair and transparent
competition. The issues for Congress in FY2011 are whether to approve, reject, or modify DOD's
new KC-X competition strategy, and whether to approve, reject, or modify the Air Force's request
for FY2011 research and development funding for the new KC-X program. Congress's decision
on these issues could affect DOD capabilities and funding requirements and the aircraft
manufacturing industrial base.
Military Construction43
The $18.7 billion requested in the FY2011 base budget for military construction and family
housing is nearly 20% lower than the corresponding appropriation for FY2010. Most of the
reduction is the result of a decline from $7.9 billion to $2.7 billion in the amount that is being
spent to build new facilities for units that are moving to new sites as a result of the 2005 Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission. Most of that BRAC-related construction was
funded in earlier budgets, since the deadline for completing the moves is September 15, 2011.
In addition, the budget for military family housing would drop from $2.3 billion in FY2010 to
$1.8 billion in the FY2011 request. According to DOD officials, this is a result of a policy, begun
in the late 1990s, of privatizing military family housing.The amounts appropriated for the Basic
Allowance for Housing paid to personnel who do not live in government furnished housing has
increased over the past decade, partly because more service members are paying rent to private
landlords and partly because of a policy decision that housing allowances (which are pegged to
regional home rental costs) should cover a larger proportion of a service member’s housing costs.
Aircraft Carrier Homeport
The FY2011 DOD bills might provide a vehicle for Members of Congress opposed to the Navy’s
plan to move to Mayport, FL one of the five nuclear powered aircraft carriers currently
homeported in Norfolk, VA. The Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) final report on the 2010
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), released on February 1, 2010, endorses the Navy’s desire to
establish Mayport as a second Atlantic Fleet carrier home port. The report states:
42 CRS Report RL34398, Air Force KC-X Tanker Aircraft Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Jeremiah
Gertler.
43 Prepared in collaboration with Daniel H. Else, Specialist in National Defense.
Congressional Research Service
24
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
To mitigate the risk of a terrorist attack, accident, or natural disaster, the U.S. Navy will
homeport an East Coast carrier in Mayport, Florida.
Such a move would shift from Norfolk to Mayport the local economic activity associated with
homeporting an aircraft carrier, which some sources estimate as being worth hundreds of millions
of dollars per year.44
Certain Members of Congress from Florida have expressed support for the proposal to homeport
an aircraft carrier at Mayport, endorsing the argument made by DOD and the Navy that the
benefits in terms of mitigating risks to the Navy’s Atlantic Fleet CVNs are worth the costs
associated with moving a CVN to Mayport, which the Navy estimates would total $589.7 million.
That total includes $46.3 million for dredging, which Congress approved in its action on the
FY2010 DOD budget, but with the proviso that it was not prejudging the issue of the carrier
homeport.
Certain Members of Congress from Virginia have expressed skepticism regarding, or opposition
to the proposal, arguing that the benefits in terms of mitigating risks to the Navy’s Atlantic Fleet
CVNs are questionable or uncertain, and that the funding needed to implement the proposal could
achieve greater benefits if it were spent on other Navy priorities.
Marine Corps Relocation to Guam
The Administration’s budget includes $139 million for facilities on the U.S. territory of Guam, in
the western Pacific for use by 8,000 Marines, their families, and support personnel slated to move
to that island from the Japanese island of Okinawa. The planned move is the result of extensive
negotiations between the Departments of State and Defense and the Government of Japan. DOD
also plans to move additional military personnel to Guam from their current stations in the United
States. These relocations are expected to be completed by 2014-16.
Guam is a mountainous island with an area roughly three times that of the District of Columbia,
and a population of about 178,000. Some analysts have estimated that as many as 25,000
temporary workers would be needed to build the planned facilities, a number amounting to 14%
of the population. Moreover, these analysts question whether Guam’s current transportation,
electrical and utility grid could support such a surge in the island’s population.
The FY2011 defense funding bills may provide a point of leverage for Members of Congress who
have pressed DOD to submit a comprehensive master plan for development on Guam, thus far,
without success.45
44 CRS Report R40248, Navy Nuclear Aircraft Carrier (CVN) Homeporting at Mayport: Background and Issues for
Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
45 See CRS Report RS22570, Guam: U.S. Defense Deployments, by Shirley A. Kan and Larry A. Niksch, and CRS
Report R40731, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations, coordinated
by Daniel H. Else.
Congressional Research Service
25
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
Bill-by-Bill Synopsis of Congressional Action to
Date
FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5136)
The version of the FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act approved May 19 by the House
Armed Services Committee (H.R. 5136) would authorize $725.9 billion in discretionary budget
authority, which is $2.7 million less than President Obama requested for programs covered by the
legislation. The total authorized by the bill $566.6 billion for the DOD base budget, $159.3
billion for FY2011 for war costs and $17.7 billion for defense-related nuclear energy programs
administered by the Department of Energy. The Armed Services Committee approved the bill by
a vote of 59-0.
