Analyst: Cut 6 Programs to Save $35B Annually
The U.S. military could save $35 billion a year by killing or substantially cutting six major weapon programs, defense scholar William Hartung plans to tell a House subcommittee April 2.
The savings would almost equal the current annual cost of fighting the war in Afghanistan, Hartung says in written testimony to be presented to lawmakers.
While waiting for President Barack Obama to send Congress a defense budget for 2010, think tanks, members of Congress and others are drafting their own defense spending blueprints. Hartung, who is director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation, joins the crowd with testimony he is scheduled to deliver to the House Armed Services terrorism, unconventional threats and capabilities subcommittee.
On Hartung's kill list: the F-22 stealth fighter, the DDG 1000 destroyer and the Virginia-class submarine.
To be trimmed: the Joint Strike Fighter, missile defense and the nuclear weapon stockpile.
The F-22 is a popular target among budget cutters.
"The F-22 is a plane in search of a mission," Hartung says. It has not been used in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and potential future adversaries such as Russia and China could be dealt with by current U.S. fighters, he says.
"Whatever new capabilities the F-22 may bring with it are not worth the cost," he says.
Ending the F-22 program at 187 planes would save more than $4 billion a year, he says.
As for the DDG 1000, at $5 billion per ship for the first two and $3.6 billion a ship thereafter, it's "a luxury we can't afford," he says.
Ending the program after the first two ships, which have already been bought, would save $3.6 billion a year for five years, Hartung says.
Virginia-class attack submarines are also searching for a mission, he contends. The likelihood of battle against other navies is remote, so the $3 billion ships are touted by the Navy for missions such as gathering intelligence, firing cruise missiles or delivering special operations forces.
Those missions could be carried out by existing submarines, Hartung argues, saving $3 billion a year.
The largest saving would come from reducing the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Today, there are about 5,000 weapons. Cutting that to 1,000 would save $14.5 billion a year, while preserving "a more-than-adequate deterrent," Hartung says.
Of the savings, $3.5 billion should be spent to secure "loose nukes" in Russia and elsewhere. That would leave $11 billion in savings annually, he says.
After spending 26 years and $130 billion on missile defense, "there has yet to be a realistic test that indicates that we can reliably shoot down incoming nuclear warheads launched from a long-range ballistic missile," Hartung says.
There has been more success with midrange missile defense.
But the military is spending $10 billion a year on missile defense. Cut it to $3 billion a year for research and development, Hartung suggests.
And slow the Joint Strike Fighter program, he urges.
Current plans are to buy the first 360 planes at a cost of $57 billion "before full flight testing has occurred," Hartung says. Cutting the early buys in half while testing proceeds would save up to $4 billion a year, he says.
Help
