A Final Push for the Bedeviled, Beloved Osprey

The New York Times ^ | 07/06/03 | LESLIE WAYNE

[Pokey78]

PATUXENT RIVER
NAVAL AIR STATION, Md.

IN the clear summer sky, the V-22 Osprey was showing its stuff. It went backward, zoomed at an angle, hovered close to the ground and then shot straight up into the air. Buck Rogers himself couldn't have created a more dramatic sight: a hybrid craft, half helicopter and half airplane, that danced in the sky and appeared to defy the laws of aerodynamics.

It was exactly the performance the Marine Corps wanted to show.

After two decades in development, the Marines, along with the Osprey's contractors, Boeing and the Bell Helicopter subsidiary of Textron, are making their final push to gain Pentagon approval for the Osprey, an aircraft as high in promise as in problems. The government has spent more than $12 billion so far on the Osprey, which has the notoriety of having suffered three fatal crashes in test flights, leading to the deaths of 30 people, 26 of them Marines.

Still, the Marines are determined, and they see the Osprey as crucial to their mission in the world. "It won't be long before everyone wants one of these," said Col. Daniel Schultz, the V-22 program manager. It's not hard to see why. The Osprey, which can take off like a helicopter and fly like a plane, can travel twice as fast and five times as far as the Marines' current helicopter fleet, from the Vietnam era. "It's the promise of the future," he added.

It is a future that some people hope never comes. Neither the Osprey's razzle-dazzle aerobatics nor the Marine Corps's doggedness has been able to silence critics, who remain convinced that the Osprey's design is too complicated and inherently flawed, that the craft is being pushed into production without adequate testing and that it is simply too dangerous and too expensive.

"The Marines have a tremendous can-do attitude," said Philip E. Coyle III, a senior adviser at the Center for Defense Information, a military research group in Washington. "But when they're overly committed to a program like this, they can end up looking foolish as well as killing people." Mr. Coyle is a former assistant defense secretary who ran the Pentagon's weapons testing program in the 1990's.

Just last May, the General Accounting Office offered its own criticisms. It said the Osprey program "plans to enter full-rate production without ensuring that the manufacturing processes are mature" and that Osprey production continues with inadequate assessments.

But critics fear that the passion of its supporters and the weight of history will keep moving the project along. "The Osprey is on the road to recovery, and the proponents are pushing really hard," said Chris Hellman, a director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, a research group in Washington. "My problems with the Osprey remain. The V-22 has gotten to the point where so much money has gone into it, it will probably go ahead regardless."

 
OR maybe not. Despite this aura of inevitability, the Marines and Osprey contractors know that, given the craft's troubled history, they can afford no more missteps. Clouding their optimism is the fear that something — again — could go terribly wrong. Should the Osprey have another fatal accident, even as strong a supporter as Colonel Schultz acknowledges, "we'd be out of business."

For that reason, the Osprey's backers are pulling out all the stops. After being removed from the skies for more than a year and a half after two fatal crashes in 2000, the Osprey is undergoing a redesigned round of test flights the Marines say should silence critics and ensure that the craft is safe.

In addition, the Osprey is starring in a publicity campaign aimed at opinion makers, both inside government and out. Members of the news media, as well as members of Congress, are being brought to the naval base here to see the Osprey put through its paces.

By the end of 2005, the Pentagon will decide whether to ask Congress to finance a combat-ready fleet of 458 Ospreys — at a projected price of $48 billion. The bulk of the Ospreys would go to the Marines, with 98 for the Army Special Forces and the Navy. For the most part, the Osprey is designed for amphibious troop transport and assault.

The Osprey has also received backing from the Bush administration, which is calling for a "low rate" production of 11 test Ospreys annually in the fiscal 2004 Pentagon budget. A big boost came in May, when the Pentagon's departing weapons chief had an 11th-hour conversion and, on his last day on the job, switched from being a critic to a supporter.

That official, Under Secretary of Defense Edward C. Aldridge Jr., who previously said he had "some real problems" with the Osprey, said he had changed his mind because recent tests gave him "sufficient confidence" in its safety and reliability. In a statement, he added that the craft would provide "much-needed capability to the war fighter" and even called for increasing Osprey production above the current 11 test planes a year, of which 7 are now in the skies. A spokesman for Mr. Aldridge said he was not available to comment on his change.

