@@ZombaEdits it is. Even Boeing is reliable when it comes to military aircrafts, it's just that Osprey is really complex due to US military's unique requirements.
It was developed is 1988 when Boeing were still working as a team. It was post the 1997 merger with McDonnell Douglas that Boeing’s management valued stock prices over anything else.
It's obvious that the amazing versatility of this aircraft comes with a very high cost : more accidents/mechanical failures and sky high maintenance costs. So many complex moving parts compared to a regular helicopter.
@@theadchefer, I totally agree about the BS of us going over there. What you seem to have forgotten, or aren't old enough to remember, is none of us commoners knew what was really going on. "government dog" is such a stupid thing to say. Notice, I didn't say ignorant. I'm no fan of the government, politically, but I do support my country and what we (as in citizens) actually believe in. We don't want war, but we do need a military, because without one we're just going to allow an invasion. Save the drama for your momma, because it's going to get you nowhere with me, son.
As a retired US Navy helicopter Test Pilot (8,200 hours, total time, UH-1, AH-1, CH/RH/MH-53, SH-2, C-12M), I have observed the long, difficult development of the V-22. Although V-22s (all variants) have had a number of accidents that shouldn’t have happened … since USMC IOC in 2007, “the military has experienced roughly the same number of fatal H-53 helicopter accidents, twice as many fatal H-47 Chinook accidents and scores of fatal H-60 Black Hawk helicopter accidents. Experts who have looked at the statistics in further detail have noted that when examining mishap rates per flying hour (statistics that are hard to pin down), the V-22 safety record is virtually indistinguishable from other aircraft flown by the U.S. military.” Having said that, however, some of the earlier issues (that still impact the V-22 reputation and pilot confidence) relate back to DoD making the decision to skip 6.4 R&D to save time and money (resulted in at least two fatal loss of aircraft accidents in the mid-80s/early 90’s. One by Military Test Pilots and one early accident, after premature Fleet introduction, was related to the bad assumption that using fleet pilots, not fully aware of V-22 power-settling characteristics, to conduct Test Pilot appropriate flight envelop expansion (steep descent approaches to landing with full load) resulted in a USMC accident near Yuma with loss of a full load of troops. Also, there have more recently been a rash of V-22 accidents that were clearly pilot error, or more precisely, very survivable incidents that became fatal accidents due to pilot errors/operational pressures/inadequate training/poor command-level decisions.
3:11 That's not the actual wreckage of the crash in Yakushima in 2023. That's an image from the Okinawa crash in 2016. I was there in Yakushima during the crash, saw the search and rescue ops being executed everyday for weeks in person.
@@gssbcvegancat2345 I should clarify I wasn't part of the search operation. Just a civ. I did talk to a couple of the guys who were though. Solid dudes.
Enjoyed my time flying on the Osprey, never personally had a mishap, never once had doubts for my or the rest of the crews safety. Everyone has an opinion on something which is fine, but the only opinions I personally care for are from those who have logged flight hours.
@@Sefert79 or anyone who can read mishap data. It's really weird to have that perspective when your life is the chip on the table. I've lost quite a few friends or colleagues to aircraft mishaps. Once someone is gone, that's it. Leaves a big hole with their family and friends.
Yeah i'm just a shut-in gamer and i instantly noticed that too, there's no way that's EVER an M2. Honestly i wouldn't be surprised if it was a 249 5.56, but i can't tell.
It was clearly a newer model. Small, lighter, smaller diameter, ".50 cal." It's like U.S. Army tanks. M113, D9 Dozer, Abrams, Bradley, M577, etc., all mighty fine tanks. Haha
The title of this video is clickbait. The Osprey does have a persistent problem with its clutch that has never been satisfactorily addressed and so more frequent parts replacements are needed. A new 2nd generation production tiltrotor has been selected to equip the armed forces, and the new tiltrotor will not be plagued with the same issues. The death and injury rate justifies continued use of the V-22, because beyond the accident picture, the V-22 does not remain in a hot fire zone for as long as a conventional helicopter, meaning it will get troops out of range of hostile fire faster than a helicopter. This video did not point out that the very first tiltrotor was developed and flown by Bell Aircraft in 1955. t was the XV-3, and its overall appearance resembles that of the German Focke-Achgelis Model 61 helicopter of World War II. Bell is a partner in the V-22.
