Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about CNA?

27% cut in CNA's core.

FY25 = 43,648,000
FY26 = 31,695,000

Brutal.

They cut the wrong things at CNA. That funding line pays for the field deployed analysts (think: aboard combat ships, overseas, and in the combat zones) and also pays for Navy Quick Reaction support to Naval combat commands like PACFLT and III MEF. Those direct warfighter support items are where CNA adds the most value.

So, SETAs?

None of the usual SETA firms put people in harm's way. Many of those billets are in harm's way, so no. And a random SETA would not be able to reach back to get the depth of Navy-specific knowledge that CNA has in-house - to get the answers a commander at sea or in the field can get from CNA.

More fundamentally than this… no, CNA field people just don’t do SETA-type work.

What kind of non-SETA work does CNA do?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about CNA?

27% cut in CNA's core.

FY25 = 43,648,000
FY26 = 31,695,000

Brutal.

They cut the wrong things at CNA. That funding line pays for the field deployed analysts (think: aboard combat ships, overseas, and in the combat zones) and also pays for Navy Quick Reaction support to Naval combat commands like PACFLT and III MEF. Those direct warfighter support items are where CNA adds the most value.

So, SETAs?

None of the usual SETA firms put people in harm's way. Many of those billets are in harm's way, so no. And a random SETA would not be able to reach back to get the depth of Navy-specific knowledge that CNA has in-house - to get the answers a commander at sea or in the field can get from CNA.

More fundamentally than this… no, CNA field people just don’t do SETA-type work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about CNA?

27% cut in CNA's core.

FY25 = 43,648,000
FY26 = 31,695,000

Brutal.

They cut the wrong things at CNA. That funding line pays for the field deployed analysts (think: aboard combat ships, overseas, and in the combat zones) and also pays for Navy Quick Reaction support to Naval combat commands like PACFLT and III MEF. Those direct warfighter support items are where CNA adds the most value.

So, SETAs?

None of the usual SETA firms put people in harm's way. Many of those billets are in harm's way, so no. And a random SETA would not be able to reach back to get the depth of Navy-specific knowledge that CNA has in-house - to get the answers a commander at sea or in the field can get from CNA.

Some of the OTHER work CNA does might be handled with SETAs, maybe, but this particular slice could not be done successfully that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about CNA?

27% cut in CNA's core.

FY25 = 43,648,000
FY26 = 31,695,000

Brutal.

They cut the wrong things at CNA. That funding line pays for the field deployed analysts (think: aboard combat ships, overseas, and in the combat zones) and also pays for Navy Quick Reaction support to Naval combat commands like PACFLT and III MEF. Those direct warfighter support items are where CNA adds the most value.

So, SETAs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about CNA?

27% cut in CNA's core.

FY25 = 43,648,000
FY26 = 31,695,000

Brutal.

They cut the wrong things at CNA. That funding line pays for the field deployed analysts (think: aboard combat ships, overseas, and in the combat zones) and also pays for Navy Quick Reaction support to Naval combat commands like PACFLT and III MEF. Those direct warfighter support items are where CNA adds the most value.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAND Arroyo went from $38,122,000 in core funding in FY25 to $10,892,000 in FY26. JFC. Who did they piss off in the Army to get at 71% year-over-year cut?

Isn’t the army getting hammered by changes in priorities? They have to protect other interests too. But this is really going to hurt the independent Army studies and analysis research ecosystem.

Who reads that stuff

CNA is not a big FFRDC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAND Arroyo went from $38,122,000 in core funding in FY25 to $10,892,000 in FY26. JFC. Who did they piss off in the Army to get at 71% year-over-year cut?

Isn’t the army getting hammered by changes in priorities? They have to protect other interests too. But this is really going to hurt the independent Army studies and analysis research ecosystem.

I think so, but not sure why core for LL and Arroyo are getting hit so hard.

Anonymous wrote:RAND Arroyo went from $38,122,000 in core funding in FY25 to $10,892,000 in FY26. JFC. Who did they piss off in the Army to get at 71% year-over-year cut?

Isn’t the army getting hammered by changes in priorities? They have to protect other interests too. But this is really going to hurt the independent Army studies and analysis research ecosystem.

Anonymous wrote:What about CNA?

27% cut in CNA's core.

FY25 = 43,648,000
FY26 = 31,695,000

Brutal.

Anonymous wrote:What about CNA?

Their core funding is also taking a major hit, as shown in the linked document.

What about CNA?

RAND Arroyo went from $38,122,000 in core funding in FY25 to $10,892,000 in FY26. JFC. Who did they piss off in the Army to get at 71% year-over-year cut?

Not all FFRDCs get core funding. But they do get money from the studies and analyses budgets, which are massively cut in the proposed budget.

Anonymous wrote:Massive cuts to core funding for DoD studies and analysis FFRDCs in FY 26

https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/FY2026/FY2026_r1.pdf

Does this give any info about Mitre? I searched for the name in it but couldn't find it.