Subscribe to our free daily newsletters
. Military Space News .




Subscribe to our free daily newsletters



Rumsfeld's Missile Bungle

File photo of the Joint Common Missile

"Why don't officials want to fund the program? The problem can't be affordability, because the four legacy munitions that the Joint Common Missile would replace cost more money to buy and maintain in separate lots than a single system would. It can't be lack of "jointness," because the Army and Marine Corps want to put the missile on helicopters, the Navy wants to put it on fighters, and there are even plans to deploy it on ground vehicles. It can't be operational difficulties, because all of the key components have been thoroughly tested. And it can't be politics, because the program has strong backing in the U.S. Congress, where it continues to be funded.

So what's the problem? Here's one possibility. Joint Common Missile was canceled in a rush as part of a package of last-minute program changes designed to fit the fiscal 2006 defense budget within White House guidelines. The decisions were made so carelessly that policymakers have had to reverse each of the changes one by one in the two years since the cuts were made. Agreeing to fund the program would be a tacit admission that the December 2004 cuts were the most amateurish review of weapons programs conducted in modern times, and some of the people involved in that fiasco still hold senior Pentagon positions."

by Loren B. Thompson
UPI Commentator
Arlington (UPI) Feb 21, 2007
Here's a fantasy. Imagine three military services agreed on the need for a versatile air-to-ground missile that could precisely destroy a wide range of elusive targets -- everything from camouflaged armored vehicles to terrorist speedboats. Imagine they found a low-cost design that could do those things day or night, good weather or bad, even when enemies were trying to jam the missile.

Imagine the services selected a company that developed the missile on time and on cost, meeting all of its performance objectives.

And imagine the missile was fielded expeditiously, replacing four cold-war missiles with an easy-to-maintain round that saved military lives while minimizing unintended damage.

You'd have to be pretty naive to believe the Pentagon's dysfunctional acquisition system could deliver all that, wouldn't you? That's right, you would -- because the military actually has a program matching that description, and senior officials have been trying to kill it for two years. Why? Well, nobody really knows why.

The program is called the Joint Common Missile, and review panels have repeatedly stated that it is the only system available that can eliminate deficiencies in existing munitions -- deficiencies such as accidentally killing non-combatants.

But on Christmas Eve in 2004, a secret meeting of then-U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's handpicked geniuses decided to terminate the whole effort without even asking military users whether that was a good idea.

Political appointees have continued to oppose the missile ever since, even though the services keep coming back with new evidence that the military requirement is valid, the technology works, and the program is on track.

Which raises the question of why officials don't want to fund the program. The problem can't be affordability, because the four legacy munitions that the Joint Common Missile would replace cost more money to buy and maintain in separate lots than a single system would.

It can't be lack of "jointness," because the Army and Marine Corps want to put the missile on helicopters, the Navy wants to put it on fighters, and there are even plans to deploy it on ground vehicles.

It can't be operational difficulties, because all of the key components have been thoroughly tested. And it can't be politics, because the program has strong backing in the U.S. Congress, where it continues to be funded. So what's the problem?

Here's one possibility. Joint Common Missile was canceled in a rush as part of a package of last-minute program changes designed to fit the fiscal 2006 defense budget within White House guidelines. The decisions were made so carelessly that policymakers have had to reverse each of the changes one by one in the two years since the cuts were made.

The only decision that hasn't been reversed was the move to cancel the Joint Common Missile. And even that program isn't really canceled, because in the haphazard management culture of Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon, nobody ever got around to doing the paperwork to formally terminate the program.

Nonetheless, agreeing to fund the program would be a tacit admission that the December 2004 cuts were the most amateurish review of weapons programs conducted in modern times, and some of the people involved in that fiasco still hold senior Pentagon positions.

So instead of simply admitting a mistake, political appointees want to recompete the program -- despite the fact that there are no apparent problems with the weapon, despite the fact that a new competition would cost several hundred million dollars, and despite the fact that starting over would delay fielding the missile for years.

Meanwhile, the nation's military would continue to carry deficient, potentially dangerous munitions into combat. Isn't it time policymakers started listening to the advice of war-fighters?

Loren B. Thompson is chief executive officer of the Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based think tank that supports democracy and the free market.

Source: United Press International

Email This Article

Related Links
All about missiles at SpaceWar.com

Pakistan Successfully Tests Nuclear-Capable Missile
Islamabad (AFP) Feb 23, 2007
Pakistan Friday test-fired its longest range nuclear-capable ballistic missile, two days after signing a deal with rival India to cut the risk of atomic weapons accidents, the military said. The Shaheen II, or Hatf VI, missile with a range of 2,000 kilometres (1,240 miles) was launched from an undisclosed location, military spokesman Major General Shaukat Sultan told AFP.







  • China Military Build-Up Out Of Keeping With Peaceful Aim
  • US On Charm Offensive To Avoid Clash With Russia
  • Putin Warns Against Flouting International Law For Own Interests
  • The Bear Roars From The East

  • US Aircraft Carrier Has No Plans To Intimidate Iran
  • British Military Police Storm Anti-Nuclear Protest Ship
  • Military Operations Outside Iraq Unacceptable
  • North Korea Talks Remain In Fog Of Hot Air

  • Rumsfeld's Missile Bungle
  • Pakistan Successfully Tests Nuclear-Capable Missile
  • Iran Launches War Games With Missile Tests
  • Putin Denies Passing Missile Technology To Iran

  • BMD Can Backfire On Europe
  • Putin Pledges To Strengthen Russia's Defense Potential
  • Missile Defenses In Europe Would Shield Against Iran, Not Russia
  • Russian Missile Forces Lower Quantity But Higher Quality

  • Can UABC Take Russian Aircraft-Makers Out Of Spin
  • Superjet To Be Tested For Strength
  • Anger As Britons Face Air Tax Hike
  • Bats In Flight Reveal Unexpected Aerodynamics

  • Killerbee UAV Flies At Camp Pendleton
  • UAV Tested For US Border Security
  • Iran Claims New Stealth Drone That Can Attack US Gulf Fleet
  • Boeing ScanEagle Team Achieves Compliance With NATO UAV Interoperability Standard

  • Trouble In The Garden Of Eden
  • Iraqi Police In Militias
  • General Discusses Chlorine Bombs, Helicopter Shoot-downs
  • Iraq Surge Strategy Slammed

  • Navy Awards Two Contracts For Airborne Low Frequency Sonar System
  • First Joint Precision Airdrop A Success In Iraq Test
  • Pentagon Calls Off Plans For Huge Explosion In Desert
  • Lockheed Martin Compact Kinetic Energy Missile Successful In Final Flight Test

  • The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright 1995-2006 - SpaceDaily.AFP and UPI Wire Stories are copyright Agence France-Presse and United Press International. ESA PortalReports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additionalcopyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. Advertising does not imply endorsement,agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by SpaceDaily on any Web page published or hosted by SpaceDaily. Privacy Statement