Have you ever been one of those devils running out of one? It's not like you think honestly I would rather go in ground dismount and move to position. I know we're just dumb Marines and we don't really get a choice but I wish somebody would ask us what we prefer. We're the ones about to die, at least let us feel comfortable before we do it
@@gssbcvegancat2345 Ok, you are probably just random internet troll but anyway... Osprey is also used for the US president, it can fly above MANPADs, so that's likely behind the reason together with his speed which gives the enemy little time to react but it is overly complex and unable to safely land while experiencing complete loss of engine power which can do even Vietnam era Chinook. The upcoming Blackhawk replacement using a similar but simplified configuration to Osprey likely not win any survivability records while experiencing major technical failure or battle damage for that reason either but his performance may save marine's a$$ on the battlefield by avoiding being hit in the first place. However, it's unlikely that the US will replace Blackhawk with next-gen Valor completely as was the case of the F-35 simply because Blackhawk is good enough in many less demanding scenarios, and likely for a fraction of the total service life cost while Blackhawk due to ability to autorotate upon complete loss of power improving probability of Blackhawk's crew to survive a crash due to higher attrition ratio near the end of service life compared to a VTOL intended to replace it...
@@IonorRea the osprey is not used for the president. Secret service won't allow the president to fly in it because of its reputation. The ospreys that are assigned to his helicopter detail are used for support staff and guests like the media.
New technology has growing pains. This is not the first aircraft nicknamed "the widow maker", and it won't be the last. Unique capabilities come with risks, but the bugs will be worked out.
Well said. The V-280 will undoubtedly have its own learning curve paved in blood and will inevitably be compared to the Osprey as those events happen My big issue with it is the insane pricing difference between the variants. How did we end up with the special operations version being TWENTY MILLION cheaper than the straightforward CV-22 which is FORTY million more than than the Marine variant. This is madness.
For the other infamous widow maker, the F104, the main problem was pilot training. When Germany grounded the fleet and implemented a strict training protocol, accidents in the F104 in Germany decreased massively.
I watched 5 osprey come in and land at Falcon in Mesa AZ from LA. Perfect landing….fuel… and take off to their next destination. They are majestic when changing from 200mph fixed wing to 50mph heli.
@@SC_XOLOs I also think that we, as tax payers, shouldn't be paying $90,000 for the military to buy a bag of bushings from a company that's gouging the military for parts just because they can.
@@John_Doe3 No, 95% of the cost of maintenance cost for aircraft and ships is the army-side labour costs associated with the amount of maintainers required per unit of that thing. Specifically for aircraft, the cost of spare parts is paid in the purchase of the aircraft for the entire lifetime of the aircraft.
@@adamanderson3042The inflation I'm talking about has to deal with the prices of the parts. Are they charging more than they should for the parts? I'm not concerned about the labor because they shouldn't be inflating those prices.
For those who are getting twitchy, yes that is a M240 shown at the first, but around 9:23 shows a Ma Deuce. Can't mistake that butterfly trigger for anything else.
It's whatever they stick us Marines in, but to be fair we know the score. We're expected to do the most with the absolute least and we'll get it done. Semper Fi
It makes it hard for me as an American to take seriously a program that uses a foreigners "UK" voice to talk about our hardware. And cost is impossible to put in relative terms. It comes down to TROOP SAFTY! Children shouldn't lose their mothers and fathers to preventable crashes.
My grandfather wrote a book about how the US sent aircraft into battle during the Vietnam war even if the planes were broken and malfunctioning during the end of the war
2:40 - "A .50 caliber machine gun sits an the back ..." as the video shows an M240, a 7.62x51mm machine gun (Note: .50 cal, .50 BMG in this case, is 12.7x99mm. The M240 is nothing like the .50 cals used in aircraft.).
To stabilize the plane, they need to add thrust at the end of each engine of the propeller. So the propeller provides lift, while the thrust provides control and additional lift
@@nocancelcultureaccepted9316 no you jack wagon…youd be redesigning the whole aircraft. Also that much jet exhaust in the ground will melt the belly. Its a turboprop aircraft.
I watched another video that analyzed the Japan crash report. The pilots ignored multiple gearbox warnings (5+) prior to the final failure. They could have aborted the mission and landed at other fields. I suspect adjustments to SOP were made after that.
From my standpoint I say we keep it around. Has it killed way more people than it’s saved, yes, but there is no other aircraft today that scores a 10:10 on the fun scale
it took years for the blackhawk to be reliable and durable. brand new airframes arent immediately impervious to issues. people who arent in the military arent capable of being anywhere remotely close to being called an expert on military aircraft. opinions dont make anyone professional
Im 4 minutes in, and its clear to me that Business Insider has time to fill and little to say. How many times can you cut to a guy on his macbook without saying the first thing about his findings? Im about to block this channel
35 years later, still a failure. The full report on this and the B-1 Lancer crash highlights the leadership issues within the military. One of the crewmen on GUNDAM22 was from here and got a medal for trying to save the aircraft. RIP Brian Johnson, the DoD failed you as did the contractors whose sole task was to build dependable systems and failed titanically. There’s something to be said about the V-22 when the special forces across all branches selected new H-60 types and not new V-22s for future orders.
If my car crashes due to a mechanical failure of the car maker and there is a recall they are liable. Why doesn't the same apply to whoever built the aircraft?
