As you all well know, I've been dogging Rep. John Murtha, the powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee, pretty hard ever since his fly-off-the-handle accusation of murder by a squad of Marines in Haditha back in mid-2006.
Well, I nervously attended a roundtable interview this morning in DC with Murtha and a group of the country's top defense writers -- figuring I might get the cold shoulder from the Democratic Bull. But I was surprised to find that he was remarkably candid, brewing with news and even friendly. A far cry from the confrontational chairman I'd peppered with questions in the past.
He said a lot of stuff on defense tech issues -- info we're going to build into longer stories in the coming hours -- but what I thought I'd do is give you all a data dump of the basics of what he said...a sort of tear out of the pages of my reporter's notebook, if you will:
Tanker -- Murtha said he was strongly in favor of a split buy because he thought no matter who "wins" a recompete, there will be yet another protest that will delay the fielding and hamper global reach efforts. He wants a production throughput of three planes per month which he says even with the split buy, will save money in the long run because of the near crushing maintenance costs of keeping the KC-135s aloft. Murtha had just met with DefSec Gates the previous day, and though Gates has said publicly he's against a split buy, Murtha said "I don't know that he's against it" hinting that the White House might be driving that argument and Gates might have some flexibility on the issue.
Raptor -- Lots here. First, Murtha is against the shut down of the F-22 line for what he says are purely national security issues. He says he's going to try and find $3.2 billion (my notes said $20B but i re-listened to the recording and he said $3.2B -- not sure why I wrote $20B) to build 20 more next year and has asked Gates to provide him with some national security threat estimates that would justify NOT buying more Raptors. Murtha says he's concerned about a rising China competing for energy resources in the coming years and noted that "World War II started because we cut off Japan's energy supply" (though I gather some historians would object to that characterization). Murtha said he's 50/50 on whether he can get the money for more F-22s, but he said "Lockheed has given up" on getting the extra orders.
Also, Murtha touched on the issue of an export version of the F-22 -- principally to Japan who says only the F-22 can meet its range and speed requirements for a new interceptor. Murtha said Sen. Daniel Inouye is working with Japan to come up with the cash needed to "de-militarize" the F-22 (to remove the secret gadgets and gizmos from the US version) which he estimates will be around $300 million. Murtha thinks that's way too optimistic and that gutting the F-22 for export will cost more along the lines of $1 billion.
Murtha said he's worried about the high cost of maintaining the Raptor as well -- that it might be difficult to bring that cost under control and will contribute to major sticker shock among lawmakers (and a White House) who are looking for money to spend elsewhere.
F-35 -- Murtha said he was just as worried about the long term costs of the F-35 and the delays in production and technological maturity with that program as he is with the travails of the F-22. He said that even though the JSF is a priority for the Obama administration, his committee may not give them the requested money for 2010. "I'm for the F-35. I'm for buying the F-35. But I'm not necessarily for buying it this year."
EFV -- Murtha was stunned when his staff learned that the EFV had an aluminum underbody that would be warm butter to a mine or IED when ashore. He told the commandant that the EFV program was "on the bubble" and that he'd better get control of it and make good on the billions invested in the program already. Murtha talked to Gates about the EFV as well at his meeting the previous day and revealed that Gates has his critical eye on the program as well. "This has been going on for 25 years, this research, and it's expensive as hell. You can't keep spending money on research and then come to us and say you're just going to cancel the program. That's just not acceptable."
VH-71 (Prez Helo) -- The bottom line is that Murtha wants to make use of the $3.2 billion already spent on the program to field at least some portion of the fleet that's already been built or is close to being finished. He said there are nine choppers either built or nearly built that we should field. He also leveled sharp criticism at the Secret Service for loading down the program with unnecessary requirements -- "We continue to try to convince the administration on the VH-71. ... This was Secret Service who said we need all these things on this airplane. ... They said they were going to push it off to the Obama administration and there was so much bad publicity about it, I think they reacted to the publicity." Murtha said he tried to convince White House officials and Pentagon brass to keep the program and try to see how the Congress could salvage the money already spent. They reportedly told him "okay, okay" then they went ahead and cancelled it.
