DoD to Japan: Don’t worry, the Osprey is safe

DoD to Japan: Don’t worry, the Osprey is safe

Pentagon and Air Force Special Operations Command officials are scheduled to brief a Japanese delegation next month in a bid to quell their concerns about the MV-22 Osprey eventually deploying to Okinawa.

The Osprey is a painful case — it epitomizes many Americans’ worst beliefs about the military-industrial-congressional complex, and despite the best efforts of the Marines and the Air Force, may never shake its reputation as a dangerous bird.

Any progress it might have made was set back by this year’s two Osprey crashes: One MV-22 in April and one AFSOC CV-22 earlier this month. The Japanese were already less than enthused about American military air traffic over Okinawa, and the prospect of having Ospreys there isn’t helping.


The presentation will be “a tangible demonstration of how seriously the Department of Defense takes the issue and inquiries made by the government of Japan on this matter,” Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said in an announcement. It continued:

He told reporters the briefing will be led by senior DOD military and civilian officials, including Mark W. Lippert, the assistant secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific security affairs. It follows what Little described as concerns about the aircraft by the governor of Okinawa …

“(The briefing) will provide information surrounding the June 13 mishap of an Air Force CV-22 in Florida as well as a status update on the investigation process, which the department is committed to completing in a comprehensive and timely manner,” Little said, adding that officials from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., will participate in the briefing.

The briefing also will summarize the results of the initial investigation into the April MV-22 crash. The initial investigation determined the incident was not caused by mechanical failure, Little said.

Little emphasized the Osprey’s safety record and reliability.

“The Osprey is a highly capable aircraft with an excellent operational safety record and over 140,000 flight hours logged, about one-third of which were flown in the last two years,” he said. “The United States Air Force and the United States Marine Corps are continuing flight operations with the CV-22 and MV-22 fleet around the world. (This includes) transporting American troops in the United States and in combat operations in Afghanistan.”

“Not caused by mechanical failure” could be code for “pilot error;” Pentagon officials have been eager before to point out that other mishaps weren’t the fault of the airplane itself. Moreover, Marine aviation officials have always tried to be realistic — almost fatalistic — about the likelihood that Ospreys would crash. What comes up must come down, they’ve always said; no aircraft is perfect.

The difference is that an Army Black Hawk crashing doesn’t immediately bring back 25 years in development, two cancellations, terrible test mishaps, and the scads of criticism from spending hawks. In that brief window in early 2011 when everybody and his mother in Washington was dropping a white-paper with recommendations for defense cuts, nearly all of them called for ending the Osprey.

But that’s not an option for the Marines; their CH-46 Sea Knights are worn out. Barring some unexpected political shift or the dreaded sequester, the Osprey will be here to stay, and everyone will just have to get used to it.

Join the Conversation

Hurlburt CV-22 Skipper canned;
http://​www​.nwfdailynews​.com/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​s​/​c​r​a​s​h​-​5​0​544–

Ha Ha Ha that’s a good one for a joke. The plane has serious problems Overall be better to upgrade CH-46s for now and have a major overhaul of the Osprey fleet to make them safe.

“The plane has serious problems ”

Please detail what those “serious” problems are and also provide your CV — curriculum vitae — in V-22 operations.

A CH-46 is more likely to fall out of the sky these days.

Sorry the tilt roder system breaks too much this plane is a death trap.

Really , you havent looked at the helicopter accident rate recently… if ever

People forget that the AV-8 and the Jeep killed many people for years and we let’em slide.

AOL defense reports that one CV-22 got to close to another, knock some air under one rotor, causing the CV-22 to instantly roll over. This is a well known flaw in the tiltrotor design.

