"Weapons We Can't Afford" (and don't need--or work)

David Ignatius had a noteworthy op-ed published in today's Washington Post. Entitled, "Weapons We Can't Afford," Ignatius makes the case that several high-profile weapons systems should be cut or drastically scaled back. These billion-dollar weapons are built for threats that don't exist (ex. F-22 Raptor), are unproven (ex. National Missile Defense), and/or are highly flawed/dangerous (ex. V-22 Osprey).

One of Ignatius's last examples of systems he would cut is the Virginia-class attack submarine:

Perhaps the craziest Pentagon spending plan is to purchase 30 new Virginia-class attack submarines, at a cost of (this is not a misprint) $2 billion each. The United States already has the best attack subs in the world -- those of the Los Angeles class. What's the threat that these $2 billion subs are needed to combat? Cutting the program would save $2 billion to $3 billion annually.

He's right: the only reason to build attack submarines now or in the foreseeable future is not to counter threats, but for Congressmen to bring home the bacon. It is simply military pork-barrel spending that isn't about defense. Rather it's about appeasing special interests while fleecing the taxpayer. Even the Navy thinks we don't need as many subs. As Ignatius says,

In wartime, the defense budget is even more of a sacred cow than usual, but that shouldn't be. What's sacred is spending the money to protect troops and achieve victory in this war. But the United States is still spending billions for weapons systems that were conceived to fight an adversary that has already been defeated -- the Soviet Union. (emphasis mine)

Again, "What's sacred is spending the money to protect troops and achieve victory in this war." Spending money on obsolete weapons systems that serve to waste money, time and other resources comes at the expense of crucial--often cheaper--but less sexy needs. The now infamous example is that many troops in Iraq were having to buy their own body armor because there weren't enough supplied by the military. Body armor may not be as high-profile or as expensive as the F-22, yet for troops, having it is a matter of life and death.

Not only are the American taxpayers paying for this folly, but more importantly our troops are paying as well.

Comments

[Dennis Baum]

Well, there is no question that our government is in the hands of the military-industrial complex, aided by its lackeys in Congress. (Just look at their profit margins during the past seven years.) The question is, how can we wrestle control out of their greedy, self-dealing hands?

[Mike Burleson]

Every year the Congress uses the excuse of keeping the industrial base and vital expertise for ever more expensive supercarriers and attack submarines. Every brushfire war since Korea the Navy lauds the versatility of its carrier fleet even as it struggles with manpower problems, and a shrinking combatant force. Yet, since the 1990's it is not the Aircraft Carrier that leaders look to in times of crisis, but the cruise missile launching warships.
The US Army is the only service taking the bold step of cancelling obsolescent Cold War programs and looking to the new technology to defend America. If the other services wish to remain relevent in post-911 warfare, they must make a similair choice of priorities.

[Nick Schwellenbach]

You have good points regarding sub replacement and the need for more airlift capacity. The US Navy could build new subs in numbers less than we need to replace the fleet one for one and still maintain overwhelming naval superiority. And sea and airlift are probably more important than sexy air superiority fighters like the F-22 and attack subs--both of which address a threat that no longer exists--the Soviet Union.

By the way have you read Phil Carter's article on Slate discussing the reservist mutiny (http://slate.com/id/2108357/)?

Carter argues that in Iraq, military reservists--who fill out the majority of supply duties like driving supply trucks--are underequipped for the combat conditions there. The conventional wisdom has been that these troops would be behind enemy lines. But in Iraq they are just as likely, if not moreso, to face deadly threats as frontline combat troops because of the nature of guerrilla warfare, especially with the use of improvised explosive devices on roadways.

[Hinderlands]

Actually Subs need to be replaced do to aging presure hulls if I understand correctly. If subs full of US saliors ended up like the Kursk you would hear no end of it. But that said it could be a draw down of the sub fleet (2 or more retirements for every replacement). Also I see the greatist need in the Air Force to be increasing airlift capacity and sealift capacity (both have been under staffed and equipped for decades).