We're slicing and dicing more of the roundtable for DT, DoD Buzz and Military.com so stay tuned for more.
-- Christian
2010 Budget Detail Rollout LIVE
We're going to host a live blog event today at 12:30pm EDT with Military.com Editor Ward Carroll who will discuss with Defense Tech and DoD Buzz readers the detailed 2010 Pentagon Budget rollout.
Make sure to watch the budget overview press conference on the Pentagon Channel at 12:30pm and come back here to chat with Ward as defense officials get into the weeds on what programs will survive the budget ax or fall victim to DoD belt tightening.
The gumshoes from Military.com, Defense Tech and DoD Buzz will be covering the individual service budget rollouts after the press conference, so stay tuned for further details as they emerge.
As you know, Donald Winter resigned Friday, March 13, per his plan to give the Obama administration time to find a successor. As far as we know, no one else has broken this story (correction: Inside the Navy broke it back in January), but I learned today from a well-placed source that Mabus has gone through most of the vetting needed before being named.
According to open source data, it looks like Mabus might have been a Harvard Law protoge of Obama's. He was the Democratic governor of Mississippi from '88 to '92 and was really interested in becoming SecNav back when Clinton was elected. He lost out to John Dalton, a Little Rock, Ark., banking mogul and Clinton confidant.
Instead, Mabus got picked to be ambassador to Saudi Arabia -- but his quest for SecNav didn't end there, my sources tell me. Mabus jumped on Obama's bandwagon in the spring of 2007, helping solidify Mississippi for the Blue candidate. He was also an unpaid advisor to Obama on Middle East issues.
MSNBC reported in November that Mabus was in the hat for Education secretary, but as we know that didn't happen.
No one in the Pentagon or the Hill was able to confirm Mabus's pick, but no one denied it either. Two tapped in sources confirmed it with me.
-- Christian
Ospreys to the Stan (Updated)
The Marine Corps’ aging heavy-lift helicopters lack a “high-hot” capability, limiting where Marines can operate in Afghanistan’s mountainous terrain. To provide Marines fighting there with greater mobility, the service will deploy a squadron of V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft to Afghanistan, said Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway. “By the end of the year, you’re going to see Ospreys in Afghanistan.”
The Osprey, which had a rather troubled development period, has proven itself in combat conditions in Iraq, where it has been operating with the Marines for the past year. “It has gone from a wounded duck to a poster child, in terms of what aircraft with that leap-ahead technology can do,” Conway said, and the Osprey will greatly expand the range of missions the Marines can conduct and territory where they can operate in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has almost no road network and helicopter, soon the Osprey, is really the only way to get around faster than a marching pace.
One Osprey squadron is still in Iraq, but will be returning in a couple of months. The next Osprey squadron to deploy will be going aboard ships with a Marine Expeditionary Unit, Conway said, to test the aircraft’s ability to handle salt and sea and give crews shipboard operating experience. The Osprey was developed to lift Marines from ships offshore and rapidly carry them deep into contested territory. The squadron that follows in the deployment line up will then go to Afghanistan.
Marine units have been sent to southern Afghanistan largely because they lack a helicopter that can lift troops or cargo in what are called “high-hot” flying conditions. “We couldn’t handle the north, we couldn’t do what the Army is doing today up in RC East because of the dramatic terrain that’s up there. Our (CH) -46 has seen age and elevation and temperatures catch up with it,” Conway said, speaking at a defense industry conference in Washington on Wednesday. During the hot summer months in Afghanistan the CH-46 could only carry 5 or 6 fully loaded Marines.
The Marines must lighten up and get back to their expeditionary roots, he said. The past five years spent in Iraq as America’s second land army forced the Marines to buy heavily armored MRAP vehicles that do not fit the service’s expeditionary mission. Even personal body armor has gotten too heavy, he said, so the Marines are developing a “family of protective equipment” that will be scalable, according to the threat environment.
