Time to pull the plug on the F-35 JSF

On 12 April 2010 I had a letter to the editor published in Aviation Week & Space Technology. In that letter, I advocated for the termination of the F-35 Lightening II aircraft, arguing that:

- There is no current or (projected) future threat that the F-35 would address, therefore no sense of urgency.

- The F-35 is simply unaffordable, having grown way, way beyond justifiable costs.

Today, I discovered that way back on March 20th, the GAO had prepared a scathing report on the F-35 program, citing cost overruns, testing disruptions, and numerous schedule delays. You can read the report here:

I stand by my earlier letter. Time to terminate the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, gather up the lessons learned, and restart.

Robert White, X-15 test pilot and space pioneer, dies

I want to pause a moment to reflect on the astonishing career of Major General Robert White, who passed away March 19, 2010. Robert White was not nearly as well known as some other early USAF test pilots, such as Chuck Yeager, but he was equally -- perhaps more -- famous and accomplished.

Nearly 50 years ago, Robert White was the Chief Test Pilot for the X-15 rocket-powered airplane. I remember being in awe of him as I built my model X-15.

He was the first man to break Mach 4. And the first man to break Mach 5. And the first man to break Mach 6 -- > 4,000 mph at an altitude of 59 miles

That was 50 years ago. No one has come close since. And at last he has slipped the surly bonds of Earth, and danced the skies on laughter silvered wings. Farewell Robert White.

USAF launched unmanned "shuttle"

Surprisingly, the USAF has actually held the first launch of their robotic shuttle, the X-37B. When the NASA Space Shuttle program retires later this year, this will be the only launch-and-return vehicle in the entire US space inventory...and it's unmanned, and really a mini-shuttle, being only about 16 feet wide.

But, it's an interesting idea and darn well worth pursuing. Without a manned crew, both endurance, safety, and payload are improved. Undoubtedly the X-37B will carry classified USAF surveillance and detection equipment...and perhaps more, maybe real scientific experiments...but the important thing is it can return to Earth.

Will be fascinating to watch this vehicle, which is now aloft, and see how this first flight goes.

F/A-18 Super Hornet III ? Maybe.....

I've been interested lately in some suggestions that Boeing (I still want to say McDonnell Douglas) is quietly offering an upgraded Super Hornet III design, to more-or-less replace the existing F-35 Lightening II. The idea being that the F-35 is just too expensive and offers minimal enhancements over today's aircraft and certainly not over an enhanced Hornet.

Interesting idea that should be considered. I do think the F-35 is too expensive, too troubled, and will offer minimal enhancements in capability, particularly for the USN.

EADS re-enters USAF Tanker Competition

Overcoming a previous withdrawal by partner Northrup Grumman, EADS -- the European consortium that makes the Airbus -- has decided to re-enter the competition for the next generation USAF tanker. This is great news as 1) the procurement needs competition to ensure a fair deal for the Govt, and 2) the Airbus A330 is probably the better airplane for this job, and I would say certainly better than the nearly 50 yr old 767.

So, I'm happy to see this development, and hope for a fair and spirited competition.

NAVAL AVIATION LOSES A GIANT OF A PILOT

The news arrived via an email from my former Commanding Officer, J.R Hutcinson. CDR Decoy Marksbury, a veteran of numerous carrier deployments, 9000 hrs flight time, 900 carrier landings, and countless moment of hilarity, maturity, bravery, and limitless friendships --- had passed away. Dead of a heart attach at age 63 years young, following a weekend of skiing with his family in Reno, NV.

Decoy leaves behind a wonderful family - his wonderful (and immensely patient ) wife Lora, daughter Julie, a son CAPT Joh Marksbury USMC, currently based in Washington, DC. But more that that, he leaves behind a reputation of being one the best pilots, best officers, and best people that this Aviator had ever come to know.... Decoy was a giant in Naval Aviation.

I met Decoy ... his real name is Johnsten Lee...at NAS Cecil Field in the mid 1970's. I was a nugget, just learning to fly the A-7E, an airplane in those days that was the most complex aircraft to fly, and one of the most capable -- all because it had an onboard computer, inertial nav, a HUD, and tons of other toys that the rest of the fleet wouldn't have until the F-18 came along in the mid 1980s. And it had one pilot, and barely enough room for his ego.

