Airpork - defense of V-22 Osprey program - letter to the editor

National Review, May 28, 1990 by Curt Weldon

Airpork

William McGurn's analysis of the defense-budget battles brewing up in Congress ["Divvying Up the Peace Dividend," April 301 rehashes the Administration's argument that Congress restored the V-22 Osprey program because it is a "pork" project. But his charge that the V-22 should be eliminated because it is an "outdated" program is a new one, and is far off the mark.

The V-22 Osprey tiltrotor combines the hover capabilities of a helicopter with the forward-flight features of a fixed-wing aircraft. The result is a highly flexible aircraft with speed, range, and maneuverability. It can get into and out of a designated area quickly, and eliminates runway requirements. This versatile aircraft is being touted by some as the most revolutionary aviation development since the jet engine.

The Secretary of Defense acknowledges to Congress that the V-22 is a good technology that he would like to have. But, he adds, we cannot afford it. To my knowledge, no one has publicly opposed the program on anything other than budget grounds.

The Administration proposes an alternative to the V-22 using using helicopters. This thirty-year-old technology would cost at least as much as, or more than, the V-22 over twenty years. The advantage is that the big bills do not come due until the end of the decade. We already have many of these old helicopters, and won't have to increase production significantly until then.

The Commandant of the Marine Corps has denounced the Administration's plan as "ridiculous" and "unworkable." We have specific requirements for a tiltrotor and know it has applications far beyond the Marines' amphibious-assault role. According to General James Lindsay, special-forces units cannot carry out many types of missions without the tilt-rotor. The Navy will use the aircraft for search and rescue, and believes the aircraft can greatly enhance our anti-submarine warfare capabilities. Before it was on the cutting board, the Defense Department listed over thirty missions, among all the services, for the V-22.

This revolutionary aircraft will have benefits far beyond our national security. It offers great hope for relieving our congested air systems, and commercial air-delivery services are eyeing it to aid their business. More important, it is a highly sought commodity that foreigners are now pursuing. If we develop it, we will have the market and the ability to maintain our lead in the aerospace industry. If we do not, we have been warned that the foreigners will build it and sell it back to us.

No doubt, I will be accused of playing pork-barrel politics for defending the V-program. 22 Boeing Helicopters, one of the contractors on the program, is in my congressional district. But I am leading the fight to save the V-22 because I believe it is a national asset that we cannot afford to give up. Its full potential is limited only by our imagination. That is why the House voted to restore the program last year by a 2 to 1 margin.

Curt Weldon

Member of Congress (R., Pa.)

Washington, D.C.

More on Drips

In the May 14 "Letters" colunm, Mr. Michael J. Burke interprets my assertion that the ability to explain Jackson Pollock's drip technique represents the litmus test of any biography of the artist as a demand that critics "provide systematic defenses" of an artist's work.

He confuses biography and criticism. Biography chronicles a life. Criticism judges the quality of the work that life spawned. The Pollock biographer must allow the reader to understand the drip technique and judge it himself, not 'sell" him on it. Failure to do so is a failure of biography, not criticism.

Eric Gibson

Washington, D.C.

Literary Deception?

The letter-writer who signed himself "John Y- Metealfe, Factotum and Enforcer, SPELL" ["Notes & Asides," April 1], has besmirched the good name of this non-profit organization, something I hasten to correct.

First of all, the acronym does not stand for the organization to which he refers. Our name is Society for the Preservation of English Language and Literature-similar but distinctly different.

Second, our membership roll does not contain his name. It is possible he was a member some time back, but he most certainly is not one now.

Third, SPELL has no officer called an enforcer" or a "factotum." I serve as both executive director and vice president; my son, a professor at Michigan State, is president; and we have two additional vice presidents. That is the total roster of officers.

If your office has the address of this pretender Metcalfe, I would appreciate having it so I might write to him and protest his unauthorized use of our corporation's name as well as his mistranslation of the acronym. Further, I promise him that SPELL, the real one, will seek redress for his actions.

I would most certainly not like to have SPELL get a reputation for captious and foolish actions.

William S. Penn Jr.

Vice President and Executive Director

SPELL

Mountain View, Calif