BRIAN ROSS REPORTS
TOP BLOTTER CATEGORIES
- Abramoff Lobbying Scandal
- American Al Qaeda
- Avian Flu
- Beirut Hospital Out of Gas
- CIA
- CIA Secret Prisons
- D.C. Madam Affair
- FBI
- Federal Air Marshal Service
- Homeland Security
- Hurricane Katrina
- Mark Foley Internet Scandal
- Millionaire Sex Scandal
- Nigerian E-mail Scams
- Norman Hsu, Clinton Fundraiser
- NSA: Wiretapping
- Osama bin Laden
- Payola
- Pharmacy Investigation
- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
- Terror
- Troopergate
- U.K. Airline Terror Plot
- U.K. Bombing Attempts
- Wen Ho Lee
- William Jefferson
- Zarqawi
« Previous | Main | Next »
Cheap Army Chopper Draws Heavy Fire
November 15, 2007 12:27 PM
The secretary of the Army and the Army's top general are being questioned today about why the Army spent billions on a new helicopter that was purchased for homeland defense and disaster relief but cannot be used to fight forest fires, and that was found to be "not operationally suitable," according to an internal Pentagon report obtained by ABC News.
The $2.6 billion contract for 322 Lakota Light Utility Helicopters is drawing fire after three glaring flaws were discovered in field tests this summer. According to the Army's "Operational Test and Evaluation Report," the chopper was found to be "not operationally effective for MEDEVAC missions," "not effective for use in hot environments" and did not meet required lift capacity.
Another official U.S. Army document, obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com, says the Lakota helicopter was chosen "because the price was more important" than the technical requirements.
THE BLOTTER RECOMMENDS
Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey and Army Secretary Pete Geren are appearing during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing today.
In the wake of the California wildfire, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and other members of Congress are worried that the Lakota lacks the heavy lifting power to be deployed in the emergency of future fires.
Hunter recently wrote to Secretary Geren, "The Lakota is unable to handle the 300-gallon 'buckets' which other helicopters utilize." In the letter, Hunter went as far as to recommend the termination of the Lakota contract, writing, "We would be well-advised to terminate the planned buy of 322 Lakota helicopters."
The Army's report says the Lakota "does not meet the 2,200-pound external lift requirement," but it "successfully delivered external loads weighing 1,190 pounds."
The Army's report also shows that the Lakota is "not operationally effective for the MEDEVAC mission" because its small cabin does not "permit patient treatment by the in-flight medic." The cabin is simply too narrow and short for two patients on stretchers to receive urgent care from an emergency medic, a deficiency outlined by the contract requirements.
Video: Lakota Helicopter in Action
The report also says that the Lakota "is not operationally suitable due to excessive heat" and "inadequate ventilation." The first medical evacuation tests with the Lakota were performed in the California desert by the Fort Irwin Army Air Ambulance Unit, where temperatures in the cabin reached up to 104 degrees.
Army spokesman Maj. Thomas McCuin brushes off the criticism, saying the Lakota's performance is excellent and the Army is confident in its purchase.
"No aircraft is perfect, and this one met our requirements at a good price. It's the best value for the American taxpayer's dollar," he said.
The Army purchased the contract for the Lakota UH-72A Light Utility Helicopter from Eurocopter, a European defense contractor that builds the non-combat choppers in Columbus, Miss.
Guy Hicks, the vice president of communications for EADS North America, Eurocopter's parent company, said they are proud of the Lakota and "are committed to providing a utility helicopter that meets the requirements of our men and women in uniform."
Do you have a tip for Brian Ross and the Investigative Team?
November 15, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (26)
Some congressmen is making sure
jobs stay in their district.
Posted by: differenceone | Nov 15, 2007 1:02:24 PM
So if it can't be used for medevcas and it can't be used to fight forest fires, what are they going to use them for that is of such great value to the american people?
Posted by: azrael28 | Nov 15, 2007 1:29:53 PM
With the President complaining about war funding and needing 'the best equipment for our soldiers', how the hell can they green light a buy on a aircraft that does not meet their requirements?! I mean, what the hell AMerica, this should be causing our Senators & Congressmen ears to bleed from the tongue lashing we should be delivering. This is simply insane!
Posted by: Alex | Nov 15, 2007 2:11:27 PM
By now we peasants should know that our senators & congressmen don't care about us, or what we have to say. They will do what they have to do even if it means putting the safety of our our men and women in peril. We all need to start watching a little bit more of the "Glenn Beck Show" where he constantly exposess our Government and their wrong doings and it really doesn't matter what political party you belong to. They ignore us because we are the invisible people.