A-7 pilots knew they were special because the plane they flew, the only one in the Navy with a single pilot and a single engine...but no limits on the danger of the missions to undertake. We were a cocky bunch, and rightly so...and Decoy was the cockiest. He and I met several times at Wing social events. He was funny, irreverent, and yet wholesome. I admired him from the beginning.

Decoy hung around VA-72 at Cecil Field until they threw him out. He love the "Bluehawks". Still does, even they've been long gone since 1999. He went to the Naval Air Training Command. I met him there again in 1979-81. I was a flight instructor in T-2Cs, and Decoy flew the TA-4J. This was at NAS Chase Field in Beeville, TX, a sleepy place where you felt perfectly justified spending a lot of time at the local O'Club. Friendship and camaraderies came easily. And we flew ourselves senseless. Really racked up the hours and became incredibly proficient. Peak performance.

I soon left for the East Coast to join an Admiral's staff. Decoy finagled a second tour flying TA-4Js. Amazing.

In 1984 I volunteer to go to Midway/CVW-5 home based in Japan. It was long-standng desire on my part to see Japan and do something different, and although it probably jeopardized my promotion to Commanding Officer, it was worth it. Midway and CVW-5 did, without question, the best flying I ever did in my 20 years of being a part of Naval Aviation. Better missions, better aircraft, better wingmen. And low-and-behold, there was Decoy Marksbury...now the Strike Ops officer on board Midway. He flew with VA-56, my squadron a lot. And we valued every minute of it. He had great experience, great judegement, insight, and a zeel for the work that was simply uncontrolled and totally contagious. And he could fly an airplane with the absolute best of thebest. A damn good pilot. A dependable wingman. A buddy on liberty. Rarely do civilians get to experience that kind of bonding.

VA-56 and CVW-5 went through a huge transition/decommissioning following our last curise in 1986. The plans to transition to the F-18 had fallen way behind schedule, and there was little reason not to decommission the squadrons and take other assignments. I went to Washington DC to serve in the Pentagon on the staff of the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF). I was the analyst who advised SECDEF on Navy and Marine Corps tactical aircraft programs. One program I had aegis of was the new Navy jet trainer, the T-45. The program was behind schedule for the worst of reasons, it just wasn't performing well and there were serious discussions of redesigning the entire aircraft. Then CNATRA staff nominated a young Navy CDR to help liaison the T-45 rollout--- of course, it was Decoy Marksbury. So yet again, even at the end of his career, I had the pleasure of working with him. And he made the T-45 work...in spades.

It was the end of a long, valued, memory-field relationship when I learned Decoy had died. I will miss him. I will miss the men like him who had that unique combination of skill, bravado, courage, and strength to fly Navy jets...to excel as an Officer in the service of his country, as a father devoted to his family, and as a lifelong friend to so many of us who now are lesser because of our loss.

...Lord Guard and Guide the Men who Fly...

FAA wake up call - Get tough on airworthiness!

A article in yesterday's NY Times discusses the causes of an airplane crash in Dec. 19, 2005 in Miami. This was a particular horrific crash as it cost the lives of 20 people on board a 58-year old Grumman Mallard seaplane used for nostalgic vacation flights between Florida and the Bahamas. The airplane's wing fell off in flight, resulting in catastrophic failure and death for all aboard.

And it could have undoubtedly been prevented with prudent maintenance inspections required of an airplane of this vintage.

The NYT article is noteworthy for reporting how the NTSB cites FAA regulatory failure as a contributing cause to the crash. They're right to do so. The FAA has simply not applied aggressive enough safety standards to small operators, such as Chalk's Ocean Airways in this case, and to the aging planes they operate. This is inexcusable, and must be fixed.

No military aircraft would ever be allowed to operate with the lax airworthiness inspections that the FAA deems acceptable for such air carriers. Given a sensible "safety first" approach on airworthiness, this crash would undoubtedly have been prevented. It's time for the FAA to get their act together, or get new leadership.

Area 51...where are you?

I just love all the bruhaha that seems to perpetuate over classified military testing facilities, such as Area 51. Why is it that certain media outlets can't just accept the fact that, yes, the military does have a need for restricted bases to conduct testing of classified programs?!