They were flipped over in ‘airplane’ mode, crashing into the trees (or onto A-78, the range) and no one was killed? Sounds kind of sketchy to me, aircraft zipping along and crashing at aerial gunnery speeds don’t result in wounded crewmen who leave the hospital in a few days or a week. Sounds to me like they were doing gunnery from a hover mode (which you aren’t supposed to do unless over an LZ, which doesn’t exist at A78, at least not for CV-22s), one bird got some dirty air from the other and a ‘roll over’ did occur, but in a hover operation that they shouldn’t have been doing. Hence the need to fire Matt GLover (the squadron CC), they were dicking around and not following correct range procedure and smashed an aircraft in the process. I almost saw a CV-22 do the exact same thing at Baker LZ (big patch of grass and sand on the airfield at Hurbie) trying to do two-ship operations, chalk two got into the dirty air of chalk one and almost lost control of the aircraft. Thought I was going to see a Class A right in front of me. I also saw the CV-22 twice set Baker LZ on fire with their exhaust heat, that bird has some real design ‘issues’ (would say problems, but apparently some folks don’t like that word, so I’ll stick with ‘issues’)

Sucks to hear that ‘G-Lover’ is getting thrown under the bus for this. But hell, considering that they let the Group Commander, a bird colonel, almost crash a CV-22 8 months ago when he put one into the trees just south of Big T LZ and managed, by the Grace of God, to get it back airborne with only some damage to the nacelles and wing flaps (and remained in place as the Group Commander, go figure), tells you all you need to know about how things work in the Air Force these days. Apparently, this is how it goes these days:

Happen to be a lieutenant colonel in charge of a squadron that has a crash he had no way of preventing or foreseeing — get fired and have your name and picture splashed all over the internet with no hope of any future promotion or position of authority

Happen to be a full-bird colonel (C-130 pilot, no less) who attempts to tactically fly and land an aircraft he was totally unqualified in, almost crashed, flies the damaged tilt-rotor back to base, hops off and allows the crew to continue flying for two more hours — get downgraded in your primary aircraft (the Herc) for a week, then get requalified and stay on as the Group Commander with a possible shot at Brig. General.

Different spanks for different ranks is an old tradition, no reason it shouldn’t apply at Hurlburt Field

Great info Pave Low. That AOL story says the CV-22s came home from Afghanistan, not just crews as part of a rotation. Do you think the were sent home? Too many “issues”

Difficult to say why the 8th left OEF. The CV-22s are hard to fit into most SOF current operations because they really are unique airframes and require concrete or asphalt landing pads for any kind of sustained operations. You can’t use them for MEDEVAC or CSAR, the downwash is too massive. The dirt and dust of Afghanistan (and pretty much any other dry/desert area) eat their engines up at a phenomenal rate. I heard one rumor that they were replacing those Rolls-Royce engines every 70 to 100 hours, sometimes even less. Those engines cost a mint, so you can imagine how that affects the cost of a downrange deployment (or even home station training). Add in the hydraulic problems (5000 psi system vs. the 1500 to 3000 psi used in all other rotorcraft and C-130s) and software issues and it’s just too complicated of a bird for combat operations.

Look, I’m not going to lie, I’m not a huge fan of the CV-22 as it stands right now. I was good friends with Brooks Gruber (Marine pilot who used to be an exchange officer with the 20th SOS, was killed at Mariana, AZ in an MV-22 crash) and I knew J.B Lackey and Randy Voas (two CV-22 crewmen killed in Afghanistan in 2010) pretty well. I even ran into Randy and J.B. in the Hurlburt med clinic when their crew was heading out the door for Kandahar. If I had known that was the last time I’d see them alive, I would have probably done something more profound than teasing them about flying a ‘half-assed excuse for a real rotor-craft’ and jokingly asking them to bring me back some Afghan opium if they found any. I still know a lot of guys over at the 8th SOS here at Hurbie and the 20th SOS at Cannon and just pray those guys don’t have any more fatal crashes before someone finally says ‘Enough’ and grounds the entire fleet for a much-needed executive review.

Having said all that, I think the concept of the V-22 is legit. We do need something that breaks us out of this 140 KIAS limit we seem to be stuck in with helicopters. I’m all for pushing forward with new designs (Sikorsky has come up with some really cool new versions of the helicopter recently, for example).

