The military departments of different countries of the world regularly have to face accusations of overspending and inflating the defense budget. Nevertheless, the military has an ironclad argument that is extremely difficult to argue with. In such cases, they appeal to the protection of the country and the need to invest large funds in its provision. Such arguments often help to "fight off" legislators when drawing up new budgets, but they are not able to completely relieve the military from attacks. As a result, the topic of the expediency of certain projects is regularly raised, as well as suggestions are made to abandon them and thereby save money that could be spent more profitably.
The United States has the largest military budget in the world. According to the Stockholm Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the US military spent $ 640 billion in 2013, which is 37% of the planet's military budgets. Naturally, such large numbers are the subject of criticism. On January 26, The National Interest published an article by Dave Majumdar entitled 4 Future U. S. Weapons of War That Should Be Canceled Now. The author of the publication reviewed several new projects of the Pentagon, which should be closed to save budget funds.
D. Majumdar begins his material with a reminder that the Pentagon spends billions of dollars annually on the development of new weapons and equipment, but some of these projects do not lead to the expected result. The roots of this problem, among other things, lie in the thoughtless ordering of systems and overly high requirements for them. In addition, in a number of cases, the military department is not able to take into account all the threats that will face in the future. Further in article 4 Future U. S. Weapons of War That Should Be Canceled Now provides the most interesting: a list of four promising projects that should save a lot of money.
Ohio Replacement Project
D. Majumdar does not argue with the fact that the United States needs to maintain its strategic nuclear forces. However, he draws attention to the excessive cost of such projects. The promising Ohio Replacement ballistic missile submarines (SSBN-X), which are planned to be built in the future to replace existing Ohio-class submarines, will be significantly more expensive than their predecessors, but at the same time they will be able to carry fewer weapons.
If the command of the US naval forces manages to keep the cost of the Ohio Replacement program at an acceptable level, then the construction of each of the new submarines will cost the budget about $ 4.9 billion. Thus, for the construction of 12 planned submarines will have to pay about 59 billion. In addition, the American journalist recommends adding to this figure the possible costs of research and development work, because of which the total cost of the program could reach 100 billion.
Such a high cost of promising missile submarines is due to the required use of new technologies and the latest equipment. So, it is planned to install a new nuclear reactor on Ohio Replacement submarines, which will be able to perform its functions throughout the entire life of the boat, without requiring a fuel change. At the request of the military, the new submarines will have to remain in service for 42 years. It is also planned to include an electric motor based on a permanent magnet in the equipment of promising submarines, which will be able to provide higher performance in comparison with existing equipment, but is still not ready for use in practice, since it needs to be checked and fine-tuned. Finally, to monitor the environment, promising submarines will have to use remotely controlled reconnaissance vehicles that are yet to be developed.
From all this, D. Majumdar draws the appropriate conclusion: the US Navy really needs new strategic missile submarines, but they should abandon the Ohio Replacement project in its current form. It is necessary to re-engage in the formation of the appearance and requirements so that promising submarines are less expensive and complex in comparison with those offered now.
UCLASS project
The second project criticized is the UCLASS (Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike) unmanned aerial vehicle program. This vehicle was originally conceived as an unmanned platform for aircraft carriers, which could strike targets at a great distance from the ship. Since the nineties, after the decommissioning of the Grumman A-6 Intruder aircraft and the refusal to develop a replacement for it, the US carrier-based aviation was actually left without such a strike means. It was believed that the UCLASS drone would allow aircraft carriers to destroy ground targets without approaching the shore at a dangerous distance and perform other strike missions.
Author of article 4 Future U. S. Weapons of War That Should Be Canceled Now recalls that since the mid-2000s, when the UCLAASS project was launched, the requirements for this technique have changed markedly. In accordance with modern requirements, this device should have a reduced visibility for enemy radar and light weapons, as well as carry a set of reconnaissance equipment. It is intelligence that is considered his main task. Thus, a promising UAV will not be able to find wide application in the eastern regions of the Pacific Ocean, where serious changes of a military-political nature are outlined. According to D. Majumdar, the UCLASS UAV is unlikely to help aircraft carriers maintain their capabilities in the future.
