so i think uavs are here to stay and be advanced.i would also submit that, and i touched on it earlier, the key will not only be to getted good vehicle but how do you move the information, how do you sense the information and then how does that information find its way into the operational decision-making or into the kinetic result that you're seeking? so having, you know, the thing that i look at is, the fact somebody has a uav is interesting. how is it being used? how is it being networked? and then what are the, you know, what are the capabilities? but it's one thing to have it. it's another thing to use it effectively. so that's where my interest goes is, as soon as i get a sense somebody has a uav i try to dig in deeper and see, how is it being used and quite frankly, what are the potential vulnerabilities of it? because that's, that's part of the game as well. i think we tend to take a lot of weapons developments and think in terms of, you know, it exists. therefore i'm at a disadvantage as opposed to, it exists, therefore how

we have done a trial deployment of fire scout, the vertical take off uav. there were some exciting moments on that deployment to be sure, but as i tell everybody, the thing that i have come to find out about uav's is that they do exactly as they are -- what they are told to do unlike most naval aviators. [laughter] all you have to do is make sure you have the code right, and you know exactly what it's going to do. no offense to my friends, but since that time we have pressed it out again on another deployment that's in support of special operation forces in the middle east amassing hours and mission at a very steady rate, a very reliability rate, and as also has been mentioned because of the capability of that aircraft, we have deployed some of them into afghanistan to support ground troops, and as we put this unmanned enterprise together the direction i cave gave to my people is it has to be flexible and agile and we will not be constrained by saying it's a naval capability. it is on naval ships. we want to be flexible. if they need an attachment, you pick

-- uav's.ptured the imagination. and not only are the countries that have the more technologically advanced military's working on them, but you can go and buy them from somebody else if you want to. so i think uav's are here tuesday and a to be advanced. i would also submit -- are here to stay and to be advanced. i would also submit that the key will not only be to get a good vehicle, but how do you move the information, how do you send the information? and then, how does that information find its way into the operational decision making or entity kinetic result that you are seeking? so having -- the thing that i look at is, the fact that somebody has a uav is interesting. how is it being used and network? then, what are the capabilities? it is one thing to have it. it is another thing to use it effectively. so that is where my interest goes. as soon as i get a sense that somebody has a uav, i try to dig in deeper to see how it is being used. and quite frankly, what are the potential vulnerabil

a uav doesn't care.launches out and flies out and delivers ammunition and water and that kind of, food. so i'm a big fan of it. i think there's a huge future in it for all the services. as a marine aviator i'm not threatened by it at all. there is always going to be the requirement to have somebody with a brain making decisions on, on things on the ground but i'm a big fan of, and i hope that answers your question. >> if i could follow up quickly on that, general and i apologize to people that keep waiting but is it, this is not meant to be a critique of the f-35b program. but we've seen the f-35 program stay at about 2500 airplanes through a period, uavs, uases have become much more effective in general. you were talking about some of the cargo responsibilities much uases which are not related to the f-35 mission. but is it possible in this budget drill the services realisticly and reasonably be asked to rethink the 2500 number without going to the f-35 specifically? are we building too many manned tact

in, there is no question that troops are going to be monitoring probably live video coming off of a uav or predator-type drone and getting verbal reports. they have a pretty good situation on awareness and understand what is happening in real-time. when they get in close, they get a one-minute warning and that is at that point, the adrenalin starts pumping once they face break out of the helicopter and came in with a hard landing, they are running on adrenalin. they don't know specifically what the interior of the buildings look like. ine though they rehearsed this scores of times. on a facsimile to assimulate the compound and vice-president and density of thaltitude. they don't know what they will find. they are so well rehearsed so many times tis a routine drill for them. that doesn't mean they will not have something unexpected there. but they go in with necessarily explosives to breach what they encounter when they get on a target and go in with all kinds of contingency and they had to use those contingency. once they hit the ground, there is zero chance bin laden or anybody else wi

there's no question that these troops are going to be monitoring probably live video coming off of a uavype drone, as well as getting verbal reports, so they have a pretty good situational awareness. they understand what's happening in a real-time. when they get in close, they probably get a one minute warning and that is at that point the adrenalin really starts pumping and once they fast group out of the helicopter or in the case of one with a hard landing, they're running on adrenalin. now, they don't know specifically what the interior of those buildings look like. even though they have rehearsed this scores of times, on a facsimile and they probably had multiple facsimiles to look at the weather, environment and density altitude. they don't know what they're going to find, but they are so well trained and rehearsed so many times that it's a routine drill for them. now, that doesn't mean that, you know, there won't be something unexpected in there, but they go in with the necessary explosives, and whatever they encounter when they get on the target. and they go in with all kinds of c

request for 1.4 billion is fully funded, including upgrades to light armored vehicles, additional uavsand tactical communications equipment. the request for fighter aircraft is fully funded, including f-35 joint strike fighters and upgrades to f-15s, f-16s and other aircraft. finally, the navy's aircraft procurement request for 18.6 billion is also fully funded, including 28 you new f-18 super hornets, 30 os prays and 42 mh-60 helicopters. so i think, mr. chairman, overall chairman bartlett has developed an excellent proposal. the mark was developed in an inclusive, bipartisan manner keeping with the best traditions of you our armed forces committee. i urge all members to support the chairman's mark. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> before entertaining any amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee's report? >> hearing none, the chair recognizes mr. bartlett for the purpose of introducing a non-block amendment. >> call up an unblocked package of amendments worked and approved by minority side compromised of the following -- >> will the clerk please pass out the amendment. wi

there is a debate over whether the public is getting enough bang for the buck when it comes to uav's. host: macon, ga., democrats line. caller: the problem with the security cameras and the things they put up at the border was not of it worked. -- none of it worked. i was wondering why they let these programs go on and on. the reason is they securitized them and it goes into wall street and they bet against it. even if it is a bad program, we have to pay out on what wall street is betting on. boeing could not make video cameras that worked. radio shack makes better cameras. are you afraid to say that? guest: about government programs not coming to an end, that has been a problem with government contracting. you have these massive programs even when the government tries to stop them, there is this an arch of the keep them going. -- there is this inertia that keeps them going. as far as the problems with the secure border initiative and the cameras, that has been the criticism all along is that these cameras are not operating the way they should be operating. the department originally s

and i know like to talk about this on your blog i want to ask what are your thoughts and to some of uav george and might or all of you what are your thoughts on as a potential progress of monetary policy, and i apologize i wasn't here in the morning in the new york session, but there was an interesting idea that was thrown out by one of the financial blogs of a potential synthesis between the quote on quote left wing on stream and austrian school it could be a monetary policy synthesis as we saw with of the neoclassical in the 20th century and they have a lot more in common with each other than it is commonly thought. and i was a little surprised i didn't hear anything about qe2 and i apologize if was brought up in the morning but it is very interesting and i don't know if it has been noticed and if i'm being redundant. if you look among progressives with joe stieglitz who was cenacle of qe2 as i saw in the video in the new york show you had a few weeks ago paul krugman on the other day to leave kuwait thinks that it's blase because it was only 600 assets and should be two or 3 trillion