Posted by: ruben | Nov 15, 2007 3:04:14 PM
The Military-Industry-Congress complex at work again. Hmmmm!!!
Posted by: BILL | Nov 15, 2007 3:16:34 PM
Cheap? When you pay for something you can't use, but it's cheap? What kind of morons in the Army are making these decisions? What kind of Congress is approving these purchases? With an election coming up maybe we can get rid of the idiots!
Posted by: Idaho | Nov 15, 2007 3:27:24 PM
typical lobbyist/politician pet project. sounds like a republican to me...
look at WHERE the plant that makes the helicopters is, and WHO actually owns Eurocopter , and who its major shareholders are (and WHAT us government officials are connected to eurocopter,and how, as well as HOW european suppliers of usa military equipment got so "connected" to taxpayer paid us public officials ...)
therein will lie the ugly truth as to why the american taxpayer is about to pay 2.6 billion dollars for some 322 pieces of euro trash that are not adequate for anything much,according to this report anyhow. i feel sorry for the soldiers that will ultimately suffer because some fatcat (with ubiquitous lobbyist in tow) in washington feels like he can fleece the taxpayers one more time to pad his spoiled self interests.
its pretty obvious here that someone is getting rich(er) once again at the american taxpayers expense ... ummmm DUH!!
Posted by: bah | Nov 15, 2007 3:51:57 PM
Just more media out of context BS here is all. Light Helo contract,light units cant carry 300 gallon buckets or have a full service deck. You put a 100 to 150 gallon bucket on the things. What next? they order PT boats and since it fails for shelling beaches 25 miles away its a falure.Actully this thing has a greater lift capacity than the light units in use now. Oh the media never looks at facts,just what they can spin is all.
Posted by: me | Nov 15, 2007 4:15:19 PM
Thank you mr bush!!!
Posted by: Samantha Bumpers | Nov 15, 2007 4:19:36 PM
Its like buying a subcompact car when you need to truck. Great cost savings but what good does it do since you can't use it? Bureauracy hard at work being stupid. One could guess they put all their technical engineers determining its performance and left the final decision to somebody that is friends with the manufacturer.
Posted by: Hog Wild | Nov 15, 2007 4:21:58 PM
Nothing but the best that money can buy?
What? Bush can't hired anyone with brains? Or is this another example of him deliberately sabatoging FEMA and the department of Homeland Security?
Posted by: george stickers | Nov 15, 2007 4:23:44 PM
readers, this is a post from a blotter topic on another subject entirely,(the suicide death of the veteran sergeant in the news today,to be exact) but it is totally appropriate to this discussion i think.
the poster (Rick) wrote;
This is the same system which sent all of us into combat (Vietnam, Perisan Gulf, etc.). Why are you so surprized at the total mess that we have. We all need to remember this, when we hear about Congress spending (and wasting) monies on some home town project we need to ask where is that money coming from. The projects I am talking about are those which have but one porpose(sic) which is keeping these people in office. Call it buying votes if you will but that is the exactly the point, they are buying votes. Remember when you went into combat we were told, "Don't worry we'll take care of you" we just forgot to asked when and for how long. When the VA gets to expensive then it gets cut, until something like this happens then everybody is demanding answers.
Well, here is your answer it all started when YOU (Mr or Ms Public Offical) decided to cut the budget so that YOU could fund that specical project back home and secure YOUR job. Don't worry about us vets, like the General said "old soldiers don't die, they just fade away". But the new 21 century saying should be "old soldiers don't die, they just fade away along with their problems".
Posted by: Rick | Nov 15, 2007 11:44:03 AM
good job rick, thats a big dose of the nasty truth for sure. now just edit in REPUBLICAN where it says Mr or Ms Public Official the truth will be even more easily understood by the gullible american public.
more EXPENSIVE junk equipment that will make more DEAD usa soldiers, just so someone can get rich or something,
Posted by: bah | Nov 15, 2007 4:34:43 PM
Remember we were warned by the President himself in 1961 to beware of Military-Industry-Complex. He was right. Somebody got paid off to get this approval and fund the program as they were looking out for their next job instead of looking out for the American people. Besides its not their money coming out their account is it. I think some people need to be taken behind the farm house and lined up and have a shot gun shoved down their throats and both barrels fired.
Posted by: davidscottjones | Nov 15, 2007 4:43:10 PM
Mississippi has 2 republican senators including Trent Lott (Minority Whip), while House is split 2 Dems and 2 Repubs. Looks like more republican greed, corruption, and influence peddling at work in this deal.
Posted by: riledupinwi | Nov 15, 2007 5:29:58 PM
Why in the world were such huge amounts of tax dollars spent to buy such a lousy product?
