AF Ospreys headed to Japan, or not

AF Ospreys headed to Japan, or not

A weird thing happened at the Friday Pentagon press conference held by Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh.

Jon Harper with Asahi Shimbun, a Japanese newspaper, asked the two Air Force leaders: “Is there any plan to deploy the CV-22 to Okinawa or any other place in Japan?”

Donley said: “Yes.” He didn’t provide any other details.

Apparently, the Air Force secretary spoke out of turn because Pentagon Press Secretary George Little issued a thorough clarification on the Air Force’s stance on its deployment of CV-22s to Japan. The Pentagon even took out Donley’s answer from the official transcript.

Japan leaders have fought the deployment of Marine MV-22 Ospreys to Japan over safety concerns. Japanese citizens worried about the Osprey crash in Morocco staged large protests over the basing of 12 MV-22s at Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, which is located next to Okinawa.

Donley caught the Pentagon press corps by surprise because he was the first Air Force leader to say the service officially planned to deploy CV-22s to Japan. The Air Force secretary either misspoke, or maybe spoke too early. The reporter asked his question clearly, and Donley answered definitively and then refused to give more details.

Deploying Air Force CV-22s to Japan would fall in line with the new defense strategy known as the Pacific Pivot. The CV-22 is mostly used to transport special operators. The CV-22 is known for its ability to deliver special operators faster than helicopters. Where would it be more effective than a region that boasts large expanses of water between potential mission sets?

Below is Little’s statement clarifying Donley’s statement:

“The Department of Defense continuously assesses its worldwide force posture.  We are seeking a force posture in the Asia-Pacific that is geographically distributed, operationally focused, and politically sustainable.

“As part of the planning process, the Department of Defense evaluates a range of possible basing options for our forces.   That process is currently on-going and includes multiple locations in the Asia-Pacific region.

“Any deployment of the Air Force CV-22 to the Asia-Pacific region is years away and no construction has begun to support such a deployment.   The CV-22 is a Special Operations variant of the Osprey; as a Special Operations platform the demands for this capability are fluid and constantly changing to react to world events.

“The United States has not notified the Government of Japan about the CV-22 because we have not made a basing decision.

“The U.S.-Japan Alliance, supported by a robust U.S. military presence which includes the U.S. Air Force, continues to provide the deterrence and capabilities necessary for the defense of Japan and for the maintenance of peace, security and economic prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region.”

Join the Conversation

Oh, so I guess all those years of CH-53s falling out of the sky didnt seem to bother them?

Too bad there isn’t someplace further away where they could base those pieces of crap.

They will be fine in Japan till one crashes and then a diplomats get involved and possible send them back home.

“Deploying Air Force CV-22s to Japan would fall in line with the new defense strategy known as the Pacific Pivot.”

I thought the new defense strategy in the Pacific was for American interest payments on American federal debt held by China to pay the entire cost of the Chinese military budget.

Since China only holds about 7% of the US debt, less than $1.2 trillion, they’re a long way from being able to fund their defense budget (over $100 billion per year officially) off the meager interest earnings US debt pays (3% or less depending on maturity).

“…less than $1.2 trillion…” how amusing; every number that I can comprehend is less than a trillion.
$1.2 trillion is a LOT of money.

I’m just going to assume every comment from Dfens with respect to the V-22 is tourette’s. This has been going on for years. I mean, it really is amazing how consistent he is crapping on the V-22 on every defense-related comments section thoughout the internet.

Trans ship them to Davis Monthan and save money

I’m assuming you have the opinion you get paid to have. The aerodynamic problems with the V-22 are quite obvious to anyone who knows about that sort of thing.

China owns $3 trillion in American dollar reserves. That’s $3 trillion in cash they can use to buy whatever resources or businesses they want from the US, and our trade deficit with China is up to $300 billion/year now and its growth continues to accelerate.

Oh do tell. What aerodynamic “problems”? Be specific. I’ll wait.

As someone who has desiged helicopter and wind turbine blades for the better part of a decade, I would love to hear your layman explanation of “that sort of thing”.

