when the paths we take do determine our future. today we are communicating with each other as never before - and that requires a seamless network that is constantly growing better, smarter, and more secure. that's why our scientists and engineers in our labs, are taking the fastest technology in the world and making it mobile, better and faster - to keep pushing the internet further than anyone dreamed. last year alone we invested more in building america's future than any other company - improving and expanding our network, to keep you in control. and behind the scenes, that takes work by our employees, who pride themselves knowing, that because they do it right, you might not even notice. if all of that, makes your connections, faster and more secure...

well, that's our business. at&t... your world... delivered.

♪ >> announcer: now, this week in defense news. >> good morning and welcome to this week in defense news. i'm vago muradirn. where do israeli leaders stan on attacking iran to stop the nuclear program? the f-22 fighter has been controversial but now the plane is at the center of a clash between the president and congress. the administration said 1897 of the jets are enough while both chambers of congress want to stretch production. what's next in the stand ah between a democratic president and the congress?

the air force needs at least 241 of the aircraft. one person who spent three decades as a staffer before joining the department of information said planes are overdue for eloncati . nc he is the author of "meltdown." welcome to the show. >> thank you. >> mckenzie, let's start with you. why should the planes survive? >> the air force said it needs more than 187 fighters budgeted for but that it can't afford them so this really is a debate about an inadequate air force top line. the air force fighter gap will only grow and get worse. as the f 15s and f-16s continued to retire at an accelerated rate and f-22 and f- 35 aren't come in fast enough to replace them, the gap is growing and affects the air national guard. finally, 187 planes only yields 125 combat-ready fighters and so when you look at instability

in the air force, that's really not enough to care out the national military strategy. >> it's also -- and also the f- 15 force a couple of year was grounded by structural failures. winslow, why do you think the airplane should be terminated? >> mckenzie is right about a number of things. let's remember where we got to where we are. for decades, the air force has been shrinking. its inventory has been getting older for decades. we now give pilot a lot less training than we used to but the money for the defense department, for example, is at a postworld war ii high. we have been buying an shrinking, aging force for money and thing for-22 is a classic reason why we have that. the cost of airplanes have been growing a lot faster than the budget has been growing and the budget has been growing. the problem here is that, yes, the air force certainly could use a lot more good airports

but this isn't one of them. this airplane, at best, is a huge disappointment. and it relies on a technology that has prune itself to fail time and time again and an air force to help us prepare for the flaws and weaknesses of the airplane. >> even the folks at the senior d.o.d. level said it's particular. they say it's spectacular. >> no question about it but there's data and then kates it's not the case. all the radars can see it easily, thank you very much. the radars, for example, against which is optimized to be less detectable at other angles it's quite detectable. it goes on and on. let me make a quick point here. i think it's relevant to this

debate. senator chambliss and lieberman and supporters coughed up $1.75 billion to pay for seven airplanes. that's $250 million per airplane. the cost of this thing is apparently going up. . we just bought four for $600 million. but using that money from the operations and raiding the accounts that pay for training, maintenance, personnel -- that is exactly the wrong thing to do. >> looking -- obviously, i mean, there's the theory that goes with the fury -- the higher the cost will eventually get. how does this stand off -- putting aside the capabilities of the airplanes whether they're very good or very bad, as you suggest or what the pentagon suggests, it's good and lend up better. how does the debate resolve

itself? will we have a veto and end to the defense budget or see some compromise? >> sure. we could see a veto. the house moved forward to demonstrate it's following authorization for fund in 2011 for additional fighters. the senate vote is close and it remains so by the hour. so it's an open question of whether the amendment will pass. senator appropriate for the will weigh on this and may override the authorizers if it does pass. there are many member that indicated there's an impetus to override a veto in part because there's so much frustration by member that the department is out in front. it's leading foreign policy decisions and not provided enough analysis to justify the decision to end the production line -- basically from hot to cold. >> that's a big decision at the qdr. it hasn't played itself out. what do you think? you have been up there longer

than we have been. >> studies on justifying position you can get from a dime a dozen from the pentagon. the fact they don't have a fancy new study on 187 to justify the number -- means nothing. they can produce a study for that number any time they want. we will probably see one by monday. where this is going to go, i don't know where the votes are. as mckenzie was saying, it's very slippery. people want to vote for the airplanes to pose themselves of pro defense because there's a lot of pork running around. you saw the armed services committee and four democrats and nine republicans -- one or two members of the committee with pork interest didn't vote for it. good for them. you can predict their speech before they give it based on what interests they have in

this, either non or something porky. the head counting is going on and on. it's not going to be resolved until we have a roll call vote. >> we will track the issue and pay attention to see how it comes out. thank you very much for joining us. how one small company is doing a big job of getting fuel and food to troop in afghanistan. you're watching "this week in defense news." /d

