By: J. STRYKER MEYER - Staff Writer
Design flaws still make tilt-rotor aircraft unacceptable for imminent Iraq deployment There's so much to admire about the Marine Corps. The fighting quality and spirit of the combat Marines who go into harm's way are second to none. For more than two centuries Marines have fought hard for this country, often with horrific death tolls, such as during the bloody Pacific Islands campaign during World War II. | ∞
An MV-22 Osprey lifts off from the deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsage in 2004. It is scheduled to be used in Iraq any day now, but columnist J. Stryker Meyer writes that serious design flaws make it unacceptably vulnerable for combat use.
During the Vietnam War, I had the privilege of working with Marine Corps helicopter gunship crews while running secret missions into Laos, Cambodia and North Vietnam as a member of Army Special Forces.
I'm alive today thanks to the courage of Marine aviators, including men from HML 367, which had the unique radio call sign of "Scarface." Today's Marines in Scarface continue to fly into harm's way in Iraq and they continue to serve honorably.
However, there's an aviation and high command component of the Marine Corps that defies logic today by continuing to foist off the experimental tilt-rotor aircraft that flies like an airplane but takes off and lands in a helicopter mode of flight.
It converts to the helicopter mode after its two wings rotate 90 degrees upward, moving the two 38-foot rotors from a traditional airplane position to a locked position above the fusilage.
During the last two years, the Corps has kicked into high gear its public relations specialists and numerous supporters in aviation and military press touting its great potential as the Marines' aircraft of the future.
This is happening despite years of opposition from many quarters across the country, all of which are ignored by the Corps.
No desert testing
In the near future, the Marine Corps is going to begin to use the MV-22 Ospreys in the war zone, which is a desert, a sandy area of operations.
This will happen despite the fact that, as reported in the Oct. 8 edition of Time magazine, "The (M)V-22's tendency to generate a dust storm when it lands in desertlike terrain wasn't examined (during official tests) because 'an unusually wet spring resulted in a large amount of vegetation that prevented severe brownouts during landing attempts,' the Pentagon's top tester noted."
Thus, the MV-22 will go into a desert combat zone, carrying combat troops, without having been tested for how it performs in a desert environment.
Time's scathing article is one of the thorough pieces written about the MV-22's troubled past and inflated expectations by the Corps, and noted how the military-industrial-congressional complex has ignored major problems with this aircraft.
In 2006, former Marine Lee Gaillard penned a damning report for the Center for Defense Information, "V-22 Osprey: Wonder Weapon or Widow Maker?" Gaillard's report raised significant issues that have been ignored by the Corps or glossed over and respun by the public relations arm of the Corps.
What experience has taught me
But, my criticism stems from my personal experience of having run top-secret military operations for more than 18 months during the Vietnam War and from interviews with knowledgeable warriors in the Corps today and in the Special Operations Command based at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida.
My concerns are basically threefold:
1) The MV-22 until recently had no defensive weapon system on it, despite the fact that in 2000 then-Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. James L. Jones told me in an interview that he had demanded that one be placed on the tilt-rotor aircraft. Jones had wanted a weapon that could fire forward of the aircraft. However, after dragging their collective feet, program designers finally placed a small-caliber weapon on the ramp of the MV-22, which can fire only behind the aircraft and slightly to the sides ---- not forward. And, it can fire only when the ramp is down.
From my personal experience, when an aircraft goes into a landing zone, that's when it is the most vulnerable to enemy gunfire. With today's helicopters, everything from the old CH-46 and CH-53 to the newer UH-60 Blackhawk models have doorgunners on them that can protect the aircraft's flanks. The trained military personnel flying in the MV-22 will not be able to defend themselves from enemy fire.
2) The MV-22 has tiny windows that impede passengers' ability to see the terrain the aircraft is descending toward. Time and again during the Vietnam War, while flying in UH-1Ds, commonly called Hueys, we ---- as passengers in the choppers ---- were able to see land hazards and better prepare for the target. In the MV-22 the troops are essentially blind. Also, due to the configuration of the MV-22, previous passengers (i.e., young Marines) complained in surveys about getting queasy from flying in the Osprey and feeling sick when they landed.
