Skip ads and navigation
Advertising
Our network sites seattlepi.comHelp

The Osprey is risky, costly -- and some say indispensable

Friday, April 14, 2000

By JAMES WALLACE Mail Author
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Named after a hawklike bird of prey, Boeing's V-22 Osprey could more appropriately be called the Phoenix, the mythical bird that rose from its own ashes to start another long life.

The revolutionary tilt-rotor military troop transport that can take off and hover like a helicopter but also flies like an airplane at more than 400 miles per hour has survived a turbulent history since a team from Boeing and Bell were awarded a preliminary design contract nearly two decades ago.

Critics have long argued that it is too costly and dangerous, the unique technology unproven.

Now, just before the once-dead Osprey is supposed to soar into full production later this year, more questions are being raised about its safety following last Saturday's fiery crash of a V-22 in Arizona that killed 19 Marines.

Though the cause of the crash has not been determined, the accident is not expected to disrupt the program in a major way unless a serious design flaw is found.

That's good for Boeing, which is an equal partner in the program with Bell Helicopter Textron of Fort Worth. Each Osprey cost around $44 million, and the Pentagon plans to buy 360 of the craft for the Marines, 48 for the Navy and 50 for the Air Force's special operations unit. Boeing and Bell also see a big overseas market for the Osprey.

"Nothing is going to happen to this program in a dire sense," said a congressional staff member who closely follows the program. He did not want to be quoted by name.

"The program will keep moving forward," he said.

That view was echoed by industry analysts and others.

"It will not be killed. There are too many political oxen who would be gored," said analyst Paul Nisbet of JSA Research, who has followed the rise and fall of the Osprey program from its early days. "If this program became embarrassing politically then it could be in jeopardy. But that's very unlikely."

About 1,500 Boeing workers make the fuselage and cockpit and install avionics and flight control systems at the company's plant in suburban Philadelphia. The structure is then flown in either a C-5 or C-17 military transport plane to Fort Worth, where Bell completes assembly by installing the wings, tail sections, rotor system and engines.

Boeing and Bell are scheduled to produce seven Ospreys this year and seven more next. If full-rate production is approved as expected by October, 30 Ospreys a year could be built beginning in 2003. Production would eventually peak at 46 a year, with the last Osprey delivered to the Navy in 2015.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Texas Republican and member of the Senate Appropriations Committee's defense panel, told Defense News earlier this week that any design failure would need to be fixed if that is what caused the latest crash, but the program is too important to be curtailed.

"It's unique," she said of the Osprey. "It's a new technology for this type of plane to carry as much weight as it does, and we need this in our arsenal for future security threats. We need to go forward with the equipment after we know that it is operating correctly."

But that uniqueness is what critics say makes the V-22 too risky.

So far, 15 Ospreys have been built, including five production craft. Three have crashed.

The Osprey that crashed Saturday was reported to be shifting from aircraft mode to helicopter mode when it suddenly fell nose first into the ground while landing at a small airport northwest of Tucson, Ariz.

The twin wing-mounted rotors can shift 90 degrees in about 12 seconds. The rotating engine nacelles, using computers, thus convert vertical propeller lift into horizontal thrust.

But the reverse transition from forward flight to hover is the most dangerous time for the V-22. The wings lose lift. In 1992, a prototype crashed while landing in Virginia, killing all seven people on board.

Aviation experts note that the Harrier "jump jet," a fighter that can also take off and land vertically, has had the highest Class A accident rate of any military tactical aircraft. (Class A mishaps involve at least $1 million in damage or a fatality.)

But Boeing and Bell say tilt-rotor technology has been perfected after years of study and development, and that the Osprey is safe. Bell has been working on tilt-rotor craft since the 1950s.

An early tilt-rotor called the XV-3 was developed by Bell in the mid-1950s. Bell followed that with the XV-15 project in the 1970s as proof the concept could work as an eventual replacement of the Marines' CH-46 Sea Knight transport helicopter, also built by Boeing.