The latest is a story out of Popular Mechanics magazine claiming they have found "the Air Force's new Area 51". The article goes on to say that Area 51 is "abandoned" and that Michaels AAF in the Dugway Proving Grounds is the new location for secret testing. The article focuses heavily on the X-33, a reusable launch vehicle with single-stage to orbit capabilities. (Note: The X-33 program was cancel by NASA in 2001 after many problems with a prototype.)

THIS STORY IS ABSOLUTE HOGWASH! I am embarrassed that PM went ahead with this sensational cover story without corroborating evidence. The PM article gives no compelling evidence for their claim, and the emphasis on the X-33 program as somehow being the ultimate goal of the next generation of aircraft, is simply naive. (Have these guys ever heard of net-centric warfare?)

Additionally, the Dugway Proving Grounds and the Utah Launch Complex are both in terrible shape. For all practical purposes, the sites are in "caretaker" status.

Click here for satellite map of the main facility of Green River Utah Launch Complex. Totally a ghost town.

Somewhat more interesting is the satellite map of the Dugway Proving Ground Michael AAF. At least here we see some activity, including what appears to be a resurfacing effort on the main runway (30/12). The imagery is amazingly detailed (thanks Google!), and if I had to guess, I'd say the asphalt runway is being replaced with concrete. If you look at the southeastern end of the taxiway, it appears a second concrete strip is being applied, and also at the northwestern end. So right now, the main runway appears inoperable. Given the extreme resolution, I would guess the imagery is fairly recent, certainly within the last year. The parallel 7000' runway (30L/12R) appears operational. Otherwise, also pretty desolate, and nowhere near ready to support the kind of operations that Area 51 could.

Meanwhile, here's the main Dugway Proving Ground facility. I think the golf course needs a little work. ;-)

Another low fare startup -- Skybus

I did not realize that yet another low-cost airline is poised to enter the market. Skybus, based out of Columbus, OH is implementing the really, really, really super-cheap air fare. They'll be trying a business model that totally pushes the boundary regarding costs. Here's the premise -- travelers will forego any and all luxuries (even essentials) IF they can get a lower price. Are they right? I'm guessing yes.

So Skybus will charge for luggage ($5 for the first two bags, then $50), preassigned seats (an extra $10), food/pillow/blanket (you pay for it), no reservation agents (just a web site), only non-refundable tickets, and many of their destinations are non-prime airports (Richmond, Greensboro) which I think is their biggest obstacle. Their airplanes are all Airbus 319s, which I think have very cramped seating.

Still, it might just work. You know right up front what you're getting (and what you're not). It will certainly be an interesting summer in the airline industry.

New options for west coast travel

I fly between New York and Silicon Valley fairly often. This is a heavily travelled corridor, and the current service is typical of the US airline industry, by which I mean pretty dismal. I'm pleased to note that there are now two new options, both of which represent great value for consumers.

Jet Blue has two new options. 1) New flights into San Francisco, and 2) additional flights into San Jose. And as we all know, flying Jet Blue is always somehow just more fun.


Virgin America is now ready to fly! FINALLY! I can't wait. I used to fly Virgin Atlantic to Europe and they know what service means. Initial flights will include JFK-SFO. I personally think that in today's global economy, the US airline ownership rules are, well....quaint. Glad that VA has crossed that barrier. Looking forward to those in-flight massages.
Nice to have options.

Airbus A-380 - so tell me again, why are we building this airplane?

I read today in the NY Times that 18 US airports are building expanded taxiways and terminal facilities to the tune of $1 billion, all to handle the Airbus A-380 super jumbo jet. So my question is this. Why? Is there really a market for an 853 seat airplane? how many routes can justify that kind of capacity? Okay...a few. Manila to Bahrain. London to Delhi. Sydney to anywhere.

I love aviation even more than the next guy, but I really have to question the market analysis for the A-380. It's a gorgeous airplane, but count me among the critics that feel there is just limited routes, limited airports, and limited airlines that will embrace this beast. Oh...don't forget, since AIrbus isn't selling many of them, they'll cost a fortune.

I hate to say it, but I predict an Air Bust!

