SAS12: Despite crash, V-22 program remains bullish

SAS12: Despite crash, V-22 program remains bullish

In spite of the recent Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey mishap that killed two crew chiefs and injured the pilots during the annual African Lion exercise in Morocco, PMA-275 – the V-22 program office at the Naval Air Systems Command – is bullish on the future growth of the aircraft.

During a press briefing Monday held in conjunction with the Navy League’s Sea Air Space conference, Col. Greg Masiello, the V-22 program manager at NAVAIR, said that the program of record is on track in spite of the current defense budget challenges. He also highlighted stats that he said show the tiltrotor is maturing well: He claimed that over the last two years the cost per flight hour has decreased by 13 percent (to around $10,000 compared to $4,000  for the CH-46 the Osprey replaced) and that aircraft readiness has increased by 19 percent.

Masiello said 2012 will see the total Osprey fleet (MVs and CVs) grow to 200, as well as the establishment of the first permanently forward deployed V-22 squadron in Okinawa. So far, 11 Marine Corps medium lift squadrons have transitioned from the Sea Knight to the Osprey – all of the East Coast squadrons and 75 percent of the West Coast squadrons.


Masiello also said HMX-1, the squadron charged with flying the president short distances, wants to use V-22s “in a supporting capacity” – not as the primary “white top” VIP asset, but the aircraft that flies staffers and gear in phase with the president’s movements. While the Osprey program and the prime contractors Bell and Boeing have long asserted the airplane would be perfect in the Marine One role, those charged with protecting the president have been less enthusiastic since the first and only test flight some years ago scorched the south White House lawn.

John Rader, vice president of the Bell-Boeing V-22 Program, said his “bosses said he needed to do whatever is required to keep the cost of the airplane down,” which introduced the topic of foreign military sales. Masiello allowed that the first FMS sale would take place in 2013, but he wouldn’t say what country would be buying the Osprey. Flight demos have taken place in Canada and Dubai, and the program plans on taking both a CV and an MV to England’s Farnborough Air Show this summer.

Masiello wouldn’t answer any questions relating to the specifics about last week’s Morocco mishap, but did allow that the powers that be had elected to continue to fly Ospreys worldwide as the investigation continues. Conventional wisdom would suggest that decision indicates something other than a system problem as a preliminary cause.

Join the Conversation

Have there been any other crashes since IOC?

It would be useful, in reports like this, to compare the crashes of VTOL types in equivalent roles (both overall and per-flight.) If there’s been one Osprey crash and no other crashes, that’s one thing; but if there’s been one Osprey crash and five other crashes, that’s different.

Take note of the number of mishaps related to the H-60 and H-47:
http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​L​i​s​t​_​o​f​_​a​v​i​a​t​i​o​n​_​sho
http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​L​i​s​t​_​o​f​_​a​v​i​a​t​i​o​n​_​acc

First for the MV-22.One CV-22 has been lost also.

Come on Cunningham. You compare an aircraft with less than 150,000 hours to Army aircraft with over 3 million hours in combat. The MV and CV-22 are great machines…at twice the price of a 170 knot new CH-47F or three times the price of a rebuilt D model.

The Chinook carries far more weight and troops at altitude and you know it. Heck the UH-60L and M can hover at higher altitudes with more useful loads than a MV-22 burning far less fuel.

Cunningham is a Bell employees who roams the net spreading BS

I say we start a pool on why the crash was the pilot’s fault. I want “vortex ring state”. I had some second thoughts on that. Since the pilots lived and the crew chiefs died, they could call it a maintenance mishap and blame the dead crew chiefs, but then again, the pilots living through the crash rarely stops them from getting blamed. Oh, and as a side bet, I’m guessing the military industrial complex shills will be shocked at my callousness right up to the time they start sticking it to the pilots for being 100% responsible for crashing the greatest flying vehicle of all time. Ok, your turn.

But the point of the V-22 isn’t load capacity or altitude, it’s speed. The V-22 is better suited for QRF work. Hence the RIF’s statement need for “a new type of aircraft, that could not only take off and land vertically but also could carry combat troops, and do so at speed.” after the failure of Operation Eagle Claw in 1980.

Bring back CH-46s !!

Oops, “RFP” not “RIF”

An Osprey flew me from ship to the shore of Morocco in 35 minutes last week. After the crash, they sent a CH-53 to pick me up and it took an hour and ten minutes for the same distance. Marines are expeditionary; we rely on speed. That’s why the Osprey is our bread and butter. As far as Move_Forward’s comment about carrying power, he’s right. But the Marine Corps hinges on a light-ashore mentality. We’ve traded our 8-ton howitzers for 5-ton howitzers, we use two diferent vehicles smaller than Huvees. The Corps is the nation’s middleweight fighter and the Osprey is our middleweight aircraft. The Osprey that brought me to Morocco last week? Guess which one it was…

Semper Fidelis to our air crew Marines that we lost and the pilots that we hope to see again soon.

