Midgetman Could Cost Twice as Much as MX, Need Huge Basing Area, Report Says

The proposed Midgetman missile--the lightweight, mobile weapon that many in Congress favor as a superior alternative to the MX missile--could cost more than twice as much as the MX, require territory one-third the size of Utah for basing and need 20,000 persons to operate, the General Accounting Office says.

The report, which updates estimates of the long-run costs and possible technical problems of the missile, represents “a vindication of a great many specific concerns” expressed about the Midgetman, Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.) said Friday after distributing copies of the findings.

Although it long has been predicted that the single-warhead Midgetman would be expensive and difficult to develop, growing numbers of members of Congress have asserted that the smaller weapon would be a better investment than the 10-warhead MX.

Difficult to Find

These proponents say that the Midgetman--which would weigh less than one-sixth as much as the 195,000-pound MX--could be transported in a truck, which would be difficult for Soviet weapons to find and hit. Moreover, they add, the smaller weapon would appear less threatening to the Soviets and they would not be as likely to accelerate the nuclear arms race.

The relative merits of the Midgetman or the MX are likely to be a major issue when House and Senate negotiators try next week to iron out the differences in the 1986 defense authorization bills passed by the two chambers.

Both bills would drastically cut back on the 100 MX missiles originally envisioned as replacements for less accurate Minuteman missiles: The House would set a 40-missile limit; the Senate would allow 50 to be deployed in existing Minuteman silos. And, in a clear effort to push forward with the Midgetman, the House would provide $150 million more than the Senate toward its development.

More Funds Sought

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Les Aspin (D-Wis.) is expected to offer concessions on the MX in an effort to obtain more funds for the Midgetman.

The report estimated that producing 500 Midgetman missiles--carrying as many warheads as the 50 MX missiles in the Senate plan--would eventually cost about $44 billion, an amount adjusted for inflation. By comparison, the MX would cost about $21 billion.

Among the problems the missile would face, the report said, are:

--Developing technology that could make the missile accurate and powerful enough and still weigh less than the 30,000-pound limit mandated by congressional action for the Midgetman. The report contended that this limit would make the missile too light to carry highly accurate guidance devices and to penetrate enemy defenses.

--Finding a launching vehicle for the weapon, if it is made mobile, that would have the proper balance of weight, mobility and hardness to ensure that the missile would survive a nuclear attack.

--Developing a command and communications system that could operate the sprawling, complicated missile system during and after a nuclear attack.

--Finding enough suitable land--about 28,000 square miles--on which the missile could be kept mobile.

Wilson conceded that there is “a lot that is attractive in mobility” and that congressional opposition has effectively killed chances that the MX will ever play the major role once envisioned for it.

‘Can’t Cut It’

But, he insisted, “this one does not work and shouldn’t be built . . . . Midgetman can’t cut it.” In an appendix to the report, the Defense Department said that it had reviewed it “and agreed with its findings.”

However, Wilson was critical of what he said has been a reluctance by the Pentagon to argue the deficiencies of the weapon on Capitol Hill.

Military leaders, he said, have been “less aggressive than they should have been in pointing out the flaws, (because they are) responding to what they believe is a wave of congressional enthusiasm.”