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.
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
If anything, this article illustrates why Ducan Hunter will be the ideal nominee in 2008. While the rest of the Republicans and Democrats are busy trying to extend social security to illegal aliens, Hunter is busy trying to beef up the military.
As far as the Pentagon, it’s a political machine.
I am familiar with this DP-2 project and at first glance it seems, well, it seems wasteful and without merit. If you examine it more closely, $68 million over 20 years is chump change. The R&D nature of the program is being overlooked. This isn’t about necessarily having DP-2’s in combat tomorrow or 5 years from now. The bang for the buck will come if this principle can be proven. Once proven, and if they can get the particulars dialed in, and address safety concerns such an aircraft would have a myriad of uses. I don’t understand the Pentagon not wanting it, but then I don’t understand many things about the Pentagon. I personally would be willing to pay a lot more than that to get that kind of mobility with that potential for troop movement.
Washington Post, Jun 19, 2006 (excerpt)Breaking a tradition of keeping such wish lists secret, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, issued a statement last month of his key "funding initiatives" for the fiscal 2007 budget.
Hunter, whose committee authorizes the defense budget, bristles at criticism of the earmarking process.
"There's a little thing called the Constitution," he said. "It says Congress shall equip the military, not the Pentagon. The Pentagon proposal is just that." He challenged the "presumption that the Pentagon's bill is correct in all respects and any departure is somehow a mistake."
The thought of Congress "giving up its prerogative -- not only prerogative but responsibility -- to the non-elected doesn't make any sense," he said.
Of the 13 defense projects totaling $254.3 million that Hunter listed in his news release, more than $210 million of it was for programs to address roadside bombs, the chief source of casualties for U.S. troops in Iraq. Two others -- $27 million for an inexpensive missile called the "affordable weapon" and $25.7 million for a catamaran ship called Sea Fighter -- would benefit Titan Corp., a large defense contractor in southern California.
There was also $8 million for the DP-2 "vectored thrust aircraft," made by DuPont Aerospace, another southern California firm. The plane's testing was delayed because of what this year's Navy budget justification called "a nozzle box failure" in late 2004.
Hunter also requested $1.7 million to develop a skin disease test for troops in Iraq and $1 million for a wound dressing that includes pure oxygen.
If it is earmarks, Hunter is toast politically in my book.