thedrifter
11-16-07, 08:28 AM
11/16/2007
Sky-High Hopes For Osprey Grounded By Critics' Fears
By: Dan Hirschhorn , The Bulletin
Soldiers usually don't die testing military equipment on home soil. But the V-22 Osprey is nothing if not unusual.
After 19 marines took off from the Arizona desert in 2000, they learned the hard way when the plane-helicopter-hybrid tumbled from the sky and crashed to the ground, ending their lives in a blaze of untested technology. Only a few months later, it happened again, when four marines died in a crash during another training mission in North Carolina.
The accidents derailed the program - but not for long.
Seven years later, with $20 billion in taxpayer money invested in the project, the Osprey is off to Iraq. And some people are very, very nervous about it.
"Keep your fingers crossed," says Gordon Adams, who oversaw military spending for the Office of Management and Budget during the Clinton administration.
The apprehension is understandable. Over the course of 25 years in development, the program has suffered setbacks of almost every kind imaginable. Software. Hardware. Wiring. Mechanics. You name it. Even Vice President Dick Cheney tried to kill the
Continued On?Page 6
program when he was Secretary of Defense in 1989.
To its critics, it is untested, unproven, and some say, even dangerous.
"There are darn few problems a procurement program can encounter that the V-22 hasn't shaken hands with," Mr. Adams says.
But where there is great trepidation, there is also great hope. After resisting the ax, time and time again, the Osprey can carry heavier loads for longer distances and with greater speed than any helicopter in the military's arsenal. To its proponents, it is an agile aircraft perfect for the type of warfare facing the country right now, able to quickly swoop in and out of enemy territory.
Continued On Page 6
"This is revolutionary technology," says James Darcy, a spokesman for the office supervising the Osprey's deployment across the military. "It's as big of a change in aviation technology as the introduction of the helicopter or the jet."
"What most people don't realize," he added, "is how much redesign has gone into the craft since its first flight."
A report last year by military analysts Loren Thompson, Lawrence Korb and Max Bergmann sums up what is expected of the craft.
"It doesn't require a degree from Professor (former Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld's School for the Truly Transformational to figure out that this is a special capability, one well-suited to a world of irregular warfare, unconventional threats, and homeland disasters," the analysts wrote.
The Osprey is essentially a military transport vehicle, meant primarily for shutting large amounts of personnel and equipment in and out of war zones. It is partly manufactured at Boeing's plant in Ridley Park just outside Philadelphia, while assembly is completed by Bell in Texas.
Able to take off and land vertically like a helicopter thanks to its tilt rotors while also traversing the distance and high altitude other aircrafts can't, some see it as the best of both worlds.
After taking off like a helicopter, it transforms in midair by tilting its twin rotor propellers, turning into a lighting fast propeller plane. It can fly above dangerous areas helicopters would be forced to maneuver around, at speeds helicopters cannot rival. It can carry twice the weight helicopters currently in use can bear.
"It just makes you that much less predictable to an enemy trying to determine where you're going to land," Mr. Darcy says.
Others see an aircraft straddling the fence between plane and helicopter, and deficient on both sides. There have been problems with fluid leaks and engine failure. With only one rear-mounted gun, cover fire for landings is limited. And the aerodynamics of two tilt rotors are tricky, to say the least.
"It's a wonderful concept, the idea that something can fly like a helicopter and an airplane," says Philip Coyle, who was the Pentagon's top weapon's tester from 1994-2001. "But in practice, the Osprey has had so many problems that the Marines might have been better off 20 years ago if they had simply bought more conventional helicopters."
Regardless of who's right, a squadron of 10 of the aircraft is in Iraq now, and the coming months could decide the program's legacy. And even the skeptics seem willing to suspend disbelief now that the aircraft is in a war theater.
"It may turnout-despite all of the uncertainties, despite an accident-riddled program, despite the increase in cost-that the thing actually works," Mr. Adams says.
That legacy is a telling one in the world of the military industrial complex. The cost per aircraft has doubled since the program began, and the maintenance checklist has grown exponentially.
"It has a high failure rate, which then in turn adds to the cost of expense of maintenance, and it all kind of spirals," Mr. Coyle says. "If the fan belt on your car failed every 10 miles, you'd check it every five."
And thanks to sympathetic lawmakers and Marines determined to see the project through, the program has never died.
"We always underestimate the cost of a major program," Mr. Adams says. "We have an excess of optimism about cost. It's almost like spitting into the wind."
"Pound for pound at the original price, this was a decision that on paper made sense," Mr. Adam adds. "That original cost-benefit analysis might not hold anymore.
But Boeing, Bell and the military are all staunch defenders of the project. They point to repeated redesigns to Marine and Air Force specifications, and a testing program that has been nothing if not comprehensive. Any new technology, they say, requires a gradual learning curve over time before it is battle-tested.
"The tendency is to look back over the history of the aircraft and look at incidents that happened seven years ago and apply it to the craft today," Mr. Darcy says.
"This aircraft was designed from the ground up with Marine and Air Force missions in mind," he adds. "No one told the Marines that the Osprey was ready for combat. They reached that conclusion on their own."
It will take some time tell whether it was all worth it. The Osprey has barely started flying military missions in Iraq, and some setbacks, even crashes, may be inevitable, officials acknowledge.
And the problems continue at home. Just 10 days ago, an Osprey was forced to make an emergency landing in North Carolina after an engine nacelle fire.
"Everyone just wants the aircraft's performance to speak for itself," Mr. Darcy says. "Rather than tout its capabilities, the time for talking about what it can do is passed."
