Weapons to Cut in 2003 Military Budget
July 17, 2003
Despite the President’s $396 billion military budget request, many in Congress and the Pentagon are pointing to certain areas of the budget that could use even more funding.
While money is needed for pay raises, the war on terrorism, homeland security and advanced technology, there are many Cold War weapons that should be cut to pay for these needs. Below is a list of 10 of the most questionable weapons.
- Tactical Aircraft: The Pentagon is planning to spend $300 billion over the next two decades on three short-range tactical aircraft programs. The three programs are as redundant as they are costly and at least one should be cancelled:
- F-22 Tactical Aircraft
- Joint Strike Fighter
- F/A-18E/F Superhornet
- V-22 Osprey Transport Aircraft
- Crusader Mobile Howitzer
- Comanche Helicopter
- Virginia Class Attack Submarine (NSSN)
- CVNX Aircraft Carrier
- Airborne Laser
- National Missile Defense
F-22 TACTICAL AIRCRAFT
The F-22 was designed to combat advanced fighter aircraft from the now defunct Soviet Union. No potential enemy has the capability to successfully engage the F-22’s predecessor, the F-15, in air-to-air combat. Together, all seven “states of concern” could not amass a force greater than 100 sophisticated fighters that could challenge any of the 900 F-15 fighter jets currently in the Air Force’s arsenal. The F-22’s limited range requires it to be based overseas, leaving it vulnerable to missile attacks while it is still on the ground. Also, improvements in radar are rapidly making U.S. stealth aircraft more visible.
RAPTOR FACTS
Year expected to enter service: 2005
Base year: 1981 (originally intended to purchase 750 aircraft for $99.1 billion; cut to 339 in 1997; cut to 305 in 2002)
Cost per aircraft: $225.9 million
Total Program Costs: $68.9 billion
Fiscal 2002 funding: $3.9 (13 aircraft plus development)
Fiscal 2003 request: $5.2 (23 aircraft plus R&D)
Funds spent to date: $29.7 billion
JOB LOCATIONS AND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. - Marietta, GA - Rep. Isakson ®; Sen. Cleland (D); Sen. Miller (D)
Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft - Fort Worth, TX - Rep. Granger ®; Sen. Gramm ®; Sen. Hutchison ®
Pratt & Whitney (United Tech.Corp) - East Hartford, CT - Rep. Larson (D); Sen. Lieberman (D); Sen. Dodd (D)
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has been touted as a cost saving fighter jet that can be produced in three different versions - a multi-role fighter for the Air Force, a ground-assault plane for the Navy and vertical take off and landing jet for the Marine Corps.
The Pentagon plans to use the JSF for the next several decades. However, rapid advancements in unmanned aerial vehicle technology and long-range weapons will quickly make stealthy manned aircraft obsolete. Like the F-22, the JSF has limited range. Relying on foreign bases can pose problems, as illustrated in December 1998 when Saudi Arabia and Turkey refused to allow U.S. and British planes to use their territory to launch air strikes against Iraq. A 2001 GAO report reveals that many of the technologies critical to the JSF’s combat effectiveness — including its radar — will not be ready on schedule and could significantly increase the cost of the program.
JSF FACTS
Total Program Cost: $250 billion
Price per aircraft: approximately $80 million
Base Year: 1994
Planned buy: 3,128 aircraft (2,036 for AF, 300 Navy, 642 USMC)
Fiscal year 2002 funding: $1.5 billion
Fiscal year 2003 request: $3.5 billion
Money spent to date: $5.8 billion
JOB LOCATIONS AND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS
Boeing Company - St. Louis, MO - Rep. Clay (D); Rep. Akin ®; Sen. Carnahan (D); Sen Bond ®Lockheed Martin - Ft. Worth, TX - Rep. Granger ®; Sen. Gramm ®, Sen. Hutchison ®)
Pratt and Whitney - East Hartford, CT - Rep. Larsen (D); Sen. Lieberman (D); Sen. Dodd (D)
F/A-18E/F SUPERHORNET
The E/F version of the F/A-18 may actually be less capable than the C/D version it is intended to replace. The Navy’s F/A18E/F fighter and ground assault jet is slower to accelerate to supersonic speeds in level flight compared to the F/A18C/D. As a bomber, the F/A-18E/F has only modest payload and range, especially when compared to the Navy’s A-6. It also costs 69% more per copy than its $50 million predecessor.