So the osprey flies not twice as fast with less than half the load.…53’s/47’s fly 2/3’s as fast with over twice the load…I thought you devil dogs were all about massing firepower ashore.…so isn’t it really a wash.….at less the cost per copy…Also„„,the President will never fly in an Osprey.…can’t even land and take off from the white house lawn safely…to say nothing about it’s total lack of Hover and Fast Rope capability 5 feet above sea level

What a waste of money. This POS has been in design and development since the early 1980s and it still isn’t very safe. How much money has been spent on this thing over the last 4 decades? Who in the government is allowing this waste?

Hey quit trying to fool me with these numbers. Something is fishy lol…

“cost per flight hour has decreased by 13 percent (to around $10,000 compared to $4,000 for the CH-46 the Osprey replaced)”

By BS I’m assuming you mean facts? They are inconvienent to the internet troll narative about the Osprey.

Thanks for making this comment. I knew both the guys killed and wish everyone would shut the f*ck up until we all know what happened. I love how everyone knows what happened yet they have never been a part of the crew on one or the slightest clue about what may have happened. But ya know what the crazy thing…ALL those that have fallen gave them the right to talk all the bs they want on here…

–Semper Fi!

How is it not safe? Have u ever looked at the FACTS not hearsay????

All those that have fallen gave us the right to hear military industrial complex propaganda 24/7 on the internet? You don’t say? So the Soviet Union did win the Cold War after all. That’s just what I thought.

Yes, facts, not the USMC party line:
http://​www​.wired​.com/​d​a​n​g​e​r​r​o​o​m​/​2​0​1​1​/​1​0​/​o​s​p​r​e​y​-do
http://​www​.g2mil​.com/​s​c​a​n​d​a​l​.​htm
http://​blog​.usni​.org/​2​0​0​9​/​1​2​/​2​5​/​i​s​-​t​h​e​-​m​a​r​i​n​e​-​cor

Didn’t General Jumper himself ride one a decade or so ago, just to calm the nerves of the other Marines, who were getting tired of their brothers’ getting killed in these things while being used as show/test ballast?

You make great points but if you remember the Marine Corps did not want this program at this high cost. It limits greatly our responses and utilizes a great deal of our funds that are in short supply now.

a dc bureaucrat on the defense comittee got lobbied by some special interest groups to keep pushing this. i guarantee the pressure to keep this going isn’t from the military, it’s from greedy fat, silver-spoon fed politicians getting kickbacks/favors from key stakeholders (money-wise, that is to say) in the project. No military-minded woman/man worth their salt would push this and still be able to look their juniors in the eye and tell them it’s worth it.

Look at the m-16. Biggest POS ever. Yeah it was lightweight, but Desert Storm/Shield proved the first chance someone had to pickup an AK in place of an M16 to take down Saddams methed-out private guards; they were taking.

Same story/plot, just different characters, scenery, and time. Never changes.

I was talking to my kid about a military video game he likes to play. His friend is out scoring everyone using the game’s model of the Barrett .50 cal semi-auto gun. I told him, “now imagine you had a gun that fired a round nearly as deadly out to 2/3rds the range, but with much less kick and you had a bayonet mounted on the end so you didn’t have to throw your gun back on your shoulder and grab a knife to stab someone in close quarters combat, plus the entire gun could be used as a quarter staff in hand to hand combat.” He said such a weapon would be really handy in his game and I told him that was the M-1 our soldiers used in WW2, the last war we more or less won. Is it just me or does it seem like we’ve made the phrase “high tech” mean the same thing as the phrase “f’ed up” used to mean?

“Desert Storm/Shield proved the first chance someone had to pickup an AK in place of an M16 to take down Saddams methed-out private guards”

<citation needed>

I live in Amarillo Texas where the Osprey is built. If they stop building the Osprey where will all the coke fiends, adulterers, and perverts work? I guess the first SUPERVISOR can go sling some dope, the next SUPERVISOR can try out for track team as the next guy that’s not me walks in on him as he’s screwing his girlfriend at the time and the last SUPERVISOR can pull his penis out on gay websites for money as he has done so many times.

I am a Marine of the Vietnam era and they are still using the same choppers now. I say one thing about the old birds, they felt sound, got us around and very seldom fell to the ground.

The Osprey’s cost has decreased — from $12,000 to $10,000. Any way you slice it, that’s ridiculous.