Japanese looking to build/buy the F-22 (it's deja vu, again!)


As a former member of the DoD Team that journeyed to the Japanese Defense Agency (JDA) and tried to convince the TRDI not to waste time/money on the FSX fighter, but instead consider purchasing F-18 or F-16s, well let's just say I'm amused to see the recent Aviation Week article indicating the JDA now wants to build/buy the F-22.

(Readers will note that the FSX/F-2 Support Fighter was a marriage of convenience to cater to JDA/TRDI egos. Production has been cancelled after an abbreviated run, and the Japanese Self-Defense forces now have ~75 F-2's, an aircraft with F-16 performance that costs 3X as much. What a mess!)

Now the JDA (flush with cash) are looking to purchase/build the F-22. It's a great suggestion for both the US and the Japanese. It shares the risk and the cost. What a concept! Cooperation among allies on future weapons purchases.

Maybe the JDA is over their "not invented here" psychosis. Good job!

Two Great books - I just want to recommend two great aviation history books that I recently read. Both are by James P. Stevenson, noted aviation author. Both deal with the Pentagon's procurement process, of which I was a player for 3 years. Given my experiences, both are absolutely accurate and factual.

• "The $5 Billion Misunderstanding: The Collapse of the Navy's A-12 Stealth Bomber Program" -- an amazing story of how the A-12 was mishandled and bungled. $5 Billion spent and not a thing to show for it. This book clearly shows the excesses and mismanagement that can occur when a program forges normal oversight because it is "black". I was there through much of this (1986-1989) and was just amazed at how little critical review was undertaken. In the end, an inexcusable train wreck. Also, this is an amazing look into how "black" programs are treated and developed.
  
• "The Pentagon Paradox: The Development of the F-18 Hornet " a look at the tortured history of the F-18 aircraft development and procurement. Another amazing look at how the Pentagon procures tactical aircraft. I wish this book had a sequel where it went more in-depth with the development of the Super Hornet (F/A -18 E/F) and it's performance in the two Gulf Wars. This book really hits home, because as a former USN A-7 pilot, my aircraft was replaced by the F-18, and while I don't doubt the improvement in performance, reliability, and lethality, it seems pretty apparent that the Navy did not get the aircraft they were promised or truly needed -- and probably not as good an aircraft as the contender, the F-16.
  

I recommend both of these books. I can attest to their accuracy. I only hope that Jim continues to explore these topics. My suggestion for the next book; "The V-22 Osprey: How on earth did this program survive and why is the USMC still flying it?"

Continuous Descent Approaches: Come on down!

I recently read how UPS is intending to incorporate Continuous Descent Approaches (CDAs) at their hub at Standiford Field in Louisville, KY. The CDA is characterized by an idle descent from cruise altitude, to approach configuration, and then to touchdown. Needless to say, the energy demands and time/distance calculations have to be right on the money -- out of energy, out of altitude, and crossing the threshold. Expectations are that a CDA profile would not only reduce fuel consumption, but also lower noise. The latter is especially important for carriers such as UPS and FEDEX, as the majority of their flights are at night -- working while the rest of us sleep.

I had the opportunity to briefly experiment with CDAs during my military career, and the results were positive even with the crude inertial nav and HUD systems we had back in the day. It is something to behold however, pulling the power to idle at 30,000+ feet and flying a profile all the way to slow-up, dirty-up, approach, and runway acquisition without ever touching the throttle. Takes some serious planning, at least in those days. Especially challenging at night and IFR. One area of concern, is the increased spool-up time of the engines in the event of a wave-off, given that the engines are very firmly settled at full idle RPM and quite cooled down.

I have no doubt that with today's advanced flight systems, software, and displays, a CDA can be reliably performed with limited flight separation...perhaps as close as 2-3 miles. Air Traffic Control will of course have to play a huge role in sequencing, separation, and merging...but that time has arrived, aided by new systems. It can be done, and it should be done. I wish UPS all the best.

