V22 Osprey discussion thread Mk II
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Times of Israel
By Times of Israel staff November 2, 2015, 5:40 am 29
Wall Street Journal recently reported that Obama turned down sale of Ospreys to Israel in 2012, when a strike on Fordow was contemplated
US said to have approved sale to Israel of Ospreys, capable of reaching Iran
Ahead of next week’s Obama-Netanyahu meet, Israel finalizes ‘shopping list’ of desired US military materiel as part of new security agreement; no suggestion that Israel seeking ‘MOP’ bunker-busters
A Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey prepares to land aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Nassau, February 2008 (photo credit: US Navy photo by Lt. j.g. Anthony Falvo/Wikimedia Commons)
Israel is said to have finalized its “shopping list” of desired US military material as part of a new long-term agreement for US defense assistance to Israel to maintain its qualitative edge in the region. On the list, and reportedly approved in principle by the US, is an Israeli request for V-22 Ospreys, planes which are believed capable of reaching Iran and which Israel reportedly sought from the US in 2012 — but later decided not to purchase due to budgetary restraints — when contemplating a strike on Iran’s Fordow enrichment facility. The new list was presented at meetings with senior defense officials from both countries ahead of the planned meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama at the White House on November 9.
Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon was in Washington last week to meet with his counterpart Ashton Carter and discuss the security memorandum to replace the current one, which provided for over $30 billion in US military aid spread over a decade, and will expire in 2018. Israel has already contracted for more than 30 F-35 multirole fighter planes; it may ultimately want 50, or even 75. It also seeks a host of F-15 jets which incorporate Israeli-developed advanced technologies and are considered the “workhorse” of the Israeli Air Force.
The US is said to have approved Israel’s request for V-22 Ospreys, the Ynet Hebrew news site reported on Sunday. The Ospreys are aircraft that take off and land like helicopters but fly like fixed-wing planes and are reportedly able to reach Iran. According to a report in the Wall Street Journal last month, Israel sought US “military hardware useful for a strike” on Iran in summer 2012. “At the top of the list were V-22 Ospreys.” The plan was reportedly to drop commandos into Iran for an attack on the Fordow enrichment facility. “Ospreys don’t need runways, making them ideal for dropping commandos behind enemy lines,” the Journal reported.
Also in 2012, according to the Journal, Israel sounded out officials about obtaining the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, the US military’s 30,000-pound bunker-busting bomb, which was designed for penetrating the underground Fordow site. There have been no reports that Israel is seeking the Massive Ordnance Penetrator this time.
Under a separate budgetary hierarchy, the US administration is understood to be well-disposed to ensure funding for Israel’s missile defense systems — maintaining and improving the Iron Dome and the Arrow systems, and deploying David’s Sling, to ensure Israel can counter threats from neighboring Gaza, south Lebanon and Syria, as well as from an Iran that is relentlessly developing its ballistic missile systems. The increasing involvement of Iran and Russia across Israel’s northern border raises new challenges on which Israel and the US are said to largely see eye-to-eye.
During the Carter-Ya’alon joint address last week in Washington, Carter pledged to enhance “the entire spectrum” of “our defense relationship… from tunnels and terrorists right up through the high-end.” Carter also reiterated Washington’s “iron-clad commitment” to Israel’s qualitative military edge, which he called “a cornerstone of our strategy in the Middle East.” “This is one of the most trusted relationships we have in the world and so when we discover something that is critical to both of us, we share it, and we do that from electronic warfare to cyber to all kinds of … tremendous intelligence sharing,” he added. “The alliance is a two-way street, and we appreciate what we get as well as what we give, and it’s an alliance that makes us stronger too,” he went on.
By Times of Israel staff November 2, 2015, 5:40 am 29
Wall Street Journal recently reported that Obama turned down sale of Ospreys to Israel in 2012, when a strike on Fordow was contemplated
US said to have approved sale to Israel of Ospreys, capable of reaching Iran
Ahead of next week’s Obama-Netanyahu meet, Israel finalizes ‘shopping list’ of desired US military materiel as part of new security agreement; no suggestion that Israel seeking ‘MOP’ bunker-busters
A Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey prepares to land aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Nassau, February 2008 (photo credit: US Navy photo by Lt. j.g. Anthony Falvo/Wikimedia Commons)
Israel is said to have finalized its “shopping list” of desired US military material as part of a new long-term agreement for US defense assistance to Israel to maintain its qualitative edge in the region. On the list, and reportedly approved in principle by the US, is an Israeli request for V-22 Ospreys, planes which are believed capable of reaching Iran and which Israel reportedly sought from the US in 2012 — but later decided not to purchase due to budgetary restraints — when contemplating a strike on Iran’s Fordow enrichment facility. The new list was presented at meetings with senior defense officials from both countries ahead of the planned meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama at the White House on November 9.
Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon was in Washington last week to meet with his counterpart Ashton Carter and discuss the security memorandum to replace the current one, which provided for over $30 billion in US military aid spread over a decade, and will expire in 2018. Israel has already contracted for more than 30 F-35 multirole fighter planes; it may ultimately want 50, or even 75. It also seeks a host of F-15 jets which incorporate Israeli-developed advanced technologies and are considered the “workhorse” of the Israeli Air Force.
The US is said to have approved Israel’s request for V-22 Ospreys, the Ynet Hebrew news site reported on Sunday. The Ospreys are aircraft that take off and land like helicopters but fly like fixed-wing planes and are reportedly able to reach Iran. According to a report in the Wall Street Journal last month, Israel sought US “military hardware useful for a strike” on Iran in summer 2012. “At the top of the list were V-22 Ospreys.” The plan was reportedly to drop commandos into Iran for an attack on the Fordow enrichment facility. “Ospreys don’t need runways, making them ideal for dropping commandos behind enemy lines,” the Journal reported.
Also in 2012, according to the Journal, Israel sounded out officials about obtaining the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, the US military’s 30,000-pound bunker-busting bomb, which was designed for penetrating the underground Fordow site. There have been no reports that Israel is seeking the Massive Ordnance Penetrator this time.
Under a separate budgetary hierarchy, the US administration is understood to be well-disposed to ensure funding for Israel’s missile defense systems — maintaining and improving the Iron Dome and the Arrow systems, and deploying David’s Sling, to ensure Israel can counter threats from neighboring Gaza, south Lebanon and Syria, as well as from an Iran that is relentlessly developing its ballistic missile systems. The increasing involvement of Iran and Russia across Israel’s northern border raises new challenges on which Israel and the US are said to largely see eye-to-eye.
During the Carter-Ya’alon joint address last week in Washington, Carter pledged to enhance “the entire spectrum” of “our defense relationship… from tunnels and terrorists right up through the high-end.” Carter also reiterated Washington’s “iron-clad commitment” to Israel’s qualitative military edge, which he called “a cornerstone of our strategy in the Middle East.” “This is one of the most trusted relationships we have in the world and so when we discover something that is critical to both of us, we share it, and we do that from electronic warfare to cyber to all kinds of … tremendous intelligence sharing,” he added. “The alliance is a two-way street, and we appreciate what we get as well as what we give, and it’s an alliance that makes us stronger too,” he went on.
The DoD has reversed its finding in Marana crash
Reversal of blame allows pilots in 2000 Osprey crash to rest in peace, families say - U.S. - Stripes
Success has many fathers, but so too many fatal accidents. Interesting decision to make public a statement that (in my words) NATOPS is still written in blood. Without that fatal mishap, the program would likely not have resolved a variety of issues, or at least gotten better info on, aircraft behavior that influences operations currently and into the future. Even in our age of fancy new and modern aircraft, actual flying still involves risk to life and limb. Over the years the risks have gone down or been mitigated, but not eliminated.
RIP, gentlemen.
Success has many fathers, but so too many fatal accidents. Interesting decision to make public a statement that (in my words) NATOPS is still written in blood. Without that fatal mishap, the program would likely not have resolved a variety of issues, or at least gotten better info on, aircraft behavior that influences operations currently and into the future. Even in our age of fancy new and modern aircraft, actual flying still involves risk to life and limb. Over the years the risks have gone down or been mitigated, but not eliminated.
RIP, gentlemen.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-milli-423786/
Based on the US Marine Corps MV-22B Osprey variant, the navy’s “CMV” tiltrotor will come equipped with extra fuel bladders to extend its range from 860nm to approximately 1,150nm.
That’s the most significant engineering challenge, but the service also requires a beyond line-of-sight radio and public address system so that crews can communicate en route to the aircraft carrier's deck, or between other ships in the battle group.
More than 70% of the work will be done in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where Boeing fabricates composite V-22 airframes. Another 20% will be completed at Bell’s facility in Fort Worth, Texas.
