CV-22 Osprey crash likely operator error, USAF investigation finds

In 1936, Orville Wright flatly declared that the helicopter would never be practical. Three years later, Igor Sikorsky began proving Wright wrong. The helicopter required two decades more to come into everyday use, but it did. Perhaps the tiltrotor just needed more time to change the world.

--Richard Whittle, The Dream Machine: The Untold History of the Notorious V-22 Osprey.

The sad nature of the aviation business is that accidents happen, even to the best of pilots. Based on Jamie McIntyre's coverage of the US Air Force's investigation of a V-22 Osprey crash last month, it's safe to say the same occurred here as well.

Update: V-22s Deploying to Haiti Aboard USS Nassau

In a previous post, I echoed the sentiments of Jamie McIntyre from The Line of Departure, who found it quite puzzling that the US Marine Corps' V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft was--at the time--absent during the relief efforts in Haiti.

Well, thanks to Dr. David Ucko (you know, the guy with a great book), I know that the Marines are quickly rectifying this issue--sending about a dozen V-22 Ospreys to Haiti aboard the USS Nassau, an amphibious assault ship. While I've expressed my concerns about the V-22 on a few occasions, it's not the widow-maker its detractors claim it is. In fact, Haiti might be one additional theater where the Osprey can showcase its talents...flying a limited amount of cargo and supplies to numerous different locations in the span of a few hours. The speed of the Osprey allows it to make more stops during a crew's duty day than conventional helicopters, and the Osprey's vertical-landing capabilities allow it to land in more locations than fixed-wing aircraft. It may not have the lift capacity of the CH-47 or the CH-53, but it certainly has a bit more speed on its side. If you need to move sheer tonnage, the CH-47 or -53 is probably the best bet; if you need to get to more places in the span of a crew's duty day, the V-22 is the better option.

You can read more in today's Early Bird if you have a *.mil account.

The V-22 (Again)

The V-22 Osprey always brings up heated emotions from both its supporters and detractors. There are those that love it, claiming it's the herald of a new era of aviation. There are others who despise it, claiming it's little more than a multi-billion dollar death trap.

There's also a lot of misinformation spread by both camps, owing to the fact that each faction has elements within it with a financial incentive to either promote or derail the V-22 (just take a look at the comments in this particularly vicious thread at Tom Ricks' blog).

However, there are still quite a few credible independent sources out there, one of which is the US Naval Institute's blog, which called into question the V-22 Osprey's safety record. Foremost among the issues cited is the fact that the US Navy Safety Center claims that the V-22 has had no Class A accidents (one which causes over $1 million in damage or loss of life) since 2001, despite the fact that a Congressional service report found at least two such accidents since 2006, including an engine fire which resulted in $16 million in damages.

Now, there's a million ways to manipulate statistics, and I suspect that safety records can be no different. If anyone with more experience in V-22 Osprey safety reads this blog, I'd gladly appreciate their feedback.

The V-22--a hybrid between a helicopter and airplane--is one of those ideas like the battlecruiser. Sure, a hybrid solution looks great on paper, but the truth of the matter is, it tries to combine the strengths of each platform, but it winds up incorporating a lot of the drawbacks as well.

The V-22 has been performing "ring route" missions in Iraq relatively well--it can hit more locations in a day than a conventional helicopter, and can land at remote outposts. I wouldn't claim that it's a piece of junk. Nevertheless, was that capability really worth all the billions of dollars we put into it? Couldn't the Marines have gotten, maybe, a mix of several Chinook helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft?

Photo from USNI's blog.

But it's Starscream!

Hollywood and the military have had an interesting relationship.  Starting in about the 1980s, the military started to work closely with Hollywood, allowing movie makers access to aircraft, equipment and bases in order to produce big-budget pictures.  In turn, the military was able to reverse a trend in Hollywood to make decidedly anti-military movies.  It's difficult to say, but I would suspect that thousands of young males joined the military in the hopes of being Maverick and Goose.

The marriage between the two organizations has had some great benefits.  In 2002, the movie Black Hawk Down was a painstaking reconstruction of the troubled raid on the Bakara Market in Somalia.  Using real Rangers, and some of the actual aircraft that participated in the battle, the movie conveys in a very real sense the chaotic nature of modern warfare, and highlighted the heroism of the men of Task Force Ranger.

But like all things, there can be a bit of a dark side to this.  The military can use popular media to gain support for overpriced and overbudget projects.  Take the 2007 Transformers movie, for example, a movie made with massive support from the US Air Force.  The movie starts out with two CV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft flying over the desert.  The Osprey is an aircraft that has been plagued with budgetary and design problems, and many critics are skeptical that the aircraft will actually perform well as a true combat aircraft (and Time Magazine, too) Many have called for the aircraft to be cancelled.  Nevertheless, two of the three Ospreys in the Air Force inventory appeared in the movie.  The ability for a helicopter to transform into an airplane gives that subtle hint to the audience that maybe...wait...the Osprey is a FUCKING TRANSFORMER!  MAYBE FIVE OF THEM TRANSFORM TOGETHER TO MAKE DEVASTATOR!  

Later in the movie, we discover that one of the leaders of the Decepticons, Starscream, is actually an F-22 Raptor, another aircraft that has run into design issues.  At $140 million dollars, it is four times more expensive than the F-15, and has been in some phase of development for well over twenty to twenty-five years.  It has also not logged one single flight hour over Iraq or Afghanistan, and has been criticized by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.  

Do the military and defense community need to advertise their products?  Apparently so.  "Save the F-22 Raptor" ads have been popping up all over the Internet, prompting a cute little response from Chris Kelly, which, while exaggerated, covers many of the complaints many people have about this aircraft.  

Focus:  Are 180 F-22s enough?