$2.5 Billion in Missile Funding Shifted

The Clinton administration, seeking to save money that could be used to update other weapons, announced plans Friday to cut $2.5 billion from the Pentagon’s major missile development programs, despite congressional orders that it spend more on them.

In a major reshuffling, the Pentagon said that it would slow down the development of two major longer-range antimissile systems in favor of speeding production of short-range battlefield missiles that it says are needed now.

Officials said that the decision reflects a belief by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that shorter-range cruise missiles--such as have been acquired by “rogue” countries such as North Korea and Iran--represent a more urgent threat than long-range ballistic missiles, which only a few major powers now have.

They said that the move would save as much as $2.5 billion between now and fiscal 2001, which could be used to replace aging ships, aircraft and tanks and to modernize other weapons and equipment. The administration has been holding down spending on modernization to help finance the nation’s current force.

The administration’s decision thrust it into another battle with Congress, which recently passed a defense authorization bill that was signed by President Clinton. The legislation requires that the Pentagon designate four of these missile systems high priorities and begin deploying the longer-range missiles by 2001.

A few minutes after the administration’s announcement, Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), chairman of the House National Security subcommittee that deals with missile development, issued a statement calling the decision “absolutely unacceptable.”

“We in Congress will have the last say on how much money is appropriated for missile defense programs,” Weldon said. He charged the administration with “only paying lip service” to the need for deploying an adequate missile defense system.

*

While the administration--and the nation’s top military leaders--have been insisting that the nation still has time to decide whether to deploy a long-range system, Republicans have contended that it must be done soon because “rogue” countries are quickly acquiring long-range missiles themselves.

Republicans initially had sought to require the administration to deploy a national antiballistic missile system by 2001 by writing it into an earlier version of the defense bill but Clinton vetoed the original measure and they were forced to take it out.

Even so, the version of the defense bill that Clinton ultimately signed provided a hefty $3.5 billion for the nation’s ballistic missile programs for fiscal 1996--almost $604 million more than the administration requested.

Weapons experts said that none of the major changes announced by the Pentagon on Friday is expected to have much impact on Southern California’s defense industry, which has been hit hard by cutbacks in military procurement over the last several years.

The changes announced Friday contained these major elements:

* The Pentagon plans to increase spending to speed the development and production of two short-range battlefield antimissile missiles--the Patriot PAC-3 and the Navy’s shipboard-based “Lower-Tier” missile, designed to replace the limited Marine Corps Hawk and Army Patriot PAC-2.

* Spending on development of the Army’s longer-range Theater High-Altitude Area Defense missile system will be slowed to a trickle, giving the Navy time to speed up development of its rival “Upper-Tier” antimissile missile as a possible competitor.

* The administration will continue developing the technology for a possible national antiballistic missile system to be deployed early in the 21st century, but will not decide until 2000 whether to deploy it. The earliest it could be deployed would be 2003.

* The Pentagon will place a higher priority on developing sensors and weapons that can find and destroy an enemy missile before it is launched--including a proposed new Air Force unmanned aerial vehicle and an airborne laser-gun.

Air Force Gen. Thomas Moorman, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at a briefing that the nation’s military leaders had sought the changes partly to meet more urgent needs for short-range battlefield missiles and partly to save money to be used for upgrading other weapons.