The committee reported the bill to the House on May 24, 2010 (H.Rept. 111-491).
Funding levels authorized by the bill are presented in Table 7. Funding levels authorized for
selected programs are presented in the Appendix.
Table 7. FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5136)
amounts in millions of dollars
Administration
House Armed Services
request
Committee recommendation
Division A: DOD Base Budget (except
Military Construction)
Procurement 111,377
111,246
Research and Development
76,131
76,473
Operation and Maintenance
167,879
167,620
Military Personnel 138,541
138,541
Other Authorizations
36,197
36,243
Subtotal, DOD Base Budget
(except MilCon)
530,124 530,124
Division B: Military Construction
(Base Budget)
Military Construction, 14,209
14,649
Family Housing
1,823
1,823
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
2,715
2,715
General Reductions
0
-441.1
Subtotal, Military Construction, Base
Budget
18,747 18,745
Total, DOD Base Budget
548,871
548,869
Division C: Department of Energy Nuclear
National Security Agency (NNSA) and
17,716 17,716
Other Authorizations
Congressional Research Service
26
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
Administration
House Armed Services
request
Committee recommendation
Total, National Defense Budget Function
(050), FY2011 Base Budget
566,587 566,585
FY2011 Overseas Contingency Operations,
DOD
159,336 159,335
Grand Total, FY2011 National Defense
725,922
725,920
Source: House Armed Services Committee, Report on H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for
FY2011 HRept. 111-491, pp. 4-13.
Following are highlights of the bill as reported to the House.
Military Personnel Issues
As requested, the bill would authorize a total end-strength of 1.43 million members for the active-
duty components of the four armed services, an increase of 7,400 over the end-strength
authorized for FY2010.
Military Compensation
The bill would authorize a 1.9% military pay raise, rather than the 1.4% raise included in the
budget, an increase the committee said would add $380 million to the FY2011 military personnel
costs (Section 601). It also would authorize an increase in the monthly allowance paid to married
personnel who are separated from their families by deployment, from $250 to $285—a change
estimated to cost $78 million (Section 604), and in increase in the monthly payments to personnel
whose assignments subject them to risk of hostile fire or imminent danger, from $225 to $260—a
change expected to cost $3 million (Section 618). These additional costs would be more than
offset by a provision reallocating to the FY2011 personnel accounts $501.5 million appropriated
for personnel accounts in prior years but not obligated.46
Alternative Career Track for Officers
The bill would authorize a pilot program to assess the value of allowing a certain number of
officers pursue a more varied range of mid-career educational programs and assignments outside
their service for the sake of broadening their experience and strategic judgment. To allow for this
richer mixture of experience, participants would be given leeway to skip or delay some of the
established requirements and deadlines for promotion and might be required to commit to a
longer-than-usual period of service (Section 661).
46 For background information, see Military Pay Raise, above.
Congressional Research Service
27
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
Sexual Assault
Title XVI of the committee bill includes 28 provisions that would enact many of the
recommendations of a congressionally chartered DOD commission studying the problem of
sexual assault in the military.47 Among these were provisions that would:
• require DOD to specifically budget for its sexual assault prevention and response
program;
• create a single hotline over which DOD personnel could report a sexual assault;
• require that the director of the sexual assault prevention and response program be
a flag or general officer or a civilian of the Senior Executive Service; and
• establish the right of military personnel who are sexual assault victims to (1)
legal counsel, (2) consultation in the prosecution of their alleged assailants, (3)
medical care and (4) the ability to make a restricted report of a sexual assault so
they may receive support services without involving law enforcement.
Fort Hood Incident
The bill included three provisions intended to deal with both the underlying causes and the
immediate consequences of two incidents in which service members and DOD civilian personnel
were killed or wounded in terrorist attacks, one at Fort Hood, Texas in November 2009 in which
an Army physician opened fire on troops preparing for deployment to Iraq and one at a recruiting
stations in Little Rock, Arkansas on June 1, 2009. These provisions would:
• require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the training programs for officers
in the services’ medical corps properly document their academic and military
performance (Section 715). There were allegations that the perpetrator of the Fort
Hood attack, an Army physician, had a record of substandard and erratic
performance.
• provide special compensation to persons killed or wounded in those two
incidents or in any other incident subsequent to November 6, 2009 in which
service members or DOD civilians were targeted because of their affiliation with
the U.S. military (Section 619). These individuals would be awarded the same
compensation as DOD personnel killed or wounded in a combat zone.
• require the Secretary of Defense to earmark up to $100 million in a fund to
implement recommendations of a panel set up by DOD to analyze the Fort Hood
incident.
