The tragic crash of a Special Operations CV-22 on 8 April 2010 in Afghanistan has predictably generated a hysterical over reaction from some elements of the mass media.
One such outlet is theatlanticwire.com where their John Hudson shrieked "
Have Critics of the CV-22 Osprey Been Vindicated?"
CV-22 Osprey PictureI commented:
The alarmist and link-bait tone of this item's headline ignores the reality of advanced aircraft development. It by definition involves doing things never done before. Recall the
Right Stuff? If it were easy test pilots could just have Any Stuff.
Furthermore, while Mr. Whittle may have written the book, we literally made the documentary on the entire history of tiltrotor technology:
V-22 VideoShort of the DC-3, I find it very difficult to recall any air or space vehicle that revolutionized flight that also experienced a flight test or early deployment phase free of accidents and challenges.
And the DC-3 revolution was largely economic - it could operate at a profit without government subsides. It does not serve your readers to ignore context and raise alarms, it only undermines the media's credibility.
A reader responded:
"The alarmist and link-bait tone of this item's headline ignores the reality of advanced aircraft development. It by definition involves doing things never done before. Recall the Right Stuff? If it were easy test pilots could just have Any Stuff."
Indeed - how long was it from the beginning of the Mercury program to it being "operational" as it were? What I can find on the web suggests it was started in 1958, and if we call "operational" John Glenn's orbital flight, it was operational in 1962 (1961 if you go by first flight), with a total program cost of something on the order of $2.8 billion 2008 US dollars.
the V22 Osprey seems to have started around 1983, first flight in 1989, and an "introduction" (we'll call that being operational) in 2007. Program cost listed as $27 billion in 2008. I am not convinced the comparison with Mercury puts Osprey in all that positive a light - 5x longer to become operational and 10X more money.
"Short of the DC-3, I find it very difficult to recall any air or space vehicle that revolutionized flight that also experienced a flight test or early deployment phase free of accidents and challenges."
I would put-forward for consideration the Boeing 747 - entered service in 1970, first actual crash in 1974, and that one seems to have been the pilot putting it into a stall on take-off.
And I responded:
"Indeed - how long was it from the beginning of the Mercury program to it being "operational" as it were? What I can find on the web suggests it was started in 1958, and if we call "operational" John Glenn's orbital flight, it was operational in 1962 (1961 if you go by first flight), with a total program cost of something on the order of $2.8 billion 2008 US dollars."
From your response to my comment it is not clear if you are adding to the thoughts or disagreeing with me.
However, historically there never was an "operational" phase to Mercury or any other space program carrying humans. That sense of the routine and operational status is a myth in the hearts and minds of the public, but it is shattered every time there is an accident (like Apollo 1, 13, and the shuttles).
If you ask NASA officially, or any astronaut who has flown, they will tell you it is all still experimental. Thus, I'm not sure the comparison to a program intended to create a revolutionary aircraft that can operationally carry 24 into combat is valid.
I'm not saying your comparison is malicious at all - please don't get me wrong. I just think that manned space flight systems are a bad analog to utility transport category vertical lift programs.
Operational 747s still crash with disappointing frequency, though I think them a fine design.
My point is simply that the mass media needs to stop the disproportionate breathless hysteria every time tragedy strikes.
The same reader responded:
I got the impression you felt comparing Osprey to The Right Stuff/Mercury made Osprey look good. Osprey may indeed look good, but I was taking exception to the comparison. If you felt that manned space flight systems were a bad analogy, why did you bring-up The Right Stuff and by extension Mercury in the first place? Was it to suggest that Osprey still requires operators and passengers with the character traits of test pilots? Certainly it takes brass gonads to fly anything into combat, but it should be strictly for the combat aspect, not because it takes brass gonads to fly an operational craft itself.
Another reader then responded:
I think you're all missing the real point by focusing on a semantic argument about whether a weapons system is "operational" by your definition of the word. We have always spent billions of R&D in the military, and the results are usually very enlightening for the development of future weapons systems, as well as economically beneficial to the country, because it employs thousands of workers at white collar high-skill, high-wage jobs. That does not mean however, that every single R&D project we fund has to be put into regular service or else be considered a failure. In a military environment, when we agree to make a large buy of a new system, whether it be an aircraft, firearm, computer, or any other kind of widget, there is a generally accepted logic that it should be able to provide a practical benefit in terms of increased capability, better functionality, or increased reliability at an ACCEPTABLE COST RELATIVE TO THE IMPROVEMENTS of the new system. History is replete with weapons systems that have been canceled for no reason other than cost, such as the Seawolf and the Crusader, both of which were incomparably better than their next best competitor. They were simply deemed too expensive given the other spending priorities of the government at the time. The F-22 is far and away the best fighter in the history of aviation, and yet the axe has been out for it for years, due to nothing but cost. Are Osprey specs better than the standard helos it is designed to replace? Probably, but it really doesn't matter, because virtually every new system is going to be technically better than preceding systems. What matters is whether it is so much more capable/reliable/functional than the alternative system(s) that it justifies the cost and resources engaged to field it.
By the way, since you folks raised the issue of The Right Stuff, you should probably be told that the movie was roundly criticized by every one of the Mercury astronauts who saw it, and if you ever get a chance to talk to Senator Glenn about it, he'll leave you with the impression that he hates it so much he'd like to strangle the makers of the film. It is universally agreed upon by the astronauts that it gave about as accurate a portrayal of NASA and the Mercury program as Conan the Barbarian did of Austrian history.
To which I responded:
Both you and <snipped - not sure if I should post other's names> assumed facts not in evidence about my meaning and remarks.
I actually said:
"Recall the Right Stuff? If it were easy test pilots could just have Any Stuff."
No mention of the movie, book or Mercury program. Simply the term as it relates to test flight and unique skill sets. Contrary to your assumptions, the term did not materialize thanks to book, it simply popularized it.
In context, it followed this:
"The alarmist and link-bait tone of this item's headline ignores the reality of advanced aircraft development. It by definition involves doing things never done before. "
These are early days in the deployment of a very advanced aircraft. I make no reference to cost or justification thereof. I'm speaking about a crash - the actual point of the article, and the unwarranted tone of the headline. That tragic fatal crash occurred during what amounts to the first data points relative to aircraft life cycle on the graph of experience.
"Certainly it takes brass gonads to fly anything into combat, but it should be strictly for the combat aspect, not because it takes brass gonads to fly an operational craft itself."
Actually, ask anyone who has to fly on/off an aircraft carrier during good weather. Or bad weather. Or who flew the best analog I suspect, the AV-8A, or -B.
Again, my point is the headline of this piece is alarmist, out of context and inappropriate.
I welcome continuing this discussion, in civil tones please, here on this forum. All opinions, expressed respectfully, are welcome. To post you must register but it is free.
Our brief factual news item was simply headlined "
CV-22 Osprey Crash in Afghanistan Combat" because that is all we knew for sure.
Bookmark this page or send it to a friend!
