A Brief Overview of Weapons Acquisition
By Charles Kindleberger
You have probably heard of the Doomsday Clock that measures “minutes to midnight” based on an assessment of world dangers by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.
Over the years the minutes to midnight have ranged from 17 minutes (1991) on the high side, to three minutes (1883) on the scary side. Earlier this year, the clocked was changed in the wrong direction – from five minutes in 2012 to three minutes now.
In the mind of those at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the existential danger to the planet is caused by two realities – the warming globe and the advancements in nuclear weapons. Most members of PEP are concerned by both trends. PEP as an organization focuses primarily on the latter subject – the growth of nuclear weapons and their delivery mechanisms, and the role of the Military-Industrial–Congressional complex that promotes these and related weapons of war. We also worry about the huge costs associated with the US military, costs that we do not believe the country can or should afford.
It is obvious that the Armed Services and their friends in industry and Congress are very hungry. Consider the wish list associated with each major branch:
NAVY
The Navy has expensive tastes. In recent years it has had a $15.7 billion dollar shipbuilding budget. But look at what it has on its plate. Eleven aircraft carriers are operated out of Newport News, Va. and Bremerton, Wash. The Gerald Ford is the newest carrier having cost $12.9 billion to date, but which is, according to the General Accounting Office (GAO) still only 80 percent complete and requiring almost another billion. The Navy has ordered two more Ford class ships, so that the estimated total cost will be $43 billion for three new carriers, but, of course they want to replace all 11 of them.
Three Zumwalt-class destroyers have been ordered (seen as replacements for the Iowa class battleships). The largest and fanciest destroyer ever built, the Zumwalt can do a lot of things with a crew of only 142 sailors. But the GAO estimates that one ship will cost $7.3 billion, or three at about $22 billion.
Less expensive is the LHA 6 America class Amphibious Assault ship which is also a “floating fortress” complete with all kinds of weapons, the ability to carry aircraft and helicopters and 1,871 troops over and above its 1200 person crew. The current estimated cost is only $3.4 billion per ship or a little more than $10 billion for the three that have been ordered. What did Senator Everett Dirksen say? “A billion here and billion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money.”
The Navy wants plenty of other ships of course, some of which are quite controversial. Once celebrated as “ships of the future,” Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) have been built in two versions, Freedom class and Independence class, for operations close to land. Unfortunately, there have been extensive complaints about the price ($670 million each), the lack of firepower and vulnerability. Four are scheduled to be in Singapore by 2018, presumably to make a presence in the South China Sea. The overall order has supposedly been cut from 52 to 32.
But wait there is more. The Navy is currently building two Virginia class attack submarines a year, at about $2 billion each. Eighteen built, another 10 ordered and a total of 49 desired. However, it also wants to replace its 14 Ohio class submarines with 12 new SSBN-X subs. Eighteen were built in the 1980s and 1990s, designed for 30 year service, later certified for 42 years. Four of the 18 were converted to cruise missile submarines without nuclear weapons. The Navy wants to replace them with 12 new Ohio class subs. Unhappily, the first will cost an estimated $14 billion. Over time the twelve would average $7 billion.
Finally the Navy wants more and fancier weapons on its ships. In January, Vice Admiral Thomas Rowden was quoted in military speak – “We’re going to up-gun as many existing platforms as we can to achieve more total lethality.”
AIR FORCE
Everybody loves to beat up on the F-35, and with reason. Of course, it is not just the Air Force’s problem; the Navy and Marines have, with their own versions, skin in the game. There are currently so many complaints – a nose cannon that some say won’t be ready until late 2018 because of delays in required software; limited ability to drop bombs, deal with hostile incoming missiles or identify enemy radar; engine design issues and more. In April the GAO expressed concern, and the Pentagon’s Inspector General identified 61 “nonconformities” with DOD requirements and policies. The Pentagon says it won’t begin full rate production for another four years (April 2019), though it has already purchased more than 100 that will all need retrofitting. DOD and Congress still want to purchase 2400 of these planes at a total of about $400 billion. A more depressing number is the estimated $850 billion required for production, maintenance and operations over the plane’s 55 to 60 year lifetime.
The Air Force wants new bombers – at an estimated $550 million per system. They currently argue for 100 which would cost $55 billion (some say $80 billion) and be available in the mid-2020s. These would augment or replace 20 B2s and B52s Stratofortresses. To the chagrin of many, the Defense Department wants to get rid of the A-10 Wart Hog fleet, saving $4.7 billion, and slash the EC10 fleet, saving $470 million. They also speak of possibly purchasing Textron Scorpions which sounds a lot like replacing the A-10 plane.
If the Ohio Class Submarine and new or current bombers are two elements of US nuclear deterrence, recall that the triad has a third piece– the 450 Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) that reside in the North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming. There has been a lot of controversy about the morale of the men and women who work on this force. There is general consensus that the Air Force is not able to respond quickly to a terrorist or some other emergency at one of its sites. The Missiles are said to need upgrading and “demerving” so that there will only one warhead on each missile. Modernization and spare parts have cost around $350 million in recent years. The expectation is that they will then remain in good shape until around 2030, but already design work on the replacement system has been reported.
ARMY
The Army has largely personnel challenges, the result of substantial pay increases and health care costs in recent years. It costs only an estimated $17,000 to equip a soldier. Fortunately, the Defense Department (if not Congress, especially those from Ohio and Pennsylvania) believes that the Army has enough tanks which can cost around $6 million each. To upgrade an older Abrams tank costs about $7.5 million. Then there are the Bradley fighting vehicles which come in several flavors – the M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle and the M3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle, both of which have been modified over time. Almost 7,000 have been manufactured, at an average cost of a little over $3 million. In 2009 Defense Secretary Robert Gates canceled the replacement system (Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles); then in 2010 the Army started a Ground Combat Vehicle program which was cancelled in 2014. Now there is talk of a Future Fighting Vehicle program that could start as soon as 2019. What ground war are these guys planning for?
This snapshot does not include extensive costs associated with upgrading nuclear weapons and trying to build anti-ballistic missile systems – both ICBM and local systems like the one proposed to protect Gulf states from a country like Iran. The reality is that we cannot do it all, not without bankrupting the country. The nation needs education, infrastructure, healthcare, employment and a working safety net.
China does not want to attack us – we owe them too much money, and they want to invest here. Russia with its tottering economy can’t realistically take on NATO. They know that it either struck first with a large sale attack we would retaliate with overwhelming power.
Our challenge is to show potential adversaries that we will not unilaterally disarm, but that we favor international cooperation and that we are capable of a strong defense that costs far less. We are convinced that there are many options that should be explored. For example:
Even if the F-35 works out its problems, consider building 300 or 400 of them rather than 2400. Planes like the F-15, F-16 and F-18 are perfectly adequate in most of the world.
Don’t let the Air Force spend $50 to $80 billion dollars building a new bomber force. Our submarines and our ICBM missiles are enough of a deterrent. If necessary equip our current bombers with standoff weapons systems, and/or convert some F-22s or F-35s into UAVs able to deliver bombs without pilots on board.
Stretch out acquisitions. Why do we need to lead a world-wide arms race?
Reexamine the wisdom of $14 billion aircraft carriers. No other country has more than one or two, but we have 11. Our carriers have very sophisticated layers of defense, but China is reported to be building very sophisticated anti-ship missiles. What if an incident resulted in two or three percent of the hostile missiles getting through and sinking a carrier with 5000 people and 90 planes on board? What would a proportional response be that didn’t result in nuclear winter on the planet.
This article was originally published in our 2015 annual newsletter.