Medical Care
Although the budget request did not include increases in Tricare fees and pharmacy copayments,
which the Bush and Obama Administrations had recommended in prior years and which Congress
47 The commission was established by Section 576 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for
FY2005 (H.R. 4200).
Congressional Research Service
28
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
regularly had rejected, the committee bill contained provisions similar to those Congress had
enacted in earlier years prohibiting any such increases. (Sections 701 and 705).48
The bill would allow Tricare beneficiaries to extend coverage to their dependent children up to
age 26, an option made available to beneficiaries of private health insurance programs under the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148), the health care reform bill enacted in
April (Section 702). To streamline management of the services medical programs, the bill would
authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish a unified medical command (Section 903)
Ballistic Missile Defense and Strategic Weapons
The committee bill generally supports the Administration’s ballistic missile defense (BMD)
program for which it would authorize $10.6 billion, which is $361.6 million more than was
requested. Included in that total are funds for components of the Administration’s so-called
Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) which is designed to defend U.S. troops and allies in Europe
against ballistic missiles attacks from Iran.
In lieu of the Bush Administration’s plan to deploy in Poland and the Czech Republic a modified
version of the land-based BMD system currently deployed in Alaska and California, the PAA
calls for deploying BMD-capable Aegis ships (and, eventually, a relocatable, land-based version
of the Aegis system and associated Standard missile) to defend Europe and, eventually, the United
States against potential ballistic missile attacks from Iran. The Administration has said that
similar forces could be deployed to protect U.S. forces and allies in the Middle East and in the
Western Pacific.
The bill would require a DOD report on the PAA plan for defending Europe and an assessment by
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) of the DOD report (Section 223). It also would
place restrictions on the PAA similar to those that Congress previously had applied to the Bush
plan, namely:
• It limits deployment in Europe of defenses against medium-range and long-range
missiles until the Secretary of Defense certifies that the proposed technology is
operationally effective, based on realistic flight tests; and
• It limits the use of funds for BMD deployments in any country until the host
government has ratified any necessary agreements and until 45 days after
Congress has received a report on alternative BMD systems for Europe required
by the FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 111-84).
The House committee bill would declare it to be U.S. policy to ensure that future versions of the
Standard missile, when deployed to protect Europe under the PAA plan, would be able to
intercept intercontinental-range missiles launched from Iran at the United States. It also would
declare it to be national policy to continue developing a modified version of the ground-based
BMD interceptor currently deployed in Alaska and California, which the Bush Administration
had planned to deploy in Europe. The committee said this ground-based interceptor would
provide a hedge in case the improved Standard BMD interceptor falls short of its performance
48 For background see “Military Health Care Costs” above.
Congressional Research Service
29
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
goals or Iran acquires an ICBM before the Standard BMD interceptor can be deployed (Section
224).
The bill would add $50.0 million to the $94.1 million requested for Standard BMD missiles. It
also would add $65.0 million for procurement of AN/TPY-2 relocatable missile defense radars,
which are elements of both the Aegis-based PAA network and the Army’s Theater High-Altitude
Air Defense (THAAD) missile defense system (for which the bill would provide $858.9 million,
as requested). The committee bill also would add to the budget $205 million to support Israel’s
procurement of a system called Iron Dome designed to intercept short range bombardment
rockets and artillery shells.
In its report on the bill, the House committee noted that the demand for Aegis BMD ships and
some other BMD assets to protect various regions would exceed the supply for some time to
come. It directed DOD to report its plans for regional BMD deployments inasmuch as the demand
for Aegis BMD ships is expected to exceed the supply.
The bill also would add to the budget $50.0 million for research on directed-energy weapons,
using the airborne laser (ABL), an experimental laser-equipped Boeing 747 that the Obama
Administration had decided was not suitable for deployment as a BMD weapon.
The bill would express the sense of Congress that there should be no limitations on the planned
PAA missile defense deployment in Europe as a result of the New Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty (New START) between the United States and the Russian Federation, signed April 8, 2010
(Section 1236). Russian officials have said the new treaty would be endangered by too ambitious
a U.S. BMD plan, but U.S. officials have rejected any linkage between the treaty and U.S.
plans.49
The bill would bar the reduction of U.S. nuclear weapons below the limits set by the New START
Treaty until 180 days after the Secretary of Defense and the Administrator for Nuclear Security of
the Nuclear National Security Agency of the Department of Energy submit to Congress a joint
report justifying the proposed cuts in detail (Section 1058). It also expresses the sense of
Congress that the Administration’s Nuclear Posture Review, published April 6, 2010 weakens
U.S. security by foreswearing the option of using nuclear weapons to retaliate for catastrophic
attacks on the United States, under certain conditions.50
Shipbuilding51
The House committee bill would authorize without significant change the President Obama’s
$15.7 billion request for Navy shipbuilding in FY2011, while signaling reservations about the
Administration’s plans for the future.
