Lamentably, stories like this aren't all that uncommon. But one needs to keep in mind that a number of things that started out in the movies (etc) ultimately became reality. The Star Trek communicator was the starting idea that eventually created the cell phone of today.
And while the old saying that "great spirits are often crushed by those with meager minds", it is also important to be able to tell when the BS meter has been bent.
There is one of the older Bond flicks where 007 uses a lipstick tube with a mouthpiece soldered on it (i.e. it was supposed to be a mini-SCUBA device) to escape from one of his many harrowing situations. The movie producers were later contacted by the CIA (or one of our other intelligence agencies) because they wanted to buy a bunch of them. According to Ian Fleming (I believe), it took quite a while to convince the feds that the device (and its use) were merely a combination of fiction and filming technique to make it seem that Sean Connery was actually using the device to breath underwater.
Mr. Huber's point is well taken - someone needs to ensure that good money isn't spent on bad/impractical ideas.
DARPA may have come up with some lemons over the years. In fact most innovations never come to fruition, though not necessarily because there is anything technically wrong with them. Anything along the way ... not fitting in with existing systems, being perceived as a threat to other systems, a Congressman upset that his earmark didn't get past .. any of these and other things may rightly or wrongly derail any single innovation. If we "demand" that every innovation garrantee success, we will choke innovation because innovation always involves risk.
This particular idea -- call it a submersible aircraft or a flying submarine -- if its engineering problems can be overcome at "reasonable" cost, has some obvious intuitive applications.
Opposing an idea because it is "wierd" or different, or science fiction is not productive. Many once thought jump-jets were a waste of money (some still do), yet they have proven themselves in combat. In fact, much of what we use today was once in the realm of science fiction, and not too long ago. Yes, we need to be watchful of the tax payer's money, but we must also let innovators innovate.
Mr. Huber is entitled to his views, and he's done a passionate and persistent job of bashing everything that has happened in the last 8 or more years. It is no doubt his job to criticize in his column, and it would be a great shock if he ever did anything else.
Every time I read something like this I think a lot brain cells are being wasted on the concept alone. We can't even cure a common cold, what use would we have for a "flying sub"? If it flys, it's not a sub-, it's a plane.
