<<  <  >  >>

ous R&D subsidies, major contractors often

billion to $4 billion annually in recent years

receive government-built plants and produc-

and a total of $55 billion since Reagan's

tion equipment at little or no cost through

March 1983 "Star Wars" speech. Little evi-

Government-Owned, Company-Operated

dence suggests that the recent upsurge in

(GOCO) facilities. So when a major firm like

support for missile defenses is based on any

Lockheed Martin or Boeing undertakes a

great technical breakthrough in this area--85

major weapons program, the company can

to 90 percent of the tests of missile intercep-

rely on the taxpayers to shoulder virtually all

tors conducted during this decade have

the major financial risks involved in develop-

failed. In one high-profile project involving

ing that system.

Lockheed Martin's Theater High Altitude

Area Defense system test failures have

Government Funding of R&D

occurred in six out of seven attempts. The

Military R&D is a big business for military

problems with the project have been so severe

contractors. In FY98 each of the Big Three

that the Pentagon considered removing

weapons makers received over $1 billion in

Lockheed Martin as the prime contractor or

R&D funding--Lockheed Martin led at $4.8

merging the Theater High Altitude Area

billion, followed by Boeing at $2.2 billion,

Defense program with the Navy's Theater

and Raytheon at $1.1 billion.47 No other pri-

Wide Missile Defense effort.49 The R&D

vate company could even dream of receiving

efforts for missile defense are so sizable that

anywhere near those levels of government

Congress and the taxpaying public have

support for basic research and product devel-

inherent difficulty sorting out the pork from

opment.

the useful research.

Some level of government support for

At a minimum, the sheer size (and decid-

R&D of defense equipment may be appropri-

edly mixed results) of the Pentagon's multi-

ate. But when the government begins invest-

billion-dollar annual R&D effort suggests a

ing billions of dollars in a project, an irre-

need for greater scrutiny of private contrac-

sistible political momentum to build and

tors' spending of taxpayer money. One useful

deploy that system can be created, even if the

step would be to give more clout to the

system does not meet an urgent security

Pentagon's independent Office of Opera-

need. For example, the Air Force's state-of-

tional Testing and Evaluation, which has

the-art F-22 fighter plane (a $64 billion pro-

provided extremely useful critiques of major

gram) has built up such a strong congres-

programs like the ballistic missile defense

sional constituency during its extended and

effort.50 Another step would be to fund small-

U.S. taxpayers

costly R&D phase that it will be extremely

er firms to do simulations of potential new

difficult to eliminate, even though the air-

systems and evaluations of the R&D efforts

should ask why

craft is redundant and not needed in the cur-

of military behemoths like Lockheed Martin,

arms dealers and

rent benign international security environ-

Boeing, and Raytheon. And when a project is

ment.48 As noted above, the U.S. armed forces

plagued by repeated failures and cost over-

foreign nations

runs, the public should put pressure on

are developing three new fighter projects (the

are being subsi-

Congress and the executive branch to cancel

F-22, the F/A-18E/F, and the Joint Strike

dized to conduct

the program.

Fighter) at a time when many analysts believe

However the Pentagon approaches man-

that current U.S. fighters are more than ade-

arms transfers,

agement and oversight of R&D, one point is

quate to defeat any likely adversary for at

some of which

clear: the tens of billions of dollars that major

least another 15 years.

could cause

weapons makers receive in government R&D

Similarly, the staying power of the

funding provide them with an exclusive

Pentagon's ballistic missile defense efforts

regional conflicts

advantage over both U.S. commercial firms

may have been partly the result of the huge

or instability.

and foreign weapons makers (which receive

quantities of taxpayer funding that have

nowhere near the same levels of R&D sup-

gone into those programs: an average of $3

16