Aiding the Marines' push in Washington are two formidable lobbying powerhouses, Boeing and Textron. Each is a 50 percent partner in the Osprey and has platoons of lobbyists working Capitol Hill, along with those of the Osprey's many subcontractors.

An example of their efforts was on display last month as Boeing, Bell Helicopter and the Marines jointly sponsored a V-22 media expo at the naval base here to demonstrate the Osprey's prowess to those who could spread the word. Wearing identical sea-foam-green polo shirts with a V-22 logo, dozens of Boeing and Bell employees, along with similarly clad Osprey subcontractors, set up booths in the airfield's hangar to promote their wares and echo the positive spin of the Marines. "Forward with Confidence," was the theme.

The enthusiasm of Boeing and Bell is not surprising. Right now, each Osprey has a price tag of $68.7 million; by comparison, an F-16 fighter jet costs around $20 million. One of the challenges for the Osprey program is to bring the per-craft cost down to around $58 million, a number critics say is still staggeringly expensive for a craft that is essentially a replacement helicopter.

With numbers this large, the Osprey is expected to give each company up to $20 billion over the life of the 12-year project. For Boeing, which had revenue of $54 billion last year, this is a nice additional source of cash. For Bell Helicopter, it is more important than that. Even today, the project accounts for 38 percent of the annual revenue of Bell Helicopter, which also wants to use the Osprey's tilt-rotor technology to make a commercial version of the craft. The Osprey also accounts for 6 percent of Textron's $10.7 billion revenue.

"While Boeing has a lot in development, Textron does not have any new military helicopters," said Paul H. Nisbet, an aerospace analyst at JSA Research in Newport, R.I. "This is a major program for them." Luckily for Textron, it has the Marines. "In Washington, the Marines usually get what they want," Mr. Nisbet said.

 
IN a presentation before the aerial demonstration here, Colonel Schultz defended the revised testing program that began when the Osprey returned to the skies in May 2002. In the new program, many of Osprey's initial developmental tests were eliminated — to the dismay of many critics — and replaced with ones that Colonel Schultz said were better designed to simulate battlefield conditions and address the problems underlying the crashes. The main problems involved the Osprey's aerodynamics and hydraulics.

"This has not been a fluffy flight-test program," said Colonel Schultz, with a model V-22 in his hand to demonstrate his points. "It's time to take another look at this plane. We have made incredible strides. We have confidence in this plane, and we are ready to give it to the fleet."

Not only do the Osprey's backers feel that it's good enough for the military, they also feel it is good enough for the president. They are angling to have a V-22 Osprey selected in the current competition to replace Marine One, the presidential helicopter. "It would be perfect for the president," said Bob Leder, a spokesman for Bell Helicopter.

Among the unconvinced are retired military aviators, some members of Congress and other military industry analysts. They say the problems behind the multiple crashes have not been resolved and that the complicated design is only setting up the Osprey for more tragic problems — the current optimism notwithstanding. For years, a group of retired military aviators, calling itself the "red ribbon panel," has issued one critical warning after another.

"While there are some very good design tricks, it's got the same basic problems," said Harry P. Dunn, a retired Air Force colonel who heads the group. "It's not a question of if someone gets killed, but when."

Most critics say the Osprey lacks enough maneuverability at low altitudes, and they question whether the manufacturers have solved an aerodynamic problem, called vortex ring state, that caused an April 2000 crash in Arizona in which 19 Marines died. In that condition, the craft becomes caught in its own turbulence and loses lift.

Representative Jim Gibbons, a Nevada Republican who flew F-4's in Vietnam and in the Persian Gulf war as an Air Force combat pilot, is a doubter, too. "This has all the earmarks of becoming the Edsel of the aviation industry," he said. "The Osprey is a nice tool, but is it the right tool in the circumstances?" asked Mr. Gibbons, a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

He questions Osprey's effectiveness at high altitudes, like the mountains of Afghanistan. He also says the downdraft that comes from the Osprey's powerful rotors as it hovers is so great as to make Marine rescue missions impossible, especially over water.

Yet with Boeing, Bell and Osprey subcontractors spreading V-22 work in over 40 states and 200 Congressional districts, Mr. Gibbons is one of the few critics in Congress. "The industry has a very heavy hand when it comes to making the program work in Washington," he said. "All they have to do is go to Congress with those employees."