The problem is, the Marine Corps convinced themselves that they needed to rush it through test and development to replace the incredibly old CH-46s and the USAF went along with them. So now, you have an operational aircraft that is still having test phase kinds of teething issues and people are dying trying to make it work in the operational side.

In my eyes, they need to transfer all the birds to the USMC, send them up to Pax River and finish testing and modifying them. The CV-22 is not ready for prime time, simple as that. Maybe in 5 or 10 years after more test and development, but right now, it’s a widowmaker.

Have you read the article at G2mil​.com about the 2010 CV-22 crash? It’s obvious from the AIB report that it crashed simply because it couldn’t hover above 5000 feet with 16 passengers. Yet the conclusion was that the cause is “unknown”, and the incident recorder disappeared and the surviving copilot claimed amnesia.

I suspect the USAF will do what the Marines have done to solve the problem. Impose extreme limits so they are used only for base to base trash hauls from runways, performing the C-27J mission with half its payload and range.

The pilot member of that Accident Investigation Board (not the Brig General, the Lt Col CV-22 pilot) is an old friend of mine. I talked to him about the crash and he laid it all out for me. He believes they had a single engine failure and tried to do a ‘run-on’ landing at around 60 to 80 knots because they didn’t have the power to attempt a go-around on one engine (too heavy for the altitude, as Randall mentioned). They almost made it, too, but the nose-gear caught a small ditch that they couldn’t have seen on NVGs and flipped them over. This pilot also told me they found parts of the aircraft that fell off about a quarter mile prior to the impact site, which points to some kind of mechanical failure. Of course, since the commanding general for SOF forces had the wreckage JDAMed from orbit before anyone get their hands on the flight record, there isn’t ironclad ‘proof’ that there was any kind of mechanical failure. So they blamed the crew.

Talking with my old buddy only confirmed my gut feeling. It wasn’t pilot or FE error. J.B. Lackey was probably one of the best flight engineers in the entire USAF, he had been flying for AFSOC for over 20 years in both MH-53Js and CV-22s. Randy Voas was a command pilot who used to fly Apaches in the Army as a warrant officer before cross-commissioning to AFSOC to fly Pave Lows. He was an upgrade student of mine in MH-53Js way back in 2001 when I was a formal upgrade training instructor, he was a damned good pilot, one of the best I ever flew with. If those two couldn’t pull it off in a CV-22, no one could. To try and pin it on those two just because you are afraid of bad publicity is cowardly and I have to admit, I would be ashamed to have to talk with J.B. or Randy’s wife and admit to them that the Air Force is led by a bunch of gutless liars who are terrified Congress is going to pull the plug on the whole program.

Imposing strict limits didn’t seem to help the USMC that much, they just crashed an MV-22 in Morocco two months ago and killed a couple of guys. I don’t know as much about that crash as the CV-22 crash in Afghanistan, but I suppose it’s probably the same kind of thing, either a design flaw or engine failure due to excess dirt and sand ingestion.

Any way you look at it, the V-22 isn’t ready for non-test pilots, it is a half-baked idea. Maybe they can fix the problems, like I posted earlier. But the first step to fixing a problem is admitting there is a problem. According to the USMC and USAF, there is no problem with the aircraft, it is all the fault of the aircrew. So the crashes and ‘hard landings’ will continue.…

Reminds of this: the 2003 Pentagon report from IDA about V-22 safety issues.

5. SUSCEPTIBILITY TO WAKE AND TIP VORTICES

There is considerable flight evidence to indicate that V-22 response to the interception of a wake or wing-tip vortex by one of the prop-rotors can be an un-commanded roll[6]. There have been at least three cases where an un-commanded roll was experienced in a V-22 as a direct result of flying in proximity to another aircraft. NAVAIR and Bell/Boeing have addressed this problem by placing strict operating limitations on the allowed proximity to other aircraft – currently 250 feet laterally with at least 50 feet vertically. There are two concerns here: First, both wake and wing-tip vortices are known to persist for a very long time and for long distances depending on wind conditions. The FAA guidelines are to remain at least 2,000 feet from other aircraft to avoid intercepting such vortices. Second, in situations of low visibility or confined landing areas, pilots are likely to ignore this limitation to some degree. Flight testing to quantify the degree and extent to which this is a real problem in V-22 (TR-65) is planned but as of now remains to be conducted. Given that air assault, one of the V-22’s primary missions, is by definition many aircraft landing in the same general location at the same time, there is cause for concerns.
http://​www​.g2mil​.com/​V​-​2​2​s​a​f​e​t​y​.​htm