VLJ - i.e., Very Little Justification

I have just returned from Aspen, CO. My god, can there be an airport that is more challenging to land at?! 7800' elevation, surrounded by mountains on three sides, dramatic noise abatement rules...and heaven help you if you have to make a go-around at night, or in IFR conditions. And yet there, on a typical weekend in August, is perhaps the largest collection of private jets on earth. Gulfstreams, Falcons, Lears, Citations, Hawkers, even a Bombardier Global Express. There must have been 75 of 'em. It makes you both salivate at these beautiful machines, and wonder "who on Earth has all this money!?".

But soon, that stable of fabulous bizjets will be joined by a cadre of smaller, less expensive jets....the so-called "very light jet", or VLJ. Several companies, including Eclipse, Adam Aircraft, and of course Cessna are racing to field these ~$1-2M (and up) jets...and I hope they're fabulously successfully, offering about 100+ mph over the equivalently priced conventional powered twin. Sell your twin turbo-prop now!

What many of the VLJ manufacturers are relying on however, is the emergence of a new aviation market segment, called the "air taxi" service (or air limo, perhaps). Ah! Now there is a business plan to challenge if ever I saw one.

Let me go ahead and say it...I believe the air taxi business model is fundamentally flawed, and will fail, and will possibly take with it one or more VLJ manufacturers...probably Eclipse. Here's why:

• Safety: Okay. Let me get this right...hundreds of VLJ air taxis operating from smaller, non-controlled airports with pilots holding only the minimum of commercial qualifications...this is an accident waiting to happen. And once the safety record is damaged, it's very difficult to restore. Just ask ValuJet.
• Destinations: Is there really a crying demand to fly to Franklin, VA or Georgetown, KY? I would say no. Most people still need to fly to Washington, Boston, and New York. So...I believe the air taxis will end up merely duplicating service to already existing destinations over already existing routes. And there they will compete with current commercial and private jets...and likely lose.
• Cost: It won't be cheaper than commercial airlines, it won't be cheaper than taking a car, and worse, it won't be expensive (or luxurious) enough to lure the truly wealthy away from their Gulfstreams and fractional ownerships. People who can afford private jet service already have it, and the VLJ air taxi doesn't promise to lower the cost barrier enough to appeal to the masses.
• Predictability: Both business and personal travelers will insist on predictability of air travel regarding departures, arrivals, number of stops, and flight duration. I believe the air taxi concept will be challenged to deliver on all fronts.
• Infrastructure: The air taxi concept depends on opening hundreds of new airports to VLJ service. As wonderful as this concept appears, the infrastructure is just not there. Not enough instrument approaches, not enough night lighting, just not enough facilities at many of these airports. No "ground" taxis and no rental cars...let alone business lounges, restaurants, hotels, and a Starbucks. It just won't be very easy to fly into El Dorado, AR, and then get anywhere else.

Don't get me wrong. I love the new VLJs for their creative design, high performance, focus on maintainability, and reasonable cost. But on the air taxi business model, I remain the naysayer.

Hiding in clear view

Recently Jet Blue announced that 1) it would inaugurate service from Newark airport beginning in Oct, and 2) that it would begin taking delivery of the Embraer 190 regional jet. Both of these events are rather puzzling, given that they have taken place right in plain sight in-front of the established leaders in these market areas.

First, Jet Blue at Newark. It's both scary and disgraceful that Continental would allow Jet Blue carte blanc to enter into their most important base. ("Hello, Mr. Continental! This is your wake-up call"). How may such intrusions from the low-cost carriers will it take to motivate the current legacy carriers to change their fundamental business model?!

Secondly, the Embraer 190. This aircraft represents the latest in the so-called "regional jet" aircraft line. The Embraer 190 seats about 100, and this size -- placing the 190 above the 40-50 passenger regional jet and below the 150-seat Airbus 320 that Jet Blue currently operates -- is significant. It will allow Jet Blue to operate over many routes that are well beyond the "feeder" level, but not quite up to a full-scale route as defined by the legacy carriers and served by the larger Boeing 737, et. al. This market sector is gigantic, and will lead to more routes, more point-to-point options, and will once-and-for-all put the death knell to the "hub-and-spoke" business model. Future successful airlines will operate an increasing portion of their fleet with these mid-size aircraft, opening new market and new business models.

