-Caveat Lector-
Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: April 13, 2007 7:54:32 PM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: War is a Cash Cow: Boeing's "Flying Albatross" Deploys to
Iraq in September
Marines deploying Osprey aircraft for first time
By Megan Scully, CongressDaily
April 13, 2007
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0407/041307cdpm1.htm
The Marine Corps announced Friday that it will send 10 V-22 Ospreys
to Iraq in September, marking the first overseas deployment of the
unorthodox aircraft that takes off like a helicopter and flies like
a plane.
The decision sends the Marine Corps' newest airframe into the
middle of combat where insurgents have used increasingly
sophisticated weapons to destroy seven of the service's
helicopters. But a senior Marine Corps officer told reporters today
the V-22 is seven times more survivable than the 40-year-old CH-46
helicopters the Osprey will replace in the theater of operations.
The Osprey has lower infrared and acoustic signatures than the
CH-46, can absorb and survive hits that would be fatal to other
aircraft and flies higher and faster than traditional helicopters,
Lt. Gen. John Castellaw, deputy commandant for aviation, said
during a Pentagon briefing. "If you've ever gone rabbit hunting,
you know it's harder to shoot a rabbit that's running than the one
that's sitting still," Castellaw said.
Marine Corps Commandant James Conway hailed the deployment
announcement as a "truly historic day" for the Marine Corps. Conway
added that the Osprey represents a "quantum leap" forward in
aircraft technology.
Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., a retired vice admiral whose district
includes Boeing's V-22 plant, likewise applauded the decision in an
e-mailed statement Friday.
"There is always friction in war, and this platform was built to
best survive such conflict after having gone through the best
review process the Department of Defense has to determine
readiness," said Sestak, who is now touring Iraq. "The V-22 Osprey
was built to be used in combat operations and that is precisely
what we should do."
But the decision to deploy the aircraft, which has survived
accidents and repeated attempts to cancel its expensive research
and development phase, is likely to draw sharp criticism from those
unconvinced that the Osprey is ready for combat.
"The plans to deploy into combat are premature, at best," said
Winslow Wheeler, an analyst at the Center for Defense Information,
which issued a study earlier this year titled "V-22 Osprey: Wonder
Weapon or Widow Maker?" The Marine Corps, he said, still has not
resolved the aircraft's "fundamental design, reliability and
fragility problems."
The plane's 25-year checkered history has been punctuated by four
crashes, three of them deadly, especially an April 2000 incident in
Arizona that killed 19 Marines. Earlier this year, the Marines
briefly grounded the V-22 fleet because of a computer glitch problem.
Castellaw on Friday expressed confidence that the V-22's problems
had been resolved. The service has had a "very deliberate process
to ensure that operationally, logistically, the squadron and the
aircraft are ready to deploy," he said.
Indeed, the deploying squadron has already tested the aircraft
twice in desert conditions in the United States. Eventually, the
Marine Corps plans to send additional V-22s to replace CH-46s
assigned to the U.S. Pacific Command, but Castellaw would not
provide details on that deployment.
Other future deployments could include Afghanistan and the Horn of
Africa. "As soon as we get the other squadrons transitioned, we'll
be putting them aboard ships where they will operate routinely, and
we will deploy them to other locations," Castellaw said.
----------------
Defense Industry counts on Democrats
to support increased Defense spending
By Megan Scully, CongressDaily
January 17, 2007
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0107/011707cdam2.htm
The defense industry is banking on expectations that Democrats want
to avoid looking like softies on military matters -- a notion they
hope will translate into continued increases to the Pentagon's
budget and a warding off of dramatic cuts in expensive weapons
systems.
Maybe it's the wishful thinking of defense lobbyists and analysts,
many of whom languished through what some called the "procurement
holiday" of the Clinton administration. After all, congressional
Democrats are lining up a team of sleuths to uncover contracting
waste, fraud and abuse at the Pentagon.
