“It would be better to present with a thousand helicopters which cost ten million dollars apiece than present with a hundred helicopters which cost 100 million apiece.

I’ve read how Gates is trying to change the way new systems are developed. Instead of the “99%” doctrine, he is advocating the “80%” doctrine as a result of Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m winging it right now and I might be restating this wrong, but I think he means that instead of developing weapons which use complicated systems so they can handle 99% of the combat situations they encounter (nearly perfect in other words), it is better to aim for 80% and produce more inexpensive and reliable weapons in greater numbers. As you know, our military vehicles have taken a huge beating for the last ten years and it has been a struggle of paramount importance to keep working equipment in the hands of our commanders in the war zones. For the most part, the group of complicated super weapons including the Osprey were designed to go up against modern armies (USSR, China)for conventional warfare. The lesson of the last ten years is that we need simpler weapons which do not need to excel in every situation, but which should be able to do a few things very well and without undue expense.

Remember the old adage, an army fights on it’s stomach? The modern paradigm would be that an army fights on a vast expensive supply line of fuel, supplies, spare parts, etc. The less maintanence, the greater effectiveness. To the argument that saving money puts soldier’s lives at risk, I would respond with a quote by the most successful general no one’s ever heard of: “It is better to be present with ten men than absent with ten thousand.” -Tamerlane.

Another valid comparison to illustrate what Gates is getting at is the design of the Sherman tank. One Sherman was no match for the best German tanks, particularly the Tiger. It would take a swarm of Shermans to knock out a Tiger. Many lives were lost. Yet the Sherman was light, fast, easy to mass produce and easy to repair in the field. Compared to the German tanks it required far less fuel (although diesel would have been better than gasoline perhaps). Point is, we had so many more Shermans than all the other German tanks put together that their overwhelming presence instead of their individual performance is what won the war. Thus, many more lives were saved.

I don’t believe that the V-22 will be put into the kind of production numbers that the military requires. There may be good or bad reasons for this, but without a massive rollout the cost of repairs, spare parts, and unit cost will never compete with traditional helicopters. The need to be able to fly like both a plane and a helicopter is just not compelling enough compared to the price. However, we do have the current operational craft and we undoubtedly learned a great deal of practical knowledge about tilt-rotors should we ever need it.

First, thank you for your service.

Second, I understand your affection for your aircraft, which you know as well as anyone and which carried you safely (evidently) wherever you took it. Having just done some reading, I see that my opinion of the V-22, which I developed after the report came out about the crash in Marana, was wrong. At the time, they identified the cause as engine stall due to vortex ring state which was exacerbated by the proximity of the V-22 in front. I had read that the maneuver was common and safe with other helicopters but for some reason the V-22 couldn’t handle it, with 19 dead Marines as the result. Pretty harsh.

Now I read that the Osprey is actually better than other helicopters in a VRS situation, while being only slightly less able than other helicopters to operate in close proximity to one another. At the time it was a question of, “Hey, if it can’t even do what regular helicopters do then what’s the point?” Now that many more thousands of hours have been flown we know these concerns are minimal. Of course lighter and nimbler helicopters will always have a role, particularly in urban environments.

I would like to point out the author isn’t coming down on one side or the other, and he’s quoting our own Defense Secretary’s criticisms of the Osprey. When the report on the Osprey came out, there had been two fatal crashes (another one in the East Coast I think a few dead don’t recall but the pilot was very experienced) and no one could figure out if it was a central defect to the V-22 or pilot inexperience with such a novel system. Now it seems the latter.

Ten years of no crashes and compared to other helicopters limited combat roles don’t make the same impression as those two crashes did a decade ago. Maybe that needs to change. But there is one other problem with the V-22 you aren’t considering. I’ll save it for another post later because I’m out of time.

Again, thanks for your service, and thanks for taking the time to post your viewpoint here. You have already changed at least one mind.

Besides that your article has a fatal flaw in the argument about the troop surge. And i quote “Obama promised the Afghanistan “surge,” which raised the force level, would end in summer 2011. So even before bin Laden was killed, U.S. forces were expected to begin leaving Afghanistan around now.” you said it yourself the SURGE is supposed to end in the summer (not at the beginning of summer, IN the summer) of 2011. It is still summer. and 2, the official beginning of summer is June 20th. It isn’t summer yet. Check your facts before you publish them.

An end to a troop surge is not a complete withdrawl.

But beyond that, given the particulars of the location it is unlikely an aircraft the size of the V-22 would have been able to get in close enough to the compound to execute the raid as planned.

In response to the above commenter “97 swede”, the V-22 may be a great aircraft but it is redundant. The U.S. Army’s helicopters, and the Air Force’s combination of C-130 and C-17 airplanes, fill all the roles the V-22 was designed to.

Simply put, the marines did not need a new aircraft they merely needed to use the Army and Air Force assets on hand, as this raid demonstrated.

Recently a section of V-22s rescued a downed pilot from Libya… here’s the link in case you missed that story:
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/03/22/ 2942323/mv-22-osprey-shines-in-libya-res cue.html

The more bothersome comment in your column is on the safety record of the aircraft. The Marine Corps has had two fatal accidents in the history of this aircraft. That is an incredible statistic that no other military rotor-wing aircraft can match. The mishaps that occurred during testing were unfortunate, but a long time ago (10 years). In fact, the Osprey just surpassed 100,000 flight hours and has been the safest rotor-wing program of the last 10 years. It is time to let that lie die.

Here is the article that talks about that milestone and safety record:
http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/rotorhub/ bell-boeing-built-v-22-osprey-surpasses- 100-000-flight-hours/8467/

I cannot tell you why the V-22 was not used in the Bin Laden raid in Abbottabad. But I can tell you that it is not for the reasons that you imply in your column. I believe that the V-22 would have been an excellent choice for that mission and would have volunteered for that raid in a second. Anybody that has been around this program realizes the value and capability that the V-22 has brought to our service. Maybe it is time for our media to get on board.