Conway gave a rather lukewarm endorsement to the troubled Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program, intended to provide the Marines with a replacement for their Amtrack amphibious personnel carrier. The EFV is rumored to be on a list of possible program cancellations under consideration by the Obama administration. Conway said he hoped the program would not be cancelled. “We make our best case and then it’s out of our hands.”
Join us in about an hour for the next edition of "The Weekly Buzz." You can call in if you'd like and ask questions about the week's news coverage from DoD Buzz, Defense Tech and Military.com.
Boots on the Ground -- With Guest Jake Allen from The Combat Operator
The podcast with security consultant and founder of The Combat Operator Jake Allen is ready for download below.
Some key points Jake made:
A lot of the pirates are part-timers -- fishermen not making enough money who see easy prey with bog slow ships.
There need to be severe consequences for this ilk -- sinking pirate speedboats and potentially killing marauding bands will serve as a major deterrent.
Piracy in the Gulf of Aden isn't a huge financial problem -- but it is one if you're a seafarer captured by pirates.
Shipping companies should strongly consider trained, armed or unarmed security contractors to protect vessels transiting through the area -- though this is not an inexpensive proposition.
Raiding pirate bastions with Marines or SEALs would yield tactical success but create huge strategic problems for the United States -- a bad idea.
On the change from "Blackwater" to "Xe":
Changing the name is not enough -- the company needs to change its business model and concentrate on new, more positive ventures.
The company needs to be more decentralized -- allow different businesses within Xe to act on their own...enough of just Erik Prince and Gary Jackson speaking for the enterprise.
The global economic downturn has begun to dry up business for PMCs.
XE needs to take a hard look at all their business entities and keep ones that can really further a more positive brand.
Listen to the entire interview for more details...
-- Christian
BREAKING: 60 More F-22s for the USAF
The Air Force’s chief of staff was careful to withhold his professional military advice until Defense Secretary Robert Gates gets it, but Gen. Norton Schwartz told reporters this morning that he would not “dispute” comments by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs late last year that the service would get an additional 60 F-22s, for a total of 243.
Schwartz then poured cold water on any hopes the Japanese and Australians might have of buying F-22s, saying some of the technologies in the plane are just too sensitive to export. However, he said “it was a possibility” that allies could pay for planes that were modified extensively enough to eliminate the export concerns. Given how expensive that would be, Schwartz has probably put the kibosh on export sales.
The Air Force chief of staff defended the decision to scale back the long sacred Air Force requirement of 381 F-22s, saying the service had performed honest and objective analysis to determine the new number of planes. “I’ll be happy to defend the numbers once they become available,” he told us, adding that the new fleet size offers “moderate risk” to the nation.
Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean that 60 is the exact number everyone has decided on, but Schwartz didn’t try to pour cold water on it either… He did say the final decision should be out very close to the congressionally mandated date of March 1.
Asked about John Young’s comments last November that the F-22’s mission capable rate was too low and expected enhancements too expensive for the country to afford, Schwartz said “the truth of the matter is” the F-22’s rate is 60 percent including stealth issues and is “in the mid- to high-70s without low observable” issues. Looking at the system overall, the F-22’s reliability “is respectable,” he said.
[EDITOR: See entry above for the full audio of Boots on the Ground]
-- Christian
Episode 1 -- The Weekly Buzz
I've decided to branch out into the multi-media jungle a bit here and for the first time bring to Defense Tech readers a weekly "radio" program we're going to call The Weekly Buzz.
In it, we'll examine the stories of the week with Military.com editors and reporters, and in the future we hope to expand the show into an online interactive talk show that will allow you the reader to ask our experts questions and be part of the interview.
I did this because several of you liked the live blog we did with Winslow Wheeler but were left wanting for the format's lack of depth and context. Well, I'm trying to alleviate that with the new program (more could be added) and as I get more comfortable with the format, I'll open the floor up to those of you who are far more expert than me.
So, excuse the blemishes of the first attempt here, but I hope you enjoy the show.