Just $15 million has been obligated at the time of the award, and work is expected to continue through September 2020. By that time, the first of 44 CMV-22B aircraft, which will be ordered in 2018, will begin delivered from Bell’s final assembly and checkout facility in Amarillo.
Related Content
Trending News
- 01 April, 2016
- BY: James Drew
- Washington DC
Based on the US Marine Corps MV-22B Osprey variant, the navy’s “CMV” tiltrotor will come equipped with extra fuel bladders to extend its range from 860nm to approximately 1,150nm.
That’s the most significant engineering challenge, but the service also requires a beyond line-of-sight radio and public address system so that crews can communicate en route to the aircraft carrier's deck, or between other ships in the battle group.
Bell-Boeing
On 31 March, US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) announced the $151 million contract with Bell Helicopter and Boeing's joint V-22 programme office in Amarillo, Texas, which covers "non-recurring engineering services associated with the development of the capability for the Navy variant of the V-22”. NAVAIR confirmed that it covers the design changes for all three modifications, including the extended-range fuel system.More than 70% of the work will be done in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where Boeing fabricates composite V-22 airframes. Another 20% will be completed at Bell’s facility in Fort Worth, Texas.
Just $15 million has been obligated at the time of the award, and work is expected to continue through September 2020. By that time, the first of 44 CMV-22B aircraft, which will be ordered in 2018, will begin delivered from Bell’s final assembly and checkout facility in Amarillo.
Related Content
- SINGAPORE: Boeing eyes international COD role for V-22
- US Navy reveals CMV-22B as long-range Osprey designation
Trending News
HMX-1
My photos from this week of HMX-1 finest on a rehearsal for Obama's visit, later,
cheers
cheers
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Malton North Yorkshire
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V-22 Osprey North Yorkshire
On the evening of 21st we were lighting our beacon near Settrington North Yorkshire for HM Birthday at 19:30 and an Osprey came over at probably 1000 feet heading North to South with rotors in horizontal mode, wondered if anyone knew what he was doing? The sound was very different and distinctive, when I looked up I was surprised to say the least. Are they around in Uk, or just for Obama?
On the evening of 21st we were lighting our beacon near Settrington North Yorkshire for HM Birthday at 19:30 and an Osprey came over at probably 1000 feet heading North to South with rotors in horizontal mode, wondered if anyone knew what he was doing?
Since retiring I have not visited prune for some considerable time, so it is interesting to see how times have changed.
Then many of the subscribers were castigating the V22, claiming that it was fatally flawed, useless and would never be a success.
Today The President of the USA uses one!
It reminds me that in the early mid 90's one of my favourite authors was Dale Brown. His book Hammerheads which I found fascinating featured the V22 Osprey but was written long before the aircraft became a reality. He later drifted off into semi science fiction and I lost interest. But at the time really good!
Tigerfish.
Then many of the subscribers were castigating the V22, claiming that it was fatally flawed, useless and would never be a success.
Today The President of the USA uses one!
It reminds me that in the early mid 90's one of my favourite authors was Dale Brown. His book Hammerheads which I found fascinating featured the V22 Osprey but was written long before the aircraft became a reality. He later drifted off into semi science fiction and I lost interest. But at the time really good!
Tigerfish.
@TIgerfish,
POTUS does not fly inside HMX-1 MV-22B rather his Secret Squirrels fly in it when he is inside Marine One
Though their MV-22B belong to the 'green side' i,e the test development and eval which is the squadron's main bread and butter as well as the white side which is presidential / congrss support.
Cheers
POTUS does not fly inside HMX-1 MV-22B rather his Secret Squirrels fly in it when he is inside Marine One
Though their MV-22B belong to the 'green side' i,e the test development and eval which is the squadron's main bread and butter as well as the white side which is presidential / congrss support.
Cheers
Thread Starter
Recent Report 28 June 2016
I saw this on the internet two days ago. The article was dated June 28, 2016. I apologize for not having saved the title page with the author.
As the V-22 program seeks another five-year contract to produce 98 more V-22s, the sales pitch is spinning faster than ever. The V-22 has a poor safety record, yet Marine spokesmen repeatedly claim that the "Navy Safety Center reports ...". This is because the Marines only report V-22 Class A mishaps to Navy Safety Center if the mishap becomes public. In other cases, airborne mishaps are reported as "ground" mishaps or false damage estimates are made to remain below the Class A reporting requirement.
