“One person has been confirmed dead after yet another US military Osprey plane crashed. this time over the ocean close to Yakushima island, around 600 miles south of Tokyo.

Military officials earlier said that there were six people on board the $90 million aircraft when it plummeted into the water.

Japanese officials earlier said that the three people had rescued. One person was found was alive but unconscious, the conditions of the two others is unclear.

The crash happened at around 2:47 p.m. local time, with local residents reporting the aircraft had fire blowing from its left engine as it fell into the sea, Japanese broadcaster MBC reported.

The aircraft was attempting to make an emergency landing at Yakushima Airport when it crashed. …”

DailyMail article:
https://mol.im/a/12803647

WTF is going on with all these military crashes? Seems to be way more than ever before? Lack of training? Unqualified people? What the hell is going on here?

How many more servicemen have to die before they throw those things on the scrap heap. They are a death trap and a waste of money.

That’s two ospreys that have crashed in a four or so months. One recently went down in Australia killing 3 Marines.

Over complex POS. I would never get on one of those. Had a huge poster hanging on my wall, showing how complicated they are inside. What a waste of money and lives. A flying wind mill. You either need a payload lift, troop transport or a damn prop plane. Pick one because the cost of some military hardware will never pay off

16 hull loss incidents and 55 fatalities since 1991 (32 Years). I don't know how that compares to other military transports in terms of sortie rates and hours flown.


.

What does the Osprey do better, if anything, than a Chinook or CH53 Sea Stallion? Seems like some politician or generals pet project that was forced on the military. It does seem the Osprey has suffered more crashes than other aircraft but maybe not. I'm retired but when I was serving the Osprey is one aircraft I would have never flown on.

quote:

Originally posted by calugo:
What does the Osprey do better, if anything, than a Chinook or CH53 Sea Stallion?

I'm no expert on them, but their speed is the main attraction over a conventional helicopter. I believe the Osprey can reach speeds up to 300+ knots while the Chinook and Sea Stallion are half that (or thereabouts)

quote:

Originally posted by Pyker:
16 hull loss incidents and 55 fatalities since 1991 (32 Years). I don't know how that compares to other military transports in terms of sortie rates and hours flown.


.

This would definitely be considered a Class A mishap by whichever service was operating the aircraft. The various branches do report mishap data each year, but you often have to add up the data from multiple services if more than one uses the same aircraft. I believe the Marines and Navy both have their own V-22s, but I think they combine data when reporting stuff like this.

Anyway, the point is that you would want to look for Class A mishap data from the Navy, Air Force, and potentially Army and Coast Guard if it is a rotorcraft they use to do comparisons. I’m not aware of any good samaritan who conveniently compiles all that stuff, so you would probably need to seek it out yourself. I was looking at the data for the VTOL F-35’s versus the Harriers a couple months back just for my own interest. I didn’t look for the V-22, but from what I recall the Harrier likely has the V-22 beat for class A mishaps per flight hour. It might not have it beat for casualties because the V-22 is often transporting multiple people, but in terms of stuff breaking in big, bad ways the Harrier was hard to top. Luckily the Harriers have pretty much been retired so they don’t have many accidents anymore!

Anyway, just as an example, I pulled up the 2021 Navy safety command annual report and compared the V-22 with the MH-60. Between 2016 and 2021, the V-22 had 6 Class A mishaps and rate per 100k flight hours of between 1 and 2. For some reason the report didn’t show the class A chart for the MH-60, but it did note there were 2 class A’s in 2021 and the annual rate was also around 1-2 per 100k flight hours. The CH-53’s did have the class A chart, and had 8 mishaps in the same period with an annual class A rate around 3-4 per 100k.

So, the V-22 hasn’t been doing all that bad, at least for the Navy, compared to other things that hover. Of course, the stats don’t say if the mishaps were class A because of a death or because the damage was so expensive. It’s possible the V-22 is killing more people when it has a Class A, and the helos are just wrecking so bad they are write-offs, but not killing as many people. Or they might be pretty similar. The data doesn’t really say.

- Bret

The Osprey has a LONG history of problems. The crashes go back quite aways. It is not operator error. Congress was intially reluctant to even fund the program. Clearly the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. Boeing also has effective marketing:

An excellent example of the military/industrial complex we were warned about decades ago.

