An Air Force Special Operations version of the Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, designated CV-22, crashed in southeastern Afghanistan Friday, killing four and injuring others. Its the first deadly crash of an Osprey since it entered operational service in 2006 and its first crash in a combat zone. The cause of the crash is under investigation. The Taliban issued their customary claim that they shot the Osprey down; most such claims are later discredited.
– Greg
Just to add to Greg’s post: Remember the CV-22 is a SOCOM asset flown by AFSOC. It has a significantly different range of missions than its Marine counterpart. The CV is a replacement for the “Pave Low” H-53 variant. The CV has a better EW suite (SIRFC/DIRCM) and longer range because of greater fuel capacity. It also costs about $8 million more per copy ($76 versus $68).
(Update April 11) Our buddy Chris Castelli at Inside Defense is reporting that NATO sources have said that there was a firefight “near the crash scene,” which increases the possibility that the Osprey was downed by enemy fire. SIRFC/DIRCM is supposed to increase survivability in a SAM environment. Small arms fire is another matter …
Chris also reported that the wreckage was destroyed in accordance with SOP when classified gear is associated with a crash site. Obviously, that’s going to make the mishap investigators’ job a little tougher . . or easier depending on your point of view.
– Ward
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
I knew MV-22 Ospreys were in Afghan, but this is the first time I heard the CV-22 Ospreys were in Afghan.
They have only been there a short time…
Here comes the Osprey haters…..
Just some brief thoughts without knowing more;
It may be a category splitter, but an Osprey is basically a very fast helicopter, and helicopters do suffer more frequent accidents than fixed-wing. There was bound to be a mishap at some point.
- Condolences to the victim's families.
Good comment mike j, although I don't think it will be long for our ospreybashers to smash the hell out of everone not agreeing with there point of view.
As a Hurburt and AFSOC wife I am Praying for the families and friends.
I'm a wife in the 8th, please just pray for the family that lost there loved ones. What's done is done and it unfortunately can not be taken back. The family's are the ones that need the support now.
My prayers are with you and you family and friends. Have the names been released yet?
yes being close to one of the pilots from this squad. and i hope and prey that he is ok.
My thoughts and prayers are with the families of the men who were in the accident. Being the mom of an Osprey Flight Engineer who returned safely from the Mideast, I can imagine their grief. Hopefully they will get all of the counseling they need to cope with their loss.
Before the anti-osprey crowd comes in, all air vehicles have their faults and problems early in their development. You can't name one vehicle that was perfect right off the bat. Kinks need to be worked out, sometimes those kinks sadly cost lives. Tilt-rotor aircraft are the future!
faults and problems since early 2000… The lack of auto rotation ability is a serious concern. -1 for "the future tilt rotor aircraft and the 10 years of kinks" haters, and +1 for our brave warriors. unfortuneately the score isn't tied.
I should of worded my post better. I myself don't like the osprey. (Posted numerous times that I think it should be scraped, turned into a research project, and build a new craft using what we learned). But I am a huge supporter of tilt rotor aircraft, I can see the huge benefits tilt rotor aircraft have, now and in the future.
I pray that my sons asst. scout leader was not on that trip. He's an FE ( I think) with the 8th SOS. My husband is w/ the130s at Hurlburt so this hits super close to home.
Yes it does. My husband is also with the 130's and JUST got back home. It is very scary to know that no matter how safe we think they may be flying, that it can happen. It is definately a reality check for us.
Osprey's are a ripoff.
I would LOVE for a breakdown on how it costs 60 MILLION dollars.
Its a tragedy that other countries cant match our military, because then there would be more competition and realistic prices set on the things we build.
Its probably cheaper to buy its weight in gold.
Shame on whatever mega corporation is ripping us off.
In WWII you could build a bomber for cost in materials, what the hell happened? Our Military should only pay for R&D and manufacturing facilities up front and then get them built for cost in materials and labor. Forget outsourcing and all that shit because its obviously not cost effective. Somewhere there is a huge profit margin being added in because there is NO WAY that it costs 60 million for one of these.
Monopolies suck.
Better watch out, some people call that socialism… those big corporations need more money! That's how capitalism works… screw our country!
You do realize that WW2 messed up more than one corporation? Where's Consolidated and Curtiss Wright? The transition to the jet engine and then the end of the Cold War pretty much finished off the many-company defense industry.
I suppose if you started splitting companies and forcing them to fight each other for government contracts..
Consolidated actually did OK. Merged with Vultee to become Consolidated-Vultee. Name shortened to Convair. (B36, B58, F102, F106) Expanded into other area and became General Dynamics, Tanks, Ships, F16). As GD, they are still around.
The reason it cost 60 Million for each Aircraft.. is due to devolpement cost, driven from the NAVY, to add as many bells and whistles into 1 aircraft, and the cost will come down as more are built. If they dont like the seats and ask for a change, it cost money..if they dont like any thing it cost money to redisgn and change it to make the WAR fighter happy…..The ARMY pulled out of the program because they didnt want the wing to rotate, in stow position..and didnt want to pay for redisgn..
Well then since the technology is so expensive we shouldnt be feilding it.
Theres not much this thing can do compared to a helicopter that justified the cost.
Our problem then is we are spoiled and need the neatest new thing in our inventory that we will squander our money to greedy companies that are overpricing and gouging us of our national treasure.
I still dont see how it could cost 60+ MILLION. We spent something like 50 billion on the R&D on TOP OF THE PRICE PER AIRCRAFT.
I hope there is something we dont know like they have underground bunkers full of tens of thousands of these things that arent reported in official numbers.
They cost over $120 million each when all is tallied, but around $80 per copy for those now coming off the production line. They first flew in 89, and went into production in 1997, it is not "new." It is a defective design that they can't fix, and it has no more range than comparable helos, and one-quarter the payload. The facts are here: http://www.g2mil.com/scandal.htm
Anyone who thinks anything printed on g2.mil is grounded in reality has demonstrated a complete lack of ability to think for himself. Meyer is nothing more than a disgruntled hack who distorts the truth to justify his ridiculous ideas.
The R&D cost is the one that spirals before materials costs (though material costs can do that sometimes). There's no incentive to bid for contracts properly, so everyone just understates the cost and expects someone to make up the difference later.
The aircraft was designed to be a direct replacement for the CH-46 aircraft the USMC was operating until just recently. It hauls the same load over 10 times the distance at nearly 2.5 times the speed. It's safety record since it has been deployed is better than any of the helo's. But, when it comes to brass tacks, the thing is still an aircraft and will be vulnerable to the same laws of physics and "human" interaction as any other aircraft.
We need something to replace the ch-46. This is a 50 year old aircraft. We have these kinds of problems with many of the helo's. The sea knight had its issues as well. Helos are vulnerable and my hat is off for the brave men flying these new wave of machines.
I would rather be in a Osprey than a 46 that has been in operations since 1969.
First off, I want to express how sorry I am for the lost to the family members, the pilot and FE were both very experienced with many hrs in their old aircraft and both husbands and fathers. The new release of info says it was due to pilot error, keeping in mind most aircraft mishaps are due to human error. I know it’s easy to point the finger to the pilots but we don’t know what was going on at the time before the crash. Most likely wrong conditions at the wrong time and miss judged how close to the ground they were. We fall back to our old habits when we get tired or comfortable and with the crew being from helo’s they feel pretty safe really close to the ground. The props due hang a lot lower then the pilots on the CV-22. It just a terrible accident and we can know that the AF will adjust its operating procedures to prevent further mishaps. Again I am very sorry!