Posted on 11/05/2005 8:06:19 AM PST by wjersey
Though it was approved for production by the Defense Department in September, the V-22 Osprey aircraft, much of which is to be built by Boeing Co. in Delaware County, has yet to satisfy its many critics.
The latest problems for the aircraft include a Defense Department report that concluded the V-22 was not ready for combat, and an icing incident that forced a precautionary landing.
The Osprey, which takes off and lands like a helicopter but flies like a conventional airplane, received a full-production go-ahead from the Defense Department on Sept. 28. But before that, in a 44-page report made public afterward, David Duma, director of Operational Test and Evaluation at the Pentagon, pointed to 16 improvements that should be made to the aircraft before it goes into combat.
Boeing and its V-22 partner, Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., say the recommendations will be implemented before the aircraft goes into combat.
The precautionary landing occurred on Oct. 18, when the engines of one V-22 malfunctioned after they ingested pieces of ice during a storm.
Critics of the V-22, which has had numerous setbacks since its development began in 1981, fear more dangerous incidents and say that full production should be delayed by the Defense Department.
"The aircraft continues to have reliability failures, close calls in way of accidents, and hasn't been demonstrated to be ready for combat," said Philip E. Coyle III, who directed weapons tests at the Pentagon from 1994-2001.
Duma's report says lingering questions about the V-22's capability in combat were not adequately answered. He found that little realistic testing was done at night or in severely dusty environments. He expressed concern about its ability to conduct aggressive defensive maneuvers.
"The V-22 is another example of a very expensive weapon system that's headed to the battlefield without adequate testing," said Eric Miller, senior defense investigator with Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan watchdog group in Washington. "It's often costly and less effective to add critical components, like deicing systems and defensive guns, as afterthoughts."
The ruling by the Defense Acquisition Board to proceed with the $50 billion program means at least 458 V-22s will be delivered to the Marines, Air Force and Navy.
Boeing employs 4,700 people in its Delaware County complex where it builds the Osprey's fuselage. Full production is expected to add 500 jobs to Boeing's local operations over the next decade.
But the Oct. 18 incident bolstered one of Duma's chief complaints: that the V-22 is not as reliable as conventional helicopters in emergency landings.
"Emergency landing after the sudden failure of both engines in the... take-off and landing modes below 1,600 feet... are not likely to be survivable," Duma wrote. "The likelihood of sudden, dual-engine failure is remote, but possible."
Supporters of the aircraft generally dismiss the criticism raised by opponents of the program and call the recommendations in Duma's report typical for a weapons-system evaluation.
"In general, rotary-wing aircraft would not transport Marines into a known high-threat zone," said Maj. Susan Idziak, spokeswoman at the Defense Department.
James Darcy, spokesman at the Naval Air Station in Patuxent River, Md., where the V-22 program is based, said it was "entirely normal" for a weapons program to get a list of recommendations to build on.
"Compared to other acquisition programs, this was a glowing report," he said. "If the program has done its job right, the recommendations should closely match the road map that's already in place for follow-on tests and long-term improvements."
Darcy said Duma's recommendations would be incorporated in upgrades by the time the aircraft was deemed combat-ready. The Marines' V-22 is to reach that stage in late 2007, and the Air Force version in 2009.
Miller said his sources in the Navy told him that the V-22 lost power in both engines on Oct. 18, when ice caused them to stall at 18,000 feet. They regained power at 10,000 feet after reaching warmer air. The crew had to make a precautionary landing in Prescott, Ariz.
The Navy ruled the incident a "Class B mishap." Class A is the most severe, resulting in loss of life or more than $1 million in damage.
The Navy disputes Miller's account of what happened.
"The aircraft was never in an out-of-control flight," Darcy said. "The engines never failed. They never stopped running."
Darcy said the V-22 did not have a deicing system because written operating procedures called for avoiding icing conditions whenever possible, and because it was a test aircraft typically used in lower altitudes.