SUPERHORNET FACTS
Year expected to enter Service: 2002
Year program began: 1990
Total program costs: $47 billion (for 548 planes)
Price per aircraft: $86 million
Fiscal 2002 funding: $3.3 billion (48 aircraft)
Fiscal 2003 request: $3.3 billion (44 aircraft plus R&D)
Funds spent to date: $22.1 billion
JOB LOCATIONS AND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS
Boeing Company - St. Louis, MO - Rep. Clay (D); Rep. Akin ®; Sen. Carnahan (D); Sen. Bond ® Northrop Grumman - El Segundo, CA - Rep. Harman (D); Sen. Feinstein (D); Sen. Boxer (D)
General Electric - Lynn, MA - Rep. Tierney (D); Sen. Kerry (D); Sen. Kennedy (D)
V-22 OSPREY TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT
The tilt-rotor Osprey is designed to quickly bring Marines ashore, but the Corps has not engaged in an amphibious assault since the Korean War. Moreover, the lightly armed troops will be forced to wait while slower helicopters transport the necessary heavy equipment the Osprey cannot carry. The V-22 is also less reliable and more difficult to maintain than the aircraft it is intended to replace. Over the next five years, the technical problems which plague the V-22 program will cost the Navy $100 million more per year in testing. (Inside the Navy, 12/17/01)
OSPREY FACTS
Total Program Costs: $36.2 billion/458 Aircraft
Year Program Began (Base Year): 1986
Funding to Date: $12 billion
Fiscal 2002 funding: $1.8 (12 aircraft plus R&D)
Fiscal 2003 request: $2.0 (11 aircraft plus R&D)
JOB LOCATIONS AND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS
Boeing Defense & Space Group Ridley Park, PA Rep. Weldon ®; Sen. Specter®; Sen. Santorum ®
Bell Helicopter Textron Ft. Worth & Amarillo, TX Rep. Granger ®; Rep. Thornberry (R-13); Sen. Gramm ®; Sen. Hutchison ®
Allison Engine Co./Rolls-Royce Indianapolis, IN Rep. Carson (D; Sen. Lugar ®; Sen. Bayh (D)
CRUSADER MOBILE HOWITZER
The Army plans to create a mobile force capable of being deployed anywhere in the world in 96 hours, but at 90 tons the Crusader Mobile Howitzer — designed to fire heavy shells long distance to disrupt enemy armor movement — is too heavy, expensive and unneeded. The Crusader and its fully loaded resupply vehicle have a combined weight of 110 tons, too much to lift even on the military’s largest transport plane, the C-5B. (POGO) Even Army Chief of Staff Gen. Erik Shinseki told the June 14, 2001 Defense Daily, “It [Crusader] doesn’t kind of fit the description of rapid deployment.”
John Hillen, defense policy adviser to the Bush 2000 Campaign, commented on the Crusader to the June 25, 2002 U.S. News & World Report: “Why would you buy the same artillery pieces that Napoleon would understand? It’s all Industrial Age equipment.” The same article quoted Jacques Gansler, defense under secretary for acquisition under President Clinton as saying, “I thought Crusader was a marginal program relative to the larger transformation effort going on.”
CRUSADER FACTS
Total Program Costs: $11.2 billion
Planned Procurement: 480 vehicles (originally 1,138)
Price per vehicle: $23.3 million
Fiscal 2002 funding: $487 million (R&D)
Fiscal 2003 request: $475 million (R&D)
Year Program Began (Base Year): 1995
Funds spent to date: $3.5 billion
JOB LOCATIONS AND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS
United Defense Armament Systems - Minneapolis, MN - Rep. Luther (D); Sen. Wellstone (D); Sen. Dayton (D)
United Defense Armament Systems - Elgin, OK - Rep. Watts ®; Sen. Nickles ®; Sen. Inhofe ®
General Dynamics Land Systems - Sterling Heights, MI - Rep. Levin (D); Sen. Levin; Sen. Stabenow (D)
General Electric - Lynn, MA - Rep. Tierney (D); Sen. Kennedy (D); Sen. Kerry (D)
COMANCHE HELICOPTER
The Army’s scout and attack helicopter has encountered a number of technical problems resulting in increasing costs. The testing is so flawed the Pentagon’s chief tester questions the Comanche’s ability to perform its intended tasks. The Army has yet to justify the need for the Comanche when it successfully used a combination of Apache and Kiowa helicopters to perform its scout missions in the Gulf War. According to the Congressional Budget Office, cancellation of the Comanche program and the purchase of 500 Kiowa Warrior armed scout helicopters would save $8.6 billion over the next 10 years. There also exist a number of promising unmanned aerial vehicle technologies as well. The Navy has already entered a low rate initial production contract to purchase unmanned scout vehicles and the Army recently ordered 200 Shadow reconnaissance UAVs.
COMANCHE FACTS
Year program began: 1983
Year expected to enter service: 2006
Total program costs: $47.8 billion (1,213 aircraft)
Cost per aircraft: $39.4 million
Money spent to date: $6.0 billion
Fiscal 2002 funding: $788 million
Fiscal 2003 request: $910 million
JOB LOCATIONS AND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS
Boeing Company - Ridley Park, PA - Rep. Weldon (R-7); Sen. Specter ®; Sen. Santorum ®Sikorsky (United Technology Corporation) - Stratford, CT - Rep. DeLauro (D-3); Sen. Lieberman (D); Sen. Dodd (D)
General Dynamics - Burlington, VT - Rep. Sanders (I-1); Sen. Jeffords ®; Sen. Leahy (D)
VIRGINIA CLASS ATTACK SUBMARINE (NSSN)
The Navy wants to increase its arsenal of 56 attack submarines despite facing no serious submarine threat from any other nation. Instead of building more subs the Navy could simply employ more efficient re-crewing and positioning methods that would allow more of the arsenal to be deployed at one time. According to Former Navy Secretary Danzig “three submarines could do the work of 10” if the Navy based them at Guam (Jane’s Defense Weekly, 10/25/00). A 2001 CBO report claims the Navy could save $3.4 billion over the next decade simply by building 16 instead of 19 submarines and either refueling four Los Angeles submarines, or converting two Tridents nuclear submarines to carry Tomahawk cruise missiles.