I’ve got a question for you helicopter folks that I’ve been curious about for awhile. We always hear about V-22’s being susceptible to VRS and rolling over when they start getting dirty air from either themselves or another aircraft. Is this an issue for the CH-46 or CH-47? It seems to me that they should have the same problem only with rapid uncommanded pitch rather than roll if one of the rotor systems starts getting turbulent air. Is this an issue of rotor disk loading, or do they have the same characteristics just to a lesser extent. Just curious.

The way I understand it (and I’ll defer to the Chinook or Sea Knight pilots if they have a better explanation), the twin rotors of a CH-47 or CH-46 are so close together and mechanically synchronized (relatively speaking), that you’ll almost never get dirty air from another aircraft or any other source of turbulence affecting just one rotor but not the other. Same thing with hovering over a building edge or deck of a ship, both rotors will either be Out of Ground Effect (OGE) or not, no “one rotor disc IGE, one rotor disc OGE”. Unfortunately, this is one of the problems with the V-22, you can get one rotor under the influence of certain conditions and not the other and get an uncommanded roll to the right or left.

Ahh, that makes sense, I guess the blades on the Sea Knight and Chinook pretty much overlap don’t they? Thanks for the info.

That’s pretty sad considering how long the aircraft has been in development. I remember seeing Osprey’s on the testing fields (in Dallas/Ft Worth) in the 1980s and they STILL aren’t ready?

ThCV-22 program makes the F-35 program look good as it isn’t taking the F-35 30+ years to become operational.

The Japanese should just ban the V-22, Lockheed is synonomous for scandle disaster there already and there is no need for Japense citizens to die just to enrich greedy contractors.

To different arguments…one problems with the V-22 and two, the more important having to justify to Japan our using the aircraft. BenObama to Japan…we won you guys lost, plus you started it.…we have a treaty, you guys need us to protect you from BIG bad China so shut-up, suck-it-up, and duck and cover, pun intended.

Despite your Lockheed derangement syndrome, the V-22 is made by Bell and Boeing.

Maybe because the aircraft commander is responsible for what happens in his aircraft regardless of who is at the stick? Clearly the Group/cc had no business flying an aircraft he was not qualified to fly — but, we do not know for sure whether he was formally reprimanded. But seriously — the aircraft commander SHOULD HAVE NEVER allowed him to fly the aircraft — and absolutely SHOULD HAVE taken the controls immediately when there looked like trouble. Just like the Capt of the ship — the aircraft commander is ultimately responsible, regardless of the rank.

Hmm, just limit the V-22 to STOL… Far less dirt ingested. Those darned proprotors have too much twist. Ok for forward airplane flight, but Huge down pressure for vertical. Always wondered about a 4 shrouded 14–15 foot diameter fan instead mounted on the fuselage and the the whole wing would rotate for easier storage. Would not be as compact but, it has the possibility of working at least. Should be able to use flatter blades and less down pressure for vertical while maintaining forward airplane flight speed. Several more billions later… Just think of that power train nightmare.

I’m wondering why not replace CH-46 with CH-47?

It sounds like there are real concerns among US with Osprey. But you already have helicopter capable of flying in harsh Afghanistan.

According to AOL-Defense, this was the pilot’s second major accident in a V-22 — the first accident he was in was as a co-pilot in Afghanistan and this time, he was pilot. An additional article reports that the crash could’ve been caused by “roll-off” due to close formation flying.

Any V-22 drivers here that can comment?

So they are telling Japan, “the aircraft are safe, it’s just the pilots that suck.” And they thing that will make them feel better about letting our pilots fly these aircraft in their airspace? The really sad thing is that what is wrong with the V-22 could be corrected, but not by these idiots.

