Time magazine has taken a hatchet to the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey in its latest US issue. Publishing its "special investigation" as the US Marine Corps deploys the tiltrotor to Iraq, Time makes its makes opinion clear on the cover: "It's unsafe. It can't shoot straight. It's already cost 30 lives and $20 billion..."
The "investigation", by Mark Thompson, is anything but "special". Fundamentally, it's a rehash of every criticism levelled at the V-22 since the programme began more than 20 years ago. Any valid concerns Thompson raises are lost amidst the shoddy reporting and biased writing.
Here I need to make clear that I want the V-22 to succeed. I think the tiltrotor has great potential. But I accept there are valid concerns that can be raised over the Osprey. It's cost and complexity are issues. Designing and building the V-22 has stressed Bell and Boeing. Learning to fly a tiltrotor safely and effectively has tested the Marine Corps.
But the Osprey is now in the hands of the Marines. They remain steadfastly committed to the aircraft and say they have developed tactics to exploit the tiltrotor's strengths and mitigate its weaknesses. They are also going into combat, and publicly acknowledge they may lose aircraft. But the Marines expect the V-22 to be more survivable than their aging CH-46 helicopters.
After spending $20 billion, it would be hard for the Marines to admit they did not get what they wanted in the Osprey. But it will also be hard to hide any fundamental deficiences in combat. Iraq will be a far more rigorous "special investigation" of the V-22 than any Time magazine article.
Comments (8)
While some of the concerns voiced are indeed legitimate, I agree that the Time article's biased reporting missed this crucial point: the V-22 _will_ be used as a glorified truck in Iraq, but it's real potential lies in future conflicts. Marine and special ops will use it for deep insertions in the future. In such missions, the key to survivability will be stealth. This is true of a helicopter or a hybrid like the Osprey. What the Osprey adds to the equation, then, is increased range and shorter transit -read, danger- time. IMHO, that's where the Marines see the Osprey's potential.
Posted by jake | October 2, 2007 12:00 AM
Posted on October 2, 2007 00:00
Agreed. Iraq is not the "from the sea" amphibious assault mission that drove the Marines to select a speedy tiltrotor. Another example, perhaps, of ending up not fighting the war you planned for. But the chances are that planned-for war will come, one day.
Posted by The Woracle | October 2, 2007 2:40 AM
Posted on October 2, 2007 02:40
As a former Marine, I can tell you that my mission in the Air Wing would have been dramatically simplified and put far fewer Marines on the ground and in the air if we had a V-22. I'm so excited by what it opens up for Marine Corps capabilities. The forward deployed operations that we defended on the ground to maintain helicopters close enough to the fight would not be needed -- the footprint is dramatically reduced as much of that support can now stay on the ship, leaving less to defend and supply in harm's way. This bird will do incredible things for the Marines.
Posted by Jason | October 2, 2007 5:30 PM
Posted on October 2, 2007 17:30
To add to the "stealth" comment from above:
I have seen many V-22s fly and it is very quiet when flying in airplane mode. So quiet you can hardly hear it until it's outbound.
Posted by Dan | October 2, 2007 9:01 PM
Posted on October 2, 2007 21:01
I will direct you to a blog by Ward Carroll, who is quoted in the Time article.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003759.html
It makes clear that Mark Thompson selectively quoted from his interview with Carroll.
Posted by The Woracle | October 2, 2007 9:27 PM
Posted on October 2, 2007 21:27
Mark Thompson wrote for the "Ft. Worth Star Telegram", a New England publication which happens to reside in Ft. Worth Texas. Locally it is referred to as the "Startle Rag".
By the way, "Hack Saw Channie" was instrumental in running the cost way up through budget cuts. When any manufacturer,of big budget items cannot forcast production it will be unable to build the infrastructure necessary to get ahead of the "custom built one-at-a-time" expensive manufacturing methods. It always costs more per part to build one than a constant flow of 10 per month for 10 years.
Posted by Jim | October 3, 2007 3:53 PM
Posted on October 3, 2007 15:53
Graham,
Yours and other articles in Flightglobal.com reference the MV-22 as having a ramp mounted .50 machine gun.
Isn't the MV-22 deploying to Iraq with a ramp mounted M240D 7.62mm machine gun?
Posted by John | October 3, 2007 7:56 PM
Posted on October 3, 2007 19:56
Guilty as charged - beware the archives! You're right, John, it's a 7.62mm minigun (I will go correct the flightglobal story now - ah, technology...)
Posted by The Woracle | October 3, 2007 8:05 PM
Posted on October 3, 2007 20:05