Home » Air » Ospreys Skip Farnborough Air Show

Ospreys Skip Farnborough Air Show

by Richard Sisk on July 10, 2014

The MV-22 Osprey, a frequent performer at airshows to showcase the tilt-rotor aircraft, will be skipping a chance to impress potential buyers next week at the Farnborough International Airshow outside London.

The Ospreys, made by Textron Inc.’s Bell Helicopter and Boeing Co., skipped the Paris Air Show last year in a cost-saving move by the Pentagon during the battles with Congress over the sequester budget process.

However, Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle, the deputy commandant for aviation, and Col. Greg Masiello, then the program manager for the Osprey, were on hand at Le Bourget airfield outside Paris to talk up the aircraft that takes off and lands like a helicopter and flies like a fixed-wing aircraft.

At Farnborough, neither the Ospreys nor the industry or military teams from the Naval Air Systems Command who support them will be present to promote the Osprey, said a spokeswoman for NavAir.

In 2012, the Osprey performed at the biannual Farnborough airshow and at similar airshows in Singapore and the United Arab Emirates.

Foreign sales could serve as a key to keeping the Osprey production line open past the current phase out date in 2018.

The aircraft’s history had been a drawback to potential foreign buyers. More than 30 Marines and contractors were killed in Osprey crashes during development, but the Marine Corps and the manufacturers maintain that the aircraft has since proved its reliability by logging more than 200,000 flight hours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For nearly three years, Bell and the Marines have talked up the potential for foreign sales but no sales have been completed as of yet.

Currently, “we’re having open discussions with Israel, the UAE, Japan and others,” said Schenck of Bell Helicopter.

In April last year, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in Tel Aviv announced that the first sale of an Osprey would go to Israel as part of a major arms package to shore Israel’s defenses. Financial arrangements have yet to be completed for the delivery of six Ospreys to the Israeli Special Forces, possibly in 2016.

Last December, potential foreign sales of Ospreys got a major boost when Japan announced a new “National Security Strategy” to give offensive capability to its “Self-Defense Forces.”

The strategy called for Japan to spend $240 billion over the next five years on new equipment for the military to include 17 MV-22 Ospreys, 28 F-35 fighters, three unarmed Global Hawk drones  and 52 amphibious troop carriers.

Share |

{ 48 comments… read them below or add one }

tiger July 10, 2014 at 5:39 pm

Biggest Airshow around & the F-35 is grounded & Osprey a no show? Can we fire Hagel now? Oh, that is right. Obama fires nobody….

Sigh……

Reply

Lawrence July 10, 2014 at 5:54 pm

Were you the one planning to pay more taxes so they an pay for this? If Bell or LM wants to spend the money, they are more than welcome to.

Reply

Edward Cafarella July 11, 2014 at 9:16 am

did you expect anything more form this administration? Everything they touch turns to crap.

Reply

shipfixr July 11, 2014 at 10:43 am

Why does Bell have to have the military there to present it's aircraft??

Reply

LoSul July 11, 2014 at 11:55 am

Uh, because all the V-22 ships are owned by the military?

So you honestly think a company would build a $50 million production aircraft to use as a show demo half a dozen times a year?

Reply

Lance July 10, 2014 at 6:00 pm

Knowing the Ospreys safety record lucky one would crash at the airshow.

Reply

tiger July 10, 2014 at 6:16 pm

That is Bs. It'srecord better than many aircraft in use.

Reply

oblatt22 July 11, 2014 at 6:02 am

V-22 has a long record of fraudulent maintenance records, but even then its proponents have to compare it to aircraft 50 years old which are operating at double their design life. Even then the V-22 is only comparable.

V-22 is a bad helicopter merged with a bad short haul aircraft at six times the price if it wasn't for the marines buy any shit policy it would be forgotten.

Reply

RudyH July 11, 2014 at 11:51 am

not for it's Length of service, It's Not.

Reply

RudyH July 11, 2014 at 11:49 am

..yeh…big time..

