Iwakuni balks at U.S. deployment of Osprey aircraft

New aircraft will always have problems during development, civilian or military, look at the 787 as an example, it's because of the aircraft being a military one that gets people nervous.

Iwakuni and other mainland bases should share in the deployment (more of) Marines instead of keeping MCAS Futenma on Okinawa.

Only problem is the folks in mainland have more political clout, and their politicians are more adept at getting what they want vs those in Okinawa who are inept at best and on one hand want the benefits of having the military here without actually hosting them.

Oh and I do believe the article needs to be update here;

An Air Force version of the aircraft crashed in Afghanistan in April 2010, killing three service members and one civilian contractor.

On 11 April 2012, an MV-22 from the VMM-261 on USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7) crashed near Tan Tan and Agadir, Morocco,

http://article.wn.com/view/2012/04/13/Military_IDs_2_Marines_killed_in_Morocco_crash_d/

Yubaru,

What you say may be true. But one thing you have forgotten is the fact that Iwakuni and Futenma are not in U.S. soil. Do whatever you can in the U.S. but, for heaven's sake, not in foreign soil. NEVER.

You represent typical American hubris.

typical American hubris

Ouch!

U.S. is hosted by the Japanese government. I assure you, the U.S. will leave when the host says so. Back to the subject, as Yubaru mentioned aircraft in development stages experience problems, but eventually evolve in safety with changes to the systems, structural characteristics and aircrew proficiencies. The V-22 continues to improve on its safety record.

While under military law and regulations rather than political ones, I thought that the Futenma, Kadena, Sasebo bases etc were classed as a form of US territory.

Think most in Okinawa are more likely to be t-boned by a drunk kei truck driver in the early hours (as has happened to someone I know recently) than get hit by an Osprey falling from the sky. Just my opinion though.

Yubaru, so when did 787s crash and actually kill people? Since Ospreys are not commercial planes, I wonder if they even disclose detailed analysis reports of these accidents. People definitely have the right to be scared of this aircraft.

Just get US military bases OFF Japanese soil.

Go home, guys.

You aren’t wanted and you aren’t needed.

Just get US military bases OFF Japanese soil.

Go home, guys.

You aren’t wanted and you aren’t needed.

That will never happen, quite the contrary.

@ TSRnow

Since 2006 ( When first VM-22 squadron went active) The 737- 6 crashes with 304 deaths VM-22 - 2 Crashes 6 deaths

Iwakuni, unlike Okinawa, has always had a very good relationship with the marines stationed there. They did show some concern about a new runway being planned but even that had only a small number of protesters. The base in Iwakuni is a big, big contributor to the local economy. People have a right to question their safety and I'm sure their concerns will be addressed.

johninnaha: "You aren’t wanted and you aren’t needed."

Says a guy that will be demanding US help to avoid China effectively taking over the Senkakus in a few months thanks to Japanese politicians.

Sorry, bud, so long as Japan remains unable to defend itself the American military is needed (and wanted, albeit only selectively for some) to save Japan. At the very least, the US is needed to hide behind while Japan makes threats.

That rant aside, the Osprey has a pretty bad track record thusfar, but as the first poster said, most aircraft in development do. In any case, the local government has a right to question their safety, but not simply balk at the idea of them being put there.

noirgaijin (Jun. 13, 2012 - 08:25AM JST),

The U.S. has been hosted by the Japanese government? Since when? Since 1945? And you nonchalantly say "the U.S. will leave when the host says so." Don't make us laugh.

Have you forgotten how the U.S. government reacted when former PM Hatoyama simply indicated just one out of 88 U.S. facilities in Japan (33 in Okinawa) should be relocated outside the country? Ditn't they get riled up like mad and tried to unseat him from his office, using all its means and resources?

So you can imagine how the U.S. will react when it hears "Leave." Such is the sad reality of Japan-U.S. relations.

Tyler Vandenberg, does 737 equal 787? I didn't say commercial planes never before had accidents. I merely stated with the many accidents this plane was involved in, people are not just taking a fit, but is rightfully(?) being scared.

The U.S. has been hosted by the Japanese government? Since when? Since 1945?