>> when it comes to service providers, the company is tiny and was started by two afghan americans. mondo personnel move 25% of the fuel and has one person in pakistan where the fuel is bought and 50 people who move the gas to where it is needed. here to tell us about the company is kevin curtis, chief strategy officer and senior vice president for business development. welcome to the show. >> thank you. good to be with you. >> so tell us, how did you win this contract in the first

place and how do you use so few people to get it done? >> a couple of years ago with the level of insurgency beginning to elevate, the level of activity by the u.s. troops and coalition forces began to correspond in hand and the u.s. military and the coalition forces needed a way of getting fuel to a variety of bases in afghanistan. it was a difficult task, as you can imagine, given the terrain and level of insurgency and danger that resides in afghanistan. mondo was able to step up to the plate and come up with a way of satisfying the military that we could indeed take this task at hand and be effective at it and we have. >> does -- driving fuel trucks in afghanistan has to be one of the world's most dangerous jobs. how is it that you guys can provide for not only the safety of your personnel -- whether from ieds or attacks or a number of things -- but protect

your cargo, especially where the military presence is not very strong? >> that's a very good question. it's a very dangerous task. first of all, we hire drivers thoroughly screen and train and know a lot of the local tribal leaders. we also have relationship with the governors and tribal leaders and can plan -- preplan quick should say, the routes for the drivers en route to a variety of forward base. at the same time, all the drivers equipped with mobile and satellite phones and we have used that technology in an effective fashion. we have supply chains tracking solutions so we know the exact location by satellite transponders and if there's a deviation according to manifest relative to the location of the truck, we can deploy resources to find out if there's a risk factor that needs to be mitigated. it's a combination of a quality

control plan, having supply chain visibility, and drivers very e institute at what they do. > it's been -- we were talking about it earlier -- it's a liability to stay on the sort of main nato routes that have been established. it's easier and safer to go through back roads, isn't it, often times? >> the main road in afghanistan is what people use because it's not paved and a lot of ieds exist on the main road. our drivers are local afghani people so they know the alternative routes and can plan it on a gis map with the supply chain visibility tool and come up with alternative ways of getting the fuel there where there's less roads to be used. >> colluding the northern supply route. getting you get your fuel from pakistan, how is the security situation there and given so many afghanistan-bound trucks have been destroyed in pakistan? >> the situation with regard to security is really bad and

deteriorating very fast. as you hay have heard, a couple of months ago the kyver pass that is responsible for 80% of the goods was blown up by the taliban. the taliban situated themselves in the southern border of afghanistan, knowing that 80% of the supplies from pakistan move into the border. that situation has become difficult and deteriorating, particularly in view the fact the pass is blown up. as you alluded to, we're bypassing that and using the northern distribution route and moving goods through turkmenistan through a port and delivering all the goods and fuel through the northern distribution routes through a variety of forward base in afghan san. >> how do you -- hire folks and ensure their security and not get infill traitors when they come from a country with a pretty poor record-keeping

history? >> a very good question. we interview the drivers and do a background check and health check because we want to make sure when they go in a forward operating base they don't give a communicated disease to the u.s. military. it's a very difficult screening process. we actuality have the head of the truckers' union as a part of our employment group so that we have more of a purview and insight into the people we are hiring can do a better background check but it's a key aspect of what we do, hiring the best in the business. >> let me ask you about your forward-looking strategy. service is a very tough business. a political lightning rod and low profit margin generally. how do you grow the business and where do you want to be in five or six years? >> we are trying to diversify as you articulated. that's the movement of fuel and at the moment we are expanding to delivery of food as well as other supplies for the military -- for example, of late, the military is interested in

getting ied-hardened military vehicles into afghanistan in view of the fact there are casualty suffered by the u.s. military as a result of ied explosion so we are diversifying into flatbeds to deliver military vehicles as well as other am munition supplies. we are expanding our core business into additional delivery realm. at the same time, we are working with organizations like the u.s.aia.i.d. so they can increase the quality of life for the afghani people. >> africa is a part of the plan. >> that's right. once we refine our operational capability there we will pour the capability into africa. >> great. thank you for joining us. >> you bet. i enjoyed it. a look at the complex debate in israel about whether to attack iran's nuclear facilities. ( rock music playing )

this is about a new, more efficient luxury hybrid continuing to produce 70% fewer smog-forming emissions while delivering greater power. a fact not lost on the world around us. the all-new 2010 lexus rx hybrid. >> not a week goes by without a new story reporting israel is

