aircraft procurement, obviously, we are seeing a bit of an up take here in 2013, 2014 two today. but the interesting thing to note on this chart is actually back 2009 when we are seeing a in that the navy is actually spending more money on aircraft procurement then the air force is. we can look at the navy is f-35g two variants of the for the marine corps and navy in addition to more super hornets as well. that is the interesting trend we are seeing now. aircraft procurement spending was one of the major winners in the conference report. that is something we should note. area, on, so one munitions was one of the losers within 2019. we really thought that was basically a trade-off for buying more weapon systems, buying more

aircraft. but if we are looking here at the long-term trends, we can see that from fy15 onwards, there is an uptick and notably that is for increased involvement in syria. so for example, we can look at the army here. the army is really skyrocketing. but the question is, if we are cutting back, that is why dod is essentially saying, look, we have shortages of emissions and ammo. but the question is, if they are making the trade-off in fy 19 does not have any impact on our participation and involvement in syria going forward? moving on, if we look at classified procurement funding, you will notice a distinct trend here that we saw a major uptick after 2001. but you will notice that it has continued to increase and is largely not subject to any fluctuations. it has not really been subject to the budget control act.

if we are reading this out by service, obviously, we can tell it is almost all in the air force budget. this is the non-blue part of the air force budget, essentially a path through to intel agencies. another loser is in this year's conference report. it has been decreasing noticeably since fy 12, fy 13. the major question with the space force is how it is these freestyle and agency going to impact currrent going forward? right. >> questions? yeah. do you have any sense given the attention on hypersonic as to how much money is actually going in that direction?

>> that is hard to track because that would largely be in rdt funding right now and program lines. that is something we try to look at before, but it is hard to do because you have some program elements that will fund technologies, and some of those technologies could be applied for hypersonic weapons, but they could also be applied to other things so it depends on how you categorize it. i don't have a good number for you. it is not as if there is a hypersonic's budget india the -- in dod. >> getting back to the conference report, instead of the 77 f-35's that were requested, we have 93. do you have an understanding what kind of stress that will put on the o&m budget for the services, or did that money show up in a conference report? what happened there with procurement to sustain the new aircraft that they did not plan on? >> that will happen in a future budget. [laughter] >> yeah. you add additional aircraft this

year.it will be a few years before they are actually delivered and dod has to start for the o&m for it. up plentye air force of time to go back and revise for the future to account for these additional aircraft. this is not new, congress adding has f-35's than dod requested me that has happened year-over-year now for a while so you can count on that happening in future years as well. >> but still a bill that will come due. that we have not necessarily planned for but we seem to get it every year. >> yeah. >> trying to make this work. yes. i'm very smart. -- the navy has the 355 ship thing, which will probably not happen. now the air force has a 386 thing that will probably not happen. is the army losing the

implausible numerical target race now? [laughter] >> do they need to come up with, i don't know, something in the 300's clearly and just figure out what unit of army they want and throw it against the wall? >> new battalions or something. >> how can the army make sure it is not overlooked? the targets will not be reached, but at least they pushed the debate upwards. the army has never been able to do that. >> i fully expect an army is going to -- they are going to go back and retool and think about this. what is the single metric they can come up with for structure that will work for them? i would caution that in all of this, whenever you try to come up with a single metric for something as complex as military force structure, it is going to be fraught with issues. so you look at navy ship count, it is not a good way to measure, you know, our navy force

structure. anyone in the navy will tell you that. i know former defense secretary bob work has talked about this. the number of ships is not what is important.it is what you can do with them, the capabilities you have on them. the same is true with a number of squadrons. what truly matters is what can you do with them? what hundred capabilities you have with the squadrons?what kind of aircraft and how many aircraft, not squadrons? army, they may want to play catch up and try to come up with that single perfect metric. but i would hope they would come up with something better, which is a basket of metrics that show how you are going to improve in a lot of different areas. a big area for the army if they want to retire to the strategy, the strategy talks about focusing more on near competitors in russia and china. if they want to play in that, they ought to be looking at their longer-range forces like long-range buyers. you know? what are those capabilities they

can bring to the fight that would actually play in russia and china scenarios.not be typical infantry and armor battalions that probably will not be able to get into that kind of find. -- fight. >> so just wanted to circle back to o&m real quick. secretary of defense and sherman have talked a lot about dynamic force employment. i often wonder if that is code for spending a little less on operations. we certainly saw the truman just spent two weeks, two months at port and then came back out. clearly, that saves money for the navy. i am wondering just basically as you look out at the o&m budget are you seeing trays like having made, or is it staying pretty growing? >> in the budget, they do not do any level of detail in terms of