And now you schill for defense contractors on the internet. Must have done one hell of a job on those rotor blade designs.

While I think the expensive MV-22 brings useful capability, it does have a couple of significant negatives.

One is that it lacks the ability to autorotate. So if there is loss of power from both engines when the rotors are tilted up and there is little forward speed, the aircraft can neither autorotate nor recover into a steep glide, rather just drops out of the sky and hits the ground hard.

Another is that it cannot lay down much cover fire when landing or taking off, and so needs a gunship escort to provide that coverfire, limiting useful range and speed to that of the gunship. The belly gun was a bandaid fix and needs to be retracted for landing, cannot be extended until after take-off, and so is not suitable for providing cover fire during landing and take-off.

MV-22 is good for intratheater transport from seabase to forward base where there is no runway for fixed wing. It provides speed and range, and may prove especially useful for medevac. But it is not good for assault. Marines are losing their assault helicopter, the Phrog, Boeing Vertol CH-46E Sea Knight, which had side door gunners and a ramp gunner.

Likewise the Air Force’s similar CV-22, but I don’t know how the Air Force is employing that, and reserve comment.

It doesn’t autorotate and it can’t land like an airplane without the rotors striking the ground and sending shards of the rotor through the fuselage. I’m sure that’s pretty spectacular. They could also save a little weight by replacing that .22 cal pop gun with a .17 cal rimfire version. It would be great for cutting down vicious rabbits and squirrels infesting the landing area. Plus, it’s good at doing what a VTOL aircraft should do unless it gets into that asymmetric vortex ring state and kills everyone aboard. Who designed that fantastic vehicle? Clearly that’s the best thing ever to come of out a committee.

Still waiting.

And once again, by being the individual who maintains a full-time presence denigrading the V-22 online, we see who the real schill is. You show up on every blog post and throw rocks, then claim OTHER people are on the dole? Delusion.

Also, who said I was done doing design work?

Actually, the V22 can autorotate (at greater ROD than helicopters, yes) and its practiced in the simulator (I feel like this thread is deja vu, as this same discussion came up on these boards about 9 months ago). They were performed in the exploration of VRS envelope definition.

A dual engine failure is incredibly unlikely especially in the envelope where either a HROD autorotation or glide would be ineffective. Even in the full envelope, the V-22 has yet to experience a dual-engine failure in flight to date. (probably something like 175,000 hours)

Actually, the blades on the V22 are designed with fiberglass fiber belts that broomstraw when contacting the ground instead of exploding. It is pretty spectacular — and effective. Hence the run-on landing capability.

And A-VRS is pretty easy to avoid when you know follow NATOPS and dont exceed the ROD by over 100%. If I take my Skyhawk down to 40kias and try a tight base to final turn, I doubt thre will be hoardes flooding the messageboards clamoring about the “deadly Cessna design flaw” when I auger it in.

Keep going, though, I always get a kick out of your mind-boggling ignorance.

Too bad the “administrator” won’t allow a response.

It’s practiced in the simulator — and only in the simulator for a reason.

Yeah, asymmetric vortex ring state is “fixed” by never flying where something might pop that aft flowing plume of air up off the ground and let it get sucked into a rotor. How well is that working out for this supposed “war machine”?

By now they could have lost the rotors, archaic ones today, and focused the efforts on the turbine directional thrusters.…the Deutschers and the US had their own successful prototypes (after great effort) in the last century. They could name it the V-22B and it would be accomplishing its mission. Got to move forward in aviation tech not wallow in old s*h* i* t* !!

When it takes 3 decades to develop an airplane, it’s old before it rolls off the assembly line. Hell, they had a parts obsolescence program in place for the F-22 long before it was operational. They’ve been trying to get a major avionics upgrade program for it for the last 5 years that I’ve know of. I don’t even recognize this Air Force anymore. When I was growing up they were coming up with 2 or 3 new aircraft every year. Not all were hits, but the technology was advancing at an unbelievable pace. These days an engineer can spend their entire career modifying an airplane that was designed before they were born. The great aircraft designers were eliminated. Great aircraft were all retired. Everything that made this nation the envy of the world has been destroyed, but you’ve got 350 channels on cable so what the f!