ready to attack iran's nuclear site. here's an inside look at the deliberation with our very own bureau chief. welcome to the show. >> thank you for having me. >> so there are -- there really are wide-ranging views about whether to attack iran or not, aren't there? >> absolutely but let's make a difference between the military and public arena. in the military, my sense is from speaking repeatedly and often, cryptically, but with the military officials that matter, there is a high level of confidence they can pull it off, they can go in there and fly 2,000 miles with the significant force package and strike most, if not all the, of the two dozens plus critical targets that need to be struck in order to set back iran's nuclear program. having said that, the discrepancies you will find

within the gnat tanya hue government, particularly the labor part of the coalition and the opposition centrist party and the media, which is very influential in israel. >> there's a lot more reservation. >> absolutely. they're asking the question that needs to be answered and that is, okay, will it be worth it? let's assume you can do it. but what can you actually accomplish from this and what happens next? >> well, that's the question. i mean, is it, at this point -- can you actually stop israel from developing a bomb or are you delaying -- excuse me, are you stopping iran from developing a bomb or delaying them? >> i don't think anybody anymore -- at least in the last year since the technical threshold they can stop it.

the issue is how many years or months they can delay it. >> as well as the unintended consequences. >> there's a key issue in israel because there is a consensus they will not live with an existential threat. israel has made a point in the past in 1981 with the bomber in iraq. september 2007 we saw the bombing of a nuclear website in syria. that is an israeli red line that they don't want to cross. they are not willing to cross it unless -- and unless it becomes absolutely -- some kind of situation where nothing is going to prevent them from crossing it, israel will have to act. >> so there's no sense that, you know, it's sort of learning to live with an iranian bomb is not a big discussion. >> not in israel. among some think tanks, perhaps. among some commentators, perhaps but nowhere in

advertise rayly government and certainly not in the military. >> let's shift over to the recent gaza operation. there has been a surprisingly large number of israelis who are saying that was an excessive use of force. how is that debate playing out in israel? >> very traumatically. there's a lot of soul-searching going on among the reservists, primarily criticism you're hearing from the reservists. remember, israel is the people's army and artists and tennis coaches -- from all walks of life, they have to battle in the refugee camp and in the alley waist of gaza city so you will have these complaints. they feel a need to answer the call to service but once they're there, they really, really do not like what they're seeing and so that's -- i believe that it still is a fringe and a minority but you're seeing voices. in the military, vago, i was

quite amazed how unapologetic everybody is. in fact, they're very proud of how the gaza operation was executed. and we can expect more of the same and on a much larger and fiercer scale and any combat to come. >> wasn't the opening phase -- some said dress rehearsal for iran, a number of simultaneousous operations? >> the commander of the israel air force, who we interviewed two weeks ago, will say there's no direct connection between the gaza operation and iran. however, he does acknowledge that the intense planning -- the intelligence, the rehearsal that was required. the networked warfare, as we say in the business -- all that does -- all those elements are at play in a prospective, hypothetical he would say, long- range strategic attack on iran. >> what are the most important

lessoned learned? >> purely from a power perspective but not humanistic -- quite the opposite -- but from the art of warfare, in 220 seconds they took 60 plus aircraft of all types -- helicopters, manned fighters, unmanned vehicles -- and they struck more than 100 targets. they say more than 95% success. so think about -- when the operation in iraq was something like 68% success rate. why the pentagon needs a stronger industrial policy office. soon, we'll be doing homework,

packing lunches and running for the bus. and we're ready for it. because we took all our lists and we went to walmart. since walmart checks other store's prices... i didn't have to. that means we got home in time... for just a little more summer -- and for one last night of lightning bugs. back to school costs less at walmart. save money. live better. walmart.

there are growing concerns that one of man's greatest achievement could be in jeopardy. budget cuts loom over a concentrated defense industrial base. the pentagon's new acquisition chief carter counters strategy shape needs. both sides have a point. fewer contractors are working on fewer programs, make each more important. government shouldn't waste money money it doesn't need to help its industry but when the pentagon should work with suppliers on everything from acquisition reform to shaping smarter future programs on less

money, they demoted its pot i office. it's a mistake and the senate proposes righting the office to give the stature to deal with congress, governments and industry. in a globalized world, it's vital the pentagon understand the industrial implication of its decision so it develops acquisition strategies and encourage competition and domestic capabilities. thank you for joining us. watch this program online at defensenewstv.com or you can e- mail me. as we leave you today, we remember the 40th anniversary of man's first moon landing and thank everyone involve in the historic event that will launch gene tis. on gkc÷qqñ