Winners and losers in the Senate’s defense policy bill

Other programs such as the Army’s Bradley Fighting Vehicle and the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship did not fare so well.

The weapons decisions in the Senate’s National Defense Authorization Act is a guidepost to congressional appropriators as they write annual defense spending bills. The NDAA itself is also still unsettled as lawmakers in the House and Senate huddle in the coming weeks to hammer out a final piece of legislation — and potential changes to the procurement plans.

Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., who is the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee in Sen. John McCain’s absence, said he shares the optimistic assessment of Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, that a finished bill could be ready by the end of July.

“I think it’s good. I think there’s no reason we can’t do that. And I’ve talked to [Thornberry], we’re going to have a conference,” Inhofe said. “Good things are going to happen and we’ll get it wrapped up.”

Here are the major winners and losers among big-ticket programs:

WINNERS

New amphibious ships: One of the largest program increases in the Senate bill goes to the Navy’s planned replacement of its Whidbey Island-class and Harpers Ferry-class amphibious ships. It authorizes $650 million to kick off the new line, which could also be built by Huntington Ingalls Industries just like the first series of San Antonio-class amphibious ships.

The House’s NDAA bill passed in May calls for $150 million. The Senate Armed Services Committee gave the boost because it believed the designs and cost estimates were mature enough to award a multiyear contract.

“The committee believes sufficient design maturity and cost estimate precision have been achieved to award a multiyear procurement contract for Flight II LPD-class ships, which will be procured in fiscal years 2020 through 2024,” the committee wrote in the Senate report on the legislation.

Light attack aircraft: The Senate bill goes all in on adding new light attack aircraft to the Air Force and Marine Corps fleets. It authorized $450 million for the effort — $350 million for the Air Force and $100 million for the Marines — after the president and the House NDAA proposed no spending on the programs in 2019.

The Air Force has been shopping for the smaller aircraft to fight terrorists and other low-end threats. It is in the midst of a three-month fly-off competition between the A-29 Super Tucano, which is built by Sierra Nevada and Embraer and already being used by the Afghan air force, and the AT-6B Wolverine built by Textron Aviation.

“The low cost per flight hour, simplicity, and tailored capabilities of a light attack platform could also provide a significant increase in the amount of support provided to Marine, joint force, and allied ground units,” the Senate Armed Services Committee wrote. “It may also help provide an affordable path to a light attack capability for allies.”

LOSERS

Littoral Combat Ship: The Senate is not yet sold on the need for more littoral combat ships for the Navy.

Over on the House side, the authorizers have proposed three more of the small surface ships, which have been dogged by criticism and design problems in recent years.

But the NDAA passed in the Senate has $679 million for a single LCS and bars any more spending unless the Pentagon certifies it needs and can use more of the ships. Commercial shipyards in Wisconsin and Alabama, where Lockheed Martin and Austal USA build the two LCS variants, have warned of layoffs if the Senate’s single buy wins out.

Lawmakers from the states have been pushing to increase purchases in 2019. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., tried unsuccessfully to add a ship to the NDAA, but said he hopes the number is increased during the House and Senate conference.

“I think it’s extremely important that we maintain these manufacturing capabilities, particularly as we’re trying to build up the Navy,” Johnson said. “It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to kind of starve those manufacturing facilities of these types of projects.”

Bradley replacement: The Senate is looking toward a replacement for the Army’s stalwart but aging Bradley fighting vehicles.

It proposes slashing $324 million from the president’s $625 million request in 2019 to buy more of the vehicles, which are built by BAE Systems and are a key part of the service’s armored brigades. At the same time, the bill calls for $190 million to help the Army develop the next generation of combat vehicle.

The bill proposes a $70 million increase in research money for the next-generation combat vehicle and calls for the Pentagon to pull together a report on the replacement within two months. Senators said they were concerned that the military has not compiled a good set of requirements for the new vehicle.

“The committee views this combat vehicle as a replacement to the aging Bradley fighting vehicle and believes it should be optimized for close combat maneuver, agile exploitation and transport of mechanized infantry as part of an armored, combined arms team,” it wrote. “Therefore, the committee encourages the secretary of the Army to use all available acquisition authorities, to the fullest extent possible, to build a ground combat vehicle prototype with the potential to be rapidly produced and fielded.”

WHAT’S NEXT?

The Senate passage of the NDAA last week began the final phase of writing the massive must-pass legislation. The House passed its version in May.

Both the House and Senate must name members to the conference committee that will be charged with negotiating face-to-face on the issues within the bill.

Inhofe and Thornberry are optimistic about getting the final bill written months earlier than past years. But that will also depend on Democrats and what they want in the legislation, which will have to be passed again by both chambers.

“I think right now the staff are doing this side-by-side trying to get ready and then they’ll start trying to deal with some of the issues that can be resolved at the staff level. So, we’re moving forward,” said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee. “I think we have to get into the bill more before we get a sense of the final timeline.”