I thought only Marines got things that were impossible to fly (when I was in the trend was to crash Harriers left and right - now it's Ospreys)

Now I feel bad - all this time I have been telling people to join the "Corporate Blues" because they have a bigger budget and can buy better stuff.

I guess you just can't win!

Brian I don't know where you got your numbers, but the V-22 has had 6 crashes with a total of 36 fatalities. This one will be number 7.

How is it that so many military aircraft go down in "training accidents":

In another recent incident, a Marine Corps version of the aircraft, an MV-22 Osprey, went down in April during a training exercise in Morocco, the Associated Press reported.

IMO: this should not be happening as often as it is reported to happen. I would think the military keeps better care of its equipment and does a better job of training than private industry. But what do I know ?

I keep waiting for Richard Branson to pop up in a red metal suit, claiming the accidents were military lies.....

que Black Sabbath song.

JoeNy

Where do you get your information. The MV-22 is the replacement of the CH46 sea knight which is a 50 year old airframe that does not have the ability to compete on a modern battle field. I was also in the marine corps when the first flight test on the MV22 were being done. If you have ever flown in a CH46. open cabin no flight control system and slow, you would be happy to see them replaced bar the expense. you seen to think that tax payer dollars or more precious the the safety of the service men using the equipment.

Simper Fi

Dirp -- most crashes are on training missions because almost all the flying done is for training. You fly a hundred hours training so on a combat mission you know what to expect; if something breaks on a training mission it can be studied and fixed. In combat it would be a total loss, including crew.

The V-22's development process has been long and controversial, partly due to its large cost increases. The V-22's development budget was first planned for $2.5 billion in 1986, then increased to a projected $30 billion in 1988. As of 2008, $27 billion had been spent on the Osprey program and another $27.2 billion will be required to complete planned production numbers by the end of the program.

Its [The V-22's] production costs are considerably greater than for helicopters with equivalent capability—specifically, about twice as great as for the CH-53E, which has a greater payload and an ability to carry heavy equipment the V-22 cannot... an Osprey unit would cost around $60 million to produce, and $35 million for the helicopter equivalent

On 28 September 2005, the Pentagon formally approved full-rate production for the V-22.^[ The plan is to boost production from 11 a year to between 24 and 48 a year by 2012. Of the 458 total planned, 360 are for the U.S. Marine Corps, 48 for the Navy, and 50 for the Air Force at an average cost of $110 million per aircraft, including development costs.The V-22 had an incremental flyaway cost of $67 million per aircraft in 2008, but the U.S. Navy hopes to shave about $10 million off that cost after a five-year production contract in 2013.^[

Where is the Osprey built? Dellaware County PA. Political representitive in congress ? U.S. Rep. Pat Meehan and former Rep. Curt Weldon have managed over the years to protect it. What party? Meehan? GOP Weldon? GOP Typical GOP corporate military contractor welfare.

So true John. This contraption is what you get when so called military committees insist on continuing a flawed design, force out the helicopters which have stalwartly handled the mission for years, and all in the name of constituency. God save us from bureaucrats whose last clear idea was in 1904.

And the cost of all these Ospreys, from concept to delivery, could have produced two separate programs: One to build hefty helicopters and one to care for the military families who instead are on food stamps.

Joe

These things came out in 1985 and have been pieces of crap since 1985, theyve been trying to get the bugs out for almost 30 years, and havent done it yet. It was a bad design to start with.

What we have here is a prime example of that which Ike warned us about, a Congressional\Military\Industrial\ Conspiracy to fleece the taxpayer & the country.... the manufacturer of this POS has been getting corporate WELFARE for over 30 years in an attempt to find a way to make this turd fly .

America can cut 40% from the DoD budget and never feel an iota of loss because the DoD is avalanched with projects like this & the LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP that do nothing but syphon money from the middle class to defense contractors .

Joe - the first osprey prototype didn't fly until 1989. The military started acceptance testing and training in 2000. The first operational Marine V22's were operational in 2007 and the first Air Force in 2009. There have only been two operational crashes. Both this year.

It took 20 years to develop the aircraft, poor design if it takes that long to fix the flaws.

Brian, according to Wiki, there have been 6. I can't post the link here but just look up CV-22 Osprey on Wiki. I definitely recall past crashes of this aircraft before this year.

Mogul - I differentiate between crashes before the aircraft was operational and after. And I counted wrong, Three crashes after the the V22 became operational in 2007. This is really not a bad record for a revolutionary aircraft design.

The first Vanguard launch in Dec 1958 lifted off the pad a few feet, lost power and fell back on the pad. This occurred because the rocket was rushed to be ready before the Russians could launch a satellite; it failed in this as well. All the rest of the Vanguard launches went well and at least one is still in orbit today. Essentially, Vanguard 1 failed for political reasons not for technical reasons; that launch was really a test launch of the sort the Russians performed secretly many times. By the way, that first satellite survived and was running perfectly when it was pick up afterwards.

The Hercules was and is an awesome airplane. The mamoth wing on it generated enormous lift. The Hercules never went into service because the war it was designed for came to an end, and the post-war era didn't require such a huge flying boat airlifter. Once Hughes proved it would fly (to silence his critics), he was content to never fly it again. He was a little weird that way.

Yes but the mighty C-130 Hercules DID go into service and is still the best plane flying today.

Some of the new computerized versions I have a problem with, but the basic aircraft has remained unchanged for years.

I have flown thousands of safe miles in a Hercules in all configurations.

I was crew chief on a cargo version AND the version that flys THROUGH Hurricanes.

