By Steve Hynd
A CV-22 tilt-rotor aircraft has crashed in Afghanistan, killing at least four and wounding several others. The Taliban have claimed responsibility but ISAF say the cause of the crash is unknown at this time. The aircraft is known as accident prone though and the Obama administration earmarked $126.2 million in FY11 to try to offset what was described to Congress as "challenges with its high operational tempo and small fleet size... coupled with lower priority versus combat operations on spare parts".
Ospreys have problems with fast descents of the kind needed in combat zones, being prone to a condition known as "Vortex Ring State" which has been a cause of several crashes, three of which were fatal, during development. That condition means they must descent relatively slowly, making them more vulnerable to ground fire, or risk crashing. Observers have questioned whether the technology was mature enough for deployment, but the Marine Corps and Air Force were worried that the program would be shut down if it didn't show results - as Dick Cheney almost succeeded in doing in the Bush administration's first term.
Did the Air Force kill four people by pushing ahead with deployment of an aircraft that was unready for operations in a combat environment like Afghanistan?
UPDATE: In comments, some staunch defenders of the V-22 series tell me I'm barking up the wrong tree, and over at Danger Room, Nathan Hodge has this:
Richard Whittle, author of the newly published The Dream Machine: The Untold History of the Notorious V-22 Osprey, told Danger Room, �No one�s ever claimed the Osprey was invulnerable, and since the war in Afghanistan began in 2001, the U.S. has lost more than 300 rotorcraft there and in Iraq from various causes in crashes that killed nearly 500 people.� But, Whittle added: �If the cause was aerodynamic � if this Osprey lost its engines for some reason and was trying to autorotate to a landing, meaning float down on the cushion of lift even unpowered rotors can provide � then the critics who warned that this was a fatal weakness in the Osprey are going to be able to say �I told you so.��
Although commenters there seem certain that the Osprey can't autorotate very well at all if both engines go out.
And over at The Atlantic, one of John Hudson's commenters writes that the debate should be about whether the Osprey is worth its $58 price tag when you could buy two CH-47 heavy helicopters for the same money.
It's a shame. The Osprey is a great idea and if it've been built by another manufacturer it'd be OK but Boeing is so totally bureaucratic and risk averse, they built a committee-designed lemon. Everything in its design is 1960's technology. Lockheed Martin would've done the job right.
ReplyDeleteThe Osprey will go down in history as the third greatest taxpayer ripoff after star wars and the space shuttle.
ReplyDelete***"Vortex Ring State" which has been a cause of several crashes***
ReplyDeleteThat is so not true. Only one of the accidents was a result of VRS, and even then the pilot was descending at a rate far far in excess of the published limits.
I haven't a clue what caused this accident. Nor do you.
Congressional testimony by CRS expert Christopher Bolkcom, Jan 7 2005, as linked above:
ReplyDelete"In light of several V-22 crashes, three involving fatalities, many argue that the tilt-rotor technology is not sufficiently mature to merit the Osprey's production and fielding. Studies suggest that tilt-rotor aircraft are more susceptible to airflow instabilities that can cause Vortex Ring State than are traditional helicopters.29 And our understanding of the kinds of airflow anomalies that have caused numerous deaths in V-22 flight testing are still very immature."
Regards, Steve
Sorry I was shocked when I heard the Marines were using the damn thing again after so many deaths already but Marines, eh. As said, a great idea, but I'd not be on the fucker yell at me all you want screw you it's jinxed
ReplyDeleteYour info is taken out of context Steve. There have been 3 crashes with fatalities, one of which was found to have Vortex Ring State (VRS) as a causal factor. In the history of rotorcraft development, if you do just a small amount of research, you will find that it has had a tremendous safety record compared to other "new technology platforms". This airplane is not flawless by any means, there are some significant parts reliability issues that need to be addressed but to judge on some mis-informed,errant congressional testimony is foolish. It certainly isn't "jinxd" either. More over, this airplane has been subjected to more malicious media hype than any other aircraft in history. Take it with a grain of salt and wait until the dust settles to see what happened.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, do you know just how many people have been killed in a V-22. Dig that fact up and publish it, it may amaze people at how small the number is compared to the urban legend that has grown from such unfortunate events. We owe it to everyone to be accurate in our "storytelling".
God bless the crew, you will be remembered with warm hearts, fellow warriors.
Please publish some credentials that you are an expert on military aircraft... I will believe what you publish...we've had multiple crashes too on other heavy lift helicopters CH-46s and CH-53s while I was in the military, but it took awhile to replace them because of necessity...you don't produce a perfect aircraft LIKE MAGIC... it's unfair to judge the functionality of an aircraft just because of accidents- even several...Commanders have to ask the question- Do we have an immediate replacement for the mission it's doing? Sometimes missions demand that even a PMCS aircraft be flown...
ReplyDelete"... they must descent relatively slowly ..." Relative to what? The V-22's checked out to descend at 800 feet per minute. The V-22 is "prone" to vortex ring state just like any other rotorcraft, including helicopters. It is unique in its ability to get out of VRS quickly by tilting its rotors forward--just a couple of seconds and they're clear, and all V-22's have warnings that sound to alert the pilots when they're approaching 800 fpm. Christopher Bolkcom's report referencing VRS is five years old. By 2005, V-22 engineers had wrapped up pioneering research of high-rate descents and how to fly out of VRS. Their work was honored by the Society of Experimental Test Pilots (Trying searching Tom MacDonald and Kincheloe Award). Stick to what you know, which is clearly not rotorcraft aerodynamics, design or operations. (By the way, Bolkcom died nearly a year ago, so he has nothing to add to the discussion.)
ReplyDeleteSorry, Steve, but those complaining that you've got your facts wrong have got their facts right. Only one Osprey crash was caused by vortex ring state. What the late Chris Bolkcom wrote in 2005 is also out of date. The Osprey has been in service since 2007, and the Marines and Air Force have flown their Ospreys more than 70,000 hours since 2002, including about 11,000 hours in combat. The rushing to get it into service went on in the 1990s, after Cheney tried to cancel the Osprey when he was defense secretary, 1989-93. You can read all about that and find full descriptions of each of the previous four Osprey crashes -- the last were in April and December 2000 -- in my book, The Dream Machine: The Untold History of the Notorious V-22 Osprey, which will be in stores April 27. Until then, you can find the details on the Osprey and vortex ring state in an excerpt of the book in the April issue of Rotor & Wing magazine. Below is a link. Hope this is helpful to you and fans of your blog.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/training/military/Adapted-from-The-Dream-Machine-The-Untold-History-of-the-Notorious-V-22-Osprey_67218.htmlhttp://www.rotorandwing-digital.com/rotorandwing/201004#pg1
Thanks very much Richard. I'm glad to see I've gotten things wrong, to be honest. Remembering the shenannigans with the Blackhawk program and substandard gear there, I threw out a question marked clearly as speculation in the post tags, and it seems to have been answered. Thanks all.
ReplyDeleteRegards, Steve