That guy giving the numbers making it seem like the Black Hawk or Stallions are somehow worse based on the number of deaths, sort of "forgot" to factor in the sheer number of the amount of aircraft and flight times compared to the Osprey. Like bro... that's simple math. OBVIOUSLY the Osprey is the deadliest aircraft in the military. Everyone knows this. Here's the short layman's version with made up numbers for example. If there's 3,000 Blackhawks flying everyday and 15 people die a year and there's 30 Ospreys flying and 8 people die a year. Which do you think is statistically more dangerous? Noticed he neglected to mention that part.
You forget that the Black Hawk and Stallion are the product of many decades of development. The first helicopters also had big problems, but by now they've been solved and therefore they have become much more reliable. The Osprey still has a long way to go, but then it's been in use for not even 2 decades, making a comparison between the Osprey and the Black Hawk and Stallion an unfair one in my opinion. As the saying goes "Rome wasn't built in a day", meaning the Osprey simply needs more time to develop.
Exactly 24 accidents in 35 yrs with a new helicopter and low inventory is actually low .... Sure it carries more people and the fatalities rate is high per aircraft. But to call it a widow maker . Is just stupid .... Like here in India we have mig -21 been tagged as a widowmaker. We had more 1000+ airframes which flew for 60+ yrs , imagine the sheer number of flights , out which 400+ aircraft failed or had an issues.... The ratio is actually better than six Sigma and the general public know nothing abt aircraft operations least of all so called youtuber 😅😅😅
There are a few hundred operational Ospreys in the Marine Corps alone, not to mention all of the Air Force's inventory as well. Marine Corps has more Ospreys than Ch-53. Your assumptions are not correct.
sort of weak on any meaning metric, a loose collection of disjointed sound bites-- similar to those drive in screen that change before you can read and decide what your choice is.
The original design of the Osprey was for an aircraft the size of a C-130 Hercules with four rotors. At that size, many of the issues with the current Osprey dissappear.
Can someone help me understand how it could possibly cost $80k p/hour to fly? Is that the cost of salaries, oils etc and then the inspection post flight? Seems really high
The biggest culprit --> Maintenance The internals get highly stressed when in use such as the engine, electrical components, wires and then you have liquids like Hydraulic fluid, fuel, and coolant that need to get replaced. These specific parts are usually only made by a single company which is contracted with the Pentagon and once the paper is signed, companies can really charge however much they feel like for the part and stress how “specialized” it is and only they can make it. Companies take advantage of the Pentagons massive budget and unwillingness to care about where their parts come from as long as it’s American and gets the plane in the air. Salaries of Pilots Cleaning cost Pre and Post flight inspections Ammo etc…
@@azulaquaza4916 None of that was accurate. 95% of the cost per hour to fly is just the total budget of the units divided by flying hours, spare parts are not just NOT significant, they're not EVEN paid on an ongoing basis, they're included in the purchase price of the aircraft for a lifetime.
@@adamanderson3042 I love how people with 0 credibility just love to jump in with answers with 0 factual backing and overall produce 0 contribution towards an actual helpful answer. Goodbye.
They fly over my house regularly... I know it's them because of those thick blades... Louder than helicopter blades and the shake my house... They look cool at night, the blades have led dot light on them that highlights the spinning blades...
Sure does it have alot of crashes? Yes but does it do something that no other transport aircraft can do? Also yes. Its a unique aircraft with a more specialized purpose than say the H-60. When u have a unique specialized aircraft its going to have crashes and thus fatalities for example the A-12/SR-71 program had plenty of crashes and plenty of fatalities but it did its job that it was designed to do and never lost one to a sam.
It can but there will be major issue, new engines will need to be developed to give out the same or better power than the current turboprop and there is down wash issue that is still there.
This is used as a support aircraft for Air Force One. Is it for protection? Or transport of security staff? I notice 2 flying over my house every time the president lands at our airport.
Air Force One is just a call sign for any USAF aircraft with the president on board. More accurately those are Marine Corps MV-22s in HMX-1 to support Marine One by carrying non VIP staff such as staffers, journalists, additional security personnel, etc. If you’re seeing two of those flying it’s because POTUS is flying on Marine One - they’re not needed nor can they keep up with the VC-25 commonly referred to as Air Force One. There’s videos on RU-vid of them landing in a field and a whole gaggle of press and such flood out of them.
I've seen a group of these in mountainous Marine training exercises in the Sierra. Indeed, these craft are impressive. Their range, speed and payload add a unique and extremely valuable capability set to our military. In a combat zone, such speed and mobility is a lifesaver in its own right. As for the Navy's use, there's a RU-vid video where the Navy extolled it's value. One example was in expediting delivery of critical components to service jets and the ship itself. Both the V-22's speed, and especially its range, permitted delivery in record time and with the ship able to remain with the fleet, on course, far out at sea.
