This week’s cover article in Time magazine is about the V-22. The title of the article — “A Flying Shame” — gives you a pretty good indication of writer Mark Thompson’s thesis.
I was contacted by Thompson in late August. During our half hour conversation I offered pretty much the same thoughts I put out here some months ago regarding the Osprey’s warfighting potential, including my belief that the airplane really could “change everything” in terms of how the Marine Corps fights.
Well, Thompson left out the part where I indicated my support and hopes for VMM-263’s success and resultantly I am presented as a “critic.”
Serves me right, I guess. I dealt with this type of reporter for three years in support of the program and was often frustrated by what they left out of the final product. That’s what I get for attempting a complete thought with a reporter who’s reverse engineering a story. I should have used my “risk communications” training during this conversation.
As I’ve written here before, Godspeed to the “Thunder Chickens” and all who work in support of the V-22 around the fleet. I hope to be proved wrong with my (now well circulated) concerns, including the mishap rate. In fact, I’m planning on it.
Here’s a video of Colonel “Bluto” Walters, USMC — former CO of VMX-22 — addressing Thompson’s points on Fox News.
As always, we’ll be keeping DT readers up on what’s happening — both good and bad — with this crucial first deployment.
– Ward
{ 22 comments… read them below or add one }
Just another “news story” to add to the list of awful reporting on new military hardware. The M2 Bradley, AH-64 and Stryker were also called examples of pointless boondoggles that were only going to get our troops killed, (bless their souls, the poor dears), just so that defense contractors could make a few more dollars.
Nevermind that each has proven itself in combat over and over again since the “experts” wrote them off as deathtraps. Funny how that never gets a cover story…
I’m looking forward to this (alleged) expert sitting down to a large helping of crow in the years to come. But I doubt that will happen, as he’ll have moved on to his next outrage du jour.
I has gotten so bad locally that I don’t respond verbally to questions. I ask them to ask me questions and then write a response. They can choose to print what I’ve written or not. It’s their choice. But I won’t be placed in the position of having bad stenography excuse poor reporting.
“Reverse engineering a story”! Lol.
You think the v-22 mishap rate is high over all the years its been in development? Thats crazy when compared to numerous other very successful aircraft we use and have used in the past. Crazy. Pathetic article for time.
LOL I just laugh at such follishness. The Times has long since lost all respect.
Obviously there will be mishaps. The first of anything has growing pains. Piloting some of the first jet fighters was a very dangerous thing. Sometimes that’s the price of progress.
Remember the Osprey is a totally new type of aircraft that combines fixed wing/helicopter and no-one else did it before. So if you want to stay where you are and never progress then stay “safe”. Any change will carry an unkown factor.
It would be interesting if somebody were to dig up statistics on how many Marines have been killed in CH-46s as a counterpoint to V-22 problems. I expect that the crash rate in the early days of the CH-46 was not exactly inspiring, although incident rates for just about every type was higher in the early ’60s than now.
And THIS is why people don’t trust reporters.
How about you boys with claims of other platforms with this many dollars or deaths in development pony up some links or other evidence that you are not talking out of your ass. Never has there been a project of this type with so many issues, so many changes in req, so many dollars and so many deaths in development PERIOD. Ward himself got schooled by this article, so unless you have some true wisdom or fact to impart, give it up as the Time article is spot on. Kevin names two “products” that were built for another war, that just happened to work out OK for Desert Storm (but not as well as you have been lead to believe), the other “The Stryker” is getting guys killed in Iraq, RIGHT NOW, you just don’t read about it since all Stryker incidents/casualties are “classified” for some reason (gee wiz, I wonder why?).
I got something, Grandjester, but it wasn’t “schooled.”
VMM-263 gets in country in the near future. Let’s watch what happens, shall we?
You’re right Ward, I do believe the kids today would call it “pwned”
George,
Again, nothing you have provided disputes my point. You state CH-46 issues that occured during OPERATIONAL service, NOT development. And your numbers on jets do not compare either, regardless of whatever caveats you are trying to insert. None of the platforms you mention had a two and a half decade development phase, none had the sheer number of dollars thrown at them. And again (yet again) cut the bullshit about it being “new” technology if we have been flying the thing for damn near 20 years, the underlying technology was demonstrated by the Bell XV-3 in 1953 (the XV-3 flew until 1966), the twin engine system was tested in the XV-15 in 1972 (but was actually preceded in 1961, Soviet Ka-22 after two crashes the Soviets moved on). So really, it’s been in development for over FIFTY years.
Throwing around a “two and a half decade development period” is truly bullshit. The V-22 prototype first flew in 1989, and its aerodynamic configuration hasn’t changed significantly since then. Next Congress and the DoD put it through another 10 years of development hell during the defence spending drawback in the 1990s. Most of the money thrown at the development program was redesigning it to knock out cost. The XV-3 and XV-15 have about the same relation to the V-22 that the X-5 has to the F-14. If you don’t understand why the jet development issues parallel the V-22 development issues, you simply don’t know much about engineering.
In theatre, soldiers on the Bradleys sneer at the Strykers. And vice versa. Each loves their own vehicle. Funny thing ’bout that.