In general, customer response to the regional jet craze has been enthusiastic; a much quicker way to make the run from White Plains to Dulles than the previous turbo props; and the turbo prop manufacturers have suffered accordingly. But for the slightly longer runs, such as New York to Lexington, KY, the 50-passenger regional jets are simply too small, too cramped -- but the traffic load is simply too light to justify a Boeing 737 or an Airbus 320/319 (and thus perhaps why Southwest has not yet appeared...).

Enter the 100-passenger regional jet category, of which the Embraer 190 is the first. In a year, we will see a broad, rapid emergence of passenger jets of the 90-120 passenger level, fueling a solid market for the manufacturers - Embraer and Bombardier. And that is the point -- neither of these manufacturers is Boeing or Airbus.

How could Boeing and Airbus have missed this growing aviation aircraft sector? (...and missed it they have, not having a single offering in the entire category). Boeing and Airbus, having emerged as large-body aircraft companies, were unable to see the aviation opportunity offered by the regional jet. The idea of a small, commercial jet simply wasn't in their corporate DNA, and this is inexcusable. Boeing in particular. They, almost single-handedly, brought commercial air travel to where it is today -- an indispensable part of our society.

How could they have not monitored the air traffic sectors and identified the need for the regional jet?! Difficult to explain. As the old saw goes, "when the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails". Thus it is with Boeing and Airbus; a huge opportunity missed.

Fireball XL-5 indeed!

Today reminded many of us why we love this madness called "flying". Could there have been anything more thrilling and beautiful than the picture perfect launch of Space Shuttle Discovery? A flawless launch into a clear azure Florida sky. Not a cloud in sight from liftoff to FL999. The brilliant brightness of the flames, the unbelievable power of those rocket engines, the perfect separation of the booster rockets ...absolutely captivating. The NASA narration was even terrific. I still get goosebumps when I hear "Discovery, you're cleared for throttle-up", as I recall those words watching Challenger. But today, it was sheer adrenaline.

And what magnificent television coverage! The live camera shot from the external fuel tank was astounding. Not only could you see the curvature of this blue marble we call Earth, but the tank separation and the gradual lifting away of the main Shuttle craft, shown live from some 45 miles in space...it was as close to heaven as a couch-potato astronaut can come. It is indeed great to have man back in space. Colonel Steve Zodiac would have been proud.

Godspeed Discovery and her crew.

Its five year mission, to boldly land...

On Tuesday, 26 July NASA plans the first Shuttle launch since the Columbia tragedy in February 2003, and everyone in NASA knows that if there is another major failure, the entire program will be terminated -- permanently. On this, the eve of the launch, it's time to admit, that the sole purpose of the Space Shuttle has deteriorated to demonstrating that it can orbit the Earth X number of times, and of course servicing the self-serving International Space Station. Scientific experiments? Discovery? Exploration? To boldly go? Not even.

As a former Navy fighter pilot, one of my most challenging missions was a "routine" night carrier launch and trap. Add in a bit of weather and it's among the most difficult aviation maneuvers known; pure hell. And the sad truth was that once we did launch off the carrier at night, there was essentially nothing to do. Air-to-ground and air-to-air missions were basically impractical. Sure you could do them, but everyone knew those night-time missions were of dubious military value. (Of course today's modern fighters have nifty features such as infra-red sensors and night vision goggles that greatly improve their night-time capabilities.)

But the old saw still rings true. As we used to say during the pre-flight brief for a night hop -- "our mission tonight...is to land". Sadly, that is true of tomorrow's scheduled Space Shuttle launch, and an insult to the brave, talented men and women who will fly STS-114 . Tomorrow's Shuttle...Its true mission...is simply to land.

Some things need to die; TAB cola, UV sun lamps, Brita pitchers, paper airline tickets, PDAs, the NHL.

Recently Wired magazine ran a feature article on "Saving the Pentagon's Killer Chopper-Plane" (July 2005). It's a great article, well researched and balanced. But it did strike me as a bit of advocating technology for technology's sake, which of course is somewhat what Wired is all about That's okay. But while the V-22 may finally be poised after 22 years and $16B to actually perform more-or-less as designed, the time has also come to ask "is it time for the V-22 to die?"

