Freeze Won’t Hurt Defense, Study Holds

A freeze in defense spending next year, allowing growth only for inflation, would not force cancellation of any weapons systems and would provide “significant increases” in many of them, according to an analysis by the Democratic staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

This disputes President Reagan’s contention that any fiscal 1986 military budget providing less than 3% real growth would force cancellation of some weapons programs.

The analysis of the impact of a “zero real-growth” budget grew out of a version of such a budget that the Armed Services Committee considered on April 4. Ultimately, the Republican-dominated panel approved a 1986 spending level of 3% growth above inflation.

The report, expected to be released this week, said that, at the zero real-growth level of $302.5 billion, purchases of aircraft would rise 6% over this year, purchases of missiles would increase 44% and “not a single combatant ship” would be cut.

The analysis was prepared for Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, a member of the panel’s Democratic minority, but the totals of weapons that could be produced under a zero-growth budget were calculated by the full committee staff for the April 4 votes on a 1986 defense budget.

‘Truly Painful Cuts’

Bingaman said that “about the only truly painful cuts” in procurement would result from a one-year delay in purchases of Army M-1 tanks (buying 720 instead of 840 next year) and the field artillery ammunition support vehicle (production of 197 delayed a year).

Even those cuts probably could be avoided, Bingaman said, noting that Defense Department savings in other accounts this year easily covered the $400 million needed to pay for the extra tanks and support vehicles next year.

The committee approved spending $312.3 billion next year, 3% above this year’s budget plus inflation--the rate agreed on by Reagan and the Senate Republican leadership in their budget compromise.

In a speech Wednesday night, the President said that 3% growth is “the rock-bottom level we must maintain for effective deterrence to protect our security.” He added that even the 3% rise “would require canceling some programs.”

The Armed Services Committee’s zero-growth budget contradicts that assertion.

“We can afford to defer the marginal defense programs,” Bingaman said, adding that, even with the reductions, “we would still be able to continue our defense modernization at a rapid pace.”