Some details of unreported mishaps were published by "Inside Defense" in 2006, by a Navy expert in 2009, and a follow up appeared in "Wired" last year. Congress took an interest in 2009, and after much stonewalling the Marine Corps admitted that 29 of its 105 new V-22s were not flyable. Half of those can be traced to retired test aircraft and crashes, but the Generals did not provide details on why more than a dozen other new V-22s had become permanently unflyable. Class A mishaps were never reported on V-22s that were damaged beyond repair, since no damage estimate was ever made. Some of these are stored in hangars and others designated as Ground Instruction Aircraft (GIA) to excuse their permanent grounding, like the two pictured below.
In 2006 an engine surge caused a V-22 leap 30 feet into the air with pilots at the controls. It rolled to one side and broke off a wing. The damage estimate was $16 million, but was much higher since the V-22 became a GIA. This was never reported to the Navy Safety Center as a serious accident. Here is a list of 39 Class A MV-22 mishaps. Note that five of these mishaps were with FSD or EMD test aircraft. This list does not include the five Air Force CV-22 Class A mishaps.
Serious (Class A) Mishaps of Marine Corps V-22 Aircraft
Serial Number MV-22 Number Mishap Date Description of Class A Mishap
163914 04 20 Jul 1992 Reported; crashed near Quantico VA; 4 killed
163915 05 11 Jun 1991 Reported; test aircraft crashed on runway; (photo)
164939 07 Unknown Not reported; scrapped in 2008
164941 09 Unknown Not reported; scrapped in 2008
164942 10 12 Feb 2003 Not reported; overstressed (photo); scrapped 2006
165433 11 08 Apr 2000 Not reported; hard landing at Marana; scrapped 04 Apr 06
165434 12 Unknown Not reported; scrapped 02 Oct 2007
165436 14 08 Apr 2000 Reported; crashed after roll over at Marana, AZ; 19 killed
165437 15 08 Sep 2005 Not reported; GIA at New River, NC; photo
165438 16 Unknown Not reported; GIA at New River, NC; photo
165439 17 Unknown Not reported; scrapped 13 Sep 2004
165440 18 11 Dec 2000 Reported; crashed near New River, NC; 4 killed
165441 19 Unknown Not reported; GIA at Pensacola FL
165442 20 17 May 2010 Not reported; stored at NAVAIRSYSCOM
165444 22 28 Jun 2004 Misreported as Class B; scrapped 2 Feb 2012
165837 23 Unknown Not reported: retired to Quantico museum
165839 25 31 Oct 2013 Not reported; retired to USAF museum
165844 30 11 Apr 2012 Reported; crashed in Morocco; two killed
165948 49 6 Nov 2007 Reported; in flight engine fire; stored at New River, NC
166385 53 28 Mar 2005 Misreported as Class B; hydraulic/engine fire; stored at New River, NC photo; crewman permanently disabled
166388 55 21Aug 2007 Misreported as Class B; nose wheel collapse during emergency landing at Yuma, AZ
166389 56 27 Mar 2006 Misreported as a ground mishap; scrapped 14Jul09.
166390 57 7 Dec 2006 Misreported as Class B; fire damage
166390 57 19 May 2014 Reported; Crew Chief fell out while in flight
166480 59 10 Jul 2006 Misreported as Class B; engine destroyed by compressor stalls; emergency landing in Iceland
166482 61 01 May 2006 Not reported; engine fire at New River; scrapped 21 April 2010
166735 100 21 Jun 2013 Reported; destroyed by fire after emergency landing
VMM-263 Unknown 21 Jun 2008 Misreported as Class B; engine disintegrated during flight; emergency landing in Jordan.
167902 113 11 Jul 2011 Reported; crewman killed by cargo while in flight, Afghanistan
Unknown Unknown 27 May 2009 Not reported; swamp take-off crash causes fire damage
167910 121 May 2009 Misreported as Class B; Engine seizure and fire while in flight
Unknown Unknown 09 Jul 2012 Cross-shaft failure required emergency landing at Wilmington NC
168234 184 01 Oct 2014 Power loss upon take off, crewman drowned at sea
VMM-365 Unknown 2013 Not reported; crash landing in Afghanistan
168241 191 26 Aug 2013 Reported; destroyed after fire and hard landing
VMM-161 Unknown Sept 2014 Not reported; serious damage required rebuild
168014 144 27 June 2014 Not Reported; in Japan, details withheld
168020 150 17 May 2015 Reported; crash in LZ, two dead, destroyed by fire
168026 155 9 Dec 2015 Reported; set down short of flight deck, fuselage cracked.