I started working on the V-22 program at Pax River in 2003. There was an incident where one of the aircraft went into an uncommaded roll before attempting high rate of descent testing. They were flying strait and level when it happened and luckily they were at a high enough altitude to recover, but that put a stop to testing for the day. I don’t know if they ever found out why or how that happened, but we never heard of it happening again. At the time it was rumored or thought to be something with in the flight software that caused it.

The CH-46 crashes have killed many more Marines. The Osprey has a long way to go to catch up with that tally.

According to my calculations, a 27 foot ducted prop would provide the same lift performance as the current 31 foot free rotor does. Once you get smaller than that, the lift performance degrades, though you’d probably get a pretty good speed boost just going down to the 27 foot ducted. Also I think at that size the V-22 could land like an airplane without the rotors digging trenches. It might scrape the outside of the ducts a little. Right now the V-22 has no options if it has to dead-stick land. Putting stators in the ducts would take the twist out of the air and eliminate the asymmetric vortex ring state that’s plagued the V-22 from inception and may have caused this crash as well.

The tilt wing worked really well on that Canadair CL-84 Dynavert.

The biggest design flaw is that the 22 will NOT let you over speed the engines in an emergency. I guess they decided the engines were worth more than the lives of the crew members.

I said it while it was early in development: The V-22 is “the bastardization of two obsolete technologies.” What the Marines need is an aviation solution. What they got is a helicopter solution. They should have dumped it when the vertical lift engine for the JSF F-35 tested out. All you really need is a flying box with stubby canards for flight control, just like that aircraft on “Aliens” that drops out of the sky and has an armored vehicle roll out. We have that technology now, so it’s time to cut our losses and leap forward. If we don’t, other countries will (learn from our mistakes).

Keep the MV-22 and CV-22 Osprey flying. What current helicopter can replace the Osprey right now if Congress cancels the program? No to many option for the Marine Corps right now if the Osprey is canceled?

The Sikorsky S-92 and EH 101 would not be true replacements for the CH-46 or Osprey. Also, the Osprey offers a long-range rescue/strike/Recon capability something was needed during the failed attempt of the Iranian hostage rescue crisis in 1980? The US needs the capabilities of the Osprey for any future crisis that might take place one day.

Someone already did a paper on whether we could have used the CV-22 for the Iran Hostage Rescue mission. The authors name was Tom Trask (now a Major General, but was a Major or Lt Col when he wrote the paper at Air War College). Trask was the Pave Low pilot who won a DFC in the first Gulf War for picking up a shot-down F-14 pilot named Devon Jones in Iraq (after getting chased by a MiG and almost shot with a Crotale SAM). He probably knows a thing or two about combat operations with rotorcraft.

He discovered that, No, you can’t do Iran-style missions with the CV-22. Too many aircraft required. Charlie Beckwith, the Delta CO, required over 100 shooters to make that mission work. The paper should be available somewhere on the web.

And you can’t do rescue with a CV-22, the downwash makes hoist operations almost impossible, especially for injured personnel. Can’t land in small LZs either, it has the same footprint as an MH-47.

The only thing the CV-22 can do right now that a helo can’t is fly about 60 knots faster. That’s it. You can barely fastrope out of it, no rope ladder or hoist capability to speak of (especially over water), the cabin is way smaller than a Chinook or Sea Stallion (still can’t put any SOCOM vehicles in it), you gotta replace the engines every 70 to 100 hours, it sets LZs on fire with it’s exhaust heat, etc, etc, etc.…

It just isn’t working out. Time to put it back into test phase and buy more CH-47s or CH-53s as stop-gap measures.

At pprune​.org a V-22 pilot Gruber posted a comment about using the V-22 for a mission such as the Iran rescue. He noted that flying a V-22 at 300 feet AGL cuts cruise speed from 240 knots to around 200 knots because of the thicker air, and burns a lot more fuel. He wrote they tried to make that distance for simulation by flying at the optimum 18,000 feet with no passengers, but still didn’t make it with one refuel, and they can’t fly above 10,000 feet with passengers anyway because the cabin freezes and there is no oxygen for them. Gruber was killed in a V-22 crash a few months later.

