V-22 Osprey Sees Combat, Starts Hauling Supplies

During Operation Cobra’s Anger in early December 2009 — in which 1,000 U.S. Marines and a handful of Afghan soldiers — stormed the Now Zad valley in Afghanistan’s southern Helmand province, the Corps hit a major milestone. It was the first time the controversial tiltrotar V-22 Osprey was used in a combat situation.

The operation was conducted in keeping with coalition chief Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s counterinsurgency guidance, in which major population centers must be cleared of Taliban influence, with coalition soldiers moving in to small outposts in neighborhoods, much like the “Surge” in Iraq in 2007-2008. The assault kicked off in the early morning hours of Dec. 4, when Marine CH-53 helicopters inserted a Marine company at one end of the valley, and two Ospreys also made two runs each to drop a recon detachment at the other end.

The mission was hugely significant for the Corps since anyone familiar with the rocky history of the V-22 knows how big a victory a successful deployment to Afghanistan would be for the service. After more than 25 years of engineering problems and billions in development costs, and with the tragic legacy of four major crashes that have cost the lives of 30 people, the Osprey has generated its share of doubters — and the aircraft’s $120 million per model doesn’t exactly endear it to its critics. Even though the Osprey has, by all military accounts, performed well in Iraq from 2007 to the present — although it arrived too late to take part in any of the combat which the Marines experienced in al Anbar province — the congressional Government Accountability Office in July 2009 cautioned Congress that the aircraft “has yet to fully demonstrate that it can achieve the original required level of versatility…Based on the Iraq experience, the cost per flight hour is more than double the target estimate. DOD is therefore faced with the prospect of directing more money to a program, the military utility of which in some areas remains unproven.”

Just don’t tell that to the Marines in Helmand. “Just like any other support squadron out here, we’re fulfilling many of the same types of mission that they’re fulfilling….we’re able to fly some of the longer legs, but we’re fulfilling our role as a medium-lift sole support squadron,” USMC Lt. Col. Ivan Thomas, the executive officer of Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 261(VMM-261) told Ares from Camp Leatherneck in Helmand.

In November, 10 Osprey deployed to Afghanistan for the first time, and Cobra’s Anger “was a nice initial start for the V-22s in Afghanistan,” Thomas said, adding that “it was a very straightforward mission that was flown under ideal conditions. Over time we’ll continue to improve on that.” So far “they’re handling quite well” in the harsh climate and high altitudes, he said, conceding that while there may have been “some expectations and concerns” about the aircraft, “very quickly people here saw that we operate just fine, and really right now we’ve got to the point where we’re just another assault support platform out here — but we’ve got longer legs and we can fly faster.”

As of last year, the Osprey was plagued with mission readiness rates hovering at 62 percent; but operations in Afghanistan have seen those rates rising steadily through the 70 percent and 80 percent range there, the Marine commandant, Gen. James Conway, told reporters last month. And Conway said he would like to see the tiltrotor “climb the ladder to the 90 percent” range. “It's on that trajectory,” he said, adding that any problems that have arisen so far do not involve the aircraft's major systems. “This isn't just a replacement for the CH-46…We're using [V-22s] in some of our operations to land troops deep and to very quickly build up troop numbers on deck.”

Howdy, Redleg Duke! ...Long time no see! Liked your comment.

In my capacity at my long time employer, I worked on the development and production of the tilt-rotor technology from the late 1970s until I retired in 2001. The two XV-15s produced proved the concept (one is in the Smithsonian now). .....We were all very proud to see the V-22 (CV-22 and MV-22) go into production. I worked closely with the Marines who maintained and flew the aircraft and they only wanted more, faster. ...The USAF version, CV-22, previously proved itself with flights from the US to Africa. The USMC version, MV-22, was primarily bothered with downtown in Iraq due to sand storms, but they don’t have such problems in Afghanistan.

The Osprey has been a great success. 18 billion worth of jobs, staff, careers, bloat, shuffling.....and it is real pretty.

But I’m more into effective weapons. Like how come the South Africans had MRAPs for 50 years and the Army and the Marines didn’t have one. Zero. Nada.

That was a conscious choice, by legions of Colonels and Generals.

Instead, in the Marines case, they chose poorly. I can only guess that hundreds of Marines were killed by IED’s, and thousands wounded where the Osprey money would of been better spent. ( This goes for the Army as well )

Oh, and the Army has had helicopters since late WWII, so your notion of them ever not modifying the HEUY is bar talk delusional. In other words, you come to a battle of facts, ignorantly.

But I’m more into effective weapons. Like how come the South Africans had MRAPs for 50 years and the Army and the Marines didn’t have one. Zero. Nada.

Because the South Africans were fighting local insurgencies (and for part of that 50 years, were supressing local populations,) and the Marines weren't.

MRAPs have an extremely limited role, aren't air transportable, tip easily, and as Afghanistan has showed are not suitable for ex-urban terrain.

Now the US is fielding all-terrain MRAPs, because the ones in Iraq are useless in Afghanistan. Further, as we withdraw from Iraq, we are leaving the MRAPs behind.

"Now the US is fielding all-terrain MRAPs, because the ones in Iraq are useless in Afghanistan." That is what happens when you come to a warfare style, fifty years late.

"Further, as we withdraw from Iraq, we are leaving the MRAPs behind." First, that's good. The next generation of 18 year old, naive, patriotic enlistees will never need them. /sarc. There could also be the reason the Iraqis will need them for the next ten years until their internals quiet down, and thus nothing against that technology as whole, or those models in particular.

Why did it take the vaunted US military, in quality and science the supposed worlds leader in mechanized warfare.....eight years( for the afgan model? ). What Americans don't do trucks?

We've been fighting low tech, dirty turd world wars since 1950. And, will for the next 50 years. Why? Because all the big guys got nukes, and all the people and resources are all in third world, inter fighting/squabbling, snipping, people liberation/jihad poor countries. But why, ? Euro centric, fight the last war (WWII) clashing main army wars mindset.Proof, MRAPs, denigration of SF, no, zero, nada language skills, political info....yada, yada, yada.
......and money. There is no money for contractors and congressional districts. IE, the troops get not what they need, but what congress and the contractors make, and if you want to get flag rank, you don't rock the gravy train, troops be damned. ( find me one example of a flag rank officer kicking up a shit storm over having wrong equipment. I can not think of one since Billy Mitchell. )

(I suppose there are a lot of dead VN vets, and now wounded that would of liked MRAP technology.

Other things the asleep command were criminal in slowness. Sniper rifles and teams. ( I suppose we should get rid of them now, eh? ) Aimpoint and such sights, first used on the Son Tay rescue and only took military bureaucracy, what, 25-30 years to commonly issue? We all know the decade long M-16 problems.

Anyways, the point I was getting at, hard as it seems that the Marines spent 18 billion ( 25 billion ) total for all services, save the Army. Seems to me every Marine I ever met has complained of equipment and supply shortages.

By the way, have you ever read a good book on the history of US weapons f$$k ups. I haven't. Some more that come to mind. Early WWII submarine torpedoes that didn't work for the first two years of the war, even though the Navy bureaucracy insisted against the words of sub captains that they did. The Sherman low velocity gun, not replaced until the late war. The early VN era M-16 ( what does that tell you about a system that couldn't get that right for, about, ten years of deployment. ) Didn't the Air Force fight against the F-16? And want to dump the A-10s. What's (was) up with that?

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.