Primary Sources: TargetLock; Helis; Joe Baugher Navy Bunos; Navy Safety Center
A common excuse for V-22 failures is that all new aircraft have problems. Yet the V-22 is not a new aircraft, it first flew in 1989 and the Marine Corps began receiving production aircraft in 1998. It is older than the C-17 program and plans for the final production run are in place. These new V-22s are often compared to 40-year old helicopters that should have been retired several years ago because of metal fatigue. If you owned a fleet of trucks, would you expect your newly purchased trucks to have fewer problems than your 40-year olds? Yet the V-22 has a lower readiness rate and a higher accident rate than old helicopters. This is why the Marines never deployed more than 10 V-22s to Afghanistan, favoring 40 year old CH-53D helicopters.
The recent deployment of 24 V-22s to Japan has stirred political tensions, resulting in a 228 page report (warning: large pdf file) about the impact these will have on Okinawa. They are to be based at MCAS Futenma, a small airbase located in the middle of an Okinawan city, replacing 24 CH-46E helicopters. The Okinawans have demanded Futenma's closure for decades. The Marines have been spinning a tale that V-22s are safer than helicopters and claim the V-22 has suffered only three Class A mishaps, while the list above notes 39 plus 5 by Air Force CV-22s.
Marine Generals may spin stories as to why many of those were not Class As, but they cannot explain why two dozen new $80 million V-22s have been scrapped or permanently grounded without incurring more than a million dollars in damage. In contrast, C-17s were produced at roughly the same time frame as the V-22, but only three C-17s are no longer in active service out of 223 produced, to include test aircraft.
According to V-22 consultant and retired aviation expert Rex Rivilio, the V-22 is safe, so long as it doesn't hover. The Marines could promise that V-22s wouldn't hover around its tiny Futenma airbase in the VTOL mode, performing only rolling take-offs and landings. However, operating a tiny military airbase in the middle of any city is unnecessary and therefore unsafe. New Yorkers wouldn't tolerate a foreign military airbase operating in Central Park (below), which is slightly smaller than Futenma.
Japanese leaders must provide independent analysis to American leaders so they are aware their Generals lie to them. The V-22 does not have an excellent safety record, and the Futenma airbase is not vital to anyone's national defense. To say 24 V-22s (small transports) are essential to regional stability is foolish, they aren't even weapons. A simple compromise would close MCAS Futenma and move 12 V-22s to the nearby Air Force Kadena airbase and 12 others to MCAS Iwakuni on mainland Japan.
Marine Corps Brig. Gen. James F. Amos once stated: "I think the V-22 probably is high maintenance at this point. I think -- but make sure you understand one thing. Any new airframe at this point or any new system is going to be high maintenance. And why would that be? Because first of all, there is the real lack of experience in maintaining this."
He made that statement in 2000, yet V-22 apologists still claim that high costs and low readiness is only a problem because the V-22 is new. Back in 2001, everyone thought that Brig. Gen. Amos would be forced to retire after he was caught telling lies about V-22 readiness and conspiring to hide V-22 failures from civilian leaders. The Inspector General even seized his computer. Pentagon insider Franklin "Chuck" Spinney" summarized:
"The commander of the first Osprey squadron was taped ordering his maintenance crews to lie about the V-22's mission capable rates in the interests of obtaining approval for full-rate production. Last Nov. 21, Marine Brig. Gen. James Amos e-mailed a 'close hold' memo to Lt. Gen. Frederick McCorkle, stating his fear that a report of low mission capable rates of 26.7 percent for early November 'isn't going to help' in regard to the upcoming production decision. Significantly, the only non-Marines on the address list for the memo were the president of Bell Textron and a vice president of Boeing. Then, on Dec. 1, during a news conference convened expressly to explain why the V-22 was ready for full-rate production, Amos claimed that its mission capable rate for the first 13 days of November had been 73.2 percent."
General Amos was not forced to retire, but was rewarded with three more promotions and is now the top Marine - the Commandant! He continues to spin lies about the V-22's readiness, safety record, performance, and the need to keep Futenma open. The lesson learned for ambitious Marine officers is that telling lies to hide problems is not only tolerated, but rewarded. It is time for American civilian leaders to overrule their Generals for the good of the Marine Corps, the American taxpayer, and the people of Japan.