The information about the features of the UCLASS project is followed by a corresponding sad conclusion: it should be closed. Instead of a device with dubious prospects, a real unmanned combat aircraft should be developed that will be able to overcome the enemy's air defenses and effectively perform the assigned combat mission. In the meantime, the UCLASS project is associated only with unnecessary spending of taxpayers' money.
Littoral Combat Ship Project
The Littoral Combat Ship or LCS project has also been called dubious. D. Majumdar recalls that within the framework of this project, ships of a modular system were initially developed that would be able to perform various combat missions. Depending on the assigned task, LCS had to fight surface ships and boats, look for submarines or mines, etc. However, as a result, promising ships have considerably risen in price, which is why they can be called "white elephants." The LCS project was indeed brought to the stage of serial construction of ships, but its cost significantly exceeded the calculated one.
The biggest problem of the LCS project in its current form concerns airborne equipment. A set of equipment designed to search for and defeat surface targets has already been developed, tested and used by the military. Other modules, with which ships must search for sea mines and submarines, are not yet ready. Thus, at present, LCS ships are capable of solving only one type of mission, and even then they cannot boast of high efficiency. For work on ground, air and coastal targets, only a 57 mm cannon and two 30 mm anti-aircraft guns can be used. Earlier it was planned to use missile weapons, but later it was abandoned. The possibility of installing a Norwegian-made NSM missile system on the LCS ships is now being considered, but in this case certain problems are possible associated with the integration of weapons on the finished ship.
The article of the National Interest notes that the Pentagon took into account the existing shortcomings of the LCS project. As a consequence, major changes were announced last December. Now it is planned to reduce the series of LCS ships under construction according to the original design. The last 20 of the planned 52 ships of the coastal zone will be built according to the updated SSC (Small Surface Combatant) project. The main difference of this project will be more powerful anti-ship and anti-submarine weapons.
D. Majumdar believes that the previous history of the LCS program does not allow us to hope for its successful completion, even after the creation of an updated project with a new composition of equipment and weapons. In this case, the best way out of the situation may be a complete refusal to continue work. In this case, it will be possible to save a lot of money, which can be allocated for the development of more promising projects.
M1A3 Abrams Project
Now the ground forces and a number of specialized enterprises of the defense industry are developing a new modification of the M1 Abrams main battle tank. As in other cases, this project has certain problems. Although the Abrams armored vehicle is still "the best tank in the world", its design was created more than three decades ago. According to the official sources of the publication The National Interest, during this time the modernization potential of the machine was completely exhausted. For this reason, the army does not need another modernization of old equipment, but a completely new tank.
The author of the article recalls: while the United States is engaged in the modernization of the existing tank, foreign countries are developing completely new equipment. Thus, a series of armored vehicles "Armata" is being created in Russia, and China is trying to keep up with the world leaders in tank building. The German military and designers admit that they cannot upgrade their Leopard 2 indefinitely. Because of this, they are forced to start developing a new machine with the symbol Leopard 3.
Thus, the Pentagon also needs to think about developing a new tank instead of upgrading the existing one. Such a project will provide the required combat capability of tank units and ensure superiority over the enemy. In addition, it will be possible to preserve the design school, which will have a beneficial effect on projects in the distant future.
***
Dave Majumdar has conducted an interesting analysis of promising Pentagon projects that can be associated with extremely high unjustified spending. So, the construction of Ohio Replacement submarines alone can cost at least $ 59 billion. The exact cost of the UCLASS project will be determined later, after the choice of the machine developer. This project is likely to cost the military several billion dollars. The ships of the LCS project should cost no more than $ 440-450 million per unit, but by 2012 the total cost of the program, including the construction and testing of the first two ships, reached $ 3.8 billion. Thus, while maintaining the required unit cost, a series of ships will cost more than 22 billion.
The proposals made in Article 4 of the Future U. S. Weapons of War That Should Be Canceled Now are very interesting, since they allow you to save several tens of billions of dollars by abandoning just four controversial and dubious projects. Naturally, the US armed forces will need equipment and weapons of the same classes as the canceled developments, but with the right approach to their creation, serious cost savings are possible.
However, this is just another critical press release, not a document from the White House or Congress. It is possible that senior Pentagon officials have familiarized themselves with the proposal to abandon dubious expensive projects, but they are unlikely to take it into account. Therefore, the "four projects worth closing" will continue and lead to new spending of budgetary funds.