Reply

Bronco46 July 11, 2014 at 2:42 pm

Your just not paying attention!

Reply

Carlos A Sfc Ret July 11, 2014 at 8:31 pm

When it was in development, yes i remember many accidents, but seeing it in combat in Iraq has made it very safe, even more versatile than CH-47. This will be a key point to show in the air show.

Reply

Hank July 11, 2014 at 10:50 pm

The V-22 official safety records does not include most Class A mishaps. The list of scrapped V-22s is shocking. http://www.g2mil.com/V-22Amishaps.htm

Reply

LoSul July 14, 2014 at 10:23 am

1. How many on that list does Carlton Meyer claim to be class A by saying "Not Reported" or "Misreported". If they were not reported as Class A, they are not Class A. Period. In fact, multiple entries describe aircraft retired to museums and display, how in the world is that a valid Class A incident? The answer: its not. Is this analysis done for any other aircraft? You jump to the conclusion that this is something "unusual". Truth is, Meyer has been grinding this axe for nearly 2 decades. Linking to G2mil with regards to the Osprey is akin to linking to DailyKos for an opinion on George Bush.

2. How is the list shocking AT ALL? Did you stop to envision a similar list for other aircraft? Clearly not! The CH53 list would be over 10 times longer, with over 350 DEATHS from accidents ALONE. Where is the hand wringing on other aircraft? Who is carefully tabulating AV-8B airframes or CH46s and so arrogantly proclaiming airframe retirements and recorded Class B incidents as REALLY being Class A?

Reply

"Frenchy" July 12, 2014 at 4:22 pm

Lance and Others
With your obvious knowledge of MV-22 history, I would have to ask, how much time in Marine Aviation do you have as a qualified Aircrewman?
Is your stupid comment just your feeble attempt at humor?
I don't condone contractors, lobbyists and their in pocket pols, because they are always absolved of their greed and sins while air crews are killed & maimed!
The CH-46 is now revered as the greatest helicopter ever built, unless of course
you were around in the mid sixties when SECDEF, Robert McNamara, ( who never had any monetary interests in Piasecki, or Boeing Vertol ) when the CH-46 was shoved down our throat. I think SEC DEF said "We'll work the bugs out, in the field"
I was in the Marine Corps when the 46's were killing Marines by the bushel!
I was happy to be a Sikorsky UH-34D crew chief!
I believe that the first year that the CH-46 was in full service, there was more loss of aircraft and life than the MV-22 to date!
In defense of the MV-22, with all of its faults, the plus's outweigh the minus's!
I was in the Army Guard when they began recruiting for the Osprey Program,1979!
This article states that "at least 30 contractors and Marines have died in "mishaps".
While no loss of life is ACCEPTABLE, especially when a number of your friends are among the casualties, loss of life is to be expected. ( That's why we Marine crew chiefs got the big bucks, in Vietnam $122.00 every two weeks )
I've also read other comments here.
My first crash, a training exercise, ended in a mid-air that killed 22 Marines.
Others crashes that I considered fender benders in Vietnam, killed Marines and Pax !
My point (s)
The MV-22 has at least as good, if not better than, any other aircraft ever developed.

Every new era brings a technology learning curve to be dealt with.

NO aircraft will ever be everything to everybody, and still be great at any one thing!

Competition plays no small part in the discrediting of other competitors' product costs, claims and reliability.

With respect to combat survivability , it will always be a crap shoot.
Luck, ( good or bad ) Grace of God, Your call, seen both, lucky one shot to
well placed several, or several dozen or more hits!

Semper Fly!

Frenchy

Reply

jc13 July 21, 2014 at 5:01 pm

If only you knew what you were talking about…

Reply

jc13 July 21, 2014 at 5:04 pm

…this last comment intended for "oblatt22"…

Reply

jan July 10, 2014 at 6:22 pm

Airshows are just a thing of the past that are no longer needed and a waste of money and time. If a potential buyer is interested in an aircraft the company that sells it will be happy to arrange a meeting at the contractors home base. Simple.