This total includes funds for two DDG-51 Aegis destroyers ($2.92 billion), two Virginia-class
attack submarines ($3.44 billion) two Littoral Combat Ships ($1.23 billion), a high-speed troop
49 For background, see CRS Report R41219, The New START Treaty: Central Limits and Key Provisions, by Amy F.
Woolf.
50 See Department of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review Report, April 6, 2010 at
http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010%20Nuclear%20Posture%20Review%20Report.pdf.
51 For background, see “Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans,” above.
Congressional Research Service
30
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
and cargo carrier designated an “intratheater connector” ($180.7 million) and an oceanographic
research ship ($88.6 million).52 The total also includes the fourth and final increment of funding
for the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford ($1.73 billion), the first of two
increments for an LHA-class helicopter carrier to support amphibious landings ($949.9 million),
and the third increment of funding for refueling and overhauling the nuclear-powered carrier
U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt ($1.26 billion).
Although such incremental funding has become the norm in recent years for very expensive
ships, including carriers and large amphibious assault ships, it is an anomaly in the congressional
appropriations process which, with a few exceptions, requires that the full cost of a weapons
system be budgeted in one year.53 Existing law allows aircraft carriers to be incrementally funded
(for up to four years) and the House committee’s bill includes a provision that would expand that
exception to the “full funding” rule for large amphibious assault ships (Section 121).
The bill would add $75.0 million to the $226.3 million requested to develop the interchangeable
“mission modules” – various types of sensors and weapons – that will equip the Littoral Combat
Ship. The additional funds are to continue development of the Non-Line of Sight (N-LOS)
missile, a precision-guided weapon being developed by the Army that was intended to give LCSs
a way to strike land targets and small, fast speedboats. After spending $1.5 billion on the
program, the Army dropped out of the program in April, 2010 because of rising costs and
technical problems. But, in its report, the House committee said that an additional year’s work
could save the program.
While the House committee approved the Administration’s FY2011 shipbuilding request, it
challenged several aspects of the Administration’s long term plans for the fleet:
• The bill includes a requirement that, in years in which DOD carries out a
Quadrennial Defense Review, the annual congressionally mandated 30-year
shipbuilding plan submitted to Congress must support a fleet of 11 aircraft
carriers, the number of carriers currently required by law (Section 1021).
Secretary Gates announced in April of 2009 that he intended to slow the rate at
which construction is started on new carriers with the result that the carrier force
would drop to 10 ships after 2040. The same provision of the committee bill
would bar the annual 30-year shipbuilding plans prepared in the years between
QDRs from recommending fewer ships than had been incorporated into the
shipbuilding plan that accompanied the previous QDR.
• It would bar the Navy from retiring more than two ships for every three new
vessels commissioned (except for submarines), until the size of the fleet reaches
the Navy’s current goal of 313 ships (Section 1023). Another provision would
specifically bar the retirement of two large helicopter carriers – U.S.S. Nassau
and U.S.S. Pelilieu – until their replacements are in service (Section 1024).
52 For several ships that would receive the bulk of their funding in the FY2011 budget, so-called “long-lead” funding
totaling as much as several hundred million dollars has been provided in earlier budgets to buy components needed in
the early stages of construction. Similarly, the $15.7 billion requested for shipbuilding in FY2011 includes more than
$3 billion in long-lead funding for ships slated to receive most of their funding in future budgets.
53 See CRS Report RL31404, Defense Procurement: Full Funding Policy—Background, Issues, and Options for
Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke and Stephen Daggett.
Congressional Research Service
31
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
• Since the administration’s new PAA plan for missile defense of Europe and other
regions would require BMD-capable Aegis ships to remain on station for missile
defense duty, the bill would require the Navy to report on its plans to
accommodate those new demands at the same time it meets other requirements
for major surface combatants in various theaters (Section 123).
• In its report, the Armed Services Committee questioned the Navy’s decision that
its 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines should be replaced by a new class
of subs which also would be large enough to carry the Trident II (or D-5) missile
carried by the current class. Because of their expense, these new ships,
designated SSBN(X), are expected to absorb a large share of the Navy’s
shipbuilding budgets after 2016, possibly crowding out the construction of other
planned ships.54 While authorizing the $672.3 million requested for SSBN(X)
development in FY2011, the committee barred the Navy from obligating more
than half the money until the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the
replacement missile subs must be large enough to carry Trident II missiles
instead of smaller weapons that might be carried by a modified version of the less
expensive Virginia-class attack submarine.