Fu_kin’-A skippy! Something stinks about the Osprey; always has. I think they’re ramming it down our throats like the original M16 in the hopes that they can eventually iron-out the problems, like they did on the M16. Only problem is, Marines are getting killed during the process. Truth is, the top brass is saluting and saying “Aye-aye, Sir” when they ought to be standing arm-in-arm and sounding-off against the military-industrial-complex, the lobbyists, and the so-called “honorable” politicians who simply want to line their pockets with the blood of dead Marines! Semper Fi!!

to all marines and all corporate engineers ‚get your heads out of your asses and fly my son’s to battle in one piece. go back to the ch-46 and the ch-53’s It might take you a little longer to get there ‚but you will get there . the osprey were crashing in the eightys and their still crashing today. let me reiterate … get your heads out of your asses..semper fi .…the suck.

On the side of aviation, if we did not have newer and newer aircraft, we would still be flying Jennies. The B-29 didn’t get it’s engine problem s solved until several years after WWII, when they were starting to fly the B-36, which got doomed by the B-47 jet bomber. In Nam they gave us flak jackets that allowed the bullets to go in the front of your body, and go out the back. But it was better than our shirts.

That’s a video game. They change the rules and stats of the guns to balance out the gameplay, especially in today’s popular online multiplayer games. In that realm, they have to maintain a sense of “fairness”. Hence dumbing-down and watering-down weapons and tactics to appeal to the popular masses.

I fear those video games give a sick view of real war. Because the reality is, there’s no such thing as “fair.”

The first prop driven aircraft had far more instances of accidents than the Osprey, as did all the other variations of flying machines before it. The first jet aircraft had high instances of accidents. The first helicopters also had a lot of teething problems that proved fatal. Tilt-rotor aircraft are another side evolution of the aerospace vehicle, and of course it’ll have it’s developmental problems just as the prop aircraft, jet aircraft, and rotary-wing aircraft before them.

Here’s an idea, why don’t you try reading something other than the talking points your military industrial complex masters provide you and then you won’t need someone to spoon feed reality to you?

Yes, I know the difference between reality and a video game. I also know the difference between a weapon that will take a bayonet and one that’s such a POS that if you did mount a bayonet to hit and actually used it on combat, you’d have a barrel shaped like a pretzel until you could retrieve an enemy combatant’s AK-47. Similarly, why don’t you try smashing somone’s face in with the butt of an M-16 and see if that doesn’t break those tiny ears off the lower receiver. Hell, you don’t have to be an aerospace engineer to figure out what a wimp ass piece of crap the M-16 is. Just use the damn thing as an actual weapon once. It will tell you everything you need to know. And you’ll be out $2000 bucks, because stupid should cost more.

Agreed.

I do, however, believe that money is now the larger driving force behind much of the evolution/“enhancement” of our military and its tools. WWII was a necessary war and the primary stakes ultimately forced our hand in getting involved (although FDR tried not to with anti-semitic pressure from high ranking officials and some of the public as well as the fact that we were still recovering from WWI and nobody wanted to get involved and potentially see another depression or lose any more young men).

Food for thought:

Do you think with all of the technology that is made public and that we think is amazing (osprey/m16 withstanding); how much do you think is being used/developed that would completely blow our minds and warp our sense of what is possible/impossible–i.e., invisibility, hypersonic craft, «insert star trek/star wars reference here»?

No citation needed…that would be an original thought based off of factual evidence. This is not a scholarly forum and most members of this forum are current/prior military-affiliation that would consider that information ‘common knowledge’.

If you want a citation, please visit any military-history/tactical references on the war and you will likely find stories/reference to this fact. If you so desire you can come back here and post it. I would suggest MLA format, but my giveAcrap meter is low; so you decide :).

Oooh-effin-Rahh to that, teufel hunden.

$10,000. per hour vs. $4,000.00????? Roughly 1/2 the pay load for 30% more speed???? Osprey crash Stats vs. 46’s/53’s???? So, $20,000.00 to move the same payload that would cost $4,000.00 in a 46/53.…… Yep, our Government at work, spending our dollars in the most inefficient ways as only Government can do!

DD– there isnt any citation avail.- all BS. in actuality the only thing better about the AK than the m-16 or now some of the 4’s id the fire power of the bigger round. having used both ill take the 16 any day. its accurate, user friendly and dang sure takes a good bayonet. it being lighter infact makes it a better hand to hand weapon. BTDT and have the t-shirts.

2311– tho the new bird is having its trying days; its actually a life saver in the theaters of operations right now. as you know the choppers have its good places to operate and bad. this new bird actually is more reliable in the desert and mountainous terrains than the choppers. Semper Fi and ParaMarine brother!!

YOU HAVE IT DEAD ON GOD BLESS THE MARINES.

The Marine Corps has been tragically fixated on vertical lift-off aircraft at least as far back as the early 1960s.

I was in the Corps in 86″ and they had just started talking about all the problems that would have been corrected in the next few years.…… I agree!

