DoD’s 2013 Budget Preview (Updated with Docs)

Happy budget day! Yup, the Pentagon’s 2013 budget request officially drops today and according to Reuters, it’s going to ask for $187.8 billion to buy planes and ships while chopping cash for ground vehicles.

As we’ve said before, in the 2013 budget, strategic weapons are winning the funding game in the second decade of the 21st Century.

Keep in mind that what you’ll read below is an early report, check in to DoD Buzz today near-live coverage of the Pentagon’s official budget rollout.

While the Air Force and Navy are seeing significant investment in new toys, the overall defense budget is shrinking by just over 12 percent from last year’s defense budget (when war funding, known as overseas contingency operations money, is included), says this report.

The Army and Marines are expected to see investment in replacements for the Humvee and M2 Bradley fighting vehicle but will see significant cuts to their truck fleets with a 32 percent drop in ground vehicle cash, according to Rueters:

The Pentagon’s spending plan includes $10.9 billion for ground vehicles, 32 percent less than the $16 billion requested in fiscal 2012. The new request includes $117 million for continued development of a new light tactical vehicle for the Army and Marine Corps and a heavier new Ground Combat Vehicle.

Funding for the Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles built by Oshkosh Corp would drop to $58.1 million for 1,534 vehicles from $650 million for 9,336 vehicles funded in fiscal 2012.

Click through the jump to read more details and see the Pentagon’s freshly released 2013 budget highlights.

While the Air Force and Navy were spared super steep cuts, overall funds requested for aviation are going to be slightly down, according to the wire service.

As we all know F-35 Joint Strike Fighter procurement is being slowed with $9.17 billion requested for fiscal year 2013, “down slightly from $9.25 billion requested in fiscal 2012,” reports Reuters. The Air Force is also getting $1.82 billion for the new KC-46 tanker.

However, reductions in C-130J buys and 32 percent chop in V-22 Osprey tiltrotor cash means that overall aircraft spending is down 12 percent:

Overall spending on aircraft programs will drop 12 percent to $47.6 billion in fiscal 2013 from $54.2 billion in the fiscal 2012 budget request, mainly due to a 41 percent drop in funding for the Lockheed-built C-130J transport plane, and a 32 percent cut in funding for the V-22 Osprey.

The Pentagon proposed spending $835 million on seven more C-130J airlifters in fiscal 2013, down from $1.43 billion for 12 planes in fiscal 2012.

Funding for the V-22, a tilt-rotor aircraft built by Boeing and Bell Helicopter, a unit of Textron Inc, would drop to $1.91 billion for 21 aircraft, from $2.8 billion for 35 planes in fiscal 2012.

The plan foresees spending of $1.25 billion for six high-altitude unmanned Global Hawk spy planes built by Northrop Grumman - three for NATO and three for the Navy. Panetta announced last month that the Pentagon was cancelling work on the Air Force’s Block 30 variant.

The plan would increase funding for the AH-64 Apache helicopter built by Boeing by 55 percent, funding 40 remanufactured helicopters and 10 new aircraft. Northrop Grumman

and Lockheed also have a big role in the program.

Funding for the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter built by Sikorsky Aircraft, a unit of United Technologies Corp, would continue a five-year procurement agreement with $1.3 billion for 59 of the twin-engine helicopters.

As for ships, they’re alright seeing as how they fit into the Pentagon’s new focus on the western Pacific. You know, the ocean, that thing you need big ships and airplanes to control.

Shipbuilding programs would get $22.6 billion in the fiscal 2013 request, down from $24 billion in the fiscal 2012 request. That will fund 2 Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines, 2 DDG-51 destroyers, and 4 Littoral Combat Ships.

The Navy is also asking for “$781.7 billion for initial construction funding of a new aircraft carrier, and $1.6 billion for the refueling of the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier.”

Here’s the Pentagon’s budget highlight paper that was released this morining:

DoD 2013 Budget Highlights

Here’s a more detailed look at the budget request:

FY2013 Budget Request Overview Book

  • Nick T.

    Is there no love for the modern infantryman in this world?

  • Ryan Graham

    Wow, $781.7 BILLION for initial construction costs on a new Ford class carrier. That thing better be the airborne helicarrier from the S.H.I.E.L.D. (comic book) for that kind of money. ;)

  • Matt Sturgeon

    *Does it really cost $1.6 bn to refuel a carrier? I mean you are basically just removing old and bringing in new fuel rods, correct? A brand new fuel rod is only worth a couple million in the real world. Assuming they put in 40 rods @ $2m a peice that is still only $80m in materials…. lets say $100m in materials… is that really 1.5 BN in LABOR?

    * = This is not a professional assessment I dont know how many fuel rods go into the reactor of a carrier, or if it even accepts fuel rods, but still. I know about how much a fuel rod is worth.

  • Pat

    i think they need to put money into the marines so they dont need to use the m16 and use the m4

  • Belesari

    Um DT 90% sure thats 781.7mil not bil just saying.

    Oh look more little coffin ships…….joy.

  • Zeyn

    Good idea!!! lest keep ignoring ground forces!

    strategic weapons are useless, we will never go to war with a superpower due to MAD from nukes.
    but we could go to war with a smaller nation like Iran where ground troops dont need then the Navy and half of the Air force.

  • Lance

    With over 7% cuts in its funding I doubt JLTV and GCV will be online in 2017. They may be pushed back till mid 2020s by this cuts in funding. Congress may still kill it like they asked the DoD to do last year remember the Congress has the final say in what goes and dies in the budget. This is just the beginning not the final say.

  • Neil

    Lasers, Railgun and FEL???

    • Moose

      All three are still going.

  • Black Owl

    We seriously need to scale back defense spending. This is ridiculous. The F-35 also needs to go since it is littered with so many design flaws it would take billions more dollars to get it to do what it’s supposed to. The F-35B still breaks a part when we try to fly it and the F-35C can’t even land on a carrier because it’s tailhook is flawed. If we cancelled these two models alone we might come close to saving the money that we need to for good machines and aircraft that work, such as the Super Hornet and new aircraft carriers. I also can’t believe that JAGM got cancelled. The JAGM missile would have been ideal for the types of warfare that we are fighting now and will continue to fight in the future.

    Also if you want to give me thumb downs for this comment well in the words of Jersey Shore: “Come at me, bro!”

    • blight_

      We should give Boeing a call and tell them to put out a JSF-A and a JSF-C back into the game (echoing our double competitor LCS). Then again, LCS is not exactly a great role model

  • Bryan Daley

    That number can’t be right in regards tot he carrier. That is clearly a typo

  • Papi1960R

    Well we appearently do not learn lessons very well. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that the USMC cannot deploy, conduct and sustain combat operations without the trucks, drivers and fuelers of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. Now with these cuts the Active Army will join the Marines as logistically challenged. All this while the Kremlin’s favorite Democrat, Leon Panetta, is planning to cut the Guard and Reserves of all the branches severely. Am I the only one who realises that M1s, LAVs and Bradleys don’t work without 2 1/2, 5ton, HEMMTs and PLS trucks.

  • Ben

    I’m a complete layman when it comes to such matters, but why are nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers only given enough nuclear fuel, when they are first commissioned, to last them 20 years or so (thus ensuring that they will require refueling at some point?)

    Why not simply put enough nuclear fuel at the beginning to last them 40-60 years and never have to refuel at all?

  • 10th

    “The request asks for $781 million in carrier construction money, including $608.2 million in procurement for CVN 79 and $173.5 million for research and development (R&D).”

    Since it is part of a $12.8 billion dollar request, the carrier cost is in millions…

  • bobbymike

    I would increase defense spending to $900 billion by cutting food stamps, welfare and unemployment. Put all eligible men and women into the armed forces building weapons, learning maintenance, computers, whatever.

    That would be a WWII type stimulus that might work :) OK not a serious proposal but whatever.

  • J Hughes

    This isnt even a pathetic 5% of our national GDP

  • J Hughes…

  • itfunk

    We don’t need ground forces, we are running away from 2 lost ground wars.

    • blight

      Those two “lost ground wars” were limited wars. The problem with limited wars is that you have a stake, but not a stake where the nation’s safety is in peril, but not too little that you have the option of not intervening (or so we all thought).

      Take Vietnam. At the time, domino theory suggested that with the demise of Vietnam, SE Asia would become Red. Doing nothing wasn’t an option. Nuking China to preserve RVN wasn’t an option either. So the only option left was ground troops, until it became politically untenable.

  • Neil

    High Energy Laser (HEL), Railgun and Free electron laser (FEL)???

  • my site