The Marines can easily go with more CH-53Ks and UH-1Ys, which are both in production. Or they can buy Navy MH-60S or Army CH-47Fs, both in production. All these options cost half as much, and have other advantages. For example, the CH-53K is the same size as a V-22, but has more range, can carry five times more payload, and is big enough for two Hummers to fit inside. The V-22’s small cabin can’t even accommodate an old jeep.

The CH-53K is not yet in production and the UH-1Y is a light utility helicopter. The MV-22B is already in production and service. Two crashes of the B variant (very different form the V-22A) hardly mean the aircraft is flawed.

The UH-1Y has double the payload of old and is really medium lift now. Yes, the 53K is still not in production due to delays caused by flushing funds down the V-22 toilet, but it’s ready for testing.

Two crashes of the B, so you exclude the two USAF crashes. After many threats, Generals finally admitted to Congress in 2009 that 29 of their 105 brand new V-22s were “unusable” mostly due to unreported Class A mishaps. Want proof?
http://​www​.g2mil​.com/​0​6​2​3​0​9​-​H​e​a​r​i​n​g​-​B​r​i​e​f​i​n​g​-​M​emo

The MH53 has many of the same challenges as the CV22 when it comes to SAR.

The LZ for a CV22 is large. It’s the same size as an CH47 of 53. Not convinced the rotorwash of a CV22 is much worse than current model MH53. They are both hurrican makers. Fastroping is about the same difficulty as is rope ladder capability.

The range of the CV22 is twice the CH53K and 100mph faster.

Son Tay and Eagle Claw were extremely unique missions. Much more than rescuing 1–2 pilots, the bread and butter of SAR. You are in effect comparing SAR with Raids. There is a huge difference and is probably why MH47s are now used for that sort of mission and why TF160 has prinary responsibility for inserting special ops personnel..

HILARIOUS!!!

Japan used to throw hissy fits about nukes also.

Wrong again, the CH-53K will have much more range. Read the specs carefully, and use OPEVAL results not the “goals” posted as specs. The V-22 is a heavy lift size rotorcraft with poor medium lift performance. It is the same size as the H-53K.

I am reading the spec what are you reading?

OPEVAL results? Its not fielded!

Same size? V22 vs.Ch53K Length 57 vs. 99 feet. Rotor disk 2268 vs 4900 sq ft, 2 engines vs. 3 engines.

Apples and oranges.

The MH53 absolutely cant land in an LZ that a V22 can. It was retired several years ago and no longer flies at all.

I assumed you knew that aircraft size is measured in empty weight, unless you are a Bell spinmaster who knows better and enjoys fooling the public.

You do know what happens when you “assume”? I thought you knew the difference between helicopters and VTOL aircraft. There’s no “H” in the Osprey’s nomenclature. My bad.

Ref Classification: “The one significant exception is the tilt-rotor V-22 Osprey
which can be more accurately described as a hybrid aircraft, such as the AV-8 Harrier
“jump jet,” with a Vertical Take-Off and Landing — VTOL — capability.” CRS Report for Congress Military Helicopter Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
June 24, 2004 p. 3

Holding the Osprey to pure helicopter standards is as silly as holding a helicopter to fixed wing standards because they can fly straight. Nor are you acknowledging the specific Marine requirement that the Osprey is a replacement for CH46s not CH53s. The Osprey’s weight penalty is what you get for something that performs like a helicopter has double or triple the range and flies faster that ANY helicopter in the world’s history.

BTW, what happened to those OPEVAL results?

Isn’t there a lot here that makes you wonder? I’ll never understand how the chain of command came to the conclusion that throwing Lt Col Glover under the bus was any part of the solution to a problem it failed to satisfactorily address in the many months that led up to the recent CV-22 crash at Eglin. Do you think this is the end of it? I’ll bet not.

*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 | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.