WATCH THAT PROP WASH!
Posted on 06/13/2007 9:05:29 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento
San Diego Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter has wasted over $60 million dollars in taxpayer money, shoveling it to a political contributor through budget “earmarks”.
An “earmark” is money inserted in a bill by a single Congressman. No hearing. No oversight.
Hunter’s “earmark” went for research and development on a plane design which was unwanted by the Pentagon. A warplane unwanted by our warriors. Hunter has been throwing money at it for years. It has not flown successfully. It doesn’t work. (That’s probably why the Pentagon doesn’t want it).
So why has Hunter continued to throw our tax dollars into this plane design? Is he a visionary? Does he know more than the Pentagon experts?
Or was he unduly influenced by the $36,000 the design firm contributed to his account?
Voters will have to draw their own conclusions
The Congressman is reported to have vigorously defended his earmarking actions, saying in effect that the Pentagon is too conservative in design approval. Other sources argued that the plane in question was more in the nature of a “hobby” than a serious defense R and D project. A “hobby” funded by taxpayers.
Now that the Democrats are in control, this process of “earmarking” for hobbies will be stopped (at least for Republicans like Hunter).
Somebody getting worried? :’)
The author of this is a card carrying Liberal/Socialist whom worked for Willie Brown, and other Leftist nutbags. He also taught at the Socialist University at Berkeley, California. Personally I discount his credibility.
Does anybody have sensible, accurate information about Duncan Hunter’s involvement with the mentioned research?
I'm sure the author is VERY impartial.... NOT!
It will never cease to amaze me that liberals will sit down and type out an article like this making it look #1) like republicans are the only ones earmarking and #2) that we’re anywhere near as habitual about it as liberals. Everyone earmarks, but not everyone earmarks billions each year for so-called “health and human services”, not to mention blatant self-interest earmarks like Pelosi/Reid/Boxer have been found participating in recently.
It’s absolutely infuriating and saddening at the same time, and every time it happens I care just a little less about living here.
I live in San Diego and have a better idea what is going on with this.
There is no there, there.
The Union Trib has become more and more liberal over recent years.
They tried another smear on Hunter months back and their
story was blown open along with photos proving what hacks the writers were.
Only those who don’t want us to win the War on Terror,
stand against the illegals, etc would want to believe this
crap against Hunter.
Not sure about the plane....thought it was Osprey since described plane is similar. Osprey has been in development for more than 20 years, costing more than 30 Billion (in 1988)...don’t know about costs since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22_Osprey
Osprey began production in 2005.
UC Berkeley is not the socialist university it used to be my friend....besides being the top graduate school in the U.S. and #1 ranked public university in the world, the largest student organization there now is the College Republicans ..... only the poor citizens of the city itself are the hippies of old....and they are liberal morons..
Pardon me for being an old sceptic...but do you have sources for these claims?
Someone wanted them...otherwise why TEST the plane:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/dp-2.htm
Here is an excerpt from Duncan Hunter’s testimony....
In terms of earmarks, let me say this. Members of Congress and particularly Members of the Armed Services Committee take their constitutional responsibility to, “raise and support armies…to provide and maintain a navy, and to make rules for …the land and naval forces,” very seriously. Every year the Armed Services Committee receives letters from nearly every Member of this body, which represent our Members’ efforts to share their ideas for the best ways to fulfill this responsibility. The Committee evaluates these requests and our Members are given three opportunities to amend and to vote on the requests included in our bill – at the subcommittee level, full committee level, and on the House floor. As Chairman, and now Ranking Member, of the Armed Services Committee I cede my constitutional responsibility to nobody, least of all the Pentagon. While some may cast aspersions on earmarks, I guess you could call it earmarking when I added more money to the President’s budget request for uparmored Humvees. I also added money to the budget for portable jammers that our soldiers and Marines could wear during dismounted operations. For that matter, we’ve added funds for body armor and have been relentless in our pursuit of alternative technologies and the development of testing standards. We have saved American lives with these earmarks, and I am proud of them.”
.....if you google the graduate school results, you’ll have to look at the disciplines like business, law, engineering, math, chemistry, physics etc.....Cal has more top 10 grad programs then even MIT, Harvard or Stanford. And if you look at engineering, chemistry, physics, computer science etc, Cal will be in the top 3 of most hard sciences and even the most of the social sciences..... and top 10 in law, business etc...
.......I know Cal gets a bad rap from it’s reputation of the 60s and 70s, but what most people don’t know is that it is one of the world’s premier institutions....and anyone that really knows this area would tell you so.... UC system is has also been in charge of all the nuclear weapons labs since they begun after WWII........