Since 1951 via the Security Treaty which was replace by the 1960 Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. The U.S. post war occupation of japan ended in 1952. Treaties can be re-negotiated or rescinded by the respective countries. The elected representatives of those countries are responsible for this, not loud mouth rabble on internet forums.

voiceofokinawa: "Have you forgotten how the U.S. government reacted when former PM Hatoyama simply indicated just one out of 88 U.S. facilities in Japan (33 in Okinawa) should be relocated outside the country? "

I guess you left out the part where Hatoyama slyly looked at Obama and said, "Trust me" before turning to the people of Okinawa and saying he supports them against the US proposals. Is there any wonder why the US reacted unfavourably to Hatoyama? By the way... how many PMs ago was that?

smithinjapan (Jun. 13, 2012 - 11:18AM JST),

There are two warring gangs of street mobsters. One member of the first gang rises up and says to the innocent people in its turf, "Hey, guys, we will protect you from attacks by the other gangsters. So, guys, be thankful.

Your belong to that first gang, don't you?

Everything pertaining to the U.S. military presence in Japan is so caricature-like and, certainly, a farce.

voiceofokinawa

There are two warring gangs of street mobsters. One member of the first gang rises up and says to the innocent people in its turf, "Hey, guys, we will protect you from attacks by the other gangsters. So, guys, be thankful. Your belong to that first gang, don't you?

Which gang do you belong to voice? Because if it wasnt for the first gang, you wouldnt be able to launch your diatribes like you do. So one would suggest you are on the side of the lesser of two evils. The side that actually lets you have an opinion as unbending and blind as it is.

@voiceofokinawa and @johninnaha:

You guys are awesome. Thanks for bringing me the lolz in the middle of this slow and cloudy Wednesday. If you guys have any serious commentary, though, that might be refreshing too.

VoiceofOkinawa: "Your belong to that first gang, don't you?"

Don't belong to any gang, actually, though seem to perceive everything as gang-related. Which gang are you in, by the way? If you want to keep the gang analogy going, though, I'm just the guy pointing out that the gangs exist, and you need them desperately to help you. Hell, most gangsters claim they are samurai or come from samurai stock.

johninnaha - But if they all go who is going to keep the landlords in new Mercedes and BMWs by paying $4-5000 a month for apartments around Araha and further north?

VoiceofOkinawa - What does the other gang say?

Since 2006 ( When first VM-22 squadron went active) The 737- 6 crashes with 304 deaths VM-22 - 2 Crashes 6 deaths

How many 737s are there in the air compared to VM-22s? Factor that into your calculation and then it will make more sense.

But one thing you have forgotten is the fact that Iwakuni and Futenma are not in U.S. soil. Do whatever you can in the U.S. but, for heaven's sake, not in foreign soil. NEVER.

You represent typical American hubris.

nonvoice....Please keep in mind that the bases currently are here by the invitation of the Japanese Government.

40 years ago, 20 years ago, and this past May the Japanese government had the opportunity to not renew the leases on the land that the military currently is using, however they choose to do so, WHICH says to me that the Japanese government itself desires the presence of the US military here.

Complain about the bases to the Japanese government, oh wait, the folks and politicians in Okinawa do that already and no one really listens do they.

Get this too, I have always been under the belief that Futenma needs to be moved, even when I was a Marine here back in the early 80's, my brother back in the 70's, and our cousin, back in the 60's felt the same way too!

But until the Okinawan and national governments here get their act together the reality (sadly) remains that the equipment on Futenma needs upgrading and the Osprey is a HUGE improvement over what Futenma currently has their.

smithinjapan, I have to agree with you for once. Military aviation is dangerous at best. This is just another aircraft. It is a separate question from if the bases need to be in Japan. I do know a few things about the sea knight. Know next to nothing about the Osprey. So I say there should be demonstration flights. The locals can set up their noise measuring equipment.

Oh the Ch-46 is getting old and that is a danger all to itself. Iwakuni is lucky as the aircraft can take off and land totally over water.

Cletus (Jun. 13, 2012 - 12:16PM JST) & smithinjapan (Jun. 13, 2012 - 12:29PM JST) ,

Are you both asking me which gang I belong to? Read what I say between the lines. I am one of those innocent people living in the very turf the first gang controls and suffocates.

It is unbelievable how much control The Japanese People have over their Govt.

So instead, let them keep using those old aging helicopters.

honey,

The Japanese people don't have much control over their government. Only the U.S. government does. As I have said repeatedly on this thread and others, that's the sad reality of Japan-U.S. relations.

voiceofokinawa

Are you both asking me which gang I belong to? Read what I say between the lines. I am one of those innocent people living in the very turf the first gang controls and suffocates.

Oh l realise exactly what your saying. And as the poor person living between the two l woul dbe very very glad that you have the gang you do if l was you. I dont think the other gang you refer to would take as kindly to your critisism of it. So be grateful for what you have as the alternative could be much worse.

