(Proof) The Osprey Has Landed

In case you all haven’t seen it, we have a proof of life that the Osprey has indeed landed in Helmand (though I can’t tell if 10 have actually landed — or maybe it’s shot on the same set as the American moon landing was staged…?)

I did notice that the Remote Guardian system is not installed at least on the ones you can see in the footage. I can’t get the Marine Corps to cough up a straight answer on what the status is of that system they said would be capable for the Afghanistan deployment.

Best line: “It’s kind of like going from a VW bus to a Maserati…”

As someone who owned a Westy for a while, I can definitely relate.

I’m sure we’ll soon have more operational footage from the deployment, and when we come across it, it’ll be here.

— Christian

  • Jim

    I’m not sure you can relate. Have you also had a Maserati?

  • Oble

    Have you also had a Maserati? …

    I think what christian means is that it’s must be much like a VW bus - just 6 times the price, half as reliable and you have to watch out for potholes because it will flip over and barrel roll into the ground if ti sees one.

  • bluefrog2

    Do you mean it does the job of a beetle vww for the price of a mazerati?

  • Nraddin

    Best line: “It’s kind of like going from a VW bus to a Maserati…”

    Can you put that in context? Is it better or worst to own a Maserati vs a VW?

  • Valcan

    No, no, no,…this was all photoshopped or made in a studio in LA!!!

  • phrogger

    If u knew anything about anything USMC you would know that the Marines, (unlike the Army), have an appreciation for keeping ANYTHING that may compromise the safety of its troops and the operations from the ever watchful eyes of the enemy.
    So what if your article sucks? Think big picture stupid.
    I’m actually surprised they spoke to you at all.

  • Zandor

    What is sad is that a lot of these Ospreys weren’t deployed earlier.

    The Afghans, had they known that the Ospreys were there, would have surrendered immediately.

    Now it is to late for us.

    Even the almighty Osprey can not save us.

    But it can still continue to crash, and kill the occupants.

    The US Military in action, once again.

    Total incompetence x 1 billion.


  • Valcan

    You know what yall……i agree we should stop using the after the dozens dead in crashes this year its a crime we havent!!!!!!!!!!!

    Wait….no one has died in a osprey this year?…really?…..oh….um….Well we can certainly ban those stupid “helicopter things as dozens have died this year!!!!!!!.

    Data can be made to look like anything you want it to be. Just depends on how you spin it.

    Most military advancement would not have happened if we depended on the veiws of internet posters.

  • freefallingbomb

    Part I :

    Mr. Lowe,

    You wrote: “…maybe it’s shot on the same set as the American moon land­ing was staged.”

    Okay, today is the day: So, you’re finally asking for a public showdown with anyone over the alleged, crudely staged, hilarious U.S. American “Moon landings” ? (You NEED them to be an U.S. American, admit it)

    Disclaim THIS … or shut up forever:


    (Fortunately for you I have no access right now to my BEST , most irrefutable collection of links about this subject)


  • Ontos

    Whoa there little fella… FRIDAY night is tin-foil hat night at Defense-Tech. Friday.

    Come back tomorrow and repost all the moon-landing stuff, ok?

  • Daniel

    holy shit i cant belive you wrote all that

  • Zandor

    Dear Mr. 1-11 posts:

    I have an older brother that will inherit the family fortune down here in Arkansas, almost over 101 acres, and the chickens, and both cows, and “thud” our coon dog.

    I hate him.

    I don’t mean “thud”, I mean my brother.

    What should I do?

    Should I smooth my brother into the astrnout corps, wich only is 50% fatal, or just hit him on the head, realy, realy hard with a meat ax eight or nine times?

    If he becomes an astro it could take years for him to be killed.

    I could ax him any mornin of the day when he is sittin in the privi.

    Please advise.

    Pisscough Ark.
    That way he will look like he got hit by an astonought from space

  • Oble

    There is an analogy Christian will never use again.

    I’m sure the Marine spokeswomen didn’t intend to say “rate of speed”. She probably was thinking rate of descent and then though better of it (1g all the way down), and changed it at the last moment to speed.

    Christian is probably right there are probably more Ospreys deployed at movie sets around the world then in ‘combat’.

    Meanwhile the Israelis have decided to pass on the turkey:


  • cheung shun sang

    Cards mislead a bluff with arts.

    Bulls are scare as china goes.

    China men will under arms.

    China peoples fear their gods.

    Leaders’ gods are lords to rule.

    Gallows looking all are dull.