3) Any military special operations troop will tell anyone who listens how vital quick insertions into the target area are in order to begin a successful operation. In 'Nam, we trained for hours exiting and entering helicopters quickly.
A key component of successful insertions was the chopper descending quickly into a landing zone, the troops exiting in a matter of a second or two, and the aircraft exiting the area ASAP.
Today's MV-22 can do neither: It can't descend rapidly into a landing zone ---- regardless of what a few Marine generals have said in recent months ---- although it can leave a target area quicker than it descends.
Critics of the troubled aircraft point to the April 1999 crash in Marana, Ariz., that killed 19 Marines as deadly proof that the aircraft isn't capable of a quick descent into an LZ. They say that aircraft crashed because it descended into the landing zone too quickly.
Also, it was revealed at that time that the MV-22 had a unique problem, a phenomenon that surfaced with helicopters called vortex ring state.
That phenomenon limits the rate of descent into a target by an MV-22. This means the Osprey will be a sitting duck going into a target ---- a defenseless sitting duck.
Officers concerned
In the last year, I've had informal discussions with special operations warriors who might someday find themselves riding in the Osprey to a target area.
One high-ranking general told me that the Green Berets who conduct clandestine operations behind enemy lines hold the MV-22 in utter contempt and feel it's a killer of men incapable of meeting the insertion/extraction capabilities of today's Blackhawks. "The only people who want this damned bird are the contractors and Marine generals who haven't been on the ground as a special operator," said one general.
A high-ranking Marine officer echoed that sentiment: "The ground pounders hoped the Marine Corps would get an aircraft that gets us into and out of target areas quickly, such as the Blackhawk. Instead, they gave us a billion-dollar space shuttle."
Endorsing their opinions, as quoted in Time, was Philip Coyle, the former top Pentagon weapons testing official, who said the V-22s aren't suited for "combat situations where they will have to do a lot of maneuvering."
Air Force repeating mistake
From a personal concern, there's one more element: The Air Force is purchasing 50 CV-22s, which are versions of the Osprey with "enhanced capabilities tailored" for the unique mission requirements of the Special Operations Command.
The exact specifications that make the CV-22 different from the MV-22 aren't specified in general press releases. However, the basic bird that costs more than $100 million per aircraft still has the same major flaws that I outlined earlier.
The only good news is the Air Force isn't scheduled to activate that unit until 2009, whereas in the weeks ahead, there's a good chance that the first MV-22 will fly into harm's way and crash. The first question will be: Did it crash and kill good Marines due to its inherent flaws or vulnerability in desert areas of operation, or due to enemy fire?
Staff writer J. Stryker Meyer is the author of "On the Ground: The Secret War in Vietnam," (2007" Levin Publishing Group, LLC). He can be contacted at (760) 901-4089 or jmeyer@nctimes.com. To comment, go to nctimes.com.
mike wrote on Nov 3, 2007 9:22 PM:Is the V-22 a UH60 replacement, can you get get 10,000lbs into a UH60, will every UH60 mission be given to a V-22? Arguements comparing Donkys to Oxs hinge on intend use. Let's wait and see how the V-22 does in real world missions, surely there will be some to exploit its capabilities. Agree that it should have a forward gun or many Hellfire missles.
Jim wrote on Nov 4, 2007 7:25 AM:This would have been such a good read had I not been put off by your admission of secret operations to Cambodia , Laos and, North Vietnam. I never heard of anyone going to those places, maybe because they were secret and they knew not to talk about them. Which questions your credibility, are you pulling our legs or are you talking out of school?
Old Marine wrote on Nov 4, 2007 11:13 AM:It is all about the money flow and DOD contracts.Keep the money flowing to the defense contractors...at all costs.
bruce wrote on Nov 4, 2007 3:04 PM:While it may be true there were no desert tests early on; there has been much testing of the V-22 in desert conditions prior to deployment to Iraq. These tests took place in the south west deserts of New Mexico and/or Arizona. It is interesting how all the detracters don't mention the 1,000's of hours of Marine Corps V-22 flying time in the last 2-3 years without incident.