Carlton Meyer [email protected]
©2015 G2mil (mishaps updated)
August 2014 Update
After reading about a June 27, 2014 V-22 mishap in Japan, I checked the Navy Safety Center website for details. Their link is dead, and I learned that one must now request such data with a FOIA request. Oct 1, 2014 mishap pictured at right.
January 2015 Update
General Amos retired as Commandant on Dec. 1, 2014. He promptly cashed in by joining the board of directors of the Lord Corporation on Jan 6, 2015, a company that has been paid billions of dollars for V-22 components and spare parts. Amos waited just 36 days after retirement to rejoin the V-22 sales effort. Note that Jan 6th was the announcement date, meaning the details of his "compensation" were negotiated well before that date.
His predecessor, General James T. Conway, has joined the board of V-22 manufacturer Textron, and two other corporations that do business with the Marine Corps -- Colt and General Dynamics.
V-22 Scandal Homepage
As the V-22 program seeks another five-year contract to produce 98 more V-22s, the sales pitch is spinning faster than ever. The V-22 has a poor safety record, yet Marine spokesmen repeatedly claim that the "Navy Safety Center reports ...". This is because the Marines only report V-22 Class A mishaps to Navy Safety Center if the mishap becomes public. In other cases, airborne mishaps are reported as "ground" mishaps or false damage estimates are made to remain below the Class A reporting requirement.
Some details of unreported mishaps were published by "Inside Defense" in 2006, by a Navy expert in 2009, and a follow up appeared in "Wired" last year. Congress took an interest in 2009, and after much stonewalling the Marine Corps admitted that 29 of its 105 new V-22s were not flyable. Half of those can be traced to retired test aircraft and crashes, but the Generals did not provide details on why more than a dozen other new V-22s had become permanently unflyable. Class A mishaps were never reported on V-22s that were damaged beyond repair, since no damage estimate was ever made. Some of these are stored in hangars and others designated as Ground Instruction Aircraft (GIA) to excuse their permanent grounding, like the two pictured below.
In 2006 an engine surge caused a V-22 leap 30 feet into the air with pilots at the controls. It rolled to one side and broke off a wing. The damage estimate was $16 million, but was much higher since the V-22 became a GIA. This was never reported to the Navy Safety Center as a serious accident. Here is a list of 39 Class A MV-22 mishaps. Note that five of these mishaps were with FSD or EMD test aircraft. This list does not include the five Air Force CV-22 Class A mishaps.
Serious (Class A) Mishaps of Marine Corps V-22 Aircraft
Serial Number MV-22 Number Mishap Date Description of Class A Mishap
163914 04 20 Jul 1992 Reported; crashed near Quantico VA; 4 killed
163915 05 11 Jun 1991 Reported; test aircraft crashed on runway; (photo)
164939 07 Unknown Not reported; scrapped in 2008
164941 09 Unknown Not reported; scrapped in 2008
164942 10 12 Feb 2003 Not reported; overstressed (photo); scrapped 2006
165433 11 08 Apr 2000 Not reported; hard landing at Marana; scrapped 04 Apr 06
165434 12 Unknown Not reported; scrapped 02 Oct 2007
165436 14 08 Apr 2000 Reported; crashed after roll over at Marana, AZ; 19 killed
165437 15 08 Sep 2005 Not reported; GIA at New River, NC; photo
165438 16 Unknown Not reported; GIA at New River, NC; photo
165439 17 Unknown Not reported; scrapped 13 Sep 2004
165440 18 11 Dec 2000 Reported; crashed near New River, NC; 4 killed
165441 19 Unknown Not reported; GIA at Pensacola FL
165442 20 17 May 2010 Not reported; stored at NAVAIRSYSCOM
165444 22 28 Jun 2004 Misreported as Class B; scrapped 2 Feb 2012
165837 23 Unknown Not reported: retired to Quantico museum
165839 25 31 Oct 2013 Not reported; retired to USAF museum
165844 30 11 Apr 2012 Reported; crashed in Morocco; two killed
165948 49 6 Nov 2007 Reported; in flight engine fire; stored at New River, NC
166385 53 28 Mar 2005 Misreported as Class B; hydraulic/engine fire; stored at New River, NC photo; crewman permanently disabled
166388 55 21Aug 2007 Misreported as Class B; nose wheel collapse during emergency landing at Yuma, AZ
166389 56 27 Mar 2006 Misreported as a ground mishap; scrapped 14Jul09.