actual operations. o&m pots of money are big out unts with detailed justification in them. they will give the number of flying hours, steaming days, things like that. not seeing huge shifts there that are abnormal given the trends over the past 10 to 20 years. no, you cannot see that from the budget. i would take secretary mattis at is where the this dynamic approach they are using is more to just be unpredictable and to try to lessen some of the stress on the force. adversaries but take your of our own troops by not necessarily keeping them deployed quite as often. >> going back to sustainment real quick, was wondering if you guys did any overall trend

looking at overall transfer sustainment overall and specifically, i don't know where this would be, in relation to fms programs. i know this week the air force was talking about how about 70% of their sustainment funding for fms programs right now. i did not know if you guys were tracking that much. >> did not look at ms and i wonder how they come up with that, but we look the overall operation and maintenance costs. one of veterans you see is if you normalize your o&m costs for the size of the force, and this is imperfect, but if you look at o&m per person in the active-duty military, this is adjusted for inflation. you see pretty steady growth over time, going at 2% to 3% above inflation year after year after year. oco fundinghere is drills those costs of. but if you take out and look at base budget o&m, it continues along the same trend line we have been for decades. one thing we did dive into in a

little more detail was looking at different portions of our force, the operating costs of the operating forces, and how much those increased. the blue bars show the total percentage increase in operating forces over the past 20 years. this is a 20 year comparison. the red bar shows the increase on a per plane or soldier or ship basis. ofyou see that per unit force that we have, we have had from this growth and cost. take the navy for example. the cost of operating our ships has doubled over the past 20 years. it costs twice as much to operate ships as it used to. for air force air operations, it is even more than that. it is close to a 160% in increase above

inflation rate there is no one reason for this great with the air force, one thing you can look at is the number of of aircraft. we have small numbers of the aircraft. small leads tend to cost more to operate because there are a lot of fixed costs with having a theater aircraft. just think about this. every aircraft is unique in terms of the tooling you need to do the maintenance, the training of the people to do the maintenance. if you have a small number of them, you still have to have all that tooling. you still have to have the facilities, the trained people. and you have to have the trainers to train the people. right? you have a whole pipeline, maintenance pipeline, for every type of aircraft. when you have a lot of different types of aircraft and small numbers of each, that drives the cost per plane up. if you look at offensive aircraft were we have large sums of them like the f-16, the cost of those aircraft, the operating cost is much lower because you can take that fixed cost that you have with the training and

personnel and everything and dispersed over a much larger number of aircraft. that is part of the issue we are seeing here, but it does not explain it all. our equipment is just getting more expensive to maintain is the bottom line. wanted to ask to look ahead to the mid-2020's. did it service if you had to pick one weapon system that you think will fall off or become significantly, what would it be? >> oh, that is predicting the future there. the army is too hard to tell because they are changing up a lot of the modernization programs. and so it is always a safe bet that any new ground vehicle program in the army is probably going to get delayed or canceled . they have a good track record of that. in the navy, so the navy actually, despite the metaphor

being a naval one of a wa muchhe navy doesn't have of a way because they have a finite capacity in shipyards. so they cannot plan for a huge spike in shipbuilding. they are limited in what the shipyards can build in any one year. there will be fluctuations from year-to-year, but not as much as you can see in the other services. with the navy, the big thing they have is the columbia class. that is the new nuclear submarine to carry nuclear sub launched ballistic missiles. that program is very protective because that is the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad. i think they will keep that on schedule as much as they possibly can because the current fleet of ships, the ohio class ships they are replacing, they are reaching the end of their life. they already had their service life extended. just not going to be able to get much else out of them so you got

to keep production of the columbia class going. but to do that, you are going to have to find potentially offsets in other shipbuilding programs. probably the most natural offset, even though it may not be a good idea, would be virginia class up. instead of trying to say at two subs per year, they had in the past plan on going to one per year in some years. the navy talked about going up to three per year. i do not think that will be realistic. there is this new frigate program they are trying to get started, a new small service combatant, a frigate. that is one that does not have a constituency yet. going to be more at risk politically. with the air force, they have the f-35. as we discussed before, congress keeps adding more planes for the total f-35 program than is requested each year. that is a sign the program has a lot of political support now. it probably helps that it is

built in the dallas-fort worth area and a representative of --t area is on the house chair of the house defense committees would has some high-level backing there. whether the air force wants to win, they will continue along their current plan with the f-35 and maybe continue to get plus ups from congress. the bomber i think is pretty well protected program right now because you see the air force leadership coming out, saying not only do we need it, we need more of them. know, it is, you not going to get the same level of public scrutiny because so much of it is classified. programs that is probably at some risk is the ground-based strategic deterrent, the new icbm. adam smith, again, with the house flips, he could be the chairman of the house services committee.

he has expressed some skepticism on that program. there are other options to the gbsd program right now, things that could involve a reduction in the number of active missile forces and shifting those two other parts of the nuclear triad so keeping more bombers on alert or keeping more missiles in the tubes of our subs. there are things you can do to extend the life of the existing missiles and so you do not burn out of missile bodies as quickly. i will refer you to a report we published that outline alternatives to gbsd. i think that may come back up and that is a great program for the air force. it is ramping up in funding in the early 2020's. >> the navy with columbia, as you say, the ohio class, their whole life literally ran out. cannot go any further.