    Peoples kick the skies to eat.

    Hateful laws as there are hatch.

    Fickle laws are china thick.

    Eat the carrots there are sticks.

    Candling heads have peoples’ rights.

    Pitches in battles Taiwan fight.

    Taiwan ranges are full of ranks.

    Pleased our china those are tanks.

    Missiles get the busses on ways.

    Welcome Taiwan days are hays.

    ———-Cheung Shun Sang=Cauchy3———-

  • Ed!

    To all of you complaining about the Osprey. Look up the following numbers for yourselves. How many of our other birds have gone done while the Osprey has been deployed to Iraq, Mali, and now Afghanistan? Keep in mind, not one Osprey has gone down in any of these deployments.

  • Ed!

    Cole, It makes sense to compare them. Since all of the Armchair Generals that are here complaining about the Osprey in favor of more helicopters, just look at the accident reports. The Osprey did perform well in Iraq and Mali despite what the nay sayers are squawking about.

  • phrogdriver

    The ignorance on display here is astounding. If I were to address it all, I’d be here all day.

    All military rotorcraft execute precautionary emergency landings from time to time. In the phrog, I remember at least two. In the TH-57, a Bell 206 derivative and the most prolific helo in the world, I’ve done at least six. The one that was mentioned for a V-22 in Jordan was not “toast.” They waited a short while for parts, got them, and proceeded to join the rest of the unit in Iraq.

    The Marine Corps did not manage this program well initially. Since Marana, it has done a pretty good job of fielding the aircraft. I wish it hadn’t taken a mishap to straighten things out. If they had done the same job before that mishap they have since, no one here would have anything to bitch about.

  • phrogdriver

    It has deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as feasible. Its rotations into the two major combat theaters are at a similar rate and proportion to the number of squadrons available as most other aircraft in the inventory. It’s successfully completed three Iraq tours, a MEU shipboard deployment, and is now in Afghanistan. Yet, doubters will continue to claim every test is not good enough. “It’s never been shot at,” they say. It’s not supposed to be. That’s why more speed and higher altitude are good things. It’s hard to hit something moving that fast and high with RPGs and small arms. Moreover, its ability to displace greatly enhances its survivability versus MANPADS.

    As for the cost, I’m not a bookkeeper. I don’t know whether it’s capability merits its cost relative to other aircraft. But, I’d rather have a capability our enemies don’t. More importantly, having flown or flown on a variety of helos, I can’t think of any I’d rather fly into bad guy country than the V-22. Or, for that matter, any I’d be more comfortable flying into a brown-out landing.

  • Lou

    We need these piece’s of crap just like we needed the F-22

  • Matt Musson

    The issue in Afghanistan if flight ceiling and bad weather. My impression is that the Osprey has an advantage in both compared to Rotary winged aircraft.

    The problem will be when they are on the ground. Their base is bound to be a magnet for mortar and rocket fire. Any Taliban worth his salt would love a lucky hit on one of these gold plated aircraft.

  • clowe

    don’t flatter yourself FFB…i haven’t touched your posts…except the one where you get all anti-semitic…

  • Cole

    Ed, please don't compare the mishap rate of literally thousands of helicopters flying many hundred of thousands of flight hours over this war, to the mishap of a few 10-ship MV-22 squadrons flying 65 hours a month.

    Actually one MV-22 did make a serious precautionary landing in Jordan due to a fire in flight and was essentially toast. This bird deserves a chance to improve its readiness rate and reduce its $10+ grand flying hour cost. But that cost, procurement cost and any objective analysis of alternatives would reveal that an all MV-22 fleet to replace CH-46 is a nice to have, but more helicopters in that replacement mix would make more budgetary and warfighting sense.

  • Jerry

    The Corps FY2010 aviation plan is on the net.


    big file in pdf.

    Like last year, it calls for the CH-53Ds to be replaced by CH-53Ks rather than MV-22s. So why hasn’t the V-22 requirement been cut from 360 to 320?

    Recall that 156 MV-22s have been procured for the Corps through FY2009, but Corps only has 82 in its inventory. There have been no class A mishaps since 2000, yet the Corps scrapped another new MV-22 in FY09 (AA in that chart, aircraft attrition)

    The Corps has begun to establish VMM squadrons on the West Coast, but that presents a problem. Broke down MV-22s at New River are trucked up to the depot 30 miles away at Cherry Point for repair, and swapped for another to keep readiness up. This will not be easy from California.