-- Christian
Interactive Q&A: "Sparticus"
We have a very special online interview coming up tomorrow (Jan. 27) here on Defense Tech.
One of the most knowledgable civilians in America on Pentagon budgets and defense spending will be our guest at 1500 EST for an hour-long interview on the current DoD budget, spending priorities and Gates' testimony on Captiol Hill earlier in the day.
Winslow Wheeler, the director of the Center for Defense Information'sStrauss Military Reform Project has been involved in military budgeting for more than three decades as a senior budget staffer on Capitol Hill and preeminant critic of the Pentagon's status quo. He's also been a longtime friend of mine and a valuable guide throughout my career in navigating the often trecherous waters of the Pentagon hall of mirrors.
So be sure to browse over to Defense Tech tomorrow (Jan. 27) at 1500 EST for our live, online interview with Winslow Wheeler and come armed with good questions on the day's events.
-- Christian
Ward on Fox Alert
Our media maven Ward Carroll must have done well on his last appearance because they asked him back onto the morning show at FOX (they must be hurtin' for guests)...
An F-18 military jet approaching a Marine base crashed near a busy highway in a densely populated San Diego neighborhood Monday, sparking at least one house fire.
The pilot ejected, but it wasn't immediately clear whether the pilot or anyone on the ground was injured, officials said.
The plane crashed around noon Monday as it prepared to land at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, said Ian Gregor, a Federal Aviation Administration spokesman. The crash occurred two miles from the base.
Gregor did not know the pilot's condition or how many people were in the plane before it crashed near Interstate 805.
A high school sits near the crash site. Television news footage showed what appeared to be the remnants of a smoldering house and two cars on fire.
Steve Krasner, who lives a few blocks away in the earthquake-prone region, said he first thought the shaking generated by the crash was the long-anticipated "Big One."
He was in his kitchen when he heard two loud explosions and looked outside, then heard a larger blast.
"The house shook; the ground shook. It was like I was frozen in my place," Krasner said.
"It was bigger than any earthquake I ever felt," he said. "The flames were billowing overhead."
Dean Costa, who was about two blocks away at his father's house, said he felt the building vibrate, then made his way close to the crash site and saw two houses on fire and several cars explode.
"It was just crazy," said Costa, 22. "There was debris everywhere."
Maurice Luque, a spokesman for the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department, said he didn't know whether anyone on the ground was injured.
A Miramar spokeswoman said base workers were sent to the crash site.
"We are still trying to confirm the aircraft even belongs to us," said Marine Staff Sgt. Bobbie Bryant.
The F-18 is a supersonic jet used widely in the Navy and Marine Corps and by the Navy's stunt-flying Blue Angels. An F-18 crashed at Miramar in November 2006, but the pilot ejected safely.
Miramar, well known for its role in the movie "Top Gun," is home to some 10,000 Marines. It was operated by the Navy until 1996.
(Editor's note: Other sources report the aircraft was an F/A-18D attached to VFMAT-101. Although that model of aircraft normally has a two-man crew, the mishap aircraft was flown without anyone in the rear cockpit.)
-- Christian
Listen to the Speakers at the Army Science Conference
The Boeing Company protested the award of a contract to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation under solicitation No. FA8625-07-R-6470, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for KC-X aerial refueling tankers to begin replacing its aging tanker fleet. Boeing challenged the Air Force’s technical and cost evaluations, conduct of discussions, and source selection decision.
Our Office sustained Boeing’s protest on June 18, 2008. The 69-page decision was issued under a protective order, because the decision contains proprietary and source selection sensitive information. We have directed counsel for the parties to promptly identify information that cannot be publicly released so that we can expeditiously prepare and release, as soon as possible, a public version of the decision.