Working out great, actually, as there have been no AVRS incidents in its entire operational history, and the V22 is the safest (or tied for) rotorcraft in the marines inventory. Im not seeing your point.

And your explanation of “popping a flowing plume of air” makes no aerodynamic sense, especially when framed by the mechanics of vortex ring state. The only AVRS accident (which is what you are basing all of this vitriol) in testing was nowhere near the ground.

Mast bumping is “fixed” by not flying a negative G maneuver. Fixed wing stalling is “fixed” by maintaining airspeed and energized flow over the wing. And contrary to popular belief, conventional helicopters are susceptible to VRS/settling with power as well. Especially at HGW.

If you actually knew what asymmetric vortex ring state was, then you’d know it is not the same as the helicopter version of vortex ring state. The V-22 is less susceptible to that kind of vortex ring state than most helicopters due to the air flow pattern from the two rotors and the way it converges under the fuselage (creating lift).

The XC-142 built, tested in 1965 was and still is vastly superior than the V-22 Osprey. Kinda sad really.

That being said, the Osprey, while a maintenance nightmare does give better options for deployment. Just that the XC-142 blows all these V-22 deployment options away with greater payload, range, speed, refueling ability. The only thing the V-22 can do better is fold due to its tilt rotors verses tilt wing. I haven’t looked into folding the XC-142, but I can’t believe it couldn’t be done. At least mostly folded.

Yes, it is sad that they didn’t tilt the wing on the V-22. There doesn’t seem to be much of a down side structurally to doing that, and it probably would have made the cross shaft work more effectively. Chalk it up to one more missed opportunity. The biggest missed opportunity, though was not ducting the rotors. They’d have still had the maintenance problems, but they wouldn’t have been compounded by the asymmetric vortex ring state which was not understood for probably the first 20 years of the program.

Wrong. Youre trying to flex some sort of technical knowledge muscle here, and frankly its hilarious.

I am having a hard time ever deciding how to respond to this inane drivel.

AVRS is a phenomenon that is precisely the same as VRS, it merely causes dysymmetry of lift vector between 2 separate rotors, and has nothing to do with the fountain effect because thats in HOVER with a zero ROD.

If you knew even the FIRST THING about rotor aerodynamics you would not try to illustrate VRS effects by saying things like “plumes of air” and referring to the fountain effect. You have illustrated a fundamental lack of understanding.

Not to mention your idea of ducting the rotors to preclude VRS. I can only assume you are being disingenous or are totally ignorant when it comes to bluff body drag and inflow behavior. Theres a very obvious reason why you’re an internet keyboard warrior and not an engineer.

Vastly superior?

I invite you to do a single iota of research into the hover ability/performance of the XC-142 or any other tilt wing with static props.

Do you honestly believe that if this offered so many advantages that it would have been simply ignored?

So you want us to believe that one rotor just happens to go into vortex ring state before the other and that’s what causes asymmetric vortex ring state. That’s pretty funny. Does the same thing happen to the Chinook? No. Gee, I wonder why not?

Yeah, how could the V-22 program possibly be any better than it is now? Well, ok, let’s throw out the possibility that Boeing could have made even more money off this cash cow. Other than that, it is the absolute perfect program. The schill has spoken.

What? I think all this trolling has gone to your head.

I suggest maybe enrolling in some elementary flight dynamics courses at your local university before posturing yourself as someone with any sort of knowledge on rotorcraft.

No, I want you to READ SOME ACTUAL RESEARCH before opening your uneducated mouth.

I’d love to give you my hard copy of this, but youre just going to have to shell out the $30 yourself (though I doubt you’ll take the time to try and become informed): https://​vtol​.org/​s​t​o​r​e​/​p​r​o​d​u​c​t​/​t​h​e​-​n​a​t​u​r​e​-​o​f​-​v​ort


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+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.