is the minuteman three force in the same shape or will it with her on the vine, borders there were only way to keep going? >> there are two functions on the existing minuteman three missiles. one of them is the fact that the missiles themselves, the solid propellant, starts to degrade over time and becomes unreliable. that is something the missiles at a minimum would have to be recoiled to put solid propellant in the, and that is a pretty expensive proposition. the other is that we are running low on missile bodies because we generally test five or six of these missiles per year to make sure they are reliable. as you are doing that, you are running out of missile bodies. youven if you re-core them, don't have enough missile bodies at some point to have your full fleet of missiles. right now, we are at 400 missiles that are active.

those are the two limitations. so how you could address that is first you could pay for the re-coring of the missiles. we have done that before and can do it again but you have to do something about the missile cores so you can slow the test rate and reduce the size of the force. so do not stay at 400. you could allow yourself to go down to 350 or 300 or whatever you want to on that, which is allowable under treaties. you can go below it and shift those launchers under the treaty to another leg of your triad if you want. if it stays in effect along. this should be our last question. we are already over our time here. after this, i am happy to take other questions from folks, but we will do that after the meeting. >> i cannot promise it is a good one. we know the industrial base report is coming out at some point hypothetically in the near

future. have you done any numbercrunching or anything about what the department is spending or could spend in the future given the budget constraints on either trying to bring some of the stuff in-house, more foundry programs, or even just spending to keep certain parts of the base alive? >> yes. that is a tricky one. increasingly, we are at a point. it depends what part of the defense industrial base your talking about, but more and more of it is becoming commercial. so it is not fully captured by dod like it used to be in many areas. more and more, we are seeing dod is just one customer of a larger defense industrial base. there are certain areas where there are things that only dod and only dod will ever need these capabilities

from industry like nuclear power subs,and -- ships and icbms, large solid propellant missiles and rockets. not a lot of market for that outside of defense. types of aircraft. supersonic aircraft. stealth aircraft. long-range bombers. these are things that have no commercial equivalent and do not -- and the technology does not tie as much to the market. do not give apple any ideas. they may dominate this in a few years. i do not see that there are a lot of great options in terms of nationalizing those capabilities, bringing them in. we used to have great arsenals in this country where, you know, dod, the government owned and operated these sections of the base. there are pockets where we do that like in any issue production and things and some of the ships, shipyards.

but i cannot not think there will be a lot of opportunities to do that going forward, quite frankly. so i think a lot of it is more dod needs to have better insight and awareness into what is going on in the industrial base. the hardest part, probably the most supportive to look at, is not the prime contractors because you can see those directly in their contracts. what is harder is looking at the second tier of subcontractors and the third tier of the sub to the subs. in the previous administration, they did look quite a bit at the second and third tier of contractors and try to map that industrial base, but it is very difficult to do. they never got to anyone close to a complete mapping. so i think that is where some of fly.ulnerabilities might if you can identify where that is and where the vulnerabilities are, you may use targeted funding to keep some of these

operations, these companies that you may be critically dependent on, to keep them going if you know that they are there and you are dependent on them. all right. so with that, we will end the formal briefing.if you have any additional questions, please come see us here at the front. shameless will be happy to talk about our structure analysis in the paper that we didn't really get to in this briefing. but i hope you read it all. you can download a copy of the report online. csis.org website analysis of the fy 2019 defense budget. thank you for coming. [indiscernible]

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] more lengthave coverage today as virginia democratic senator tim kaine faces republican challenger corey stewart. it will be the first of two townhalls posted by the university and have the university. the topic tonight will be domestic policy and the economy. live at 7:00 eastern here on c-span, your primary source for campaign 2018. later, president trump's campaign rally in las vegas in support of republican senator dean heller and other gop candidates. live at 10:00 p.m. eastern also here on c-span. more from the campaign trail tomorrow as texas republican senator ted cruz faces his democratic challenger congressman beto o'rourke in dallas for the first of three

scheduled debates live tomorrow at 7:00 p.m. eastern. on capitol hill, the senate judiciary committee has postponed its scheduled vote of judge brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court. the committee chair has called a hearing for monday to give judge kavanaugh along with christine ford, has accused the judge of sexually assaulting her in high school, a chance to testify. the fbi should investigate forshee appears, for instance. the german has given her until tomorrow morning to tell the committee if she will be at the hearing. we are planning live coverage for the hearing monday at c-span at 10 p.m. eastern. you will be able to watch live as c-span.org or listen my uvb c-span radio app. -- live using the c-span radio app. >> victoria, attorney eddie deputy assistant attorney general in the criminal division