    For the curious, the chart shows severe shortages of AH-1s and UH-1s, but that is because the Corps decided to add six new HMLA squadrons a couple years ago.

  • r oconnor


  • Valcan


    My god what makes people like you? Did you eat paint chips when you were a kid?

  • Valcan

    Wait……..ospreys are supposed to fly higher than regular choppers right? So how will that hurt them?

  • Oble

    >I wish it hadn’t taken a mishap to straighten things out

    Not so much mishaps as training as you expect to fight.

    >The issue in Afghanistan if flight ceiling and bad weather. My impression is that the Osprey has an advantage in both compared to Rotary winged aircraft.

    And your impression would be wrong. The Osprey doesn’t have a functioning de-icing system – takes longer than 20 years to develop one apparently, and has half the lift of an equivalent powered helicopter. The osprey can’t even take a full load out of the US embassy in Kabul because of the altitude – instead they would use choppers to evacuate just like old Siagon.

    It’s a mongrel of half a helicopter and half an aircraft glued together and performing both roles worse then the equivalent. For this privilege you pay six times the price. The idea that it magically combines the best of both vehicles is just ignorance of basic aerodynamics.

    The only missions that an osprey is good at are those that an aircraft can’t do, and helicopter can’t do, and yet only an Frankenstein helio-transport can do – and those missions are very rare indeed.

    The marines invented a very flimsy one – airborne assault from beyond the horizon over the defenses of a nation that is too strong to assault directly but for some reason forgot to buy air defenses.

    Ah sorry that should be “flimsy” I meant a critical mission that is the whole justification for the marines now that people laugh openly at the suggestion they are going to assault the beaches.

    About the only one that makes any sense at all is CSAR and that’s a huge expense for a couple CSAR aircraft.

  • swissfreek

    I thought the belly-gun was primarily an Air Force effort on the CV at this time?

  • phrogdriver

    Does anyone have an actual well-thought-out, meaningful, and reality-based criticism of the aircraft, or is this board completely overrun by Carlton Meyer-conspiracy theory-wannabes?

    This aircraft is BETTER at surviving enemy air-defenses than any existing helicopter. It has the capability to overfly a low threat, and go into the low altitude regime against a medium threat. Only a moron sends a rotorcraft into a high-threat environment without a butt-ton of SEAD. Even coming into a zone, its speed and low audio signature make it a better bet than a helo. With the IDWS installed, hopefully the “but it doesn’t have a gun” crowd will STFU.____There are plenty of missions where the “franken-aircraft” is well suited. Most prominently, it will cut the CASEVAC travel time in half. If you want examples where over-the-horizon would be handy, think the Somalia NEO, the Iranian hostage rescue, or the seizure of Camp Rhino. All of these would’ve been much easier, and much lower risk if they had been done with MV-22s.

  • phrogdriver

    As for the guy who said that broken V-22s are trucked to Cherry Point for a swap out. That is completely and demonstrably FALSE. Every aircraft in the armed forces inventory does depot-level maintenance. It’s based on the number of flight hours on an aircraft, and is done on a scheduled basis. Or is all of military aviation a scandal?

  • Valcan

    Ok here ya go.


    BTW you do know ANYONE can put up images on the web right and people can lie?

    Point is even an indian satellite took picture of an apollo site (apollo 15 i believe) So the case is closed and over. We landed. We won the space race to the moon. And then just pissed it away and have just stagnated sence.

  • Valcan

    Nasa's budget back then was around 5% i think about where the militaries budget is now. Currently Nasa's budget is around .01% of the GDP.
    That is pathetic.

    Thats one reason so many havent done it now is mainly cost, technical capabilities, industry, and much much more. Not to mention the fact that we didnt realize that there was a probability of our guys getting fried in the ship.

    Nasa and other like space agencies are stuck on the belief they can make space safe. Which if you ever want to youll have to have much more up there so you can have much more to work with. Your not gonna make a tin can safe in a place so dangerous.

    Space will always be dangerous. Everything is. But until Nasa and such stop looking at space as a experiment and start taking it more seriously nothing will change.

  • phrogdriver

    Going against a higher-threat obviously means higher risk. Hopefully SEAD takes care of the bulk of radar-directed weaponry. However the Osprey is still better able to contend with whatever remains. Of course, as missiles become more of a threat, it drives altitude down. But, which one is easier to hit? 200 feet/220+ knots or 100 feet/100 knots. When engaged by a missile threat, the V-22 can displace far more in response than a helicopter.