Gordon Adams, author of The Politics of Defense Contracting: The Iron Triangle, said the Marine Corps, congressional committees and subcommittees with strong military alumni participants, and the defense contractors involved in making the aircraft have formed an impenetrable alliance behind the V-22.
To help counter this, the Project on Government Oversight and congressional critics pushed for independent weapons testers, such as Duma.
In 2001, the Marine Corps began more technical testing, including an overly fast dive called a "vortex ring state," which has caused the V-22 to stall, and is blamed for an April 2000 crash that killed 19 Marines.
"The report is not entirely negative, but even if you had a stronger written report, the program would have proceeded anyway," said Thomas Christie, who retired in February after serving for four years as a presidentially appointed weapons tester. "Once a program is this far along, it's like a snowball going down a hill. You can't stop it."
The military wants the Osprey to launch assaults so far from the coastline that enemy troops cannot respond with defensive fire. That strategy is called "Operational Maneuver From the Sea."
"The No. 1 factor is that the Marines are going to reinvent themselves around the capabilities of this machine," Richard Aboulafia, an aviation analyst with the Teal Group, a Washington consulting firm, said. "They have no backup plan."
The Osprey has been in limited production of 11 per year since 1999. Boeing ships the fuselages from Ridley Township to Textron's plant in Amarillo, Texas, where the wings are attached and engines installed.
Rep. Curt Weldon (R., Pa.), whose district includes Boeing's Ridley Township plant, said the Oct. 18 incident should be viewed in context.
"Every major new program that we've built has had accidents," said Weldon, who also serves as vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee that oversees the V-22 program. "When you push the envelope with technology, that's unfortunately what happens."
There is speculation among weapons experts, like Coyle and Christie, that a deicing system would add weight and could affect the V-22's performance. Weight is a critical issue with most aircraft programs.
"If they get too heavy, they don't fly as well," said Coyle, now with the Center for Defense Information, a Washington think tank.
Darcy said weight was never an issue. He said the third and final five-month phase of deicing testing begins in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on Monday.
He said all operational V-22s will be outfitted with a deicing system by late 2007 - the year the V-22 heads for combat.
Perhaps they need to add one huge parachute, as a final "safety" measure.
It's a unique aircraft. Technological aspects and problems can always be worked out.
This is America, we can do anything if we stick with it.
Political "problems" are another matter with the obstructionist Dims and Luddites.
An example would be the F-14 Tomcat. Despite having engine anti-ice, in icing conditions ice has a bad habit of building up on the inlet ramps.
That thing is more complicated than a 60's computer.
It's been worked on since 1981, nearly 25 years. Sometimes an Edsel is just an Edsel. That was unique too.
Huh?... I thought that this machine would replace the choppers currently being used for this purpose. This thing is a POS, I'll state flatly that if the CEO and every member of congress had to fly that thing weekly to work for one year, I'd feel better.
What a crock. I don't know d#ck about aircraft design, but I do know a pork barrel project when I see one. It just hacks me off when Marines die and it's all chalked up to "learning curve". Well "f" them for letting this thing go on inspite of all the problems.
The Marines who fly and maintain the Osprey at New River laugh at the ignorant rants of "experts" like you.
In just the last six months 56 US military personnel have been killed in CH-47 Chinook crashes. Got any brilliant remarks to make about that aircraft?
Yeah, I do. How many troop per flight hours casualties do the Chinooks have compared to the Osprey?
I'll admit that I'm "ignorant"...."Lacking education or knowledge" of the engineering or science behind the Osprey. However it seems that this air transport is now "NOT" designed to go into "hot LZ's" due to flight charactertics and I thought it was designed, at least I was led to believe, that this was going to replace certain helicopters in forward operating areas.