Although the Air Force intends to ultimately procure up to 179 KC-X aircraft, the solicitation provided for an initial contract for system development and demonstration of the KC-X aircraft and procurement of up to 80 aircraft. The solicitation provided that award of the contract would be on a “best value” basis, and stated a detailed evaluation scheme that identified technical and cost factors and their relative weights. With respect to the cost factor, the solicitation provided that the Air Force would calculate a “most probable life cycle cost” estimate for each offeror, including military construction costs. In addition, the solicitation provided a detailed system requirements document that identified minimum requirements (called key performance parameter thresholds) that offerors must satisfy to receive award. The solicitation also identified desired features and performance characteristics of the aircraft (which the solicitation identified as “requirements,” or in certain cases, as objectives) that offerors were encouraged, but were not required, to provide.
The agency received proposals and conducted numerous rounds of negotiations with Boeing and Northrop Grumman. The Air Force selected Northrop Grumman’s proposal for award on February 29, 2008, and Boeing filed its protest with our Office on March 11, supplementing it numerous times thereafter. In accordance with our Bid Protest Regulations, we obtained a report from the agency and comments on that report from Boeing and Northrop Grumman. The documentary record produced by the Air Force in this protest is voluminous and complex. Our Office also conducted a hearing, at which testimony was received from a number of Air Force witnesses to complete and explain the record. Following the hearing, we received further comments from the parties, addressing the hearing testimony as well as other aspects of the record.
Our decision should not be read to reflect a view as to the merits of the firms’ respective aircraft. Judgments about which offeror will most successfully meet governmental needs are largely reserved for the procuring agencies, subject only to such statutory and regulatory requirements as full and open competition and fairness to potential offerors. Our bid protest process examines whether procuring agencies have complied with those requirements.
Our review of the record led us to conclude that the Air Force had made a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman. We therefore sustained Boeing’s protest. We also denied a number of Boeing’s challenges to the award to Northrop Grumman, because we found that the record did not provide us with a basis to conclude that the agency had violated the legal requirements with respect to those challenges.
Specifically, we sustained the protest for the following reasons:
1. The Air Force, in making the award decision, did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation, which provided for a relative order of importance for the various technical requirements. The agency also did not take into account the fact that Boeing offered to satisfy more non-mandatory technical “requirements” than Northrop Grumman, even though the solicitation expressly requested offerors to satisfy as many of these technical “requirements” as possible.
2. The Air Force’s use as a key discriminator that Northrop Grumman proposed to exceed a key performance parameter objective relating to aerial refueling to a greater degree than Boeing violated the solicitation’s evaluation provision that “no consideration will be provided for exceeding [key performance parameter] objectives.”
3. The protest record did not demonstrate the reasonableness of the Air Force’s determination that Northrop Grumman’s proposed aerial refueling tanker could refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing tanker-compatible receiver aircraft in accordance with current Air Force procedures, as required by the solicitation.
4. The Air Force conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing, by informing Boeing that it had fully satisfied a key performance parameter objective relating to operational utility, but later determined that Boeing had only partially met this objective, without advising Boeing of this change in the agency’s assessment and while continuing to conduct discussions with Northrop Grumman relating to its satisfaction of the same key performance parameter objective.
5. The Air Force unreasonably determined that Northrop Grumman’s refusal to agree to a specific solicitation requirement that it plan and support the agency to achieve initial organic depot-level maintenance within 2 years after delivery of the first full-rate production aircraft was an “administrative oversight,” and improperly made award, despite this clear exception to a material solicitation requirement.
6. The Air Force’s evaluation of military construction costs in calculating the offerors’ most probable life cycle costs for their proposed aircraft was unreasonable, where the agency during the protest conceded that it made a number of errors in evaluation that, when corrected, result in Boeing displacing Northrop Grumman as the offeror with the lowest most probable life cycle cost; where the evaluation did not account for the offerors’ specific proposals; and where the calculation of military construction costs based on a notional (hypothetical) plan was not reasonably supported.
7. The Air Force improperly increased Boeing’s estimated non-recurring engineering costs in calculating that firm’s most probable life cycle costs to account for risk associated with Boeing’s failure to satisfactorily explain the basis for how it priced this cost element, where the agency had not found that the proposed costs for that element were unrealistically low. In addition, the Air Force’s use of a simulation model to determine Boeing’s probable non-recurring engineering costs was unreasonable, because the Air Force used as data inputs in the model the percentage of cost growth associated with weapons systems at an overall program level and there was no indication that these inputs would be a reliable predictor of anticipated growth in Boeing’s non-recurring engineering costs.
