The large U.S.
corporations that make most of the high-end weapons for American and
foreign militaries are again flexing their political muscle to force the
U.S. Army to spend $436 million on new M1 tanks that the army doesn’t
want or need. This sort of thing nothing new and has been going on for a
long time. Warplane and ship manufacturers use their political clout to
force the air force and navy to buy aircraft they don’t want. The navy
has been forced to use a few increasingly inefficient and overpriced
shipyard to build vessels that are poorly built, behind schedule and
over budget.
How did this happen? There have been warnings. President
Dwight Eisenhower, the former commander of U.S. forces in Europe during
World War II made it clear, in one of his last speeches as president (in
1961) that in the future a “military-industrial complex” would warp
American military and foreign policy. While that did happen to a certain
extent, the more damaging development was the appearance of the
political-industrial complex. This is all about the pork barrel politics
played with military spending. It is not just an American problem as
most of the $1.4 trillion spent each year on defense worldwide comes with political strings attached. For obvious reasons,
politicians like to keep quiet about the political horse-trading that
goes on when the defense budget is carved up. That’s because "defense"
generally takes second place to "how can this help me get reelected,
rich, or both." The battles over military pork largely take place in the
shadows. But the outcomes of these conflicts eventually have an impact,
usually catastrophic, on the battlefield.
In the United States the post-World War II military worked
Congress (which had to approve the defense budget) to get more money,
but before long the large defense firms were using influence (via
campaign contributions and deciding where weapons would be built) to
exercise their own control over the much larger post World War II
peacetime defense budget. By the 1970s the defense firms had Congress
buying expensive weapons the military did not want. One of the earliest
examples of this was the purchase of 13 A-7E bombers in late 1970 just
to keep production going at a Texas plant.
The air force and navy had
plenty of A-7s and didn’t want any more. But the generals could not say
no to Congress and the defense firms cooked up offers members of
Congress could rarely refuse. Ever since then Congress has been
persuaded to order aircraft, ships, tanks and other gear the military
did not want or need. The M1 tanks are but the latest example.
The latest situation involving the M1 tanks was not a
pushover. The U.S. Army put up quite a fight with the politicians to
avoid having to buy more M1 tanks, or upgrade some older ones that do
not need upgrades. What it comes down to is that the politicians want to
keep the only American tank manufacturing plant open. It's all about
political posturing, votes, and getting reelected. But the army wants to
spend its shrinking budgets on things that will save lives in the next
battle. At stake is several billion dollars. The generals cannot openly
say that this is about buying votes versus buying lives but that's what
it comes down to.
So far, over 9,000 American M1 tanks have been produced and
most of them subsequently updated at least once. But the army, seeking
to save a billion dollars, wants to close the plant that builds and
modifies the M1. The closure would be for three years, and when it was
reopened there would be a backlog of upgrades and parts orders to fill
to keep the plant open until, perhaps, an M1 replacement comes along. At
the moment the generals do not have any firm plans for an M1
replacement.
Politicians and the operators of the plant want to keep the
plant open in order to save jobs, votes, and operating profits. This is
basically a largely political decision that involves getting the money
(from the taxpayers) to stay open by pretending that the army wants
this. But the army leadership has not cooperated and has openly opposed
this plan. How long the plant will remain in business is uncertain, as
is the future of the M1 tank.
For the immediate future the M1 plant will be needed because
the army is planning to maintain its M1 tank fleet (some 7,000 of them)
for another twenty years. There is no replacement in sight and the
chances of getting money for a replacement design
are, for the near term, slight. The M1 has already been in service for
over two decades and may become the first MBT (main battle tank) design
to stay in service for half a century. Technically, some World War II
tanks achieved that dubious goal but not in the service of a major
power.
The electronics
on the M1 have undergone several upgrades so far, in addition to the
larger main gun. More equipment has been added for urban warfare (an
outside phone, cameras, reactive armor side panels, thermal sights, and
shields for the external machine-guns) and new ammo types for the main
gun have been developed. A major enhancement was depleted uranium armor,
which made the M1 virtually invulnerable from the front.
The one remaining item in need of improvement is the 1,500
horsepower gas turbine engine. Improvements here included electronic
monitors on many engine components, an electronic logbook (to record all
pertinent engine activity), and a maintenance program that makes the
most of all this data. If the engine is monitored closely and
constantly, it's possible to carry out maintenance in a more timely
(before something fails) manner. The army would also like to develop an
improved (more efficient and less expensive to maintain) engine, but
that is also a costly item they can't afford at the moment.
New anti-tank weapons are always being developed and the army
wants to at least be able to afford new gear to deal with new threats.
One threat that is currently ignored is top attack warheads (that put a
shape charge type attack against the thin top armor). There are also new
types of mines and electronic threats. If the M1 is to survive for half
a century it will have to evolve, as well as endure.
The M1 Abrams tank is considered the best combat proven tank
in the world. But there are many different models of M1s, which vary
considerably in their combat capability. The earliest model is only
about half as capable as the most recent SEP model. The first of 3,273
M1 Abrams tanks was produced in 1978. This version had a 105mm gun. The
first of 4,796 M1A1s (with a 120mm gun and depleted uranium armor) was
produced in 1985 (plus 221 for the U.S. Marines, 555 co-produced with
Egypt and another 200 M1A1s for Egypt). Production of the M1A2 (with
improved fire control systems) began in 1986, with 77 for the US Army,
315 for Saudi Arabia, and 218 for Kuwait.
Another 600 M1s were upgraded
to M1A2 standards. Deliveries of these upgrades began in 1998. In 2001
the army began to upgrade 240 M1A2 tanks with better thermal imaging and
fire control equipment as well as communications and computer equipment
that would allow tanks to operate a full color "battlefield internet"
with each other as well as headquarters and warplanes with similar
equipment. The army upgraded 700 tanks to the M1A2SEP (System
Enhancement Package) standard and built another 240 new M1A2SEP
vehicles.
There were other upgrades, after the 2003 invasion of Iraq,
for urban warfare. Hundreds more M1s had battle damage repaired and
upgrades installed at the same time.
No comments:
Post a Comment