The history of Osprey crashes casts a long shadow over the sales effort. The April 2000 crash that killed 19 Marines occurred just as the Pentagon was to decide whether to approve the Osprey. The following December, an Osprey crashed in a forest outside Jacksonville, N.C., killing four more Marines. After that crash, which was attributed to a leak in hydraulic lines, the Osprey was grounded and testing suspended.

Nearly a decade earlier, in July 1992, a test Osprey crashed into the Potomac River, killing four Boeing employees and three Marines. Even at that early date, the Osprey was catching flak. Vice President Dick Cheney, who was defense secretary at the time, repeatedly tried to halt the program, arguing that it was too costly. But every time he tried to starve the Osprey for financing, he was overruled by a Congress that kept the money flowing.

 
AT the Osprey demonstration here, Colonel Schultz and his team of test pilots put the Osprey through aerial paces intended to counter specific complaints. In a mere 12 seconds, the craft can tilt its rotor, switching from helicopter to airplane mode. As the Osprey hovered like a helicopter 25 feet off the ground, doing a tap dance of gyrations, Colonel Schultz said: "Can't maneuver? I believe this shows maneuvers."

The craft then rocked back and forth in the air, did a nose dive toward the ground, hovered, and finally put its nose in the air and headed upward. It even demonstrated that it could land with only one engine. (The other was idling.) When the Osprey finished its 15-minute show, it dropped out of the sky and put its rotors into the air. Then, one by one, each blade of the rotor collapsed downward, like fading flower petals. Once collapsed, the blades then bundled themselves together. With its blades compactly tucked away in this fashion, the Osprey showed that it would not take up a lot of space on an aircraft deck — addressing another complaint.

As he stepped out of the Osprey, Boeing's top V-22 test pilot, Thomas L. MacDonald, said the air show here explained why the Marines are so gung-ho for the Osprey. "As a former Navy airplane and helicopter pilot, I'm acutely aware of the limitations of both," Mr. MacDonald said. "With the Osprey, the Marines will be able to get to the fight without dying on the way and get out without being killed on the way back."  

[Drago]

I tend to agree with this review: http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb72.pdf

[Bobsat]

So do I. Thanks for the link. On page 8, it says:

Most important, if a helicopter loses engine power (e.g., the engine fails or is shot out by hostile fire), it can still safely land by using autorotation (analogous to “gliding” without engine power for a fixed-wing aircraft).48 But this operational requirement for all other Navy helicopters was waived for the V-22, largely because it cannot autorotate. Elaine Grossman of Inside Defense reported of the V-22 that “should a pilot lose engine power and try to restart it, ‘autorotation descent cannot be maintained,’ [quotation from GAO report] which could ostensibly lead to a crash.”49 In this respect, the V-22 may actually be less survivable than helicopters.

Since it couldn't autorotate, the operational requirement was waived. Of course, now the V-22 aplogists will now accuse the Cato Institute of being liars in quoting liars in their report.

[marinemomof1]

I have read everything I can get my hands on about the MV-22 Osprey aircraft. Why would I, a Marine mom, read everything I can get my hands on about the Osprey aircraft? I read about it, and learn what I can about it, because I now live a nightmare because of it. While the more techincal things often go over my head, there are some things I understand very clearly. I know that the slightest mistake kills, and even the "best of the best" cannot keep it in the air.

On April 8, 2000, 19 Marines were killed, many of them just kids. One of those Marines on board that night was my son. Just a month before the April crash, some of those very kids were on a training mission in an Osprey that almost crashed, but was saved at the last minute. When given the choice to fly back or hike out 25 miles, the kids chose to hike out. That aircraft did not crash, so it was not considered an incident and was not reported as such. Some of the families follow the progress of this aircraft, and too many times we hear of near misses. It is just a matter of time before another goes down, taking someone else's kids to their graves. I find it interesting that there has been very little said of the the lead plane that night in April. It also hit the ground very hard, skidded 450 feet, finally landing in a ravine. By the grace of God, it did not explode as my son's plane did. Instead, those Marines were evacuated and stood by to watch my son's plane burn out of control, knowing there was nothing they could do to save anyone on board.

