US Senate Republicans lift lid on FY21-22 defence budget

While the counting and legal battles continue to determine the leader of the free world, Senate Republicans have introduced a budget proposal for the US government, totalling US$1.4 trillion in new spending, with US$696 billion allocated to defence spending. This falls below the US$704.5 billion allocated in the previous year, forcing the US to increasingly balance its global operational responsibilities, new acquisitions and research and development. 

This proposed bill, differs considerably from a similar proposal from the House of Representatives with a series of shifts in acquisition, funding allocations and research and development programs designed to modernise the platforms and weapons, which have formed the backbone of the US Armed Forces since the end of the Cold War, as it struggles to shift its priorities from the Middle East to countering peer and near-peer great power competitors in the Indo-Pacific and Europe. 

Joe Gould, Valerie Insinna, David Larter, Andrew Eversden, and Nathan Strout writing for Defense News, have helped illuminate the details of the Republican proposal, with some of the more contentious remnants of President Trump's policy agenda seemingly facing the significant cuts as the Republican Party adjusts to the reality of a Democrat held White House, with the group stating: 

"The House passed its US$694.6 billion Pentagon spending bill for fiscal 2021 in July as part of a US$1.3 trillion package. It included politically charged provisions to set aside US$1 million for the Army to rename 10 bases that honour Confederate leaders and to bar the Trump administration from using more Pentagon funds on border wall construction.

"It would reduce transfer authority from the requested US$9.5 billion to US$1.9 billion, and place additional oversight mechanisms on the Defense Department’s ability to reprogram funds."

A mixed bag for US air power

US air power, across the US Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, is in the middle of one of its largest and most comprehensive modernisation and recapitalisation efforts since the 1960s, with many legacy aircraft, ranging from the venerable, but older F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon, F/A-18 Hornets and Harrier series all being phased out in favour of the fifth-generation, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter series of aircraft, while platforms like the B-1B Lancer, A-10 Warthog and other aircraft remain contentious, costly capabilities for further consideration. 

VIEW ALL

"The Senate panel would fund a total of 96 F-35s in FY21, 17 jets more than the Pentagon’s request and five more than the panel’s House counterpart. Its bill added about US$1.7 billion for 12 F-35As for the Air Force and five F-35Cs for the Marine Corps and Navy," Gould, Insinna, Larter, Eversden and Strout explained. 

Meanwhile, some of the more costly programs, namely the B-21 Raider bomber and the Air Force's Next Generation Air Dominance program, have received a bit of a mixed bag when it comes to funding allocation, while 'game changer' technology like the Advanced Battle Management System, similar to what the Royal Australian Air Force is pursuing as part of the multi-billion AIR 6500 program, has also had funding cut.

The group added, "Though the bill fully funds the B-21 bomber program, many of the Air Force’s other major development programs received slight cuts. Funding for one of its biggest priorities, the Advanced Battle Management System, shrank from US$302 million to US$208 million. The committee cited 'poor justification' as a reason for the cuts.

"The Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance program also would take a hit despite the headline-grabbing first flight of a full-scale demonstrator aircraft, which was disclosed by the service in September. The Air Force wanted US$1 billion in FY21 to continue development of NGAD ― a suite of manned and unmanned air superiority technologies that could include a sixth-generation fighter. However, the committee shaved about $70 million off the request."

Additionally, the Republicans called for "nine P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft and four E-2D Advanced Hawkeyes, as well as 24 F/A-18 Super Hornet fighters", as a means of expanding the strike power available to the naval aviation capabilities of the US Navy. 

Slight uptick in naval shipbuilding, but no major increase in capability

Senate Republicans have allocated an extra US$1.44 billion than the President requested for shipbuilding/acquisition, bringing the total to approximately US$21.35 billion, despite this figure being less than the proposed House bill. 

However, despite this seemingly marginal increase in available funding, the US Navy won't received a major increase to capability, as the Republicans called for the acquisition of a single Virginia Class attack submarine, one less than the House bill, but an order that meets the administration's request. 

Meanwhile, the US Navy funding will also call for the acquisition of the lead ship of the new Constellation Class frigate, two Arleigh Burke Class destroyers and two towing and salvage ships to support the US Navy.

Countering Beijing's lead in 5G technology

In a move that shocked some, the Republican proposal sought to fully fund the Pentagon's US$449 million budget request for the development, acquisition and fielding of "defense-wide 5G projects", which brought that total to US$19 million more than what was proposed by the House of Representatives. 

Additionally, the group details the Pentagon's increasing collaboration with industry to close the gap China enjoys in the 5G space, explaining, "The Pentagon is working with industry on multiple ongoing 5G experiments that are underway at military bases across the country. The department recently awarded US$600 million in contracts for the effort."

A big investment in space capabilities

The Republican Senate has moved to clarify the chain of command and funding available to the growing range of space-based capabilities available to the US Armed Forces, with hypersonics, precision global positioning and tracking capabilities to support freedom of operations, missile defence and strike capacity around the world. 

Gould, Insinna, Larter, Eversden and Strout explain, "The bill also adds to frustrations expressed by members of the House at how a new constellation of hypersonic weapon-tracking satellites will be funded. While technically a Missile Defense Agency program, former under secretary of defense for research and engineering Mike Griffin pushed for the Hypersonic Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor, or HBTSS, to be funded through the Space Development Agency."

Building on this, the group details the challenges facing the increasingly convoluted bureaucracy overseeing the capabilities essential to US tactical and strategic supremacy, adding, "Leaders of both agencies have insisted that the program remains under MDA’s ownership, but legislators have expressed concern over the arrangement and the low level of funding set aside for it. No money was set aside for HBTSS in MDA’s budget, while the Space Development Agency’s budget included $20 million for the critical sensor.

"In June, the House Armed Services Committee’s strategic forces subpanel threatened to transfer MDA away from the undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, placing it instead under the undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment. While the Senate bill doesn’t go that far, it does add an additional US$140 million in unrequested funding for HBTSS, including a US$20 million transfer from the Space Development Agency. Furthermore, senators demanded the agencies report on their acquisition strategy for HBTSS and fully fund the program in their future budget proposals."

While there is still a while to go before the full and final allocation is presented, it appears as though the US defence budget is facing the limitations of spending as a response to the impact of COVID on the US economy and maintaining the full spectrum of global responsibilities the US must shoulder. 

Your thoughts 

Australia’s position and responsibilities in the Indo-Pacific region will depend on the nation’s ability to sustain itself economically, strategically and politically.

Despite the nation’s virtually unrivalled wealth of natural resources, agricultural and industrial potential, there is a lack of a cohesive national security strategy integrating the development of individual yet complementary public policy strategies to support a more robust Australian role in the region.

Enhancing Australia’s capacity to act as an independent power, incorporating great power-style strategic economic, diplomatic and military capability serves as a powerful symbol of Australia’s sovereignty and evolving responsibilities in supporting and enhancing the security and prosperity of Indo-Pacific Asia.

However, as events continue to unfold throughout the region and China continues to throw its economic, political and strategic weight around, can Australia afford to remain a secondary power or does it need to embrace a larger, more independent role in an era of increasing great power competition?

Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce also issued a challenge for Australia's political and strategic policy leaders, saying:

"If we observe that the level of debate among our leaders is characterised by mud-slinging, obfuscation and the deliberate misrepresentation of the views of others, why would the community behave differently ... Our failure to do so will leave a very damaging legacy for future generations."

Let us know your thoughts and ideas about the development of a holistic national strategy to co-ordinate the nation’s response to mounting pressure from nation-state and asymmetric challenges in the comments section below, or get in touch with This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..