Spec’d in 1981 Georgie boy. So EIGHT years to first flight in 1989, and that was, let’s see here, let me count, that’s about 18 years ago (which falls under my “damn near 20 years” comment). So what’s 8+18, since you are an engineering expert, you should come up with 26 which, I do believe, works out to a decade and a half.
So you don’t belive the XV programs had anything to do with the development? Fine. Your comments about jet development are specious at best. Whittle and Heinkel went from paper, to prototype, to flying models in five years or less and they did not have billions of dollars to do it with.
You have nothing to back yourself up with so you merely attack the messenger.
Just like those involved in the early development of the guided plane/missile during the first half of the 20th century; fifty years from now, when many of the world’s military can’t imagine going into battle without an Osprey, historians will look back at those soldiers who died during the developmental phase of the plane, and refer to them as daredevils who were willing to risk their lives to perfect the revolutionary technology. And people like Mark Thompson will be the butt of everyone’s joke when describing a fool.
Yeah, another invalid comparison. Did you read the Time article?
“the V-22 has been 25 years in development, more than twice as long as the Apollo program that put men on the moon. V-22 crashes have claimed the lives of 30 men
Speaking of invalid comparisons! How in the world can you compare the Apollo program which spent over 24 billion dollars actually, to the V-22? Let me give a little lesson, OK! The Apollo program came about during the late 1950 on thru the 60
Brian,
Reflector brought up missle development, I did not, I merely quoted the Apollo stats from the Time article WHILE POINTING OUT THAT IT WAS AN INVALID COMPARISON. I think everyone here knows that 1960′s dollars need to be adjusted.
Brian,
Reflector brought up missle development, I did not, I merely quoted the Apollo stats from the Time article WHILE POINTING OUT THAT IT WAS AN INVALID COMPARISON. I think everyone here knows that 1960′s dollars need to be adjusted.
Lexington Issue Brief discusses “Time” magazine piece on V-22
Note: The following was published in the Lexington Issue Brief. Dr. Loren B. Thompson wrote the article.
There’s sad news from our nation’s capital this week friends. It turns out that the Marine Corps has been run for a quarter century by incompetent leaders who have worked closely with corrupt members of Congress to put young Marines in aircraft that will get them killed. The only thing that can save us from this cabal is courageous investigative reporting that reveals the rot destroying our defense establishment.
Oops — my mistake! I just described the screenplay for Oliver Stone’s next movie. The sad news from Washington I meant to discuss was the continuing erosion of Time Magazine’s relevance in the modern world, as reflected in its goofy cover story this week about the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor that the Marine Corps and other military services are buying. Time Magazine used to be a major force in American journalism, but now it is searching desperately for readers in a news market crowded with more engaging alternatives. Faced with the same extinction that claimed sister publication Life Magazine, Time is resorting to an old journalistic tool to hold market share — sensationalism.
Since it’s hard to be sensational if you have to report all the facts, Time reporter Mark Thompson has elected to include only the bad stuff. Unfortunately, this results in an account of the V-22′s development that could only be true if the Marine Corps had been run by idiots for the last 25 years — idiots who don’t care about the fate of their fellow Marines in combat. It isn’t really necessary to rebut this ridiculous thesis, because the V-22 is deploying for combat in Iraq and we will soon have unambiguous indicators of its performance. But just for fun
Brian,
We have covered much of your post, but I will go over your (or your source’s) points one by one to make it simple for ya, K?
1. Cheney tried FOUR TIMES to kill the V-22 while SecDef and God knows, if Cheney can’t kill it, IT WON’T DIE. Had NOTHING to do with convincing Congress, their minds were mad up and it was about keeping Defense contrators happy, by keeping an expensive and unnecessary line open.
2. V-22 DEVELOPMENTAL ACCIDENTS, CH-46 OPERATIONAL ACCIDENTS. As pointed out about a dozen times before, different things.
3. Yeah, let’s clairfy this one a bit. Whta assualt support are we talking about? The Marines are using aged SeaCobra gunships, don’t match the range or speed, Harriers are on the way out, F-35′s? So it leaves it to the F/A-18′s to take up the slack, and close order GUNFIRE to support a vertical insertion is tricky at best. Even Huey’s went in with TWO guns, with much better firing arcs.
4. Autorotation was part of the spec PERIOD. Dropped from spec when it could not perform PERIOD.
5. Well now, since we have had ZERO “real” missions, I guess both you and Time are talking out your ass.
The Osprey has TWO advantages over helos and ONE over fixed wing. For those advantages there are legion of compromises and disadvantages that have and will kill Marines, those ARE the facts.
I am a good looking, beautiful and sexy Chinese girl living and working in an office in Beijing now.
I much enjoy life at its fullest. Enjoy fine dining, wine, music and movies, fashion and travelling.
I am a sophisticated woman, smart, well educated and able to adabt to many situations, – but I also can be very naughty, kinky and fun….
I love to feel people getting excited. See, hear and feel them hot!!
It turns me on to do your fantasy and am OK for almost any kinky idea you maybe have. I am the perfect girl for your dark side, your mistress and more…
Try me…!
TEL : 13126652601 nancy