But many in and around the defense industry are betting that
Democrats, wary of the 2008 elections, would never dare cut defense
spending while the military is deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"It's a fine line between providing appropriate oversight and
looking weak on defense," said Page Hoeper, the Army's former
acquisition chief. "No Democrat is going to want to look weak on
defense. They want to look fiscally responsible."
And, perhaps even more pertinent than current conflicts over the
Defense Department's futuristic air, land and sea programs, Iran
and North Korea continue to loom large as more traditional threats.
China, too, is flexing its military muscles, building an
increasingly sophisticated arsenal of equipment -- a concern to the
Navy in particular.
"It doesn't matter what label anybody has. I think they all want
national security for our country," a defense lobbyist said. "That,
I think, will be the primary mover. As long as there's a threat,
funding will be available to meet that threat."
John Douglass, president of the Aerospace Industries Association,
likewise stressed that future threats indicate the military needs
to continue its technology transformation efforts. Fortified, "up-
armored" Humvees and body armor, a staple for operations in Iraq,
aren't the only equipment the military will need in the future.
"It turns out we actually need all of this stuff," said Douglass.
Indeed, Douglass said he has few concerns about short-term
pressures on the defense budget, with the military's accounts
expected to continue to swell over the next several years. His
funding concerns are focused primarily on longer-term programs,
such as the Air Force's next-generation bomber, which would not be
in the force until at least 2018.
That bodes well for programs like the Joint Strike Fighter and the
F-22 Raptor fighter jet, both already in the works. "I think both
of those programs are so far along that the cheapest thing to do is
finish them," Douglass said.
Meanwhile, weapons systems often boil down to parochial -- rather
than political -- issues. Multibillion-dollar weapons platforms are
massive jobs programs in many districts, and members vie to protect
them regardless of party affiliation or ideology.
For instance, House Armed Services Seapower and Expeditionary
Forces Subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor, D-Miss., is one of the
Pentagon's most vocal critics. But he represents the Northrop
Grumman Ingalls Shipyard in Pascagoula and will likely go to the
mat to protect shipbuilding dollars.
The same is true for Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., who defeated three-
term GOP Rep. Rob Simmons during a tough election fight in
November. Simmons was an ardent advocate for the General Dynamics'
Electric Boat business in his district, and Courtney, a member of
the House Armed Services Committee, will likely pick up that mantle.
In the same vein, Rep. Joe Sestak, who unseated former Rep. Curt
Weldon, R-Pa., based somewhat on the district's mounting concerns
about the Iraq war, will continue to push for funding for a
sprawling Boeing plant just outside his district that produces the
Marine Corps' V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and the Army's CH-47
Chinook helicopter.
But the one thing that might put a strain on defense spending --
or, at least, the military's procurement accounts -- is the White
House's plan to boost the size of the Army and Marine Corps by
92,000 troops over the next five years, bringing the Marines to an
"end strength" of 202,000 and the Army to 547,000 soldiers.
The plan has widespread congressional support, but increasing end-
strength levels comes with a hefty price tag -- one that might
surpass $10 billion.
Another defense industry lobbyist, who is not as optimistic about a
procurement boon, said he expects the Pentagon to pay for about
half of that new personnel bill through increases in the
department's budgetary so-called topline. The other half, the
lobbyist said, might get paid for out of procurement accounts,
often considered the low-hanging fruit in the Pentagon budget.
"I think it's a little bit shortsighted just to come to the
conclusion that even if the topline holds or even goes up, that any
particular program will ... be supported across the board," the
lobbyist said.
Perhaps the biggest unknown is Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who
has been on the job less than a month. Unlike former Defense
Secretary Don Rumsfeld, Gates does not have strong ties to -- or
even much knowledge of -- the services' technology transformation
efforts. Indeed, his focus is Iraq -- not future programs.
"He's the boss and right now his center of focus is solely Iraq,"
the lobbyist said. "They haven't gotten to the point of being able
to look into the future and look at these programs, I don't think."
See what's free at AOL.com.
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substanceânot soap-boxingâplease! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'âwith its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright fraudsâis used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
