April 18, 1988 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 7177 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS ' No performance rating was possible since the ATB has not reached initial bilities of the aircraft. This report is late. It was STRATEGIC WEAPONS: WHAT operating capability (IOC ). WE ARE GETTING FOR OUR due March 1. It now appears that it will not be MONEY Let's take up the B-1 B, the first program to available until August. turn up with F's on my strategic report card. A provision in the current defense authoriza­ HON. LES ASPIN The reason for the F in performance is simple. tion bill would require the Air Force to test the OF WISCONSIN The B-1 B doesn't work as advertised. When current B-52 electronic defensive systems in the Armed Services Committee issued its the B-1 B. Completing these initiatives will IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES report on the bomber just about 1 year ago, it help determine the plane's capability. Monday, April 18, 1988 found serious problems in three areas-ter­ In the meantime, we should make a distinc­ Mr. ASPIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to give rain-following radar, flight controls and elec­ tion between this program and the ills of the the second in a series of speeches on our tronic countermeasures or ECM, the means MX. As I reported last week, performance of major strategic programs. On Thursday I as­ by which enemy radars can be foiled. the MX has been degraded by problems with sessed the status of our ballistic missile sys­ Since then, one problem, the terrain-follow­ a complex element of its guidance system tems. The results were mixed, but with some ing radar, has been fixed. A second problem, called the Inertial Measurement Unit or IMU. If good news. Today I turn to my assessment of involving the flight controls, is on the way to and when the IMU problems are solved, the our two new bomber programs-the B-1 B and solution. But the third, most vexing issue, con­ MX will work as advertised. the B-2 advanced technology bomber. The re­ cerns the plane's ECM. Although much effort My concern is that the B-1 B will never work sults are again mixed, but without much to has been made to reduce the blip that the B- as advertised because of the time it's taking cheer about. 1B makes on radar, it is by no means a to fix the problem-time during which Soviet That there are two active bomber programs stealth aircraft. The ECM is necessary to foil air defenses are improving. The bomber's instead of one is the product more of a unique radar that would otherwise pinpoint the big electronic countermeasures will be fixed at fiscal circumstance than of any analysis of bomber for air defense missiles and planes. great cost only to meet more effective de­ military need. The Carter administration had The Air Force says the ECM can be fixed, fenses or, at best, it will be rendered redun­ canceled the B-1 to press on with the A TB. that it will finally have the capability it was dant by the B-2. Either way, we will have The Reagan administration took office and supposed to have in 1986 by 1991. I'm con­ spent billions for something we didn't need. revived the B-1 as the B-1 B. There were cerned that this timetable means the B-1 B will We should consider now whether it's worth never be fixed in the sense that it performs as those who questioned the need to spend so spending any more money to make the B-1 B advertised against Soviet air defenses. The much money on two bombers. But it was a operable but obsolescent. The B-1 B may Soviet Union puts a great deal of effort into its time when programs were matched to the have a future as a cruise-missile carrier or air defenses. By the time the B-1 B is fixed, flood of dollars, rather than the other way penetrating bomber against less sophisticated the Soviets will have undoubtedly improved around. The B-1 was revived as the B-1 B. those defenses so the bomber will be facing a foes, but the cost effectiveness of the plane My discussion of these programs will draw more difficult task. as a penetrator against Soviet air defenses of on an extensive, year-long examination of The Air Force has dealt with the importance the 1990's is in question. strategic programs conducted by the House of ECM for the B-1 B in two studies, one of In addition to an F for performance, B-1 B Armed Services Committee. This examination them partially classified, the other highly clas­ program recieved an F for management. It resulted in a series of reports. As many as sified. was earned by a management strategy that possible were made public, such as those The first, the Air Force bomber study of didn't work any better than the ECM. The Air concerning the B-1 B, the Trident II D-5 mis­ 1981, issued immediately prior to the October Force did not have a prime contractor for the sile, the MX and its rail garrison basing mode 1981 production start of the B-1B, reviewed B-1 B-that is a company hired to put the and the small ICBM. But others-those on the the expected penetration capability of the B- weapon together. Instead, it had a principal A TB and the ACM-remain locked in the safe 1B. "With robust ECM," said an unclassified contractor, Rockwell International. The Air because of the high level of classification passage in the report, the B-1 B's capability to Force itself acted as the prime contractor or maintained on those programs. penetrate hostile territory was considerable. integrator of the various B-1 B systems. The assessments of these programs con­ The key measurement was "robust ECM." The point was to save $2 to $3 billion. It tained in this series of speeches remain mine In 1985, the Air Force updated the bomber didn't work. The Air Force was not qualified to alone, however. study. At that time, the ATB was entering into do the job. When problems mounted, the im­ On the B-1 B, I will also be able to offer an a critical phase and there was congressional pulse of Air Force Systems Command, the or­ update. Since the committee report outlining debate on whether an additional 100 B-1 air­ ganization in charge of the B-1 B, was to its problems, there has been some progress. craft should be bought. While this report was coverup. It wasn't only Congress and the On the B-2 the discussion will be in general­ submitted with special access classification, public who were kept in the dark. It was also ities. It is unfortunate that the Department of and thus cannot be quoted, I can say that it Defense Department civilian leaders and even Defense has not elected to make basic, au­ raised questions as to the capability of the B- Air Force higher ups. For this performance, thoritative cost and schedule information avail­ 1B to penetrate defended Soviet airspace, es­ the program managers earned an F. able to the American public. Discussion and pecially in comparison with the more sophisti­ The B-1 B did get two A's. The first was for debate would help clear the air. cated stealth technology. cost. The B-1 B was brought in at the adver­ As with the ballistic missiles, I have devel­ By any measurement the current perform­ tised cost cap of $20.5 billion. We have since oped a report card for the two programs. The ance of the B-1 B is something short of learned that this figure excluded essential pro­ table sets out the grades. "robust." We are now trying to find out how gram elements such as simulators. It also effective the aircraft is without "robust" ECM, doesn't include the cost of fixing what ails the BOMBER REPORT CARD and, what alternatives exist. bomber. But we in Congress and elsewhere The Armed Services Committee report initially signed up for the cost cap and the Air Program B- 18 ATB issued a year ago prompted concern about Force made it. Thus their A. C+ how good a penetrator the bomber would ever The high mark for schedule follows a similar ~h~~~~.nt.::::: .. :::: ~ B be. The Defense Department was directed to path. Rockwell contracted to turn out 100 B- Cost.... .............. ................... .................... ........... ... A Performance ................................. .. ........ F ~+ create an independent advisory group to 1B's on schedule and the contractor made it. evaluate and report on the penetration capa- The bombers don't work as they were sup- e This "bullet" symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor. Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor. 7178 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS April 18, 1988 posed to, but we've already graded perform­ this program changes from development to left their mark on his Missouri community. The ance. So, the schedule was met for pushing production, cost will be even more significant. student services building that was dedicated airplanes out the plant door and the grade is Already, there are indications that production in his name at State Fair Community College A.