Paul G. wrote on Nov 4, 2007 8:29 PM: Just came back from Arizone and saw one flying low over the desert on the California side of the Colorado River near Yuma. So desert flying may not be a big issue. Good points on the gunners. Huge props and wings would make it more difficult to mount on an Osprey.
who you wrote on Nov 5, 2007 3:27 AM:This article is an utter disgrace full of inaccuracies and complete insult to anyone who does honest journalism. The V-22 is slated to replace CH-46s and CH 53 Pavelow. It can fly 3x as fast and will be a godsent in special ops quick insertion and retrieval. I cannot believe the inaccuracies of this article. Furthermore, how bout some names with all of these "generals" quoted. 100 milllion a copy? Try half that!!! This is complete garbage.
Ron wrote on Nov 5, 2007 6:57 AM:The MV-22 is in operational service. It is NOT experimental. The MV-22 is replacing the CH-46...not the UH-1 or the UH-60. Make proper comparisons please. Troops disembark from the sides of a Blackhawk and Huey, and from the ramp area of the CH-46...just like the MV-22. The Arizona crash occurred because the pilot's were descending not just "too fast"...but WAY too fast. Well in excess of the published limits. Subsequent extensive testing has established that the V-22 has more capability than published and is actually easier to get out of VRS than a standard helicopter. As for the gun issue. That's pentagon beaurocracy. There has been design provisions for a nose mounted and ramp mounted gun for years. When the first fatalities occur because of a lack of guns...you can bet there will guns on a V-22 in a New York second. And...curiously enough, SOCOM is looking to get the CV-22 in operational service sooner rather than later.
Mike the Marine wrote on Nov 5, 2007 7:43 AM:All these names, like "Widow Maker", "Flying Coffin", etc., were also given to another Marine aircraft, the F4, as it was being brought into service. The F4 Phantom, probably one of a handful of aircraft with a very long service life, and a mainstay for the Marines, Navy and Air Force, is historically considered one of the finest aricraft of the twentieth century. Let's see how the Osprey works in combat before condemning it.
thegunny wrote on Nov 5, 2007 8:54 AM:The wings on the MV-22 are fixed and do not rotate. All VTOL aircraft will generate dust storms in desert conditions regardless of type of aircraft. How is that a fault directly attributed to the MV-22 alone? I have flown in the CH-46, CH-53's and the MV-22 all have small windows. Pre-insertion briefs to the LZ cover the lay of the land so to speak, so we knew before we got there what we would be dealing with. Geez, you speak as though the troops have no clue of what terrain they will be expected to operate in. Never do a night insertion?
Acquistion Guy wrote on Nov 5, 2007 6:18 PM:The early stages of the V-22 were full of crashes AND fatalities! Many feared the "political" deployment of this aircraft before it was ready. I must confess that I have lost track of program and how they resolved the problems with this airframe. At this point I can only hope and pray that they did a good job of fixing the early problems. The one thing everyone should know, the CH-46 is a very old aircraft, the risk of keeping it in service much longer spells more mishaps and fatalities. The H-53 is a slow cumbersome aircraft and is not suited to todays special op's. The V-22 was designed to replace these old and slow aircraft, let's hope it works properly!
Mike wrote on Nov 6, 2007 5:27 AM:Hey Stryker, what's a "fusilage?" Most "experienced" guys like yourself know how to spell the most basic parts of an aircraft. "Two wings rotate 90 degrees upward" and rotors that rotate to a "locked position?" I don't think so. You don't even know the basics of how this aircraft works or performs. I fly the V-22 weekly and I guarantee the V-22 can beat any helicopter into an LZ from 3 miles out. You're a hack!
TCM wrote on Nov 6, 2007 5:38 AM:I've flew in every troop carrying helo the Corps had in its inventry before I retired 4-years ago. I've seen first hand what everyone of them looks like when it crashes. The y all kill people. The MV-22 will also kill people eventually. Its time to get rid of the Frogs which can't even carry their rated load because crash concerns.
