MV-22 Osprey crash in Okinawa Crew survives..

Seems Japan is not to happy over this incident.

From the Nikkei Asian Review:

TOKYO -- The emergency crash landing of a U.S. Marine Corps Osprey aircraft off the coast of Okinawa on Tuesday night has further inflamed locals staunchly opposed to the planned relocation of an American air base there.

In a separate incident, a second Osprey made a belly landing the same night at the Marines' Futenma air base -- where both aircraft were deployed -- due to malfunctions in its leg area.

Mindful that the accidents will likely provoke a backlash, Japan's government has called on the American military to conduct thorough safety checks on the aircraft.

The emergency landing
The crash-landed MV-22 Osprey was conducting midair-refueling training 20-30km off Okinawa's main island when the hose leading from the refueling aircraft to the Osprey was severed by the transport craft's propeller. The detached hose apparently damaged the propeller, destabilizing the aircraft.

Rather than attempt an unstable flight over a metropolitan area to return to base, the pilot concluded that it was safer to make an emergency landing in the shallows. The craft hit the water about 9:30 p.m. off the coast of the Marine Corps' Camp Schwab in Nago City. All five crew members were rescued, with two injured. The main body of the craft washed ashore, with the cockpit and wings broken to pieces.

The U.S. military stressed that the crash was not caused by trouble with the craft's systems. The military also reported that the other Osprey touched down safely in its belly landing.

US Osprey crash off Okinawa intensifies air base backlash
Accident comes as court ruling nears on unpopular Marine Corps relocation

Causing waves
As far as the government is concerned, the timing could not have been worse.

A ruling expected Dec. 20 from Japan's Supreme Court likely will clear the way for the controversial plan to relocate the Futenma air base to a less-populated Okinawan coastal area near the city of Nago. The prefecture's government had canceled approval for reclamation work at the new base site, but the court's decision will overturn this cancellation. Tokyo had planned to resume construction quickly once the ruling came down.

Okinawa has made it clear that it has no plans of backing down even after the ruling, and opposition among locals seems sure to rise in the wake of the Osprey accident. Defense Minister Tomomi Inada stressed that the government "will faithfully comply" with whatever verdict the court hands down. But if Tokyo move ahead over local protests, it could further encourage Okinawan resistance.

Another source of contention is a Dec. 22 ceremony marking the Marine Corps.' return of some training grounds to Japanese control. But Tokyo still intends to build helipads in areas remaining under U.S. military control from for Ospreys.

Onaga demanded that Tokyo's Foreign and Defense ministries stop the return ceremony, saying that it "would rub the Okinawan public the wrong way."

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga insisted to reporters Wednesday that the return would "lessen [Japan's] burden from the base," but Tokyo officials are concerned that the crash might affect the process.

The Osprey, a modern transport aircraft whose tilt-rotor lets it take off and land vertically as well as fly at high speeds, has a history of accidents and incidents in America and elsewhere. The model was deployed to the Futenma base on Okinawa in 2012 despite safety concerns among the public.

Okinawa Gov. Takeshi Onaga -- who has promised to remove the accident-prone planes from the prefecture -- said the crash was "bound to happen." He also claimed that "judging by the serious damage to the craft, this was [not an 'emergency landing' but] a crash." Onaga plans to travel to Tokyo to lodge protests at Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's office and elsewhere Thursday.

After the incident, Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida called U.S. Ambassador Caroline Kennedy to complain. Kennedy called the emergency landing "regrettable" and vowed that America would investigate promptly and share its findings with the Japanese government.
 
Murdoughnut said:
Glad they survived. When are we finally going to pull the plug on USMC aviation, though?
Click to expand...
And just who the hell do you think you are? Go ahead and try to aerial refuel your aircraft at night, on goggles, and see how far you get. USMC Aviation does risky things with high performance aircraft. Aircraft crash. Sometimes good friends die, but we learn and keep moving. I dislike Osprey pilots the way an older brother dislikes his stupid younger brother, but sitting there alone behind the drogue at night stabbing at it like a drunk teenager trying to get laid is an experience I understand.

You don't get the Marine Corps without Marine Aviation because it's not a Marine Corps without it. GSY.
 
Last edited:
Flyinthrew said:
And just who the hell do you think you are? Go ahead and try to aerial refuel your aircraft at night, on goggles, and see how far you get. USMC Aviation does risky things with high performance aircraft. Aircraft crash. Sometimes good friends die, but we learn and keep moving. I dislike Osprey pilots the way an older brother dislikes his stupid younger brother, but sitting there alone behind the drogue at night stabbing at it like a drunk teenager trying to get laid is an experience I understand.

You don't get the Marine Corps without Marine Aviation because it's not a Marine Corps without it. GSY.
Click to expand...

Look, be offended if you want, but the USMC's safety record is cause for concern of late. They've had accidents involving four air-frames within the past 35 days alone, and have lost eight air-frames in 2016 - all in non-combat operations.
 
A Life Aloft said:
Seems Japan is not to happy over this incident.
Click to expand...

Anytime anything remotely negative happens on Okinawa (including traffic accidents on base), the government uses it as an excuse to complain and protest.


I'll grant you the fact that they do have legitimate issues with the US military bases on their island, but the driving force behind the protests are coming from land developers who only want to build apartments and shopping malls.
 
Murdoughnut said:
Of late, it seems questionable.
Click to expand...
Have you looked at a two plus year period (for example- Jan. 2014 through Dec. 14, 2016) of Navy and Army crashes/incidents? I just did. As far as the Navy, hasn't been pretty either. Should we get rid of Navy aviation as well?
 
USMCmech said:
That's what happens after 15 years of combat ops with no money allocated toward MX or training.
Click to expand...
I've read a number if articles going back a couple of years and this year concerning this.

From September 2016, for example:

Accidents are becoming more frequent - amid concerns that insufficient training and an aging fleet hobbled by a shortage of spare parts are contributing factors. A Overall, the entire U.S. military saw a 48 percent increase in non-combat aviation crashes in 2014 and 2015 compared with the two prior years, based on press reports.

"They are going up partly because they are not getting the training they should get. They're going up because maintenance is harder and harder to accomplish. They are going up because the airplanes are getting older and older," said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry.

"I worry about my young aviators that aren't getting the number of hours they need to. And so it's the mishaps that loom over the bow that we don't see coming just now ... Will they have the experience to keep that bad thing from happening?" said Lt. Gen. Jon "Dog" Davis.

So far in 2016, there have been nine military aircraft crashes. Four involved Navy F/A-18 Hornet jets. There were 33 total across all branches in 2014 and 2015 - up from just 23 in 2012 and 2013.

According to statistics provided by the U.S. Navy, only 21 percent of its early model Navy F-18 Hornets can fly -- and only half of its newer Super Hornets can as well. Over 100 Super Hornets are not flying due to shortages in critical spare parts.

The Navy's fleet of MH-60 Seahawk helicopters is not much better. Only 57 percent of its 412 M-60s can fly.

The Navy, like the Marines, is having a hard time finding available jets for its pilots to fly and train in - amid more than $100 billion in defense cuts since 2009, a steady tempo of combat missions, and a delay of the F-18's replacement, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Training is another concern. Right now, the Navy is averaging 12-14 flight hours a month for its pilots, according to Shoemaker. The Navy is buying more Super Hornets and hopes to increase that average to 15 hours by December 2017.

"Today, only two of the Marine's 12 F-18 Hornet squadrons meet their flying hours", said Gen. Davis, "and are averaging 11.1 flight hours a month per Marine pilot right now. While it was 8.8 back in March, he said his pilots should average 16 hours a month".

"Our model is all squadrons ready to go," he said. When asked why his pilots were not getting enough hours in the air he replied, "Not enough airplanes to fly, it's a simple physics problem."

Right now, of the Marines' 273 F-18s, only 91 can fly; 88 are waiting for parts.

Thornberry said President Obama has effectively sent more U.S. troops into harm's way without paying for the increase in costs.

