Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (943)	3/26/2001 7:33:29 AM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 23908

March 26, 2001 Pentagon Lists Potential Cuts In About 30 Weapons Programs By GREG JAFFE Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL WASHINGTON -- Pentagon officials have prepared a list of about 30 weapons programs that could be cut back or killed to produce savings of as much as $3 billion annually over the next several years, defense officials said. The list, prepared at the request of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, draws a bead on some of the Defense Department's largest programs, including fighter jets, an artillery system and the Navy's next-generation destroyer. The Office of Management and Budget prepared a similar list of programs that could be cut, which was forwarded to Mr. Rumsfeld, an administration official said. According to defense officials, programs on the Pentagon's list of potential cuts include the Joint Strike Fighter plane; the Air Force's costly F-22 fighter jet, built by Lockheed Martin Corp.; the Army's Crusader artillery system, built by Carlyle Group's United Defense unit; and the Army's M-1 tank upgrade program. The list also raises the possibility of delaying the Navy's advanced DD-21 destroyer. Contractors haven't been selected for the DD-21 or the Joint Strike Fighter. Administration officials wouldn't reveal items on the OMB list. Mr. Rumsfeld requested the lists so he could determine how much savings the Pentagon could wring from the current defense budget in an effort to overhaul the military for the post-Cold War era. But no decision has been made on which, if any, weapons systems will be affected. "The whole process is still in the very early stages," said one defense official. "We are just getting started." The Pentagon's list, which was prepared by the secretary's program-evaluation office, and the OMB list were presented to Mr. Rumsfeld and his senior staff last week. Also last week, Mr. Rumsfeld briefed President Bush and the military's service chiefs on a top-to-bottom review of the military's broad strategy in a changing world where Asia poses a bigger threat than Eastern Europe. The strategy review didn't recommend cutting or canceling any particular Pentagon programs. Rather, officials said, it was intended to chart a broad course for the post-Cold War military. "The message to the service chiefs was: Don't look at the strategy review as a prescription for cutting or keeping certain programs," a defense official said, adding that the strategy review "is being conducted at 20,000 feet." But the strategy review did provide broad guidelines for Mr. Rumsfeld's program-evaluation office and OMB officials when they prepared the lists of suggested cuts. There is a broad consensus that Mr. Rumsfeld won't be able to overhaul the military and build a missile-defense program to protect the nation and troops abroad from weapons of mass destruction without a huge increase in the defense budget or big cuts to existing programs. To buy all the new tanks, planes and ships currently in the pipeline, the Congressional Budget Office estimates, defense spending would have to grow by at least $30 billion a year. Cutting those programs won't be easy. "All the programs that could be cut have strong congressional support; overhauling the military does not," said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, a nonpartisan defense think tank here. The strategy review concluded that the U.S. military has been too focused on Europe at the expense of Asia, and raises concerns about the military's ability to fight in that and other regions where it lacks access to bases. In addition, the review said the proliferation of advanced cruise missiles, quiet diesel submarines and nuclear, chemical and biological weapons will make it tougher for the military to station troops overseas, where they are more susceptible to attack. As a result, the U.S. will have to rely on stealthier weapons, such as the B-2 bomber, built by Northrop Grumman Corp., and submarines capable of launching missiles that can strike from great distances, the strategy review said. Fighter jets, which must take off from airfields closer to the conflict, would be harder to defend. The Crusader artillery system and the M-1 tank have been criticized as too heavy at a time when the Army is switching to a lighter, more rapidly deployable force. Write to Greg Jaffe at greg.jaffe@wsj.com