    Assault support aircraft of any type need that suppression in order to survive in a medium-high threat environment. That’s just a fact. The Osprey is far more survivable than a helo.

    The anti-V22 forces just keep ringing their talking points. Their knowledge of modern warfare stops at movies and conspiracy websits.

  • Oble

    Turns out the osprey is a lot like a masaratti

    what’s the stat again – 80-90% of all enemy fire occurs at take off or landing where the osprey is low and slow and much less amnouverable than a helicopter.

    But as prog points out there are some rare missions that the osprey is suitable for - though Solamila isn’t one of them unless you consider overflying the waiting media scrum to avoid looking like idiots is considered a critical mission.

    So the marines have optimized themselves for the odd mission that happens once every 30 years at the great expense of the millions of other missions they have to do. Sounds like a stupid decision to me, perhaps they just don’t want to fight.

  • Valcan

    Sigh why do i try. Anyone that illogical is lost.

  • phrogdriver

    Oh no, Marines don’t want to fight…you got us there…jackass.

    Are you under the impression that there’s a whole lot of evasive manuevering going on during short final? You either land or wave off. If you do have to wave-off, the Osprey will get you out of Dodge a lot faster than anything else, if need be.

    Most engagements happen on egress, not ingress.

    BTW, the NATOPS limits for the V-22 for pitch/roll exceed that of most helos.

    Manuever warfare is what we’re trying to achieve. Maybe you’ve heard of it. Then again, based on the statements of the anti-Osprey crowd here, probably not.

  • Mike

    The Osprey has not crashed in about 10 years. Any other VTOL’s out there you can say the same about? Total fleet flight hours since resumption of flight in 2002 is well over 66,000 hours.

  • Hibby

    You know that the moon is within the earth’s protective magnetic shield right? Not full protection certainly, but not zero.
    Oh and Dtech, congrats. The posts are getting pretty good. And the new look took some getting used to, but it is nice.

  • Cole

    Mike, your stats are hardly worthy of any comparison. A quick internet search reveals that Army helicopters have over 2 million COMBAT HOURS in OIF and OEF and have lost around 120 aircraft…most to accidents in a much less hospitable low altitude flight environment with many field landings.

    Despite these harsh flying condition, MC rates have stayed around 80% or higher at a far far lower cost per flying hour.

  • Cole

    A little back of the envelope calculation leads to these estimates, sir:

    *MV-22: $72 million upfront flyaway cost and $10,000 per flight hour x 60 hours/month in theater = $600,000 per aircraft per month

    *CH-47F: $36 million upfront flyaway cost and $6800 per flight hour x 60 hours/month in theater= $408,000 per aircraft per month

    *UH-60M: $18 million upfront flyaway cost and $2700 per flight hour x 60 hours/month in theater = $162,000 per aircraft per month

  • Cole

    Marines use 12-ship MV-22/CH-46 squadrons which are about half the size of an Army aviation battalion. So another way of looking at it is that two Marine squadrons with 24 total MV-22 flying just 1440 hours a month would cost $14.4 million or about $4 million more per month than 3 squadrons: one with 10 MV-22, one with 10 CH-47F, and one with 10 UH-60M.

    More aircraft (30) flying more flight hours (1800 vs 1440 hrs) for $4 million less a month, with far less procurement cost…and probably using a similar or less deck/hangar space aboard Marine ships. Sounds like a no-brainer.

    Sure the UH-60M would carry fewer Marines but the greater aircraft numbers and the CH-47F would make up for it. 24 MV-22 carrying 20 Marines (heavier body armor/center belly gun/ hot/high) = 480 Marines in one lift. Ten aircraft of each carries 200 Marines in a MV-22, 300 in 10 CH-47F, and 100 in 10 UH-60M for 600 Marines in a single lift.

  • Cole

    Figures above are based on 25% of 1800 flight hours in the MV-22, 30% flown in the Chinook, and 45% flying the cheapest UH-60M.

    That ratio would result in a cost per month for 1800 hours equaling approximately $4.5 million for the 10 MV-22 (450 hrs), $3.7 million for 10 CH-47F (540 hrs), and $2.2 million for 10 UH-60M (810 hrs) or about $10.4 million a month vs. $14.4 million for 30 MV-22s flying only 1440 hours….360 monthly hours less than the mixed fleet.

    If we used Ashton Carter’s $45 per gallon combat cost of fuel, the difference is far greater.

  • mike

    So what’s best for our warfighters?