Aircraft
As reported by the House committee, H.R. 5136 would authorize a total of $19.5 billion for
procurement of airplanes and helicopters, funding the Administration’s request with few major
changes.
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter55
For development and procurement of the F-35 Joint Strike fighter, the bill would authorize a total
of $11billion to continue development of the aircraft and purchase 42 planes. The committee
rejected a request for one additional F-35 ($205 million) that would have been authorized in the
part of the bill dealing with war costs war-costs. The Administration’s rationale for this plane was
that it was to replace an fighter that was lost during the currently ongoing combat operations. The
committee noted that the Air Force could replace the lost aircraft by continuing to operate another
fighter of the same type slated for retirement.
Decrying cost overruns in the F-35 program and delays in its flight test program, the committee
included in the bill a provision barring the procurement of more than 30 planes in FY2011 until
DOD certifies that the program has met several cost and performance milestones. The bill also
would add to the budget $485 million to continue development of an alternate jet engine for the
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a program the Bush and Obama administrations both have tried to
terminate. The bill would bar DOD from spending more than 75% of the funds authorized for F-
35 development until it obligates all the funds for the second engine.
In a May 20 Pentagon press conference, Secretary Gates reaffirmed his intention to recommend
that President Obama veto any defense bill that funded the alternate F-35 engine. He also said
54 See CRS Report R41129, Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for
Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
55 For background, see “Aircraft Programs,” above.
Congressional Research Service
32
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
that the detailed requirements the committee bill placed on the F-35 test program and production
schedule would make the program “unexecutable.”56
F/A-18E/F
The House committee would add eight F/A-18E/F fighters ($630.5 million) to the 22 requested
($1.78 billion). The bill also includes a provision that would, in effect, pay for those additional
planes with any savings the Navy is expected to realize as a result of signing a multi-year contract
for F/A-18E/Fs in FY2010 (Section 122).
Ground Combat Systems57
As requested, H.R. 5136 would authorize $934 million for the Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle
(GCV) program, intended to develop a family of vehicles that would replace the Army’s current
fleet of armored vehicles. This program replaces the manned vehicle component of the Future
Combat Systems (FCS) program, an effort to develop an array of digitally-linked manned and
unmanned vehicles which Secretary Gates terminated in 2009 on grounds that it was too complex
and too expensive.
In its report on the FY2011 authorization bill, the House Armed Services Committee urged the
Army to take a less technologically ambitious approach with the new program, focusing on
development of vehicles that could meet basic requirements and be upgraded later.The panel also
said the Army should consider whether its current fleet of combat vehicles could be upgraded to
meet the basic GCV requirements. It included in the bill a provision that would allow the Army to
spend only half of the FY2011 GCV appropriation until the service provides the committee with a
detailed analysis of its plans for developing the new fleet of vehicles.
The committee also cut $779.4 million from the $2.25 billion requested for the Army’s Early
Infantry Brigade Combat Team program, an effort to field other components previously included
in FCS. The committee noted that the Army had terminated one element of the program – the
Non-Line of Sight (N-LOS) missile. The panel also said that other elements of this program were
being rushed into production, such as a digital communication network.
The committee added to the Navy’s budget authorization for continued development of its version
of the N-LOS, which is slated to arm the Littoral Combat Ship.
Military Construction: Carrier Homeport and Guam58
The House committee included in H.R. 5136 a provision barring the use of any funds authorized
by the bill to plan and design structures at the Naval Station in Mayport, Florida, to homeport
nuclear-powered aircraft carrier (Section 2201 c. 4). It also directed the GAO to conduct an
assessment of the direct and indirect costs of homeporting a carrier in Mayport and it directed the
56May 20, 2010 DOD press conference accessed at
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4625.
57 For background, see “Army Combat Force Modernization Programs,” above.
58 For background, see “Military Construction,” above.
Congressional Research Service
33
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
Navy to report on the cost and benefits of various options for using the Mayport naval facilities,
including stationing non-nuclear powered ships.
The bill would authorize the $139 million requested for facilities on Guam associated with the
planned redeployment to that island of Marine Corps units currently stationed on Okinawa and
other U.S. forces. In its report, the committee directed the Navy to report on plans for providing
housing and medical care for the thousands of construction workers who would be on the island
temporarily while constructing the facilities needed to support the redeployments.
The committee also added to the bill provisions requiring a DOD report on the facilities needed to
support the Guam redeployment (Section 2825) and a report by the Secretary of Interior, in
consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the government of Guam on the improvements to
the island’s civilian infrastructure that would be required as a result of the additional forces to be
stationed there (Section 2826). Another provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to use
existing federal programs transfer to the government of Guam up to $500 million to increase the
level of municipal services and expand facilities in order to offset the impact of the redeployment.