Here you go ace. I posted this yesterday to some other flaming lib who posted this “story” by a flaming lib (please not the dates):
This story is so full of shiite its hard to know where to start.
1 - the notion that you can find some folks in the Pentagon that “don’t want it” is like saying you can find some freepers that have their own opinion on politics.
2 - Duncan Hunter has butted heads with the Pentagon ever since he got there. The average Pentagon planner, pro-curement types have a life span in the job of about 2 to 4 years. Then take the fact that the Pentagon leadership is political appointees.
3- Hunter fought the “pentagon” to retain far more in SDI/Missile defense funding than was “wanted” during the Clinton Years. He made the Pentagon invest in more stealth, more ships, more C-17 airlifters thatn they “wanted”. He put the brakes on Rumsfelds desire to make the Army even smaller than it is, and he FORCED the Pentagon at various times to purchase ammo they were sorely lacking but not requesting.
4 - 63 million for this type of R&D is peanuts.
5 - This particular program had advocates in the Pentagon and the Military.
Here is the Statement of Thomas D. Taylor, Chief Scientist and Program Manager of Naval Expeditionary Warfare Science and Technology, Office of Naval Research in the 2001 testimony to the Armed Services Committee:
DP–2 PROGRAM STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I would like to thank the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics for providing me with the opportunity to testify here today.
The DP–2 project is to develop the technology for a vertical take off transport aircraft that can be used in both military and civilian roles. The current design of the DP–2 aircraft is a 52-passenger airplane with a planned range of approximately 5,000 miles and a top speed of approximately 545 knots. The possible uses of the aircraft include search and rescue as well as special operations for the military. In the commercial world the aircraft could provide high speed, long range passenger service to airports with short runways or small landing areas.
The project was initiated in the Office of Naval Research in Fiscal Year 1997 with the goal of demonstrating the vertical take off system proposed by the duPont Aerospace Corporation. The development plan was first to perform unmanned ground tests with a half scale composite model to understand the thrust vectoring characteristics of the DP–2 aircraft. These tests measure the vertical and horizontal thrust for different setting of the louvered, engine exhaust flow deflection system. In addition they establish the reliability of the composite construction technology for the thrust vectoring system. The results to date indicate that the thrust vectoring system appears to work as proposed for single engine tests. Next, however, testing must be completed for two engine tests. From the results one could estimate the systems settings for free flight of the aircraft. Tethered tests of the vehicle are planned to understand the stability of the aircraft in vertical flight. This will allow definition of the range of operation of the control system for vertical flight.
Should the vertical hover test prove successful, the next step is to address the full flight characteristics of the aircraft. This requires detailed wind tunnel tests of the vehicle to define the conventional flight operational envelope as well as the flight envelope in transition from hover to conventional flight. This is the most sensitive and critical part of the development. In addition the full operational control system to deal with hover, transition and conventional flight needs to be developed and tested.
As the plan and tests have progressed, it has become clear that the risks of manned flight of the half scale DP–2 are great and the cost of testing to mitigate the risks was going to be greater than the available budget. This led to using smaller free flight models to reduce risk, minimize cost and gain understanding of the system performance. This approach has the promise of augmenting major aircraft development to reduce costs. Failures need no longer be a disaster since a crash is not a big loss of equipment, time or life. The model controls have advanced to the point that fly-by-wire models (unstable) are now possible. Also small, low cost, turbo jet engines are now available. As a result, model experiments can be run to examine critical stability and control problems before risking major equipment. This approach, however, will not replace the need for final full scale testing.
At this time the DP–2 development has not demonstrated any show stoppers. The program has a tethered hover test of the half scale vehicle with two full scale commercial jet engines operating at full power, in the next two months, that is critical to the success. This will be an unmanned test for safety reasons. This is a major milestone, which will define the future of the development.
This program should be viewed as a proof of principle and not an airplane development program. The budget for the program has been $4 million to $5 million per year except for the first year when it was about $11 million. This budget allows for modest R&D, but does not allow for full-scale aircraft development.
There has been some discussion that this aircraft could be a replacement for existing operational aircraft. This cannot be shown at this time because we are not far enough along in the testing. Assuming success, the time frame for a finished aircraft is five to fifteen years depending on the funding and development approach used. Because of the uncertainty of this technology, the Navy has not yet indicated a requirement for this airplane.
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy73333.000/hsy73333_0.HTM
The Ospry crews are in their final training, prior to being assigned to Iraq.
Judging by the 3 engineers I worked with over the last 15 years that came from Berkely, I’d say two things. THey still produce flaming leftists. And they produce engineers that can’t think their way out of a wet paper bag.
WATCH THAT PROP WASH!
Dude, I just posted the article. For discussion purposes only.
That’s what I’m doing. Discussing. LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.