“No citation needed…that would be an original thought based off of factual evidence.”

So what you’re saying here is that no, you *don’t* have an actual verified report that Allied soldiers involved in Desert Storm were attacked by drugged-up Iraqi Republican Guards, found that their issued rifles were ineffective, and used salvaged Iraqi AK rifles to deal with the problem.

This aircraft is a proven death trap. The only reason it has not been scraped is the greed of the MIPM complex.

To this day I still shudder when I hear V22 Osprey. I was training in Yuma AZ in 2002 (or so), in the Marines. We were at this training area eating lunch with a squad of grunts at the time. After lunch we were all going back to our respective training areas in the sand. I remember those grunts had invited us to go for a ride on the Osprey. In a fortunate but unfortunate twist of fate we declined. Four hours later we heard that those Marines were all killed in a crash, the same V22 we would have been on for nothing more then a joy ride really.

Gunny… What about MedEvac? More speed and/or more unrefueled range can make a big difference in MedEvac.

I saw one of the first ones that came to Quantico for a show and tell and then drop into the river as it came around to land. Too many moving parts on these things. The hydraulic pressure on these operated too high (5000 punds). It leaked and burned up the shafts. I would scrap it and buy some more shitters (ch-53’s). Sikorsky products work.

Thank goodness for freedom of speech.… Anyone can blabber about things they don’t have a clue on… Fact free chatter that misleads folks is a shame. How about 3 times as fast, 4 times the payload and at least 5 times as far.… Get it right, or be quiet. Why don’t we just put Marines back on mules, with muskets too.…instead of the best that we can provide? Ignorant revisionist historians would probably complain about that too. How many 53s, 46s, 47s, H60s and H1s Helos do you think we have crashed in the past 10 years??? A LOT!!! V22s have completed 17 combat deployments and 140000 flight hours without a single fatal mishap in over 10 years. Stop the lies about the aircraft because it’s disrespectful to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice.

3 times as fast, 4 times the payload, and 5 times the range of what? Wikipedia: V-22 20K lb payload, 24–32 troops, max speed 275kts, range 879 nmi. CH-53 35K lb payload, 37–55 troops, max speed 170 knots, range 540 nmi. I guess arithmetic isn’t one of your core competencies.

I remember in Nam, when we needed to get in and out fast we did!We sat on our steel pots and when we took fire, i just was too tired to really give a Crap!! All I know is that deal is awful big? A large target? I would rather ride then hump! If your times up your time is up? It’s probably really hard to bring those V22s down? I really think our next fight is going to be over the TOP! I hope I am still alive and kicking? I really don’t know what to think about this deal, except almost everything I have heard about this Bird has been ( not so good)! We Grunts always hump way to much! USMC, Jarhead!

It replaces the fourty-six not the fifty-three. Compare apples to apples.

Bell and Boeing have been trying to make this POS fly since the mid 80’s. Twenty-five years (and how many lost lives) is too much, too long, and way too expensive. Time to chalk up the V-22 as a lesson learned and sh*t can it.

J.W. I’m glad your still here to tell everyone that the high speed flight was worth it … can you get us a comment from the four air crewmen that was on this Moroccan flight ?

Dfens, I’m late to the party again!

Out of the woodwork you crawl, like a moth to the flame. Oh a V22 story, you don’t have a single CLUE as to what happened yet here you go off blathering about the military-industrial complex again.

Get a grip.

Hahahahahaha

You come on here and try using David Axe and Carlton Meyer’s bullsh*t “journalism” to prove your point? You realize how utterly non-objective those two hacks are? Im surprised theres no link to Bob Cox at the Star Telegram.

That’d be like Mitt Romney quoting Rush Limbaugh in his campaign, or Obama using Keith Olberman.

Yeah the CH53 is a real success story for safety.…just go ask the Israelis.

Or how about some Marines? http://​www​.leatherneck​.com/​f​o​r​u​m​s​/​s​h​o​w​t​h​r​e​a​d​.​php?…

In 1959, the Briish Fairey Rotodyne was flying and safe– never kiled anyone, look it up. It would do everything this POS will a lot cheaper and safer. Politics, politcs…

Every new aircraft we’ve ever fielded has killed people. The 53E killed alot of Marines back in the day, and yeah, people talked about how expensive it was in money and lives, but we got past it, and its a great bird now. Anything we build is bound to have faults, no matter how good we are at identifying them and correcting them. Pilots are trained as well as we can do it, but they’re human, and we all make mistakes. All that said, this is a risky business we’re in…people die, both in training, in combat, and during the process to develop the tools to win wars and kill the enemy, and take chow and bandaids across the beach to victims of catastrophe. This is the business we’re in. Sometimes it sucks, but that’s the nature of the beast.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.