Reply

Edward Cafarella July 11, 2014 at 9:17 am

True, there are so few manufacturers competing these days, it's kind of ridiculous.

Reply

hibeam July 10, 2014 at 8:34 pm

Can all the engineers flowing in from South America help us to get these military programs working correctly?

Reply

rtsy July 10, 2014 at 11:54 pm

No, but maybe the Chinese can.

Reply

seaman July 11, 2014 at 12:01 am

would that be out-sourcing or in-sourcing? Incompetent engineers at LM and Boeing will scream their head off before those brainless, spineless Congressmen.

No Visas for foreign engineers, especially those from South America.

Reply

TheEvilBlight July 11, 2014 at 1:59 am

Sukhoi is also skipping Farnborough.

Bum year?

Reply

tmb2 July 11, 2014 at 3:51 am

That's what I came here to comment. Over at DoDBuzz the article is about the SU-27 skipping the show. The meat of the article is almost identical.

Reply

german July 21, 2014 at 5:29 pm

The Russians were refused visas. But no big deal, really. It's widely known fact since 1992 that the later Su-27s can beat the entire US Teen series

Reply

blight_ July 21, 2014 at 6:01 pm

It would not surprise me that a properly equipped Soviet force would probably have seriously hurt a properly equipped NATO force in 1989. But ten years of poor funding hurt their readiness and procurement. But a decade of adverse funding may give foreign nations an opportunity to catch up in technical parity.

Reply

german July 21, 2014 at 5:26 pm

That's because the no-class Brits refuse to issue visas to the Russians, probably following the advice of no-class Americans.

Reply

LPF July 11, 2014 at 4:33 am

If they copuld put some AEW capability into it, they could sell it for the new UK carriers, becuase right now they rely on Helicopter born AEW which is complete and utter rubbish.

Reply

oblatt22 July 11, 2014 at 6:05 am

For an aircraft program that is basically pure marketing for 20 years to say the marketing is dropping out is to admit the end of the program.

V-22 is one of the few programs where the lead designer resigned in disgust at what a disaster the aircraft was. We have had 20 years of potential sales that never close a deal and the only one we can get anybody to use them is to ram them down the throat of the Israelis for free – even then they plan to use them for training.

Time to call this turkey done. Its been cooked to a cinder already.

Reply

LoSul July 14, 2014 at 10:10 am

"V-22 is one of the few programs where the lead designer resigned in disgust at what a disaster the aircraft was."

Well that is pure, unadulterated bullshit on multiple levels.

Reply

Karl July 11, 2014 at 9:58 am

Boeing needs to take up the bill, if they want any foreign sales.

Reply

Dennis July 11, 2014 at 10:15 am

Are we really still arguing about the Osprey?
Granted it is a maintinance pig and it’s flight envelop is a bit rickety.
But it goes four times as far, twice as fast as a helicopter. End if argument. The military needs those capabilities.
I just hope the next iteration of the technology is better.

Reply

Roger July 11, 2014 at 10:47 pm

Let's compare it to a modern helo of similar size. The CH-53K, which is almost the same empty weight. The 53K has greater range, four times more payload, although 40% less speed. The V-22 can't safely carry external loads either.

Reply

tiger July 12, 2014 at 7:00 am

The missions are not the same. Heavy lift vs medium lift. It is Replacing The CH 46 Sea Knight in the medium role.

Reply

Hank July 12, 2014 at 12:14 pm

That's mindless spin. We can buy the 53K to fill the "medium" lift role too. The V-22 is a heavyweight class lifter with poor medium lift performance, about the same as the CH-60M which is less that half its size in empty weight. That is the reason no one else has bought any, including our own Army and Navy. We gifted six to Israel who didn't really want them.

Reply

LoSul July 14, 2014 at 10:34 am

Put down the kool aid for a minute.