We recommended that the Air Force reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new source selection decision, consistent with our decision. We further recommended that, if the Air Force believed that the solicitation, as reasonably interpreted, does not adequately state its needs, the agency should amend the solicitation prior to conducting further discussions with the offerors. We also recommended that if Boeing’s proposal is ultimately selected for award, the Air Force should terminate the contract awarded to Northrop Grumman. We also recommended that the Air Force reimburse Boeing the costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.
By statute, the Air Force is given 60 days to inform our Office of the Air Force’s actions in response to our recommendations.
-- Christian
ALERT!
Defense Tech (and personal) friends Sharon Weinberger and Nathan Hodge are being interviewed on the NPR program Fresh Air right now. They're discussing their new book A Nuclear Family Vacation, a world tour of nuclear test sites, labs and missile silos.
From the office of Defense Secretary Robert Gates:
"Today I provided my recommendation to the President for the nominations to the top civilian and military leadership positions in the Air Force.
"I recommended that Michael Donley be nominated to serve as Secretary of the Air Force.
"Mike Donley is presently the Director of Administration and Management for the Department of Defense, essentially charged with running the Pentagon and its many complex operations. Mike served as Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management in the first Bush Administration and, for a period, as Acting Secretary of the Air Force. In order to minimize any disruption caused by this leadership transition, I have also recommended to the President that he designate Mike Donley as Acting Secretary of the Air Force effective June 21.
"I further recommended to the President that General Norton Schwartz be nominated to serve as Air Force Chief of Staff.
"General Schwartz is presently the Commander of U.S. Transportation Command, which is in charge of the Department's extensive transportation network and world-wide operations. Prior to that, General Schwartz served in senior joint military positions as Director of the Joint Staff, Director for Operations for the Joint Staff and Deputy Commander of Special Operations Command.
"In addition, I have recommended two additional Air Force military leadership changes.
"First, General Duncan McNabb, the current Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, has been recommended to take General Schwartz's place at US Transportation Command. General McNabb has spent most of his three-plus decades in the Air Force in the areas of lift, refueling and logistics – making him an ideal candidate to assume the helm of this command.
"Second, I have recommended that the President nominate Lieutenant General William Fraser III, to follow General McNabb as the next Air Force Vice Chief. General Fraser is currently the Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In that role he is the Chairman's chief liaison and advisor on international relations and political-military matters. In addition to his numerous flying and command assignment in the bomber community, General Fraser has extensive wartime, contingency and humanitarian relief operational experience.
"I am confident that Mike Donley, General Schwartz and the new Air Force leadership team have the qualifications, skill and commitment to excellence necessary to guide the Air Force through this transition and beyond.
I don't know much about Donley, but I know Norty Schwartz and really like the dude. He's a good guy, understands unconventional fights and is an independant thinker. I can't think of a better leader to take the Air Force once and for all out of the Cold War mindset.
It's also noteworthy that Duncan McNabb will replace Schwartz at Transcom, and William Fraser will replace McNabb as Vice Chief. Why? Well, look at their resumes. McNabb is a longtime transport and rotor wing pilot (red-headed step children in the AF) and Fraser is a bomber pilot (another pariah in the fighter-dominated service). If the jet-jocks can't get their act in gear, then we'll get the slow-movers into the game so change can finally come...We'll see.
-- Christian
Wynne/Moseley Update...
From Pentagon guru Colin Clark's additions to the lead story on Military.com.
A source with close ties to the senior Air Force leadership told Military.com that the likely replacement for Moseley is Gen. John D.W. Corley, commander of the Air Force's Air Combat Command. The source said that Corley had been tagged to replace Moseley in the fall, when Moseley was due to retire. This source, and an industry source, said that Wynne's successor was unlikely to make it through the Senate's nomination process before the end of the Bush administration and would serve as acting secretary.
