------
WASHINGTON- The House Armed Services Committee today released legislative language scheduled to be considered by the Subcommittee on the Tactical Air and Land Forces at their markup tomorrow. By releasing the legislative language as well as other descriptive information, Chairman McKeon is complying with House disclosure rules and overseeing the most transparent process in Congress for composing national security legislation. Led by subcommittee Chairman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), the proposal gives first priority to the warfighter by providing equipment needed to support our forces in combat, active, Guard, and Reserve. The proposal will:
- Support counter-IED funding for the warfighter
- Sustain America's heavy armored production base by maintaining minimum sustained production of Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, and Hercules recovery vehicles.
- Retain the Air Force's Global Hawk Block 30 unmanned intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft as they support the deployed warfighter, rather than shifting this asset to storage.
- Maintain the option for additional airborne electronic warfare capabilities by supporting advance procurement for the EA-18G.
- Fully fund the Army Ground Combat Vehicle development program
- Fully fund Army request for 50 AH-64 Apaches, 59 UH-60 Blackhawks, and 44 CH-47 Chinooks
- Fund procurement of 29 F-35 Lightning II aircraft
- Fund procurement of 26 F-18 E/F Super Hornets and 12 EA-18G Growlers
- Fully fund Navy and Air Force requests for V-22 aircraft
- Fund procurement of 36 MQ-9 Reaper UAS for the Air Force, an increase of 12 over the budget request
The legislative text, descriptive section-by-section analysis, and directive report language can be found here or on the NDAA Subcommittee Mark page. The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces will meet tomorrow at 9:00 AM in room 2118 to consider this proposal.
---- And the story to all of this. Lots of things above are a real waste of billions we do not have.
1 comment:
The Global Hawk storage plan brings up an interesting scenario.
Why not simply retain F-35 production in order to support the manufacturing base and support US jobs, yet place LRIP F-35 into immediate storage as they will be too expensive to fix, upgrade, operate and sustain over the lifecycle?
Post a Comment