Congress: For Plane That Won't Fly, $63 Mil Is Enough

[Jag]

August 24, 2007 9:17 AM

Justin Rood Reports:
Millions of dollars later, Congress has effectively killed a military plane program the Pentagon repeatedly rejected, and which never had a successful flight.

The $63 million Congress poured into the DP2 program over 20 years was not requested by the Department of Defense.

Instead, it was mandated through obscure provisions in bills known as "earmarks." Most of those earmarks for the DP2 were inserted by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., in whose district the plane was designed and built, in prototype.

The 2008 defense spending bill does not include an earmark for the DP2. Hunter had wanted to direct $6 million toward the plane's development.

Hunter said he still supported the project.

"One-third of our present vertical takeoff aircraft have crashed," he said by phone from Texas, where he was campaigning for president. "Continued research and development of the DP2 is warranted."

The DP2 project was the subject of an ABC News investigation in June and a calamitous congressional hearing.

Designed as a plane that can take off straight up and then fly at 700 miles per hour, the DP2 has never attained a height of more than a few feet in prototype tests before crashing to the ground.

The experimental plane was panned by most of the government engineers who were assigned to review and manage the project.

The plane's creator, Anthony DuPont, has donated $36,000 to Hunter's congressional campaigns. Hunter has denied the contributions had any connection with his continued support of the aircraft. He said he makes "decisions on what I think is right for the country," and that he has rejected other projects backed by large campaign contributors, like General Dynamics and Boeing.

Jag

[Ryan Ruck]

Well, if that is indeed the entire story, then that is certainly a bruise against Hunter. But, knowing the MSM, I trust them as far as I can throw a piano.

Now, that aircraft doesn't even look remotely like a combat aircraft. The only thing I can surmise is that it is a technology demonstrator. In that case, Hunter was certainly putting the money to good use.

Before the V-22 and the F-35 the US arsenal of VTOL aircraft was indeed lacking. The A/V-8B Harrier was our only VTOL combat aircraft. While it was versatile in that it could take off and land vertically, it was dog slow. We did indeed need a supersonic capable VTOL and the F-35 will fill that role perfectly. So, Hunter was and is correct in pushing for a VTOL capable, +700 mph aircraft.