166390 57 7 Dec 2006 Misreported as Class B; fire damage
166390 57 19 May 2014 Reported; Crew Chief fell out while in flight
166480 59 10 Jul 2006 Misreported as Class B; engine destroyed by compressor stalls; emergency landing in Iceland
166482 61 01 May 2006 Not reported; engine fire at New River; scrapped 21 April 2010
166735 100 21 Jun 2013 Reported; destroyed by fire after emergency landing
VMM-263 Unknown 21 Jun 2008 Misreported as Class B; engine disintegrated during flight; emergency landing in Jordan.
167902 113 11 Jul 2011 Reported; crewman killed by cargo while in flight, Afghanistan
Unknown Unknown 27 May 2009 Not reported; swamp take-off crash causes fire damage
167910 121 May 2009 Misreported as Class B; Engine seizure and fire while in flight
Unknown Unknown 09 Jul 2012 Cross-shaft failure required emergency landing at Wilmington NC
168234 184 01 Oct 2014 Power loss upon take off, crewman drowned at sea
VMM-365 Unknown 2013 Not reported; crash landing in Afghanistan
168241 191 26 Aug 2013 Reported; destroyed after fire and hard landing
VMM-161 Unknown Sept 2014 Not reported; serious damage required rebuild
168014 144 27 June 2014 Not Reported; in Japan, details withheld
168020 150 17 May 2015 Reported; crash in LZ, two dead, destroyed by fire
168026 155 9 Dec 2015 Reported; set down short of flight deck, fuselage cracked.
Primary Sources: TargetLock; Helis; Joe Baugher Navy Bunos; Navy Safety Center
A common excuse for V-22 failures is that all new aircraft have problems. Yet the V-22 is not a new aircraft, it first flew in 1989 and the Marine Corps began receiving production aircraft in 1998. It is older than the C-17 program and plans for the final production run are in place. These new V-22s are often compared to 40-year old helicopters that should have been retired several years ago because of metal fatigue. If you owned a fleet of trucks, would you expect your newly purchased trucks to have fewer problems than your 40-year olds? Yet the V-22 has a lower readiness rate and a higher accident rate than old helicopters. This is why the Marines never deployed more than 10 V-22s to Afghanistan, favoring 40 year old CH-53D helicopters.
The recent deployment of 24 V-22s to Japan has stirred political tensions, resulting in a 228 page report (warning: large pdf file) about the impact these will have on Okinawa. They are to be based at MCAS Futenma, a small airbase located in the middle of an Okinawan city, replacing 24 CH-46E helicopters. The Okinawans have demanded Futenma's closure for decades. The Marines have been spinning a tale that V-22s are safer than helicopters and claim the V-22 has suffered only three Class A mishaps, while the list above notes 39 plus 5 by Air Force CV-22s.
Marine Generals may spin stories as to why many of those were not Class As, but they cannot explain why two dozen new $80 million V-22s have been scrapped or permanently grounded without incurring more than a million dollars in damage. In contrast, C-17s were produced at roughly the same time frame as the V-22, but only three C-17s are no longer in active service out of 223 produced, to include test aircraft.
According to V-22 consultant and retired aviation expert Rex Rivilio, the V-22 is safe, so long as it doesn't hover. The Marines could promise that V-22s wouldn't hover around its tiny Futenma airbase in the VTOL mode, performing only rolling take-offs and landings. However, operating a tiny military airbase in the middle of any city is unnecessary and therefore unsafe. New Yorkers wouldn't tolerate a foreign military airbase operating in Central Park (below), which is slightly smaller than Futenma.
Japanese leaders must provide independent analysis to American leaders so they are aware their Generals lie to them. The V-22 does not have an excellent safety record, and the Futenma airbase is not vital to anyone's national defense. To say 24 V-22s (small transports) are essential to regional stability is foolish, they aren't even weapons. A simple compromise would close MCAS Futenma and move 12 V-22s to the nearby Air Force Kadena airbase and 12 others to MCAS Iwakuni on mainland Japan.
Marine Corps Brig. Gen. James F. Amos once stated: "I think the V-22 probably is high maintenance at this point. I think -- but make sure you understand one thing. Any new airframe at this point or any new system is going to be high maintenance. And why would that be? Because first of all, there is the real lack of experience in maintaining this."