NSSN FACTS
Year program began: 1995
Total program costs: $65.7 billion (30 subs)
Cost per sub: $2.2 billion
Fiscal 2002 funding: $2.5 billion (1 sub)
Fiscal 2003 request: $2.5 billion (1 sub)
Funds spent to date: $13.4 billion
JOB LOCATIONS AND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS
Electric Boat Co./General Dynamics - Groton, CT - Rep. Simmons ®; Sen. Dodd (D); Sen. Lieberman (D)
Newport News Shipbuilding - Newport News, VA - Rep. Scott (D); Sen. Warner ®; Sen. Allen ®
CVNX AIRCRAFT CARRIER
In 2006, the Navy plans to begin construction on a new type of aircraft carrier, the CVNX. Designed with a new nuclear propulsion system and an advanced electromagnetic aircraft launching system, the CVNX will cost more than $5 billion per ship, making it the single most expensive weapon in history. However, as anti-ship missile technology quickly proliferates, 1,000-foot long aircraft carriers become large, slow moving targets - housing over 5,000 sailors and aviators.
Even with an arsenal of 12 carriers, no more than three are deployed around the world at once. By flying crews out to meet the carriers, the time-consuming process of sending a replacement ship could be avoided. A February 2001 report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that by retiring two carriers, eliminating two air wings and delaying the CVNX by 10 years the Navy could save $37.7 billion over the next decade.
CVNX FACTS
Year program began: 2000
Year first carrier expected to enter service: 2013
Research & Development costs: $3.6 billion
Production costs per ship: approximately $5 billion (12 ships)
Fiscal 2002 funding: $165 million
Fiscal 2003 request: $89 million
AIRBORNE LASER
The airborne laser program is attempting to attach a multi-megawatt COIL laser to a swiveling nose cone turret on the front of a Boeing 747-400 freighter aircraft. Once the aircraft is able to fly with the laser attached, it is no guarantee it will able to reliably hit a ballistic missile traveling hundreds of miles per hour.
AIRBORNE LASER FACTS
Total Program Costs: $6.3 billion (7 aircraft)
Fiscal 2001 funding: $233.6 million (not including $153 million in the supplemental funds)
Fiscal 2002 request: $410 million
First Flight Expected: 2002; First Airborne Shoot Down Test Expected: 2003
Year Program Began: 1994; Year expected to enter service: 2007 (fully operational in 2009)
JOB LOCATIONS AND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS
Boeing Company — Wichita, KS- Rep. Tiahrt ®; Sen. Brownback ®; Sen. Roberts ®
Boeing Company — Seattle, WA- Rep. McDermott (D); Sen. Cantwell (D); Sen. Murray (D)
Lockheed Martin — Sunnyvale, CA- Rep. Eshoo (D); Sen. Boxer (D); Sen. Feinstein (D)
ABL Program Office — Albuquerque, NM- Rep. Wilson ®; Sen. Domenici ®, Sen. Bingaman (D)
NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE
While President Bush announced withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, there remain a number of technological obstacles to fielding and effective system. The technology has not been tested under realistic conditions and the threat has yet to be adequately justified. Furthermore, a January 2002 Congressional Budget Office report claims a national shield could cost as much as $238 billion, not including sea and space-based programs.
Missile Defense Funding by Program:
FY ‘02 Funding FY ‘03 request
$7,775 million $7,763.1 million - Total Ballistic Missile Defense $ 808 million $1,066 million - Ballistic Missile Defense System (Missile Defense Agency, former BMDO)
$599.8 million $796.9 million - Total Boost Segment
$410 million $597.9 million - Airborne Laser
$165 million $34.8 million - Space Based Laser
$3,941 million $3,192.6 million - Total Midcourse Segment
$656 million $426 million - Sea Based Midcourse (formerly Navy Theater Wide)
$3,285 million $2,072 million - Ground Based Midcourse (formerly National Missile Defense)
$968.2 million $170 million - Total Terminal Segment
$66 million $65.7 million - Arrow
$923 million $934.7 million - THAAD (formerly in Terminal Segment)
$495.6 million $373.4 million - Total Sensors
$420 million $293.8 million - Space-Based Infrared System-Low
$75 million $69 million - RAMOS
$30.5 million $35.4 million - Other Programs
$139.3 million $121.7 million - Technology
=Non-MDA Programs
$388.5 million canceled - Navy Area
$128.2 million $814.5 million - Patriot PAC-3
$73.6 million $117.7 million - MEADS
$26.9 million $73.1 million - TAMDO
Sources: Program Acquisition Costs by Weapon System, Missile Defense Agency