Never give a SECNAV a blank check

The V-22's origins spring from the halcyon spending days of the Reagan administration. When Reagan won the Presidency in 1980, he and SECDEF Caspar Weinberger immediately began the largest peace-time military build-up in history. Suddenly EVERYTHING was affordable and needed. And every branch of the Armed Services rushed-in to get their toys on the wish list.

The Air Force immediately ordered 100 B-1's (which they are now desperately trying to unload) AND the ill-fated MX missile. Furthermore, they undertook developing both the B-2 and the F-22 stealth aircraft programs. (What a monetary black-hole these have been!). The Army immediately set out to field a stealthy helicopter, the ill-fated Comanche, as well as a significant force structure build up, more artillery, etc.

But it was the Navy, led by charismatic SECNAV John Lehman, that was by far the most accomplished at winning the DoD budget game. A 600-ship Navy became the rallying cry; necessitating additional carrier air wings, a new stealth attack aircraft (the ill-fated A-12), a new submarine class, a new destroyer class, upgrades to the aging but beloved A-6 (the "F" model), accelerated F/A-18 procurement, construction of new Naval Stations around the country (Lehman called it "strategic home porting"; opponents preferred "strategic home porking"), the F-14D Super Tomcat...my god, the Christmas list was endless. And on that list was the V-22 Osprey.

Egos in the E-Ring

I point this out to indicate that the birth of the V-22 Osprey did not spring, as the Wired article implies, from the ill-fated Iranian Hostage Rescue operation in 1980 and a subsequent demonstration of the diminutive XV-15 in Paris. (Notice how often the phrase "ill-fated" turns up here?). No...it was not the operational needs of the USMC that drove the V-22 procurement action, it was the simple DoD habit of grabbing as much of the cake as you can; and the more toys that are on your want list, the better your chances of getting a few of them for Christmas. If you can imagine it existing, then on the budget it goes!

So let's not try to justify a 22-year/$16B research program that has cost the lives of 30 brave servicemen with some unlikely-to-be-repeated-again hostage rescue mission from 25 years ago. No. The V-22 was just another of the many DoD "programs of excess" flooding the E-ring in the 1980s. And it has lived on because DoD and USMC decision makers have invested so much pride, so much ego, so much money...that even when it's clear that the cost of procurement and operation will far exceed any return in warfare capability.

New Helicopters Oui! V-22 Non!

Don't misread my intent. As a former Naval pilot, I have spent many hours riding in ancient CH-46 Sea Knights operated by the USN and USMC. God knows we need to replace this old, slow nightmare of a helicopter! And therein lies the tragedy of the very existence of the V-22 program today. Had wiser men intervened, the USMC/USN could have purchased hundreds of readily available helicopters for the price of the V-22 program to date (>$16 billion and counting), and we haven't even begun to actually buy the damn aircraft!...

Time...to die...

So here's why it's time to ditch the V-22 and stop being enamored by the technology.

1. No conceivable mission in today's world makes a resounding military case for this capability. The United States military has lived without the V-22 for 22 years, and we've fought countless battles. I doubt if any one of them would have ended differently had the V-22 been present. Better, newer helicopters yes...V-22 as decisive - no.
2. Alternatives exist that are much cheaper and less risky: The US101 and the Sikorsky H-92, as well as advanced versions of the venerable Blackhawk would cost far less, have arrived sooner, cost less to operate, are lower risk, and could have dramatically improved USMC warfare capabilities in a fraction of time/cost. Not as sexy, I agree, but affordable and sustainable. I blame the DoD office of Program Analysis & Evaluation (PA&E) for not bringing these options to the table.
3. The USMC cannot afford to buy or operate the V-22. The current Iraq war has taken a terrible toll on the readiness and core operational capabilities of the USMC. Those need to be repaired, and without having to compete for funds from a galactic Osprey program.
4. In the end, the V-22 will be known mostly for one thing; it will do a great airshow.

Lick it up!

The V-22 program exists today for one simple reason; DoD cannot bring itself to kill a program after it has invested so much money. The Pentagon even has a cutesy name for this phenomena, it's called "the self-licking ice cream cone." Basic accounting rules such as "sunk costs" do not apply at DoD. Egos rule. As Wired magazine quoted Mike Lieberman, a military affairs aide on the HASC, "My God, we've thrown so much money at it, we have to get something out of it." And that is precisely why some things need to die...