Posted by: Mike S. | Nov 15, 2007 5:34:16 PM
Grand Prairie, TX and somewhere in Mississippi...That's where you will find American EuroCopter facilities. Red states?
Posted by: Fred | Nov 15, 2007 5:43:18 PM
Why did they call it the Lakota? If it's such a piece of junk they should have named it OSPREY II!
Posted by: Kerry | Nov 15, 2007 5:49:18 PM
Something very big is in the works!!!
Posted by: Truth | Nov 15, 2007 5:57:35 PM
military contracts with the private sector (and most any government contract involving the private sector) should be monitored ULTRA closely. since ww2 big business and the military have gotten way way too cozy and this situation has not been adequately addressed so far by either the republicans ,or the democrats for that matter. here is a perfect example of defense spending run amok, and for complete junk to boot! how anyone could vote for/justify such an expenditure of taxpayer $$ for such an obviously deficient item is totally unbelievable and bordering on traitorous!!!
blackwater and halliburtons' dubious records ,among others , should be enough to alarm any sane voter. some folks are getting very rich in those camps for dang sure...
and as with most similar situations only tip of the iceberg is obvious anyway so its a good bet theres more of a problem hidden away than reports would lead one to believe...
since when did the us military start using private sector business for sub contracting? look it up...for revealing answers!
Posted by: bah | Nov 15, 2007 7:04:52 PM
Looks like more pork! If you want a good choper tell congress that they should all take a combat ride and see how proud ( or brave) they are! If you cant walk the walk dont talk the talk!
As for the Army Brass that think its a great bargain It may be time to send them to the front!
Posted by: James | Nov 16, 2007 10:27:11 AM
"the Lakota helicopter was chosen 'because the price was more important' than the technical requirements."
Whoever willingly wrote that as a reason for purchasing something that doesn't work, and everyone else who reviewed the report and stamped it with their approval, should be summarily dismissed. The idea that something should be chosen by price I can understand. The caveat being that NO price is low enough to justify buying something that DOESN'T WORK!
Posted by: pakaal | Nov 16, 2007 6:38:35 PM
Heck of a job! This is so commonplace in the inempt,corrupt Bush administration. Mission accomplished for some rich contractors,I wonder if Bush and Cheney get some of these profits too ?
Posted by: AJ | Nov 18, 2007 12:23:42 AM
penny wise and pound foolish
Posted by: BTL musings | Nov 18, 2007 4:39:44 PM
The military is always criticized for over spending. Now they tried to save money by buying an off the shelf civilian helicopter and it doesn't work like they need it. That appears to justify developing a special helicopter just for the military, but then people will complain about the costs. Also, they discovered the problems with the helicopter during testing. Isn't that what tests are for? Discover problems before it is fielded. Some people are so critical of the government that they will find fault in anything they do.
Posted by: Jsam | Nov 23, 2007 1:24:45 PM
I would like to know why we are purchasing our military equipment from a European contractor instead of a US one. Aren’t jobs here in the US as important if not more to help in keeping our economy flowing in a positive cash flow? Oh yeah, that’s right our European counterparts are smarter and more efficient and cheaper than American workers. That's right there is more craftsmanship and pride in the work they do over there than here in the US. I've got to say that I am tired of seeing us outsource our jobs overseas; I am in no way saying that anyone else is not capable of doing a very good job, nor am I saying that our overseas counterparts are less intelligent. I am simply saying that I believe we have the resources and the capabilities to do that job here in the United States and we need to invest in ourselves more so than investing in overseas operations. If it is a matter of sharing costs then have 2/3 rds of the aircraft made here in the US while 1/3rd is made else where. If the aircraft is not suitable to Army specifications then why in the world are we going to buy them? And why didn’t we use that money to spur corporate competition for a product that would do everything we need it to do or more for that matter? Such as the X prize foundation did in 2004 by offering up 10 million dollars to the winning team. Doing it this way gives us the potential to benefit not only humanity in general but also our brave men and women in uniform that deploy all over the world.
There are so many questions and never enough time to go through the list to get an answer.
Well at least the American flag and our currency is still made here in the USA. (So far)
TR92
Posted by: tr92 | Nov 26, 2007 12:18:08 PM
TR92: Our currency is indeed printed here. The value of the currency is now largely pegged to the price of oil and costs of borrowing a trillion dollars from China and OPEC countries. The outsourcing of military equipment is a cost of our treaties and trade agreements. Your discomfort is a measure of the price we are paying for government policies. Buy American. Mind your own business.
Posted by: Michael E. Maus | Nov 26, 2007 1:48:42 PM
Post a comment