Too bad so many military folks have to die in them and a huge waste of money. Maybe some Bell-Boeing executives should start using them for their short range transportation needs to prove they believe in their safety before any more money is spent or lives lost. That goes for the Congress folks that supported spending on this boondoggle too.

quote:

Originally posted by sadlerbw:
I didn’t look for the V-22, but from what I recall the Harrier likely has the V-22 beat for class A mishaps per flight hour. It might not have it beat for casualties because the V-22 is often transporting multiple people, but in terms of stuff breaking in big, bad ways the Harrier was hard to top.

There's no comparison between the two. IF the Harrier has a higher mishap rate than the Osprey it would be because of the difference in the mission. Harriers operate in a much more dynamic environment that the Osprey, thus the possibility of having a higher mishap rate.

Not sure what you mean by "stuff breaking in big, bad ways the Harrier was hard to top." How exactly do Harriers break in a big, bad way?

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
The Osprey has a LONG history of problems. The crashes go back quite aways. It is not operator error. Congress was intially reluctant to even fund the program. Clearly the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

Pretty much this. But jesus I had x2 of them go over me while I was out for a run. Jeez... Those SOBs are LOUD!

quote:

Originally posted by sadlerbw:
... MH-60, but it did note there were 2 class A’s in 2021 and the annual rate was also around 1-2 per 100k flight hours. ...

- Bret

Try it with UH-60 and not MH. I have to think its a much larger sample size, and probably a closer apples to apples mission profile. As close to apples to apples as we are going to get, anyway. Just guessing.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
That’s two ospreys that have crashed in a four or so months. One recently went down in Australia killing 3 Marines.

My neighbor's son was the XO (trainer) on that flight and was one of the three.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by calugo:
What does the Osprey do better, if anything, than a Chinook or CH53 Sea Stallion?


I'm no expert on them, but their speed is the main attraction over a conventional helicopter. I believe the Osprey can reach speeds up to 300+ knots while the Chinook and Sea Stallion are half that (or thereabouts)

Also range. Over 800nm on the V-22, the CH-53 a hair over 500nm and the CH-47 400nm.

quote:

Originally posted by myrottiety:

Pretty much this. But jesus I had x2 of them go over me while I was out for a run. Jeez... Those SOBs are LOUD!

They fly over here all the time, don't they?

They are going up to the Ranger School in Dahlonega.

Juan Browne discusses the Osprey crash near Glamis, CA last year that killed 5 Marines. Something about a clutch failure that resulted in violent shockwaves being sent through the Osprey's complex interconnected drive system. Pure mechanical failure, not pilot-related nor external causes such as weather. Apparently clutch failures have been involved in numerous incidents with this aircraft.

quote:

They are going up to the Ranger School in Dahlonega

Not far from me. They must have been using them for some sort of training about six months ago and there were lots of them for a few weeks.
Very loud and shook the house.
Given their reputation, I was a bit nervous when they went overhead.

quote:

Originally posted by mojojojo:
Not sure what you mean by "stuff breaking in big, bad ways the Harrier was hard to top." How exactly do Harriers break in a big, bad way?

I mean Class A mishaps, which means loss of life or permanent total disability, or complete loss of the aircraft, or in excess of $2.5 million in damage.

Here is an old article about the Harrier if you want to read more:

https://newslit.org/wp-content...f-Harrier-Fleet_.pdf

At the time it was written in 2002, the class A mishap rate for the AV-8B was 11.44 per 100k flight hours.

https://navalsafetycommand.nav...-Mishap-Definitions/

quote:

Originally posted by armme:
Try it with UH-60 and not MH. I have to think its a much larger sample size, and probably a closer apples to apples mission profile. As close to apples to apples as we are going to get, anyway. Just guessing.

No thanks, but you are welcome to. You can google for safety reports and data just as easily as I can. Anyway, the Navy report only covers Navy and Marine aircraft, so you would need to look up army and air force data as well if you want UH-60 data. I should warn you that they don’t report things the exact same way so it is a bit of a chore to combine them. If you have the time, it should be possible though.

- Bret