First of all, you cant buy the CH53K at all yet, because it is not finished and has yet to even fly. Secondly, you are suggesting buying a $60 million dollar ultra slow heavy lift helicopter for the medium lift role, which has half the range of tilt rotor all while flying about half the speed. Are you cruising at 15,000 feet and 250kias with that -53 or -60? I dont think so. But you ignore that distinct difference.

So I will let you attempt the total lift math with an equivalent number of assets (since, like many people, you do not seem to realize the 53K is slated to cost almost exactly the same as a V22). With the speed and range advantage a V22 would have, it could perform almost double the mission in the same time frame as a lumbering heavy lift helo like the CH53. Not to mention the FARP elimination a V22 provides, and the insane logistical footprint operating 53Ks in a medium role would require.

yyy July 11, 2014 at 11:37 pm

You forgot to mention that it is ten times more deadly to crew members than other aircraft.

Reply

LoSul July 14, 2014 at 10:41 am
Bernard July 11, 2014 at 10:34 am

Surprise surprise, the two biggest boondoggles in recent weapons contracting history are out of commission for an airshow. We might as well just strap white surrender flags to these things.

Reply

hibeam July 11, 2014 at 10:59 am

This thing would be great for inspecting the vast disease infested refugee camps that have sprung up all along our Southern Border in Texas. If Obama cared enough to go down there.

Reply

tiger July 11, 2014 at 9:15 pm

It is sad when Hibeam is a better joke writer than SNL's or Jimmy Falon…

Reply

yahoo July 15, 2014 at 9:52 pm

My brother suggested I might like this web site.
He was entirely right. This post truly made my day.
You cann’t imagine just how much time I had spent for this info!
Thanks!

Reply

Tophertag July 20, 2014 at 1:13 am

I'm with Dennis. I'm tired of hearing people pissing all over the Osprey. We're damn lucky to have them and wish we could have 4 times as many. Just about every single aircraft in the US military has seen bad days. The F-14 crashed on her madden flight, yet became one of the best Interceptors for years. As far as the V-22's limitations, like having no Autorotation, every single helicopter ever made has their drawbacks – It's called the "Dead Mans Curve". Stay outside the curve and the aircraft performs well. The Osprey is no exception. BTW: if the Osprey is so bad, why is Bell preparing to develop next gen-tiltrotor with the V-280 Valor?

Reply

Vilkus July 20, 2014 at 8:33 pm

I had read that they were considering an Osprey V-22 to replace Marine One?
Has anyone heard anything about this? Thanks.

Reply

Bob July 21, 2014 at 9:59 pm

Obama wants a smaller military footprint overseas, but this is just sad.

Reply

LoSul July 11, 2014 at 9:34 am

Do you always use 6 year old assessments in your arguments? Time to get with the times. At the point in that GAO report, the V-22 fleet had been flying for about one whole year.

Since then, and most importantly in Afghanistan…

"The aircraft, as I mentioned, has been engaged, it has been hit and every time it's been hit by enemy fire the aircraft has returned safely to base"

While the colonel wouldn't give too many details about what kinds of weapons have hit the Ospreys, he repeatedly said that a "spectrum" of munitions had been fired at, and hit, the birds when asked point-blank if it was just small arms fire or heavier weapons such as Rocket Propelled Grenades.

"I think it's safe for me to say that it's been engaged by a spectrum of different weapons systems and in each case we've seen success as far as I would term the aircraft's ability to perform, fly safely and return back to the fight after it's been hit"

And this is really low threat, right… http://breakingdefense.com/2013/07/maturing-of-th

Reply

LoSul July 11, 2014 at 12:15 pm

So, you cited a 6 year old report implying that the V-22 has not seen enemy fire, and has been "babied" and therefore is fragile or other such nonsense..

I responded with clear evidence that it has seen combat, survived live fire, and basically has performed in the exact situations you argued it hasn't.

Then, in response, you claim that I am arguing that the aircraft is invincible? That's quite the leap.

Reply

Salty July 17, 2014 at 11:53 am

Team America had a jet-powered version (tilt-jet vs tilt-rotor?). It eventually got shot down by the N. Koreans.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: