House lawmakers take aim at Pentagon plan to ramp up missile production for Ukraine

House lawmakers take aim at Pentagon plan to ramp up scaled | ltc-a

The committee’s move also creates a potential fight with other House and Senate colleges that may side with the Pentagon’s plans. Multi-year missile purchases have proved popular on Capitol Hill, where many lawmakers are taking an increasingly aggressive stance on China and argue that the United States must produce enough weapons to be ready for a potential conflict over Taiwan before the end of the year. decade.

But the appropriaters question the feasibility of the ambitious plans for some munitions, saying the Pentagon hasn’t shown its work to justify betting on the bold plan.

“The Committee is particularly concerned about the Department [of Defense] is unable to provide realistic cost estimates and has proceeded with these multi-year procurement requests without a solid understanding of the unit cost and throughput capacity of each program,” the lawmakers wrote in their report.

Instead, the panel redirected the money to support military training, maintenance and operations, as well as the Pentagon’s research and development efforts to field new technologies and weapons. The shift in funding came as the embezzlers — faced with a defense spending cap blocked by the debt-limit agreement — reduced the Pentagon’s overall arms procurement spending. Procurement, typically a favorite for congressional increases, is running $3 billion short of what the Pentagon is requesting.

As part of the $2.5 billion rocket cut, the spending panel cut much of a $1.9 billion Pentagon push to bolster bulk purchases, blocking a large chunk of the « quantity » funding. of an economic nature » for missile programmes. The designation is a mathematical device used to show that buying at a higher volume will result in lower prices per missile, but the Pentagon has been unable to provide adequate data.

The committee specifically denied multi-year procurement authority for Raytheon Technologies’ Standard 6 missile and advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles because the appropriaters do not believe the Pentagon has a clear understanding of unit costs and capability. production.

Having data to support unit cost and production capacity estimates is required by law to initiate the multi-year procurement authority, which the Pentagon already uses for ships and aircraft.

In their report, the House approvers said they agreed with the need for « constant demand » so the defense industrial base can ramp up production, but countered that the Pentagon « failed to demonstrate » how multi-year contracts would meet those legal standards.

When asked why the military failed to provide adequate documentation in filing a case for the multi-year procurement authority, Pentagon spokesman Cmdr. Nicole Schwegman said, « It would be inappropriate to comment on pending legislation. »

The committee cleared the multi-year procurement authority for naval strike missiles, multiple-launch guided missile systems, Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile segment improvements, long-range anti-ship missiles and joint air-to-surface missiles.

The appropriaters explained that several missile programs « are worthy of consideration for multi-year procurements because of their enduring importance and ongoing production » as justification for allowing bulk purchases of this munitions.

The move to cut plans to finance missiles has drawn a rebuke from Democratic embezzlers, who argue the massive $1.9 billion proposal is needed to deal with threats posed by China.

The report, due out next week, outlines the funding changes made by the appropriaters to President Joe Biden’s defense budget. Explain the committee’s priorities in shaping the bill and items of interest or concern to the embezzlers.

The full Appropriations Committee is expected to flag the FY 2024 funding bill on Thursday after it passed this week at the subcommittee level. Democrats are expected to oppose the spending differential legislation with Republicans and a variety of conservative horsemen.

Defense policy legislation making its way through the House Armed Services Committee broadly approves the proposed missile spending, although the panel’s bill only authorizes funding, leaving the allocation of money to the appropriaters.

The bill cuts the Pentagon’s overall procurement bills by $4 billion over the administration’s budget request, largely due to cutbacks to missile programs. Overall spending on arms would still increase by $2.8 billion from this year’s level.

Other major bills, however, would rise with respect to Pentagon submission. Funding for operations and maintenance was $3 billion in excess of the request. The allocators also added another $2 billion to the administration’s research and development request.