The Department of Defense began the Osprey program in 1981, first under Army leadership but with the Navy and Marine Corps later taking the lead in developing of what was then known as the JVX (joint-service vertical takeoff/landing experimental aircraft).

In June of that year, a V-22 predecessor was demonstrated at the Paris Air Show. Two years later, in April 1983, Bell and Boeing were awarded a preliminary design contract. The contract to begin full-scale development of the craft was awarded in 1986.

But there were already growing concerns about its costs when the prototype rolled out in May 1988. The U.S. Army, which planned to buy 231 Ospreys, dropped out, saying it could not afford the craft.

The first flight of the prototype came in March 1989, but by the end of that year the Bush administration had decided not to go forward with development. Defense Secretary Dick Cheney directed that the Navy terminate all production contracts with Bell and Boeing.

Even so, Congress continued to approve money for the Osprey; Cheney refused to spend it.

The V-22 program became an issue in the 1992 presidential campaign, with Clinton and Gore supporting development and the Bush administration opposed. In October, just before the election, Vice President Dan Quayle announced a contract award to the Bell and Boeing development team. The Navy terminated the old contract and awarded a new one for a cheaper and lighter V-22 variant.

"Very strong politics kept this program alive," said Nisbet, the analyst. "It is a very expensive pro

gram. . . .

"For the same money, you could have a lot more capacity with new helicopters. We have a rapidly aging helicopter force, and this program is not going to do a lot to relieve that."

Though each Osprey is now projected to cost about $44 million, the program costs are much greater.

The Department of Defense last year estimated it will cost about $36.2 billion to produce and develop 458 Ospreys -- or about $80 million per aircraft. That figure, though, includes research and development money that already has been sunk into the project, as well as funding for operation and maintenance and spares.

Despite the cost and concerns from critics about the safety of the Osprey, the Marines want it. They have committed their future aviation transport needs to the V-22 as a replacement for the corps' aging fleet of Vietnam-era CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters, a version of Boeing's CH-47 Chinook.

The Osprey can carry 24 combat-loaded Marines.

With a cruising range of more than 2,000 miles without refueling, the Osprey can fly six times as far and about twice as fast as the Sea Knight. But it is also several times as expensive.

Lt. Gen. Fred McCorkle, the Marine Corps' aviation chief, defended the V-22 at briefing for reporters earlier this week.

"The nation absolutely needs the MV-22 (the Marine's label for the Osprey)," he said. "Here you have an aircraft that can go 2,100 nautical miles at 300 knots. That's a great technology."

Although there have been three crashes, aviation experts point out that the first, involving a prototype that crashed in Delaware in 1991 minutes after taking off on its maiden flight, occurred because a mechanic improperly wired the craft's gyros. No one was killed in that accident.

The crash in 1992 that killed seven was caused by an engine fire.

"Both fatal crashes are horrible and tragic, but when you develop something like this that is revolutionary, you are going to have some problems," said Christopher Bolkcom, military aviation analyst with the Congressional Research Service.

The latest Osprey that crashed was one of five production aircraft in service that have been undergoing operational evaluation by the Marines. After those trials are completed this summer, the Pentagon will decide whether to go ahead with full-rate production and Congress would then have to approve the money.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a big supporter of the Osprey, said it is replacing a 40-year-old helicopter that is nearing the end of its service life.

"We got no place else to go if this doesn't work," said Murtha, a former Marine and the ranking minority member of the House Appropriations Committee's defense panel. "We got a big time problem here if there's something wrong with it."

P-I reporter James Wallace can be reached at 206-448-8040 or jameswallace@seattle-pi.com

OUR AFFILIATES
NWsource KOMO
Pacific Publishing

Seattle Post-Intelligencer
101 Elliott Ave. W.
Seattle, WA 98119
(206) 448-8000

Home Delivery: (206) 464-2121 or (800) 542-0820
seattlepi.com serves about 1.7 million unique visitors
and 30 million page views each month.

Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com
Send investigative tips to iteam@seattlepi.com
©1996-2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Terms of Use/Privacy Policy

Hearst Newspapers