One of the young men who died with my son told his mother to start planning his funeral because he was going to die, and he was going to die in an Osprey. He had been in the plane that had a close call the month before. This mom told her son to stop being silly...then a month later buried him. Almost every family has a story just like that one. Our kids were scared, they did not want to go on that aircraft, but they are Marines and they followed orders. Now, they are dead. What so many fail to realize is that this "thing" has destroyed lives. It has brought too many to the brink of suicide. The powers that be don't care about these young Marines who have to fly in Ospreys, or the families left behind in agonizing grief when they die. Why should they care? It's not their loved ones being forced to board this death trap. As it has proven all too well, when it crashes, there is no hope for survival. While those who push for the Osprey sit around their holiday tables, or share in various family celebrations, we, the victims of their greed, sit at a gravesite weeping, being forced to share the same memories discussed over and over these last 3 years and knowing there will never be new stories. I know what happens when one of these things crashes. I held my son, or rather, what was left of him, in my arms before he was buried, sobbing tears of agony because knew I would never hold him again. His precious body was destroyed.... there was almost nothing left. I wish that when Col. Schultz shares in his next family celebration that he is aware of those of us whose lives are left shattered. If he would not put his child on an MV-22 Osprey and send that child through the same maneuvers that my son and the others went through, then he should never put someone else's child in that same danger. My son did not sign up with the Corps to be dead in 14 months. He did not say to me, "Can't wait to fall out of the sky, all in the name of money and greed." What he said to me was that he wanted to be a Marine so we could continue to live in freedom, and he would make sure no harm came to us on his watch. How painful it is for my family to know we were not able to keep him from harm. When the recruiter came to my house to talk to me about my son going to boot camp early, I voiced to him my concerns about my son's safety. He said, "Ma'am, we would never put your son in harms way". He was either an incredible liar, or he is a very foolish man.

As you banter back and forth, please remember those of us who live with this nightmare every single second of every single day. I know there are some family members, and it is only a couple of them, who will not speak badly of the Osprey because they do not want their loved one's deaths to be in vain. My response to them is, "Too stinking late". When another aircraft flies with troops in it, all those who lost their lives will have done so for nothing. No lessons have been learned, and our grief is meaningless. God help those whose kids are signing up with the Corps today who have no idea about the MV-22 Osprey. Their kids are the next guinea pigs.

[Travis McGee]

You'll take the word of the pilots who have been ordered to fly it, and whose fitness reports will reflect how gung-ho they pretend to be about the project.

The rest of the active duty Marines I know call it the Widowmaker and are praying for it to be axed.

[Travis McGee]

A few questions, oh Osprey Defender:

/1/ Can it land safely if it loses both engines?

/2/ If due to mechanical failure or battle damage, the rotors cannot convert from forward to overhead, can it land safely?

/3/ How can it fire weapons forward for protection, now that the nose gun has been removed from consideration as too heavy?

[Travis McGee]

Respectfully, please read 44 and comment.

[Travis McGee]

One of the many aspects of this program which is so disturbing is watching Marine GENERALS touting the civilian aviation spinoff potential of the Osprey. It makes me wonder what jobs await them at Bell and Boeing upon retirement??

If this plane is the perfect answer for busy executives, then let the GENERALS test it first. Let them fly it exclusively, between the Pentagon, Andrews AFB, and all bases within range, in all weather,in all seasons, day and night.

When the GENERALS have racked up a few thousand safe flying hours in this aircraft, THEN let them order Marine enlisted men and junior officers to fly it.

To order Marine enlisted men and JOs to fly in an aircraft the GENERALS are afraid to fly smacks of dishonor.

And I don't mean a few clear-weather daytime photo-op hops. The GENERALS need to ride this bird in all weather, all seasons, day and night for a year.

Then I will be satisfied.

[Travis McGee]

One of the many aspects of this program which is so disturbing is watching Marine GENERALS touting the civilian aviation spinoff potential of the Osprey. It makes me wonder what jobs await them at Bell and Boeing upon retirement??

If this plane is the perfect answer for busy executives, then let the GENERALS test it first. Let them fly it exclusively, between the Pentagon, Andrews AFB, and all bases within range, in all weather,in all seasons, day and night.

When the GENERALS have racked up a few thousand safe flying hours in this aircraft, THEN let them order Marine enlisted men and junior officers to fly it.

