{"id":136766,"date":"2017-09-28T00:04:59","date_gmt":"2017-09-28T00:04:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/smg.go-vip.net\/militarytimes\/uncategorized\/2017\/09\/28\/pentagon-asks-congress-to-move-416-million-for-missile-defense\/"},"modified":"2026-08-08T00:24:34","modified_gmt":"2026-08-08T00:24:34","slug":"pentagon-asks-congress-to-move-416-million-for-missile-defense","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/militarytimes\/news\/pentagon-congress\/2017\/09\/28\/pentagon-asks-congress-to-move-416-million-for-missile-defense\/","title":{"rendered":"Pentagon asks Congress to move $416M for missile defense"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

WASHINGTON \u2014 The Pentagon is asking Congress to move $416 million to missile defense programs that was originally allocated to other defense accounts as the Trump administration mulls military responses to North Korea\u2019s recent belligerence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The request, which requires congressional approval, would add the funding on several missile defense programs \u2014 some classified \u2014 mostly by taking it from unspent Army and Army Reserve operations and maintenance accounts in the fiscal 2017 budget.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The request, signed by Defense Department Comptroller David Norquist on Sept. 7, was obtained by Defense News.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Senate Armed Services Committee member and a missile defense advocate Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, hailed the plan. But it has triggered pushback from the House Armed Services Committee\u2019s ranking member, Rep. Adam Smith, who said the money would sacrifice readiness and not have an immediate effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMr. Smith has significant concerns about taking that much money from near-term readiness and putting into missile defense programs that will not have an impact until the 2020s at the earliest,\u201d said a spokesman for Smith, D-Wash.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the request, the operations and maintenance money could not be obligated because the 2017 budget arrived later than usual. Congress passed omnibus spending legislation in May.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[House lawmakers want space-based missile defense strategy<\/a>]<\/i><\/p>\n\n\n\n

DoD proposes adding a total of $136 million to start raising the number of ground-based interceptors from 44 to 64 and to add 20 new silos in a new Missile Field 4 in Fort Greely, Alaska.<\/font><\/p>\n\n\n\n

DoD also asked for money to accelerate upgrades for four Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense ships, which would enable them to launch the Standard Missile-3 Block IIA missile.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It also adds funding for a variety of threat-discrimination technologies and radars. That includes a floating Sea-Based X-band radar, evaluations for a nascent medium-range discrimination radar in Hawaii to help Alaska-based interceptors and a life extension for the Cobra Dane surveillance radar on Shemya, Alaska.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gen. Joe Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, teased the previously unpublished request during a reconfirmation hearing Tuesday, but in his wording, created some confusion about where the money would coming from.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sullivan had asked Dunford whether the administration \u201cplans to, at least from a supplemental perspective or working with the Congress, beef up our missile defense.\u201d Dunford replied, \u201cWe did do exactly as you suggest, and we\u2019ve submitted it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[House pressures Army to buy new missile defense radar that the White House opposes]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe looked at additional radar systems. We looked at THAAD systems, Patriot systems. As you know, on the [pending 2018 defense policy bill], there\u2019s additional interceptors \u2014 additional 21, I think, is the number that I recall \u2014 that are in there,\u201d Dunford said. \u201cAll of those issues are part of \u2014 we did an immediate, kind of, supplemental for \u2014 just as your suggestion, for ballistic missile defense.\u201d<\/font><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI think it was maybe the first or second week of August to make sure it was in time for the budget cycle,\u201d Dunford said. \u201cSo I think what you have outlined in the NDAA, combined with the supplemental that the administration has put together, will meet the immediate needs.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reprogramming request would apply to the 2017 budget, whereas the term \u201csupplemental\u201d implies the administration may yet make a request for additional funding next year beyond the president\u2019s 2018 budget request.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key lawmakers or their staffs said they had yet to receive any such supplemental, and a Pentagon spokesman said there was \u201cno decision when or if\u201d the department would send over a supplemental request, though one administration official said they are \u201ccertainly looking at opportunities for increased investments\u201d in fiscal 2018.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

U.S. President Donald Trump said in August his administration would \u201cbe increasing our budget by many billions of dollars because of North Korea, and other reasons having to do with the anti-missile. … We are going to be increasing the anti-missiles by a substantial amount of billions of dollars.\u201d At the time, he said such an increase would be delivered to Congress quickly.<\/font><\/p>\n\n\n\t