The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

Reader Mail

(Page 2 of 4)

Sometimes you cannot tell your friends from the guy who wants to do you dirt. In the 8 October issue of your normally authoritative eMAG you carried Mr. Babbin's inaccurate article. The following corrections should be noted. I will list by paragraph number.

1. good.

2. Not my area but I believe that in February 1995, the U.S. Army took delivery of the first PATRIOT Advanced Capability-2 (PAC-2) Guidance Enhanced Missile (GEM). The GEM incorporates improvements to the front end of the PAC-2 missile receiver to enhance its effectiveness and lethality against SCUD-class ballistic missiles. The U.S. Army fielded about 350 PAC-2 GEM missiles. In the 1997 budget DOD added about $230 million for the PAC-3 through the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) and established a realistic schedule to lower the program execution risk by extending the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase of the program by ten months. System performance will be improved by re-phasing the missile and radar procurements; upgrading three launchers per battery with Enhanced Launcher Electronics Systems; and extending the battery's remote launch capability. PAC-3 Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) will begin in the second quarter of fiscal year 1998, and the First Unit Equipped (FUE) date is planned for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1999. I believe they kept this schedule.

3. Not my area at all.

4. Lead-in answered later.

5. V-22 Osprey. I am not an aviator (I am a armor guy by profession); however, all new aircraft suffer initial problems. When you deal with aircraft these problems are usually fatal to the guys flying the craft. The UH-60 Blackhawk was not breakthrough technology yet it to suffered and still suffers system failures. The Osprey is leading edge tec. As such you can expect trouble. I know several Marine aviators who swore by the Osprey and they are the guys that will fly them.

topics:
NATO