@ Harry_Gatto

Ok here is the Math. The Boeing 737 went into service in 1968 it has 44yrs of service Boeing built 7,147 of them as of 2012 there has been 315 incidents and 159 crashes so thats 1 incident per 23 built and 1 crash per 45 built. With 44 years of service and 159 crashes thats about 3.6 crashes per year. This is our test data

The Boieng VM-22 March 2006 (First MV-22 squadron activated) Boeing built 160. since 2006 there has been 8 incidents and 2 crashes. So thats 1 incident per 20 built and 1 crash per 80 built. with 6 years of service thats 1 crash every 3 years..... so if we compare this to the 737's 44 years of service the VM-22 would crash about 14.6 times after 44 years of service.

Even if we look at the testing time of 9 years with 4 crashes thats still 1 crash every 2.25 years

737 Crashes 3.6 per 1 year VM-22 Crashes 1 per 3 years (1 per 2.25 years in testing)

The things you left out Tyler, are number of flight hours logged and causes of the crashes and incidents. It says a lot if one was caused mostly by human error and the other by mechanical failure.

But you see, that is the very problem. The U.S. government won't say why the last Osprey crashed. And it must be taken into consideration that so many of the bases are wedged between residential neighborhoods.

I have to agree with VOO that getting the U.S. military to leave will not be as simple as asking. The problems with comparisons to the Philippines is that its not nearly as strategic a location, we didn't have nearly as many facilities, and the Philippines is a rather poor nation.

Back on topic please. The subject is the Osprey, nothing else.

@edwardstark:

The biggest difference between the Philippines and Japan is that the treaty with the Philippines was expiring and the Government in Manila decided not to renew it. That is not the case as with Japan.

The biggest difference between the Philippines and Japan is that the treaty with the Philippines was expiring and the Government in Manila decided not to renew it. That is not the case as with Japan.

If you had read my post you would also have understood that the base leases, the agreements between the national government of Japan and the landowners in Okinawa, expired in May of 2012. The leases are 20 year agreements, and the national government could very well make the choice NOT to renew those leases with the landowners and if that happened the US military would have NO legal means to stay in the country of Japan.

BUT seeing as how the national government and landowners came to the agreement, the point is moot. The national government of Japan WANTS the bases in Japan, and since that is a FACT, the people like it or not, until said leases are not renewed, will have to deal with the fact that the US Military HAS to upgrade and improve it's equipment as time goes on.

Yubaru,

I agree with your statement to some extent. You are absolutely right about the Government wanting the U.S. to stay, Your previous post about the land leases refers only to Okinawa but then you say the U.S. would have no legal right to stay in Japan. The Okinawa leases do not effect the bases outside Okinawa. Even if the Government had not reached an agreement with the Okinawa land owners they could have claimed eminent domain and opened a whole new can of worms.

As you state, the Japanese Government wants the bases here, the Philippine Government wanted to re-negotiate the lease prices on U.S. bases in their country and wanted a whole lot more money. The U.S. said "no", Manila said "OK leave", the U.S. said "OK, we're gone".

You are absolutely right about the Government wanting the U.S. to stay

To hell with the government! Its the people that should matter!

The people elect the Government in a democracy.

Most of the people in Iwakuni want the base there, they are worried about the Ospray, read the article.

The biggest difference between the Philippines and Japan is that the treaty with the Philippines was expiring and the Government in Manila decided not to renew it. That is not the case as with Japan.

Yeah. In Japan's case, they don't have to wait for any expiration date. Or perhaps you are unaware that the treaty specifies that Japan can issue a 1-year's notice to terminate the treaty any time they feel like it, and the U.S. must abide by their decision? Look it up. Japan can terminate the treaty anytime they want to and have the U.S. forces leave (with a year's delay to allow the U.S. to pack up and move).

The issue isn't the U.S. forcing themselves on Japan, the issue is little people not seeing any benefit the U.S. presence gives THEM, personally, and ignores the benefit it gives the country as a whole. If the government of Japan felt they could handle things without the U.S. bases, they could have them gone within 365 days. Do you think the politicians in Tokyo LIKE having to deal with the whining coming from Okinawa?

Since 2001, there have been TWO crashes of the Osprey: One an Air Force CV-22 and one a Marine MV-22.