Ellie
Sky-High Hopes For Osprey Grounded By Critics' Fears
By: Dan Hirschhorn , The Bulletin
Soldiers usually don't die testing military equipment on home soil. But the V-22 Osprey is nothing if not unusual.
After 19 marines took off from the Arizona desert in 2000, they learned the hard way when the plane-helicopter-hybrid tumbled from the sky and crashed to the ground, ending their lives in a blaze of untested technology. Only a few months later, it happened again, when four marines died in a crash during another training mission in North Carolina.
The accidents derailed the program - but not for long.
Seven years later, with $20 billion in taxpayer money invested in the project, the Osprey is off to Iraq. And some people are very, very nervous about it.
"Keep your fingers crossed," says Gordon Adams, who oversaw military spending for the Office of Management and Budget during the Clinton administration.
The apprehension is understandable. Over the course of 25 years in development, the program has suffered setbacks of almost every kind imaginable. Software. Hardware. Wiring. Mechanics. You name it. Even Vice President Dick Cheney tried to kill the
Continued On?Page 6
program when he was Secretary of Defense in 1989.
To its critics, it is untested, unproven, and some say, even dangerous.
"There are darn few problems a procurement program can encounter that the V-22 hasn't shaken hands with," Mr. Adams says.
But where there is great trepidation, there is also great hope. After resisting the ax, time and time again, the Osprey can carry heavier loads for longer distances and with greater speed than any helicopter in the military's arsenal. To its proponents, it is an agile aircraft perfect for the type of warfare facing the country right now, able to quickly swoop in and out of enemy territory.
Continued On Page 6
"This is revolutionary technology," says James Darcy, a spokesman for the office supervising the Osprey's deployment across the military. "It's as big of a change in aviation technology as the introduction of the helicopter or the jet."
"What most people don't realize," he added, "is how much redesign has gone into the craft since its first flight."
A report last year by military analysts Loren Thompson, Lawrence Korb and Max Bergmann sums up what is expected of the craft.
"It doesn't require a degree from Professor (former Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld's School for the Truly Transformational to figure out that this is a special capability, one well-suited to a world of irregular warfare, unconventional threats, and homeland disasters," the analysts wrote.
The Osprey is essentially a military transport vehicle, meant primarily for shutting large amounts of personnel and equipment in and out of war zones. It is partly manufactured at Boeing's plant in Ridley Park just outside Philadelphia, while assembly is completed by Bell in Texas.
Able to take off and land vertically like a helicopter thanks to its tilt rotors while also traversing the distance and high altitude other aircrafts can't, some see it as the best of both worlds.
After taking off like a helicopter, it transforms in midair by tilting its twin rotor propellers, turning into a lighting fast propeller plane. It can fly above dangerous areas helicopters would be forced to maneuver around, at speeds helicopters cannot rival. It can carry twice the weight helicopters currently in use can bear.
"It just makes you that much less predictable to an enemy trying to determine where you're going to land," Mr. Darcy says.
Others see an aircraft straddling the fence between plane and helicopter, and deficient on both sides. There have been problems with fluid leaks and engine failure. With only one rear-mounted gun, cover fire for landings is limited. And the aerodynamics of two tilt rotors are tricky, to say the least.
"It's a wonderful concept, the idea that something can fly like a helicopter and an airplane," says Philip Coyle, who was the Pentagon's top weapon's tester from 1994-2001. "But in practice, the Osprey has had so many problems that the Marines might have been better off 20 years ago if they had simply bought more conventional helicopters."
Regardless of who's right, a squadron of 10 of the aircraft is in Iraq now, and the coming months could decide the program's legacy. And even the skeptics seem willing to suspend disbelief now that the aircraft is in a war theater.
"It may turnout-despite all of the uncertainties, despite an accident-riddled program, despite the increase in cost-that the thing actually works," Mr. Adams says.
That legacy is a telling one in the world of the military industrial complex. The cost per aircraft has doubled since the program began, and the maintenance checklist has grown exponentially.
"It has a high failure rate, which then in turn adds to the cost of expense of maintenance, and it all kind of spirals," Mr. Coyle says. "If the fan belt on your car failed every 10 miles, you'd check it every five."
And thanks to sympathetic lawmakers and Marines determined to see the project through, the program has never died.
"We always underestimate the cost of a major program," Mr. Adams says. "We have an excess of optimism about cost. It's almost like spitting into the wind."
"Pound for pound at the original price, this was a decision that on paper made sense," Mr. Adam adds. "That original cost-benefit analysis might not hold anymore.
But Boeing, Bell and the military are all staunch defenders of the project. They point to repeated redesigns to Marine and Air Force specifications, and a testing program that has been nothing if not comprehensive. Any new technology, they say, requires a gradual learning curve over time before it is battle-tested.
"The tendency is to look back over the history of the aircraft and look at incidents that happened seven years ago and apply it to the craft today," Mr. Darcy says.
"This aircraft was designed from the ground up with Marine and Air Force missions in mind," he adds. "No one told the Marines that the Osprey was ready for combat. They reached that conclusion on their own."
It will take some time tell whether it was all worth it. The Osprey has barely started flying military missions in Iraq, and some setbacks, even crashes, may be inevitable, officials acknowledge.
And the problems continue at home. Just 10 days ago, an Osprey was forced to make an emergency landing in North Carolina after an engine nacelle fire.
"Everyone just wants the aircraft's performance to speak for itself," Mr. Darcy says. "Rather than tout its capabilities, the time for talking about what it can do is passed."
Ellie