To order Marine enlisted men and JOs to fly in an aircraft the GENERALS are afraid to fly smacks of dishonor.

And I don't mean a few clear weather daytime photo-op hops. The GENERALS need to ride this bird in all weather, all seasons, day and night for a year.

Then I will be satisfied.

[Travis McGee]

Now that you have read 44, would you like to comment?

[Bobsat]

My heart goes out to you and your family over the tragic and avoidable loss of your son.

I hope you will be spared the harassment and invective of those who seem to delight in ignorantly abusing anyone who impugns the suitability of the V-22 as a military transport, but I also hope you will speak out fearlessly about it.

Every aircraft design ever made has or will suffer a complete loss of engine power, and an inviolable design criterion for those that carry passengers is that the subsequent landing be survivable.

Every aircraft ever made has an uncontrollable flight region that should not be able to be entered in normal operations. That is also an inviolable design criterion.

The Osprey fails on BOTH of those criteria! When either one of them also involves the exigencies of battle, pilot fatigue, mission pressure, and the general tendency of human beings to just plain screw up, a crash will result. Human beings are always the weakest link in technology, and the design criteria are to minimize the consequences of the inevitible human failings to operate the technology safely.

As the Cato report reveals, there is no defensible mission for the V-22 that cannot be accomplished safer and cheaper by proven aircraft designs.

Semper Fi, marinemofof1, and may you be blessed in your efforts involving your son and in all aspects of your life.

[Bobsat]

I will not be satisfied at all unless the V-22's design allows for safe power off landings and that ability has been thoroughly demonstrated.

I will not be fully satisfied unless the V-22's design is shown to comply with the safety design criteria that have been proven necessary over the century of aircraft development that we cannot ignore by greed driven fiat.

As I've said and implied before in the Osprey threads, the crew voluntarily puts their lives on the line, but there's a higher responsibility on the designers, manufacturers, ground support and crew when passengers are involved.

There being nothing further to consider, the V-22 program should be terminated.

[Travis McGee]

And it really burns me that they are testing it on non-volunteers who are ordered to ride it.

[Bobsat]

Totally unnecessary and unconscionable. On a smaller scale, it's analogous to assigning soldiers to be in the test area of atomic bombs at the Nevada Test Site in the '50s "to see what the effects on them would be."

Those stupid decisions are made at the command level, and I'm still optimistic in believing that designers and engineers would never subject innocents to such risks.

[Travis McGee]

The designers, engineers, Boeing and Bel execs and Marine Generals should be the mandatory passengers on the first year of flying.

[Bobsat]

Plus a few CongressCritters....

[Travis McGee]

Exactly right!

[Missmyson]

The biggest flaw regarding the Osprey, is our hearts. I, too, lost my son on April 8th, 2000. My son was the crew chief and was a vey proud Marine, as I was and will always be a Proud Marine Mom.
Reply 44 speaks for all of us broken-hearted moms. I pray to God another family doesn't have to go through the torture of loosing a child for such a senseless cause.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

I take the words of pilots who volunteer, meaning they aren't ordered, to fly the aircraft. There are a lot more pilots volunteering to fly the Osprey than there are asking to be transferred from the program. Anybody who wanted off the program was allowed to go, no questions asked. I take the words of pilots who are tired of flying 40 year old helicopters that have had their flight envelopes restricted due to airframe fatigue. I take the word of people like Lt. Col. Ron Culp who requested his detailer ensure that he would be given orders back to the Osprey program following his year in Okinawa. How many Marines do you personally know who are involved in the project at PAX River, New River and Quantico?

I know a lot of grunts who are scared to death of flying in a 40 year old CH-46, the Boeing Body Bag and can't wait until they're replaced with MV-22s. I know a lot of grunts who are afraid that their AAVs are going to flood and sink every time they muster in the well deck. I know a lot of grunts who worry that the Marine bringing up the rear on a patrol will get sloppy, make a mistake and end up getting the rest of his squad or fire team killed in an ambush. I also know a Master Gunny who is the avionics chief, as well as a crew chief, in a CH-53E squadron at New River who wears a rabbits foot every time he flies and keeps chewable pepto bismol tablets in his flightsuit to calm his stomach. How many Marines do you know at VMMT-204?