Guantanamo Bay Detainee Issues59
As reported by the House Armed Services Committee, H.R. 5136 would prohibit the release in
U.S. territory of any detainee currently held in the U.S. facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The
bill also would prohibit through December 31,2011 the use of DOD funds to transfer any
detainees to the United States or to U.S. posessions until 120 days after the President submitted to
Congress a detailed assessment of the risk such a move would involve and a plan for mitigating
that risk, including a estimate of the cost (Section 1032).
The bill also includes provisions that would:
• Prohibit the use of funds authorized by the bill to modify or build any facility in
the United States or in U.S. territories to house detainees currently held at
Guantanamo Bay (Section 1034);
• Prohibit the transfer of any Guantanamo Bay detainee to the custody of any
foreign government unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that
certain conditions are met that are intended to minimize the risk that the detainee
would be released (Section 1033); and
• Require the DOD Inspector General to investigate alleged illegal actions taken by
defense attorney’s associated with certain Guantanamo Bay detainees (Section
1037).
59 Prepared in collaboration with Anna C. Henning, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division, Congressional
Research Service.
Congressional Research Service
34
Appendix. Selected Program Summary Tables
Table A-1. Congressional Action on Selected FY2011 Missile Defense Funding: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
House-
Conference
Armed
Agreement
Services
Program Element
FY2011
Committee
Senate-
PE Number
Title
Request
proposal
Passed
Comments
0603175C BMD
Technology
132.2
132.2
0603881C BMD
Terminal
436.5 436.5
Defense Segment
0603882C BMD
Midcourse
1,346.2 1,346.2
Defense Segment
0603884C BMD
Sensors
454.9
454.9
0603888C
BMD Test & Targets
1,113.4
1,113.4
0603890C BMD
Enabling
402.8 402.8
Programs
0603891C
Special Programs -
270.2 245.2
MDA
0603892C AEGIS
BMD
1,467.3
1,467.3
0603893C
Space Tracking &
112.7 112.7
Surveillance System
0603895C
BMD System Space
10.9 10.9
Programs
0603896C BMD
Command
and
342.6 342.6
Control, Battle
Management and
Communications
0603898C
BMD Joint Warfighter
68.7 68.7
Support
CRS-35
House-
Conference
Armed
Agreement
Services
Program Element
FY2011
Committee
Senate-
PE Number
Title
Request
proposal
Passed
Comments
0603904C Missile
Defense
86.2 86.2
Integration &
Operations Center
(MDIOC)
0603901C Directed
Energy
98.7 148.7
HASC
added
$50 million for continued
Research
research using the Airborne Laser
(ABL)
0603906C Regarding
Trench
7.5
7.5
0603907C Sea-Based
X-Band
153.1 153.1
Radar (SBX)
0603913C Israeli
Cooperative
121.7 209.7
Does
not
include $205.5 million HASC
Programs
added to support Israel’s Iron Dome
system to defend against short-range
rockets and artillery shells.
0604880C Land-based
SM-3
281.4
281.4
0604881C
Aegis SM-3 Block IIA
318.8 318.8
Co-Development
0604883C Precision
Tracking
67.0 67.0
Space System
0604884C Airborne
Infrared
111.7
111.7
0901585C Pentagon
Reservation
20.5
20.5
0901598C Management
HQ
-
29.8 29.8
MDA
Subtotal RDT&E, Missile Defense
7,454.8 7,567.8
Agency
Base Realignment and Closure
9.0 9.0
(BRAC), Missile Defense Agency
THAAD, Fielding
858.9
858.9
CRS-36
House-
Conference
Armed
Agreement
Services
Program Element
FY2011
Committee
Senate-
PE Number
Title
Request
proposal
Passed
Comments
Aegis, Block 5 Fielding
94.1
144.1
Increases the number of SM-3 Standard
missiles procured in FY2011 to stabilize
the production rate.
AN/TPY-2 radar
0
65.0
Funds procurement of long lead-time
components for radars slated for
funding in FY2012.
Subtotal Procurement, Missile
953.0 1,068.0
Defense Agency
Total, Missile Defense Agency
8,416.8
8,644.8
0603305A
Army Missile Defense
11.5 11.5
Systems Integration
(non-space)
0603308A
Army Missile Defense
27.6 27.6
Systems Integration
(space)
0604869A Patriot/MEADS
467.1 467.1
Combined Aggregate
Program (CAP)
0605456A PAC-3/MSE
Missile
62.5
62.5
0605457A
Army Integrated Air
251.1 251.1
and Missile Defense
0203801A Missile/Air
Defense
24.3 24.3
Product Improvement
Program
0102419A Aerostat
Joint
372.5 372.5
Program Office
(JLENS)
0605126J
Joint Theater Air and
94.6 94.6
Missile Defense
Organization
Subtotal RDT&E, Army, Joint Staff
1,311.2
1,311.2
CRS-37
House-
Conference
Armed
Agreement
Services
Program Element
FY2011
Committee
Senate-
PE Number
Title
Request
proposal
Passed
Comments
C49100 Patriot/PAC-3
480.2
480.2
C50700 Patriot
modifications
57.2
190.8
Subtotal, Procurement, Army
537.4
671.0
Total Missile Defense R&D, MilCon,
10,265.4 10,627.0
Procurement, All Agencies
Sources: House Armed Services Committee, Report to Accompany H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, H.Rept. 111-491.
