It’s An Ifs, Ands And Buts Proposition
To my mind, the most glaring double standard in Washington is the gap between what Congress will tolerate in defense projects and what it will accept in social policy ventures. Many of the same lawmakers quick to proclaim the failure of “do-good” domestic programs are remarkably willing to cut military contractors slack when it comes to problem-plagued weapons systems.
A case in point is the B-2 Stealth bomber, the center of an unresolved battle in the defense spending bill for next year. The Air Force already has 21 of the $2 billion-a-copy bombers in its inventory or on order. Development of the radar-dodging planes, which can drop nuclear or conventional bombs, began in 1981, when the Cold War was heating up, and after several delays is supposed to be complete about the end of the century.
Lovers of high-tech weaponry in both parties are pressing hard to start work on nine more Stealths. The Congressional Budget Office says the added fleet would cost $27 billion to build and operate over the next two decades.
The Pentagon’s civilian and uniformed chiefs say that money could be better spent elsewhere. Defense Secretary William Cohen has warned that he would recommend a presidential veto of more B-2 funding. The Senate kept it out of its version of the Pentagon appropriation. But that has not deterred the majority of House Republicans, joined by some 60 Democrats, from insisting on buying more B-2s. Moves to redirect the $331 million first installment on the additional nine Stealths failed twice last summer, first by seven votes and then by 22 votes. The issue is up for debate in the House-Senate conference that will write the final version of the defense bill.
During the August recess, the General Accounting Office), the investigative arm of Congress, reported that after eight years of test flights, the B-2 continues to be a balky beast. The Air Force concedes it is “unrealistic” to operate any of the planes from overseas bases in troubled areas, as originally planned. The subsonic bombers will be kept at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, thousands of miles from any conceivable target.
The problem, it seems, is that the Stealth’s skin, which is supposed to make it invisible to enemy guns, is so sensitive to moisture and other climatic hazards that it “requires lengthy maintenance … in an environmentally controlled shelter after each flight.” The plane has never flown a combat mission, but for every hour of rehearsal in the air last year at Whiteman, the Stealth needed 124 man-hours in the shop.
The Pentagon does not challenge the GAO findings, most of which were based directly on Air Force testing. But when I talked last week to some of the main congressional backers of buying more B-2s, they were as avid as ever to go ahead.
Rep. Duncan Hunter’s, R-Calif., office sent me a two-page press release from Northrop Grumman, the prime contractor, asserting, without proof, that “the B-2 can deploy to and operate from virtually any airfield in the world capable of supporting large-aircraft operations.” The statement also claims that “once the B-2 is prepared for combat, exposure to moisture or heat does not damage or degrade its low-observable features in the air or on the ground. Period.”
Company Vice President Bill Lawler phoned me to reiterate these points, maintaining that the criticism comes from people who “do not understand that the B-2 maintenance system was not designed to operate out on the ramp in just any conditions.” Louis J. Rodrigues, who supervised the GAO report, responded, “They can try to twist their way out of it, but the fact remains, we cannot forward deploy the aircraft and maintain its stealth qualities. … These were not supposed to be problems at this point.”
But Rep. Norm Dicks of Washington, the B-2’s most ardent Democratic champion, told me, “There are problems, but we’re gonna fix them.”
Let’s hope he’s right, because we have $45 billion invested in the current Stealth squadrons. But here’s where the double standard comes in. Suppose the veterans hospitals were buying MRI machines that required 124 hours of maintenance for every hour of operation. Would Congress be pressing to expand that program or would it be investigating the agency head?
Or suppose you had a welfare-to-work program where the people showed up conscientiously - as long as it wasn’t too rainy or hot or cold. Would that be regarded as a policy triumph?
The GAO report says the testing shows “the B-2 must be sheltered or exposed only to the most benign environments.” I guess that’s what the House of Representatives provides.
xxxx