MORE...
Initial congressional reaction was positive. Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, praised Gates for appointing Schlesinger to lead the nuclear weapons study and made it clear he accepted Gates' decision to oust the senior leaders during a time of war.
"The incidents at Minot and Barksdale Air Force Bases and the misshipment of missile nose cones to Taiwan should never have happened," Skelton said in a statement released Thursday evening. "I look forward to reviewing Admiral Kirkland Donald's report on what went wrong with the Air Force's management of nuclear weapons security and safety."
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), a new member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also praised Gates for his actions. "What is so encouraging is that Secretary Gates is walking the walk on accountability," she said in a statement.
Rock on DoD Buzz-master!
-- Christian
Top USAF Officials Booted!
We're working on getting the details, folks, but we hear that Gen. Mike Moseley got the boot today and Wynne is on the way out too.
Can you say "loose nukes" compounded by a sharp case of "next-war-itis?"
Defense officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley and Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne to step down.
A public announcement was expected later in the day. There was no immediate word on who would be nominated to replace Moseley and Wynne.
The Air Force has endured a number of embarrassing setbacks over the past year. In August, for instance, a B-52 bomber was mistakenly armed with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and flown across the country. The pilot and crew were unaware they had nuclear arms aboard.
The error was considered so grave that President Bush was quickly informed.
-- Christian
Boeing Flies on Hydrogen
I think this is awesome. Tell me why fuel cells aren't the answer for the dwindling carbon-based energy supplies.
Boeing announced [yesterday] that it has, for the first time in aviation history, flown a manned airplane powered by hydrogen fuel cells.
The recent milestone is the work of an engineering team at Boeing Research & Technology Europe (BR&TE) in Madrid, with assistance from industry partners in Austria, France, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States.
A fuel cell is an electrochemical device that converts hydrogen directly into electricity and heat with none of the products of combustion such as carbon dioxide. Other than heat, water is its only exhaust.
A two-seat Dimona motor-glider with a 16.3 meter (53.5 foot) wingspan was used as the airframe. Built by Diamond Aircraft Industries of Austria, it was modified by BR&TE to include a Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cell/lithium-ion battery hybrid system to power an electric motor coupled to a conventional propeller.
Three test flights took place in February and March at the airfield in Ocana, south of Madrid, operated by the Spanish company SENASA.
During the flights, the pilot of the experimental airplane climbed to an altitude of 1,000 meters (3,300 feet) above sea level using a combination of battery power and power generated by hydrogen fuel cells. Then, after reaching the cruise altitude and disconnecting the batteries, the pilot flew straight and level at a cruising speed of 100 kilometers per hour (62 miles per hour) for approximately 20 minutes on power solely generated by the fuel cells.
According to Boeing researchers, PEM fuel cell technology potentially could power small manned and unmanned air vehicles. Over the longer term, solid oxide fuel cells could be applied to secondary power-generating systems, such as auxiliary power units for large commercial airplanes. Boeing does not envision that fuel cells will ever provide primary power for large passenger airplanes, but the company will continue to investigate their potential, as well as other sustainable alternative fuel and energy sources that improve environmental performance.
Associated Press | March 11, 2008
WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates says that Admiral William Fallon, the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East, is resigning.
Gates said Fallon had asked Gates for permission to retire and that Gates agreed.
Fallon was the subject of an article published last week in Esquire magazine that portrayed him as opposed to President Bush's Iran policy. It described Fallon as a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program.
Fallon has had a 41-year Navy career. He took the Central Command post on March 16, 2007, succeeding Army Gen. John Abizaid, who retired. Fallon previously served as commander of U.S. Pacific Command.
Fallon released a statement blaming his quotes from the Esquire piece as the reason for his resignation and President Bush put out his own statemement praising Fallon's service. Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, who was the head of Iraqi army training before becoming the CENTCOM number two, will take over in the interim.
Methinks the Esquire interview was 100 percent intentional and that he contemplated this move beforehand. But that's just me...
