GOING SHOPPING
- $60.3 billion for new weapons - This is $6.1 billion more than
the current budget, an increase of more than 11%. Additional funding
will help DoD achieve its procurement goal of $60 billion per
year by fiscal 2001. Below are just some of the items on the Pentagon's
shopping list.
-
Fiscal Year 2001 Request for Weapons (Partial Listing)38
(Dollars in Millions)
|
RDT&E
|
Procure-
ment
|
Number
|
FY'01
Total
|
Cost
per Unit
|
| F/A-18E/F Hornet (Navy) |
19.2 |
3,061.4 |
42 |
3,080.6 |
86 |
| F-22 Raptor Fighter (Air Force) |
1,411.8 |
2,546.1 |
10 |
3,957.9 |
184 |
| Joint Strike Fighter (Joint) |
856.7 |
---- |
0 |
856.7 |
73 |
| C-17 Transport Aircraft (Air Force) |
176.4 |
2,890.9 |
12 |
3,081.0 |
335 |
| E-8C Joint STARS Recon. Aircraft (Air Force) |
144.1 |
283.2 |
1 |
427.3 |
557 |
| V-22 Osprey Aircraft (Joint) |
148.2 |
1,694.9 |
20 |
1,843.1 |
79 |
| UH-60 Blackhawk Helicopter (Army) |
29.9 |
86.8 |
6 |
116.7 |
14.5 |
| CVN-77 Aircraft Carrier (Navy) |
286.5 |
4,090.8 |
1 |
4,377.3 |
5,210 |
| DDG-51 Aegis Destroyer (Arleigh Burke Class - Navy) |
179.7 |
3,206.1 |
3 |
3,385.8 |
947 |
| NSSN New Attack Sub ("Virginia" Class - Navy) |
320.4 |
1,711.2 |
1 |
2,031.6 |
2,172 |
| LPD-17 San Antonio Cl. Amphib. Transport (Navy) |
2.6 |
1,533.8 |
2 |
1,536.4 |
823 |
| Trident II D-5 Missile |
32.1 |
463.9 |
12 |
496.0 |
60 |
| MILSTAR Communications Satellite |
236.8 |
---- |
---- |
236.8 |
N/A |
| Medium Armored Vehicle (MAV - Army) |
109.3 |
537.1 |
N/A |
646.4 |
---- |
| M1A2 Tank Upgrade (Army) |
82.7 |
527.7 |
80 |
610.4 |
3.7* |
| Bradley Fighting Vehicle Upgrade |
---- |
390.9 |
N/A |
390.9 |
1.9* |
| Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) |
2.0 |
438.3 |
N/A |
440.3 |
0.21 |
NOTES: * Indicates the per unit cost of the base system, without including
costs associated with the current upgrade program. This information
was obtained from unclassified budget documents. Not all weapons
and equipment specified how many of an item was to be purchased.
OSPREY GROUNDED
Tuesday a terrible crash of a MV-22 Osprey killed four Marines
in a wooded area of North Carolina. The pilot gave no clue of
the problem, just a hurried "mayday".
This tilt-rotor plane which takes off and lands like a helicopter
but flies like a plane is expected to replace the aged Marine
Corps chopper fleet. Plans include adding a total of 360 Ospreys
- the crashed plane being in the first nine purchased.
In April of this year, another Osprey crashed while attempting
to land at an airport in Arizona, killing all 19 Marines aboard.
Human error was blamed for that accident. In addition to the loss
of these men, this accident may pull the plug on the $40 billion
Osprey program. |
|
Fiscal Year 2001 Request for Bio/Chemical Defense 39
(Dollars in Millions)
| Individual Protection |
108.7
|
| Decontamination |
12.2 |
| Joint Bio-Defense Program |
141.8 |
| Collective Protection |
36.2 |
| Contamination Avoidance |
175.1 |
| TOTAL for Bio/Chemical Defense |
473.9
|
-
REPLENISHING DEFENSES SUPPLIES
A group of military analysts from the Heritage Organization suggests that the following changes be made in our defense supplies and personnel to bring it up to snuff:
- The Navy should have ~400 Navy ships, with 12 active aircraft
carrier battlegroups.
- The U.S. Army should have 12 active duty divisions.
- The Marine Corps should retain three active divisions and air
wings, with 177,000 active-duty Marines and 42,000 Reserves.
- Fast sealift ships and new heavy airlifters, like the C-17, to
replace the country's rapidly aging fleets and maintain the military's
ability to move heavy forces rapidly into a theater of conflict.
- Adequate pre-positioned stocks of heavy equipment, either ashore
near the likely trouble spots or on maritime positioned ships,
are essential to sustain forces for more than a few weeks during
a conflict.)40
ANOTHER WRINKLE - THE EU RAPID REACTION FORCE
No one knows how this new Euro Army will affect America or NATO.
It provides for a pool of 90,000 - a120,000 EU troops, from which
a maximum of 60,000 would be drawn for any one mission. It also
plans for 400 combat planes and 100 warships to make up the force.
No new forces are being created, however, and many of the troops
included in the tally are also committed to NATO. This is what
America sees as the problem - a weakening of NATO.
Present plans are a force which could be mobilized within 60 days
and remain on the ground for up to a year. Troops could be deployed
as far afield as 2,500 miles from its headquarters in Brussels
to Africa, the Middle East taking in Baghdad and well into Russia
including Moscow and going beyond Cairo in the south. Governments
intend that the Euro Army be ready for deployment by 2003.
The Euro-Army is not a "standing army" and supposedly its purpose
is only humanitarian and peacekeeping. If it is not a conflict
force, there sure is a lot of hardware involved.
Earlier this month, Dick Cheney, Mr. Bush's running mate, said:
"What we care about, and care about a lot, is NATO, and ensuring
that nothing is created within Europe which could undermine it."41
- RUSSIA'S RED FOOT IN, RUSSIA'S RED FOOT OUT - YOU DO THE HOKEY
POKEY. . .
Now this is the strangest twist. Initially, Russian Prime Minister
Vladimir Putin had a small fit about the formation of the Euro-Army
viewing it as a threat. Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair basically
told him "tough, we're going ahead anyway."
In less than a week, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said
on November 23rd that Russia was ready to cooperate with the European
Union's new military force. How can Russia supply troops when
it is not a member of the EU? Talk about a change of tune. Ivanov
told leading European policy makers and analysts at the forum
on Europe, "We consider it completely natural, the effort by Europe
with their own forces to provide for their own security and in
a crisis situation we are ready for constructive cooperation."42
After the Nice summit finished a few days ago hammering out difficult
issues growth pains, taxation, social security and defence among
other issues, France's President Jacques Chirac was chapped that
the Rapid Reaction Force" should be independent of NATO. However,
Mr. Blair was adament that NATO remain the basis of defence and
won this point.
If Russia gets in bed with Europe, where does that leave NATO
and the US? Secondly, as the European Union grows, so will its
strength and importance. With an expected addition to the EU of
13 countries shortly, it will be interesting to see how this affects
the Euro-Army.
TROOPS PROMISED SO FAR FOR EURO ARMY
Continue
© Text and Graphics, 2000 Stan and Holly Deyo, except where otherwise
credited
|