Notes: The defense authorization act generally does not determine the final amount provided for a program or project. The authorization bill authorizes the appropriation
of funds, but the amount available is determined by the appropriations. An appropriations bill may provide more than or less than the amount authorized, may provide
funds for a program for which no funds are authorized, and may provide funds for a “new start” for which funding has never been authorized.
Table A-2. Congressional Action on Selected FY2011 Army and Marine Corps Programs: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Request
HASC recommended
Senate-Passed
Final Bill
Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D
# $ $ # $ $
# $ $ #
$
$
Comments
Army Aircraft
Light Utility
50 305.3 0.0 50 305.3 0.0
Helicopter
UH-60 Blackhawk
74 1,391.6 0.0 74 1,391.6 20.6
Helicopter
CH-47 Chinook
42 1,229.7 0.0 42 1229.7 21.0
Helicopter
AH-64 Apache Helo
16 1,086.9 0.0 16 1,086.9 0.0
Mods
Combat Vehicles
M-2 Bradley Mods
—
215.3
97.0
—
215.3
97.0
CRS-38
Request
HASC recommended
Senate-Passed
Final Bill
Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D
# $ $ # $ $
# $ $ #
$
$
Comments
M-1 Abrams tank
21 413.9 107.5 21 413.9
107.5
Mods
Stryker Armored
83 890.9 136.3 83 890.9
136.3
Vehicle
Early Infantry Brigade
— 682.7
1,568.1 — 56.0 1,415.4
Cuts reflect
Combat Team
termination of the
N-LOS missile
system and delay of
other components.
Army Ground
-- 0.0
934.4 -- 0.0
934.4
Combat Vehicle
(GCV)
USMC Expeditionary
— 0.0 242.8 — 0.0 242.8
Fighting Vehicle (EFV)
Cargo and Transport Vehicles and Communications Systems
HMMWV, Army and
12,348 1,006.8 0.0 12,348 1,006.8 0.0
USMC
Family of Medium
4,652 1,526.7 3.7 4,652 1,526.7 3.7
Tactical Vehicles and
USMC Medium
Trucks
Family of Heavy
470 981.3 3.7 470 981.3 3.7
Tactical Vehicle
Source: House Armed Services Committee, press release, FY2011 National Defense Authorization Summary Tables, accessed at
http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/PressSummaryTablesFY11.pdf.
Note: The defense authorization act general y does not determine the final amount provided for a program or project. The authorization bill authorizes the appropriation
of funds, but the amount available is determined by the appropriations. An appropriations bill may provide more than or less than the amount authorized, may provide
funds for a program for which no funds are authorized, and may provide funds for a “new start” for which funding has never been authorized.
CRS-39
Table A-3. Congressional Action on Selected FY2010 Shipbuilding Programs: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Request HASC recommended
Senate-Passed
Final
Bill
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Comments
# $ $ #
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
CVN-21 Carrier
— 2,639.6 0.0 — 2,639.6 0.0
Carrier Refueling Overhaul
-- 1,664.8 0.0 -- 1,664.8 0.0
Virginia-class submarine
2
5,132.7
0.0
2
5132.2
0.0
DDG-1000 Destroyer
--
0.0
549.2
--
0.0
549.2
DDG-51 Destroyer
2 2,979.1 0.0 2 2,979.1 0.0
LCS Littoral Combat Ship
2 1,509.3 0.0 2 1,509.3 0.0
LHA Amphibious Ship
1
949.9
0.0
1
949.9
0.0
Joint High-Speed Vessel
1
180.7
0.0
1
180.7
0.0
Mobile Landing Platform
1 280.0 28.0 1 380.0 28.0
Sources: House Armed Services Committee, press release, FY2011 National Defense Authorization Summary Tables, accessed at
http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/PressSummaryTablesFY11.pdf.
Note: The defense authorization act general y does not determine the final amount provided for a program or project. The authorization bill authorizes the appropriation
of funds, but the amount available is determined by the appropriations. An appropriations bill may provide more than or less than the amount authorized, may provide
funds for a program for which no funds are authorized, and may provide funds for a “new start” for which funding has never been authorized.
