More Billions For Arms

By Ed Magnuson

Proud as punch of the Patriot? Amazed at the quiet swish and lethal accuracy of the Tomahawk? Awed by the Apache helicopter and its tank-killing Hellfire missile? So, too, are the U.S. military services, the Bush Administration, the Congress -- and a host of defense contractors eager to turn the war-born popularity of their fearsome weapons into a new splurge of arms spending and big profits. Such is the congressional passion for these high-tech marvels that a new "war dividend" of great value to many people -- but decidedly not to the beleaguered American taxpayer -- is being doled out on Capitol Hill.

The gulf war has sharply transformed the survival prospects for some of the military's most expensive weapons systems. Before confronting Saddam Hussein's forces, the $1.1 million Bradley fighting vehicle had been derided as a firetrap that left its underprotected three-member crew vulnerable to a fiery death from an enemy hit. The $3.2 million M1A1 Abrams tank was criticized as an overpriced gas-guzzler prone to mechanical breakdowns. The $11.7 million Apache was depicted as difficult to maintain in a desert. The Patriot was just another overpriced antiaircraft weapon never tested against missiles in combat. But now, says Gordon Adams, director of the independent Defense Budget Project, "defense contractors all say the war proved their weapon is ironclad, gold-plated and a surefire winner."

The nation's lawmakers are all too ready to agree. Always happy to protect home-state industry, they can now point to the sterling war records of various weapons and to recent polls showing that 70% of Americans have gained a higher respect for their manufacturers. If the systems are so good, they argue, why not buy more of them?

Democratic legislators have an extra incentive to support a binge of defense spending: most of them voted against giving George Bush a green light to start the war. Now they may be even more anxious than the Republicans to push new weapons. Contends Lawrence Korb, an Under Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration: "The Democrats on Capitol Hill are in shell shock. To stand up against the Patriot now would be unpatriotic."

So it was that a recent vote on a $15 billion supplemental appropriation, ostensibly to pay for the gulf war, passed overwhelmingly (92-8 in the Senate, 379-11 in the House). The appropriation was conveniently placed "off budget," meaning that it is exempt from a requirement that any new spending must be balanced by cuts elsewhere. It includes hundreds of millions for weapons that had been targeted for either budgetary death or a fate close to it before the war, and will add $2.9 billion to a deficit estimated at $308 billion for the current fiscal year. Some examples:

Patriot. The missiles, which cost about $900,000 each earlier this year, were to be phased out in next year's budget because the 3,200 in Army inventories were sufficient. Only about 130 were used in the war. Nonetheless, an additional $214 million was included in the appropriation to buy 158 of the missiles. They cost more, it was explained, because they are being improved.

Multiple Launch Rocket System. The MLRS, which is mobile and can rapidly fire surface-to-surface missiles more than 20 miles, had also been doomed to no new purchases next year. Now 20,286 of the rockets used by the launchers will be bought for $152 million. The Army already has 312,057 of the missiles on hand.

Maverick. These air-to-ground guided missiles proved less effective than some others, often missing their target, and no new buys had been scheduled for next year. But $370 million has been appropriated to buy 5,000 new Mavericks to join the 11,500 in Air Force stockpiles.

Hellfire. Carried by the Apache, only 112 of the antitank missiles were to be bought next year. Though 29,500 were still in the arsenal, that number was deemed insufficient and $42.4 million has been assigned to purchase 1,063 more of them.

Beyond the new money already voted, the battle to keep other endangered species alive has gained new support. Congressmen from New York and Maryland are trying to save the Navy's possibly obsolescent F-14 fighter, even though the Pentagon warns that will mean cutting production of more versatile F/A-18 fighter-bombers. The Apache, the Bradley, and the M1A1 Abrams may also escape the knife wielded by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. He wants to stop their production as part of a drive to slash defense spending by 1996 to 34% under that in 1985.

The sudden public adulation of American technology, long seen as sinking under Japan's rising sun, has even revived the Northrop Corp.'s hopes for its flawed and perhaps missionless B-2 bomber. The California company has launched a furious campaign to get more money for an aircraft that carries an $865 million price tag. The company and the Pentagon claim that the B-2 can destroy Soviet mobile missiles dispersed in millions of square miles of thick forests. Never mind that Saddam Hussein launched Scud missiles for weeks from sites in the open desert while a huge force of allied warplanes tried to find them. When it comes to buying weapons, it seems, cost is no object and logic goes out the window.

With reporting by Nancy Traver/Washington