He made that statement in 2000, yet V-22 apologists still claim that high costs and low readiness is only a problem because the V-22 is new. Back in 2001, everyone thought that Brig. Gen. Amos would be forced to retire after he was caught telling lies about V-22 readiness and conspiring to hide V-22 failures from civilian leaders. The Inspector General even seized his computer. Pentagon insider Franklin "Chuck" Spinney" summarized:
"The commander of the first Osprey squadron was taped ordering his maintenance crews to lie about the V-22's mission capable rates in the interests of obtaining approval for full-rate production. Last Nov. 21, Marine Brig. Gen. James Amos e-mailed a 'close hold' memo to Lt. Gen. Frederick McCorkle, stating his fear that a report of low mission capable rates of 26.7 percent for early November 'isn't going to help' in regard to the upcoming production decision. Significantly, the only non-Marines on the address list for the memo were the president of Bell Textron and a vice president of Boeing. Then, on Dec. 1, during a news conference convened expressly to explain why the V-22 was ready for full-rate production, Amos claimed that its mission capable rate for the first 13 days of November had been 73.2 percent."
General Amos was not forced to retire, but was rewarded with three more promotions and is now the top Marine - the Commandant! He continues to spin lies about the V-22's readiness, safety record, performance, and the need to keep Futenma open. The lesson learned for ambitious Marine officers is that telling lies to hide problems is not only tolerated, but rewarded. It is time for American civilian leaders to overrule their Generals for the good of the Marine Corps, the American taxpayer, and the people of Japan.
Carlton Meyer [email protected]
©2015 G2mil (mishaps updated)
August 2014 Update
After reading about a June 27, 2014 V-22 mishap in Japan, I checked the Navy Safety Center website for details. Their link is dead, and I learned that one must now request such data with a FOIA request. Oct 1, 2014 mishap pictured at right.
January 2015 Update
General Amos retired as Commandant on Dec. 1, 2014. He promptly cashed in by joining the board of directors of the Lord Corporation on Jan 6, 2015, a company that has been paid billions of dollars for V-22 components and spare parts. Amos waited just 36 days after retirement to rejoin the V-22 sales effort. Note that Jan 6th was the announcement date, meaning the details of his "compensation" were negotiated well before that date.
His predecessor, General James T. Conway, has joined the board of V-22 manufacturer Textron, and two other corporations that do business with the Marine Corps -- Colt and General Dynamics.
V-22 Scandal Homepage
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Below Escape Velocity
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack, this would appear to be your story. I don't see anything more recent in it than 9 December, 2015.
V-22 Class A Mishaps
V-22 Class A Mishaps
Boy it certainly has been a while on this thread since we got to read some decade old re-hashed Carlton Meyer drivel!
G2mil is hardly what I would call a source for anything remotely objective or factual.
G2mil is hardly what I would call a source for anything remotely objective or factual.
I recognized that text as G2mil has contained that content for more than 10 years. It is a favorite arrow in the V-22 critics' quiver (hence the reason Jack saw it linked/copied elsewhere on a page dated with a recent timestamp) because it's full of laughable assumptions and falsehoods.
I was under the impression that Jack and most everyone had seen this before for the same reason.
I was under the impression that Jack and most everyone had seen this before for the same reason.
Thread Starter
No Horse in the Race - Just an Interested Gadfly
This article caught me totally by surprise. Marine V-22s fly over my house in Southport, NC nearly every weekday. They are typically very low, slow and I must say very noisy while doing patterns at the Cape Fear Regional Airport. I googled V-22 just to be able to answer questions from interested neighbors when this article popped up.
This article caught me totally by surprise. Marine V-22s fly over my house in Southport, NC nearly every weekday. They are typically very low, slow and I must say very noisy while doing patterns at the Cape Fear Regional Airport. I googled V-22 just to be able to answer questions from interested neighbors when this article popped up.
The article's litany of events reminds me ... a friend of mine died in a Seahawk in 1989 due to loss of tail rotor thrust in flight. Another friend was in a Seahawk accident the following year due to loss of tail rotor thrust over a ship's deck at night (while a RAST recovery was underway, all on board got out alive) ). Both were Class A's: the latter due to loss of aircraft and the former due to loss of aircraft AND loss of life. Obviously, the Seahawk was unsafe then, and remains unsafe now.
(According to the logic being applied by one Carlton Meyer).