CRS-40
Table A-4. Congressional Action on Selected FY2010 Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force Aircraft Programs: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Request HASC
recommended
Senate-Passed
Final
Bill
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Comments
# $ $ #
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
F-35A Joint Strike Fighter,
23
4,191.1 1,044.7
22
3,986.2 1,044.7
Denied funds for one plane
AF
requested to replace fighter lost
in current operations.
F-35C Joint Strike Fighter,
13 2,576.1 667.9 13 2,576.1 667.9
Navy
F-35B Joint Strike Fighter,
7 1,887.0 707.8 7 1,887.0 707.8
Marine Corps
F-22 Fighter Mods
--
492.2
576.3
--
492.2
576.3
F-15 Fighter Mods
--
302.2
222.7
--
302.2
222.7
F-16 Fighter Mods
--
161.2
129.1
--
161.2
129.1
EA-18G Aircraft, Navy
12
1,083.9
22.0
12
1,083.9
22.0
F/A-18E/F Fighter, Navy
22
1,787.2 148.4 30 2,287.2 148.4
Adds
$500 million for eight
additional aircraft.
A-10 Attack Plane Mods
--
181.9
5.7
--
181.9
5.7
B-1B
Bomber
Mods
-- 215.4 33.2 -- 215.4 33.2
B-2A Bomber Mods
--
89.6
260.5
--
89.6
260.5
B-52
Bomber
Mods
C-130 Cargo Aircraft
17 1,398.1 26.8 17 1,398.1 26.8
variants, AF
C-5 Cargo Aircraft Mods,
--
855,2
59.0
--
855,2
59.0
C-17 Cargo Aircraft Mods.
--
576.1
177.2
--
576.1
177.2
Joint
Cargo
Aircraft
8
351.2
26.4
8
351.2
26.4
KC-X Tanker Replacement,
--
0.0
863.9
--
0.0
863.9
MV-22 Osprey, Marine
30
2,202.9
46.1
30
2,202.9
46.1
Corps
CRS-41
Request HASC
recommended
Senate-Passed
Final
Bill
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Comments
# $ $ #
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
CV-22 Osprey, AF
5
406.7
18.3
5
406.7
18.3
CH-53K
Helicopter
-- 0.0
577.4
-- 0.0
577.4
VH-71A Executive
--
0.0
159.8
--
0.0
159.8
Funds are for development of a
Helicopter
new helicopter, following
termination of VH-71 program.
UH-1Y/AH-1Z
28
808.1
60.5
28
808.1
60.5
MH-60R/MH-60S Helicopter,
42
1,608.7
55.8
42
1,608.7
55.8
Navy
P-8A Poseidon Multi-Mission
7 1,990.6 929.2 7 1,990.6 929.2
Maritime Aircraft
E-2D Hawkeye Aircraft,
4
937.8
171.1
4
937.8
171.1
Navy
P-3/EP-3 Aircraft Mods
--
312.3
3.6
--
312.3
3.6
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
MQ-4 Global Hawk
4
739.8
251.3
4
739.8
251.3
MQ-9
Reaper
48 1,348.9 125.4 48 1,348.9 125.4
MQ-1
Warrior
(Predator)
26
625.0
123.2
26
625.0
123.2
RQ-7
Shadow
--
607.9
7.8
--
607.9
7.8
Sources: House Armed Services Committee,press release, FY2011 National Defense Authorization Summary Tables, accessed at
http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/PressSummaryTablesFY11.pdf.
Notes: The defense authorization act general y does not determine the final amount provided for a program or project. The authorization bill authorizes the appropriation of
funds, but the amount available is determined by the appropriations. An appropriations bill may provide more than or less than the amount authorized, may provide funds for a
program for which no funds are authorized, and may provide funds for a “new start” for which funding has never been authorized.
CRS-42
Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations
Author Contact Information
Pat Towell, Coordinator
Daniel H. Else
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
Specialist in National Defense
ptowell@crs.loc.gov, 7-2122
delse@crs.loc.gov, 7-4996
Amy Belasco
Steven A. Hildreth
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
Specialist in Missile Defense
abelasco@crs.loc.gov, 7-7627
shildreth@crs.loc.gov, 7-7635
Stephen Daggett
Steve Bowman
Specialist in Defense Policy and Budgets
Specialist in National Security
sdaggett@crs.loc.gov, 7-7642
sbowman@crs.loc.gov, 7-5841
Don J. Jansen
Jeremiah Gertler
Analyst in Defense Health Care Policy
Specialist in Military Aviation
djansen@crs.loc.gov, 7-4769
jgertler@crs.loc.gov, 7-5107
Charles A. Henning
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
Specialist in Naval Affairs
chenning@crs.loc.gov, 7-8866
rorourke@crs.loc.gov, 7-7610
Congressional Research Service
43