Last month, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) offered an amendment to a Pentagon policy bill that would have directed the department to spend no monies on the program in 2012.
Woolsey dubbed the program a “boondoggle” for the “military-industrial complex.”
Representative Woolsey's remarks can be read as follows:
"No subs or primes in my district."
Sorry, I have become cynical over the years. People use that loaded term for specific reasons in their talking points.
Terminating the program would save more than $12 billion over 10 years, and $2.5 billion in 2012 alone, she claimed. The House overwhelmingly defeated her amendment, but not before Woolsey said the aircraft has gotten “mediocre marks” from independent auditors and “underperformed across the board.” There are reports the V-22 has struggled in “high-threat environments,” she said.
It's an expensive bird, no question.
But the "savings" is made by removing capability, since the Phrogs are not coming back.
She may, however, be at the root of this gambit be questioning force level numbers, (Do the Marines, need 200, 250, 350, 400? and why a given number?) That line of argument may be very productive in terms of the final buy numbers getting changed.
She also said it has failed to “prove its worth” operationally and has had a number of major crashes.
While she is reading old news, it isn't news that aircraft crash.
What galls anybody who pays for them (to include our congressional reps) is how bloody expensive aircraft are , and how easy it is to crash any aircraft. Budget dollars are a zero sum game. Rep Woolsey doubtless has other projects or programs she'd rather see get the funds. So where's her full disclosure?
On the other hand, her objections are part of the process.
The operators and supporters have reported back that the value is paying off in operations ... so who do you believe, and why?
Well, what program do you want funded?