I just guess I missed the point of this bird other than to spread defense contract jobs throughout multiple congressional districts, payoff retired officers that are now in "defense consultant" positions in acquisitions, and finally have the operational deployment of this aircraft so limited that it will resemble the famous troop transport "jet pack" of the 1960's.....remember that marvel?
I'm too old for this bird to affect me, however I've got a son that might join, and have several friends in the Marine Corp that I'm concerned enough about to want the best transport for them in and out of harms way.
Like I've said, show me that the CEO, the JCS, the congressmen and senators will fly this fantastic machine "routinely" for 1 year in all operational environments , say to a conference in the Rockies from Denver Airport.... or to a conference on Maui from Honolulu Airport..... or to a conference to Las Vegas.... you get my drift... nothing dangerous like taking small arms fire, or dropping off "hot"... just simple transport...
Do that for a year and I'll rest a little easier for my brothers and son.
Of course this is only my opinion..... and I could be wrong.
It's a fact. Some of today's Marine Corps Chinooks flew in the Vietnam War.
The first thing you need to do is stop believing everything you read about the Osprey written by people who don't know much, if anything, about the project; Meyers, Dunn, Miller, et al and the people who haven't been around the project since January of 2001, Coyle, are out of the loop. They continue to regurgitate, for the most part, issues that have long ago been resolved. Their behavior gives credence to the speculation that they've all got a vested interest in United Technologies. If you want to know what is happening talk to the people who fly and maintain the aircraft at New River, PAX River and Edwards. The belief that this aircraft is a slow, lumbering bird that can't maneuver is pure BS.
The Osprey has the ability to ingress and egress an LZ faster than any helicopter in the inventory: 0-240 knots in 12 seconds. The grunts who have flown on it say there is no comparison to what they currently are transported on and the prospect of greatly reduced flight times is something they are looking forward to. The helicopters that it will be replacing, the CH-46E and CH-53D, are not assault platforms. While they are equipped with defensive weapons, just as the Block B MV-22 will be when it enters the fleet, SOP is not to insert them into a hot LZ. The tactic of choice is to land in an LZ that isn't hot. Does that sometimes not happen? Of course. The slower speed of those platforms makes them much more susceptible than the Osprey to hostile fire. The Osprey has an acoustic signature that is 75% lower than the helicopters it will replace. That means that the bad guys on the ground don't hear you coming until you're virtually right on top of them. The element of surprise is in your court, not theirs. Just ask those deer hunters in SW Virginia, who encountered those Ospreys flying up the Holston River Valley last month, how quiet they are. The IR signature is 95% lower than the helicopters it will replace. That means it is far less susceptible to heat seeking missiles. It's RCS is far lower than the platforms it is replacing and thus isn't as vulnerable to radar guided missiles or detection. Ballistic integrity is greater than both the 46 and the 53.
You want someone to be upset at, be upset at the Bushs, Cheneys, Chus, Clintons, Aspins, Perrys, Cohens, et al of the world who have treated this project like an unwanted step child, nickle and diming the funding for over a decade. Be upset at the contractors who knowingly sold defective parts to Bell/Boeing. Be upset at the pilots who made fundamental mistakes in airmanship deviating from their training and killed 23 Marines in the process nearly killing the program. Don't indict the aircraft because human beings screwed up. If you're not willing to do that then you'll have to ground everything in the sky and everyone will be walking from now on.
The Marine Corps as a whole and the Marines who have dedicated themselves to this project deserve better than they've gotten from all of these so called "experts".
I should have noticed that error since I worked in the Naval Air Depot where they overhaul the Ch-46s. Some of those would come in from the fleet so corroded one could poke his finger through the fuselage.
I'm small potatoes. My opinion is worth exactly what it cost to obtain..... nothing.
I just hope that you're right and I'm wrong. I'd like nothing better than to go in faster, quieter, and with less of an opportunity to get whacked by a heat seeker....
I'm sure we're going to find out within the next 10 years.
As long as it makes our forces deadlier, count me in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.