The C-130 Hercules is a completely different aircraft, of course.

We know.

Don't expect any one the right to notice that. Almost no amount of spending however ridiculous by the Pentagon is criticized by the right.

TooMany, you may be mostly correct, but I for one consider myself center/center right, depends on the discussion... Anyhow, this is one program I have been complaining about for years! This thing is one ungainly bird, and doesn't do it's intended job economically or well.

I hate the annual dance of which bases are going to be closed.. it is never decided on economic/fiscally sound criterion.. it is decided by which congressman has the most clout and yells the loudest. We need to let the smartest military people ( not the highest ranking, or most connected ) make sound decisions on how best to defend our homeland, and then realign our bases and units to be deployed correctly. And, touching on this article, equip them with the best, most practical and effective weapons; not the ones congressmen want so their constituents stay employed.

Ton

Shermans were great, as long as you didnt have to go into battle in one. I did some time in the H3 Jolly Greens myself. The Osprey is a great concept, but a bad design.

Ed -

The President flew in these on his last trip to the mid-east

I could say something.

But I will hold my tongue.

I guess you don't remember the F100, F111 or Harrier.

The F-100 (lead sled) was a good aircraft that was, well just too heavy for one engine.

The F-111 was a venture into swing wing technology, and yes it killed but it gave birth to the F-14 and

the B-1 (which are both good aircraft).

The Harrier only had initial problems because of the weak Pegasus engine, (the new version is fine).

Also the Harrier had more pilot error problems than anything.

You live, you learn.

The point I'm trying to make is that the Osprey is is the same category as those aircraft in terms of how revolutionary it is and it hasn't killed near as many as those aircraft.

I understand Brian.

BUT the Osprey has been continuously killing for years.

The F-100 only was around about 8, the F-111 about 25 (but they did get the bugs worked out of the F-111).

The Harrier, well, it turned out well, but the Osprey never will.

The Ospery is too complicated.

And the size of the props are ground fire fodder.

Like any new aircraft, the Osprey had some serious problems during development but it has been operational for 5 years with only 3 crashes during that time.

"The F-100 (lead sled) was a good aircraft that was, well just too heavy for one engine."

Which made it a bad aircraft.

Nope.

Not for what it was designed for.

And it has seen limited combat.

ok first, the artilce you are quoting word for word, is from an internet anonymous internet posting from 2003. Since that time those problems which your outdated internet posting mention don't even exist anymore and were corrected. The v-22 was grounded for a year and half while they fixed those things and made countless changes. Second, since 0ct 1, 2001 the military has lost more 405 helicopters costing close to 600 lives. The Osprey has lost how many? I can tell you, it has had ONE fatal accident which occurred April 8 2010 which killed 4.

At this point, according to Naval Safety Stats, the Osprey is the SAFEST rotary aircraft to fly in that they operate. Its safety record has been very very good since the re-design, and those are facts, not opinion of some nonsensical blowhard (I.E. YOU)based on nothing other than a false belief there is a political conspiracy.

In addition it is also cheaper to operate than say a black-hawk helicopter because it can carry a much heavier load for a much longer distance at a higher speed and higher altitude that keeps it out of range of ground fire and most surface to air missiles. It can get to and extract wounded troops far faster and from much farther distance than helicopters can, so it saves lives that way as well. Furthermore, "viewer ready", the v-22 has been in combat conditions almost every day for the last 4 years and not a single one has been lost to enemy fire. NOT ONE. Sorry staderup, but its you who needs to be educated and learn the facts, and the fact is this is a great aircraft and the Marines LOVE this bird.

The Osprey has rarely (if ever) been shot at by ground fire.

If it were, it would be dead.

The rotor footprint is far too big.

The blades cannot withstand ground fire.

It cannot auto rotate unless it is above a certain altitude.

Even then it has to have power to rotate the nacelles.

It is a nightmare in flight.

You cannot defend a piece of sh!t.

viewer its been in combat almost ever day for the last four years and yes it has been shot at and hit and it was fine. Sheesh stop making stupid stuff up.

There are others, but they're mostly prototypes or extremely limited production. Flying cars and the like.

Also, when black hawks crash almost always one or more people on board dies, in this osprey crash everyone survived.

Morlack, that is because of numbers.

Ospreys are usually only used in training exercises etc.

Why do you thing they did not use the bastard children on the Bin Laden caper?

Viewer were you there? No you were not, so how do you know what was or was not used? Much of that mission is still secret, so either a) you have no idea what you are talking about or b) you were there and have just committed a crime by revealing secret info, which you would only be in a position to know if you have a security clearance which I can tell you don't just by how factually incorrect your postings are.

Having said that, for the Bin Laden raid they used special helicopters that were modified to make much less noise. You do that so you can sneak close to the mission objective which saves lives through surprise. Duh. The V-22 is REALLY loud and would not have been the aircraft for this mission. You use the right tool for the right mission. Would you use a hammer to cut a 2x4? No you would not, its the same thing here. Ospreys are not only used in training missions as you posted, again they are in combat everyday, so go read a book or something or go talk to someone who flys these things because you really are way off on everything you are posting.

Jay, I live on planet earth.

Where you live maybe you haven't heard that special rotor helicopters were used in the Bin Laden raid.

And that one was downed and destroyed.

AND that Pakistan provided pictures of the wreckage.

AND that the DOD even set up numerous animations depicting the scenario.

Ospreys ARE fairly quiet, but still would never be considered.

These are congressional show aircraft, not much more.

Go back to your Nintendo game.

The adults here are busy.