Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Are Pentagon Programs Untouchable?

by Christopher Hellman [contact information]

Published in the Topeka Capital Journal on April 5, 2004.

Washington, D.C., has never experienced a major earthquake. And in our nation's capitol, canceling a Pentagon weapons system happens only slightly more often. So the Army's February decision to terminate its Comanche helicopter stunned virtually everyone.

Like many of the weapons currently under development, the 20-year-old, $39 billion Comanche was over budget and behind schedule. The program had been restructured -- military-speak for re-evaluation of a weapon's basic requirements -- six times, and the Army had already spent almost $7 billion. It's the second major Army program canceled by the Bush administration; the Crusader artillery system was terminated in 2002.

Yet these programs are exceptions, not the rule. All weapons have constituencies within the Pentagon, the defense industry, and Congress. Thus although most weapons programs have experienced delays and cost overruns, you can count on one hand the systems canceled since the end of the Cold War. So the termination of the Comanche caused considerable surprise among Pentagon watchers. And in the subsequent weeks, the two most common questions have been: Will Congress go along with the plan? And do other programs face a similar fate?

The answer to the first question is "yes." One reason is that the Army, rather than the secretary of defense, proposed it. In the past, when the secretary -- a civilian -- has recommended a cancellation, the uniformed services, along with the project's contractors, have lobbied Congress to overturn the recommendation. Congress, concerned about jobs and votes, almost inevitably responds, arguing that the military still values the program. But since the Army itself has abandoned the Comanche, it's difficult for Congress to justify reversing the decision. Another reason is that the Army wants to spend the funds saved on other helicopter programs. It plans to upgrade 1,400 choppers it currently owns, and to purchase 800 new ones. This decision has muted protests by the Comanche's contractors, who stand to benefit from contracts for the new work. This has reduced pressure on Congress to revive the program.

The answer to the second question -- will other weapons get cut? -- is unfortunately, "no." Barring unforeseen changes in the Washington political climate, other wasteful Cold War weapons such as the F/A-22 fighter aircraft, the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, and ballistic missile defense, will likely survive. The reason is simple. Unlike the Comanche, whose own service wouldn't back it, these weapons have broad support within their respective military branches and the Pentagon's civilian leadership. The F/A-22, for example, is the Air Force's highest priority. At $260 million per aircraft, it's the Pentagon's most expensive fighter ever, and has also experienced repeated cost overruns and delays. Yet in order to continue funding the F/A-22 program, the Air Force has made major cuts elsewhere, including canceling the B-2 bomber after 21 planes and retiring its fleet of aircraft used to jam enemy radars. Canceling the F/A-22 or similar programs will be an uphill battle.

The wild card is whether the Pentagon will experience the same budget growth in the future that it's currently enjoying. Under the Bush administration, annual Pentagon spending has grown from roughly $300 billion to over $400 billion, and is projected to reach more than $500 billion by 2009. And this doesn't include the costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even supporters of weapons like the F/A-22 admit that Pentagon funding cuts could jeopardize these programs. And while recent efforts to control Pentagon spending haven't succeeded, growing concerns about spiraling deficits are raising questions about higher defense budgets. But that's about as far as it goes. For instance, when the Senate Budget Committee recently proposed reducing next year's Pentagon funding increase by $7 billion, the proposal was voted down 95 to 4. And this wasn't a cut in defense spending, simply a smaller increase. A similar House proposal trimming the request by $2 billion never even saw the light of day. Meanwhile, costly, unneeded weapons continue to drain federal coffers.

This shouldn't be so. Such programs not only don't address the true security challenges of the 21st century, they drain resources from programs that do. The Pentagon needs to subject these Cold War weapons to the same level of scrutiny the Comanche received, and with the same outcome.