Paul wrote on Nov 6, 2007 9:47 AM:To "Secret War" Stryker: Your writing is no more than a regurgitated kow-tow to Time magazine's contemptible article, "A Flying Shame." Dittos to Mike who wrote, "You're a hack." Try some real journalism for a change. Check your facts. And most of all, listen to the pilots who actually FLY this aircraft: The Marines who you say have such a great "fighting quality and spirit." If you REALLY believe that, then trust their judgment and stow the pessimism.
keller wrote on Nov 6, 2007 1:55 PM:Stryker, you're an outright and certified "Bush Hater" and "America Hater!" You don't speak from FACTS on the regurgitation of the hate filled Mainstream Media. Rookie!
SgtMaj wrote on Nov 6, 2007 2:05 PM:The Boeing 747 was a disaster early on. Prototype M16's were truly a mess, and I refused to carry the 9mm Beretta myself. Let congress award a few more billion dollar contracts, let a few more Jarheads crash and let nature take its course. ...
Fred H wrote on Nov 6, 2007 2:18 PM:I guess you could have been named after fictional character Sgt. John Stryker (John Wayne) in "The Sands of Iwo Jima". John Wayne wasn't a 'real' Marine and you aren't a 'real' journalist. You are becoming a frictional character though....
Ops Chief wrote on Nov 6, 2007 5:09 PM:You got the year wrong for the Osprey that went down outside of Marana, Arizona. Did you copy that from the Time article also? Then again I don't have to look it up, those were Marines from the battalion in which I was serving at the time.
Michael wrote on Nov 6, 2007 5:24 PM:VP Cheney did one thing right: as Sec of Defense through 1992 he tried to cancel the V22 "Gooney Bird" four times, to no avail. The Bell/Boeing lobby prevailed. The army rejected it. Keep in mind the high tech army helicopter, the Comanche, was finally scrubbed after years and several billions spent. Updated Blackhawk and Apache gunships were the answer.
Gregory wrote on Nov 7, 2007 4:40 AM:Meyer has demonstrated with this poorly researched and poorly written collection of mistakes and lies that yellow journalism is not dead.
soup wrote on Nov 7, 2007 9:11 AM:To Jim 4Nov. If you are in tuned as you professed to be, you would know that all operaters signed a no disclosure form not to discuss any activites from that time period.I do not remember what you said but I guess it was not worth rembering anyway.
Jim wrote on Nov 7, 2007 10:49 AM:Among all the other errors in this article, I'd like to point out that Vortex Ring State is not a problem that is "unique to the V-22". VRS is something that happens to any helicopter which develops too great a rate of descent at low foward airspeed.
KMTRA wrote on Nov 8, 2007 12:05 PM:What a poorly written article. There are so many false statements, where do I begin. So your telling me that the enemy will always hide off the front of the aircraft? When Marines are pulled out of a zone, would you rather shoot the aircraft down when it ingresses into the zone or as it leaves the zone with a load of Marines. I have personally flown the aircraft in and out of some of the most sever dust zones the desert can offer. The aircraft operates well in the desert and even has advantages over legacy aircraft. The V-22 has a moving map that and a jump seat to allow the grunt to have total SA as to where in the world they are located. Marines are not actively calling out threats to aircrew. As for these "Green Beret General" I doubt that a well informed senior officer would say that about such a capable machine. I suspect that these individuals are long retired and have no relevance in today's world. But let me tell you that as a former 46 pilot, the osprey is quieter, faster, and a vastly more capable aircraft. I can ingress and egress out of a zone much faster than any helicopter (the mirana accident would have happened for just about any aircraft when flown at those rates of descent). I can fly much further and carry a load 2-3 times bigger than the old 46. I would be wasting my time refuting all of the other false claims in your article seeing as though people like you that write articles like this have no interest in reporting the truth rather, reporting sensationalized storys. Mr Meyer, grow a spine and learn the truth for yourself and not just what other misguided reporters write!
WhoWhat wrote on Nov 9, 2007 9:35 PM:Why is this blatant piece of misinformed "opinion" still on the main website. The Osprey is one of the most tested and vetted aircraft ever. NCT let it go
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement
Escondido
(760) 745-6611
207 East Penn. Ave.
Escondido, CA 92025
Oceanside
(760) 433-7333
1722 South Coast Highway
Oceanside, CA 92054
The Californian
(951) 676-4315
28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 100
Temecula, CA 92590
Fallbrook
(760) 728-6116
1112 S. Main Ave.
Fallbrook, CA 92028
