The Osprey tale of failure, fatality and grounding

Abhijit Bhattacharyya

Life member, Aeronautical Society of India

THE year has ended on a sour note for a mega aviation enterprise as the US Congressional Oversight Committee has launched an investigation into the Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey’s ‘multi-mission’ tiltrotor craft programme after the crash that killed all eight personnel aboard in Yakushima, Japan, on November 29. Making matters worse, the entire Osprey fleet in the US and Japan has been grounded.

This is a major setback to the two trans-Pacific military allies. Military Balance 2023 (published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, London) gives a graphic account of the grounded machine’s use and deployment. All Ospreys of the US Military Sealift Command’s two squadrons, Naval Aviation, Marine Corps Aviation tiltrotor and Marine Corps Aviation Reserve, besides 51 reserve Ospreys, are on the ground pending a detailed investigation, thereby crippling the high-tech airlift combat capability of the US Air Force (USAF). Across the Pacific Ocean, the Japan Ground Self-Defence Force, the only ‘outsider’ user of two squadrons of the ‘quick reaction time’ aircraft, too, awaits the fate of its fleet.

The US-created messy situation looks pretty bleak as there is little to indicate any positive outcome anytime soon. Osprey had had turbulent flight issues from the beginning.

The Osprey’s design exercise began on April 26, 1983, but it took 24 years to attain ‘initial operational capability’ for induction into the US Marine Corps (USMC) in June 2007 and another two years for the USAF to green-light it for deployment in March 2009. This unusually long gestation period of a plane of an aviation superpower like the US would make even a layman apprehensive about the quality or capability of the flying machine.

Regrettably, despite attaining operational status in the frontline fighting formation, Osprey appears to have attained the dubious distinction of being a ‘flying coffin’, like the Lockheed Corporation’s one-engine F-104 Star-fighter of yesteryear.

Osprey passed the critical design review in December 1994, but underwent ‘significant changes’ in 1997-98. The programme was halted in April 2000 following the crash of an aircraft from the “fourth low-rate initial production” batch. The accident report revealed “power settling”, implying a condition in which “it becomes difficult to stop the descent because of downwash” (downward deflection of airstream by the aircraft wing or helicopter rotor blade).

The shocking recurrence of failure of the Bell-Boeing aviation enterprise did no good to the companies’ reputation or the confidence of potential or existing users of the craft. The sordid saga continues amid Pentagon’s persistent support for the programme. That’s intriguing. Why would or should Pentagon be so keen to sustain a project which has shown no sign of success for 40 years?

The next ‘brief grounding’ for six days occurred in August 2000; the loss of the eighth Osprey (December 11, 2000) resulted in the imposition of a fresh grounding order. The cause of the accident was “hydraulic system failure, compounded by error in software inputs to the flight control system.” Osprey’s year-long grounding in 2001 presented a pathetic picture.

Though test flights of the grounded craft resumed in May 2002, it was again grounded for 10 days in March 2003 to “replace the suspect hydraulic” system. The familiar scenario of “flying today and grounding tomorrow” continued as the “grounding order was re-imposed in the wake of a Class A accident on March 27, 2006.” It was a serious accident due to the failure of the “full authority digital engine or electronic control (FADEC).” The craft was “airborne for just over three seconds” and then crashed with “significant damage to the engine.” Despite flight resumption, another grounding order came soon for the USMC fleet in February 2007 following the “discovery of... failure of microchip in flight control computers.” Another “grounding order” was imposed on 84 Ospreys in March 2009 after the ‘discovery’ of a fault in the USMC machine in Iraq.

Osprey appears to be beset by unending woes. Having seen action in Afghanistan and Iraq and having been deployed in Mali, Senegal and Japan, the Bell-Boeing tiltrotor now faces an existential threat and the possible abortion of an agonising flight path from conception, commission to deployment, spanning four decades.

The trust in Osprey’s routine flying missions has been eroded. So much so that even Israel, the most dependable of America’s strategic allies in West Asia, doesn’t seem confident to opt for the Bell-Boeing Osprey. Thus, whereas in early 2006, Israel considered the aircraft for “special forces”, its interest waned later and Tel Aviv ultimately “opted to cancel the procurement and diverted funds for armoured personnel carrier acquisition.”

Another interesting story is that after Bell-Boeing originally proposed producing 122 Ospreys for the USMC and the USAF from 2013 to 2017, the US decided to “reduce the quantity to 99.”

From the Indian perspective, what is intriguing is this piece of information in Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft 2020-21: “In May 2015, India emerged as a possible customer for four Osprey V-22s with which to deploy Special Frontier Force (SFF) personnel rapidly along borders with China and Pakistan.” It is a stroke of luck that the deal did not work out. Considering the catastrophic record of the two reputed companies’ product, it would have been a Himalayan blunder for India or any other developing country to go for it without a thorough background check. Else, history would have harshly judged those whose duty it is to buy the best military products for the safety, security and sovereignty of the nation.

Hope the US Congressional Oversight Committee report comes soon for the world to gauge the reality for the benefit of all — the producer, the distributor and the consumer/user.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.

#Japan