"When the president sends more people to Afghanistan more people to Iraq, he doesn't ask for more money. The costs just come out of the training, the maintenance and the readiness of our force. The problem is getting worse,"

Marine and Navy F-18s were originally designed for 6,000 flight hours, but they were refurbished and extended to 8,000 hours while waiting for the new Joint Strike Fighter. Some jets may even reach 10,000 hours, according to Navy and Marine Corps officials.

The Air Force, while not suffering from the same shortage of parts, is short 700 pilots, and the secretary of the Air Force said last month it will grow to 1,000 "in just a couple of years from now."

When asked how quickly the Marine Corps can get more Joint Strike Fighters into the fleet to replace 24-year old F-18s, Davis replied, "I am buying as many as we can afford. But the money is just not there."
 
USMCmech said:
Anytime anything remotely negative happens on Okinawa (including traffic accidents on base), the government uses it as an excuse to complain and protest.


I'll grant you the fact that they do have legitimate issues with the US military bases on their island, but the driving force behind the protests are coming from land developers who only want to build apartments and shopping malls.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your input/explanation.
 
BobDDuck said:
I'm guessing he's looking at it from a risk/reward statistical point of view, and the data probably supports his question.
Click to expand...

I agree that the recent stats may be suspicious but what is the call on this one? Marines can't fly or they can't maintain the aircraft?. To suggest that the marines don't need to fly just seems like an ignorant statement, and thats from a navy guy.
 
And five went home, against the odds, to live (and be loved) again.

Christmas is merrier, and the holiday season happier - for some, at least - because of that glad reality.
 
Murdoughnut said:
Look, be offended if you want, but the USMC's safety record is cause for concern of late. They've had accidents involving four air-frames within the past 35 days alone, and have lost eight air-frames in 2016 - all in non-combat operations.
Click to expand...

The majority of losses have always been non combat, training specifically. The USMC has fantastic aviators, overall has an incredible safety rate, especially since the induction of NATOPS and there will always be losses, especially in highly dynamic flight environments. Of course nobody knows what happened with this mishap as it's too early to speculate. If you actually look into military mishaps, using HFACS as the primary tool into mishap investigation, it is common for human error to be the casual factor in most of them. That goes for civilian aviation as well. Regardless, your comment was insulting, specifically coming from someone who I assume has no military experience, specifically flying the Navy/Marine Corps way. That is probably why some folks have jumped your shiite. You obviously don't understand why USMC aviation exists either, otherwise the comment would not have been stated as you did. Ignorance might be bliss but it isn't a get out of jail free card either.
 
Flyinthrew said:
And just who the hell do you think you are? Go ahead and try to aerial refuel your aircraft at night, on goggles, and see how far you get. USMC Aviation does risky things with high performance aircraft. Aircraft crash. Sometimes good friends die, but we learn and keep moving. I dislike Osprey pilots the way an older brother dislikes his stupid younger brother, but sitting there alone behind the drogue at night stabbing at it like a drunk teenager trying to get laid is an experience I understand.

You don't get the Marine Corps without Marine Aviation because it's not a Marine Corps without it. GSY.
Click to expand...

Meh, IMO, that's a little too loud. Marines were made for shipboard discipline (think MPs in the Army) and to help with ground landings. They were very un-seaman-like. Due partly to that and partly to the fact that, like security guards everywhere, the bigger the better, they kept hitting their heads on the hatches, and thereby obtained their nickname... Jarheads. We'll leave inquiries about normalized mean IQ to those more qualified. But, no... the Marines would still be the Marines without airplanes. Marines, like every other organization, are highly susceptible to tribalism and mission creep and its attendant budgetary advantages. Whether we need 'em or not, planes cost a lot, and WE need to fly them. That means more budget. That means more influence. That means more spending...and more budget... and more influence... and more spending... ... repeat ad absurdia.

The Osprey is a fool's errand ... and the US taxpayer is the last fool standing.

Just for the record, that said, I know a bunch of Marine aviators who are some of the finest aviators out there. I also know some who... well, yeah, not so much. Kinda like life in general. Damned near everything conforms to the 80/20 rule.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top