Panel Rejects Stealth Curbs, OKs Funding

Despite growing congressional opposition to the stealth bomber, the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday rejected a proposal by Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) to save an estimated $1 billion by slowing down production of the expensive new aircraft.

The committee vote means that the Administration’s request for $4.8 billion for the bomber in fiscal 1990 will be referred to the full Senate without any reduction. The House Armed Services Committee recently voted to slash $800 million from the stealth program for fiscal 1990.

Glenn’s proposal would have created a series of “milestones” or specific hurdles over which the stealth program would be required to pass before receiving additional funds for the next stage of its development--the first being that it must be able to fly.

He estimated that his proposal could have saved the government about $1 billion. It is now expected that the government will spend at least $70 billion if the Pentagon buys all of the 132 bombers it seeks.

Like many other stealth opponents, Glenn has argued that the bomber should not be fully funded until it has been proven effective.

“This is the biggest departure in aircraft design, ever,” he said. “Why go into it--at a cost of $538 million per copy--without seeing if it can fly first?”

The vote on Glenn’s proposal took place in a closed session of the Senate committee.

Northrop Corp., which has been developing the boomerang-shaped bomber--also known as the B-2--is preparing for the craft’s maiden flight, perhaps as early as Saturday.

Despite the setback, Glenn vowed to revive his proposal to slow down B-2 production when the fiscal 1990 defense authorization bill is considered on the Senate floor later this summer.

Opponents of Glenn’s proposal have argued that a production slowdown actually would cost more money than it would save. Air Force officials testified before the House Armed Services Committee Wednesday that the program would cost an extra $4.2 billion if Congress withheld production funds for 1990.

Supporters of the stealth have also argued that the aircraft represents a bargain for the government in comparison to the alternatives. Air Force officials contend that it would cost $60 billion to scrap the stealth program and instead buy sufficient numbers of B-1 bombers to perform stealth’s intended mission.

Earlier Thursday, Defense Secretary Dick Cheney told the House Armed Services Committee that the $800-million cut in funding that that panel had agreed on recently could add as much as $1.4 billion to the stealth program’s price.

Cheney defended the B-2’s soaring cost but warned lawmakers in a hearing that, if Congress makes yearly cuts in B-2 budget requests, the cost would spiral out of control.

“You might decide you want to cancel the program,” he said. “That would be a perfectly legitimate decision . . . (although) I think it would be wrong. But what you should not do is nickel-and-dime-it to death.”

When asked about the consequences of cancellation, Cheney said: “If, in fact, we do not go forward with the B-2, we will not have the capacity that we had anticipated in terms of the number of weapons we would be able to deliver to the Soviet Union in wartime.”

RUNWAY TESTS: Bomber completes high-speed runs. Business, Page 3