|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Missile Defense Spending Projection Climbs By David Ruppe WASHINGTON — The U.S. ballistic missile defense program is projected to cost $3.2 billion more than previous projections for the next six years, bringing the total to $53.1 billion, according to the latest Missile Defense Agency budget data. The increase is attributed to newly announced plans to deploy additional ground- and sea-based missiles, silos, a third missile base, radar and other hardware in 2006 and 2007, designated by the agency as “Block 2006” (see GSN, Feb. 4). Initial fielding of missile defense systems, called Block 2004, is expected to begin this year and run through 2005 (see GSN, Feb. 3). Bush administration budget documents from 2003, which did not account for the Block 2006 fielding, projected the program’s overall cost at $49.9 billion, with yearly budgets ranging between $7.7 billion and $8.7 billion (see GSN, Feb. 4, 2003). The fiscal 2005 budget documents, released this month, project funding increases for four of the next six years, reaching a high point of $10.3 billion in fiscal 2007, and an overall cost of $53.1 billion for fiscal 2004-2009. No Predicted DeploymentsWith a request for $9.2 billion for the next fiscal year, the agency’s program is by far the most costly Defense Department weapons development effort. Differing from other major defense programs, the Bush administration has said there are no specific long-term plans and budgets for future missile defense deployments now under development. Officials say new systems will be incrementally added and budgeted as needed, in an unorthodox approach to weapons procurement called “spiral development.” The current budget estimates “were developed based upon MDA’s best estimate of what will be necessary for an effective missile defense during the time periods specified. However, an increase (or reduction) of the ballistic missile threat could result in [future years defense program] adjustment, as with any weapon system,” said agency spokesman Rick Lehner by e-mail. That approach, analysts say, can hamper congressional oversight by concealing the prospective long-term program cost and could increase the likelihood that costs will climb higher than projected as officials announce the need for additional systems. “You remain utterly clueless on the costs of a program until those costs hit you in the face,” a congressional staffer said. “You’re trying to hit a moving target in terms of costing,” said Chris Hellman, an analyst with the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation. The added cost to the Block 2006 phase is $4.7 billion over last year’s projection of $11.3 billion. The increase, according to Lehner, results from the announced plans to field 20 additional long-range, ground-based interceptor missiles, 10 new silos at Fort Greely, Alaska, a new missile base, new radars abroad, additional sea-based missiles, additional Theater High-Altitude Area Defense interceptors, as well as surveillance and tracking satellites. Another $700 million was added to Block 2008 to sustain a “minimum production and testing capacity” for the long-range missile system, he said. Projected Block 2004 costs climbed this year, by $1.1 billion, as they did after plans for the initial fielding were announced in November 2002. “If you look at Block 2004 and Block 2006 as systems ð— the way you would look at a new aircraft program ð— the increases are quite large,” said Center for Defense Information analyst, Philip Coyle, a former top Pentagon technology-testing official. The increases were partially offset by projected decreases in other activities, bringing the net overall increase to $3.2 billion. Total annual Pentagon spending for missile defense is at least $1 billion higher than the Missile Defense Agency estimates show, analysts say, because some missile defense systems are managed outside the agency, such as the Army’s Patriot missile interceptors. “When they’re talking about the Missile Defense Agency budget, they’re not talking about all missile defense,” Hellman said.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