The Osprey has been used in warzones since 2007 and in that time there has only been the one fatal Osprey crash in Afghanistan (that Air Force Osprey mentioned above). That crash happened as the plane was trying to make a night landing during training exercises. The USAF investigation ruled out brownout conditions, enemy fire, and vortex ring state (a phenomenon experienced by helicopters and Ospreys if they descend too rapidly without any forward motion) as causes. The investigation found several factors that significantly contributed to the crash; these include low visibility, a poorly executed approach, loss of situational awareness, and a high descent rate.

That's not the kind of situation Ospreys will be in when flying around their bases and certainly not the situation with commercial aircraft, so comparisons with the safety records of commercial aircraft have nothing to do with this.

The crash in April was during the daylight, but additional details are not coming forth yet because it's too soon to make a determination what happened. Remember that Air France Airbus that disappeared over the Atlantic on a Rio de Janero to Paris flight back in 2009? They're going to release the final report on the cause of the crash NEXT MONTH, three years or so after the crash. These accident reports don't get rushed out the door. Expecting a cause to be released only months after the crash is unrealistic.

I hope they have the sense to keep the test flights over water as much as possible. And keep them away from Kintai-kyo.

The Okinawa leases do not effect the bases outside Okinawa. Even if the Government had not reached an agreement with the Okinawa land owners they could have claimed eminent domain and opened a whole new can of worms.

Another thing, one thing that makes Okinawa different from mainland bases is that the land used here, or at least the overwhelming majority of it is held privately, unlike in mainland, where the base land is overwhelming owned by the national government..

There are lease agreements as well with the private landowners in mainland as well, however from what I understand there are very few of them.

Japan's eminent domain laws are very weak, check out what happened when they tried to use them to build Narita's 2nd runway and how many years it took to get it done.

The national government can sign the lease agreements in place of the local government without the consent of the landowners themselves as well. The local landowners in Okinawa, with the exception of the goofy 1 tsubo anti-base owners are NOT against the agreements either. They are compensated very well for the land that the US uses, many of them have never had to work a day in their lives thanks to those leases.

The people elect the Government in a democracy.

No, the people are the government in a democracy. You are talking about a representative democracy, where the government represents the people, not where they make decisions despite the desire of the people.

If the people don't want the Osprey here, it shouldn't be here. And if that does not sit well with the U.S. military, it shouldn't be here either.

Crash in April in Morocco with two Marines killed might've been the result of Osprey that continues to have engine and blade wear problems in sandy areas. If the Osprey was such a bargain, more folks would wanted them. The civilian market for the Osprey has been nil and even the military cannot afford to buy as many as they need to replace other aging platforms. However, the speed, range, and altitude capabilities of this aircraft certainly bring a lot to the table. But the only way to tell is to be in a conflict where there is a comparitively sophisticated adversary.

The Osprey crashed again just yesterday. 5 airmen were injured. No details yet.

What a bad timing. Now would you agree people in Iwakuni have the right to be scared of this aircraft? Or will you still give me the thumbs down?

The civilian market for the Osprey has been nil

It really doesnt have many civilian applications so far. Heck an F-16 doesnt either for that matter so I don't see what your point is about.

The US Military as well evidently has informed the Japanese Defense ministry as well that the April crash was not due to mechanical failure either, BUT has not published as of yet the reasons for the crash.

Ospreys or no Ospreys, the Japanese government, unable to say no to US pressure wants the bases in Okinawa.

Perhaps I should put it a little more clearly. The Japanese government IN TOKYO wants the US bases IN OKINAWA, about as far from Tokyo as it's possible to get.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/14/12221821-air-force-osprey-crashes-five-crew-members-hospitalized?lite

Yubaru Jun. 14, 2012 - 05:00PM JST. It really doesnt have many civilian applications so far. Heck an F-16 doesnt either for that matter so I don't see what your point is about.

Saids who? And your comparing with F-16??? Bell Helicopter is planning to sell a deluxe version of the Osprey to a group of consumers that it believes will be far more welcoming: CEOs. The smaller, civilian version of the Osprey, known as the BA 609, flies faster and has longer range than a chopper, yet can land in places inaccessible to planes. Then there's the price. the BA 609 is still quite expensive compared with helicopters and private jets, but predicted to be $10 million to $15 million range, depending on how the nine-passenger BA 609 is customized. Bell can fill a unique niche market. At a top speed of over 300 miles per hour, it is almost twice as fast as a helicopter and can fly two times as far. It can land at thousands of corporate campuses, isolated oil fields, and regional airfields with runways too short for business jets.

This craft is not safe to take off and land in a built up area like Futenma.

Why not move ALL the bases to Guam?

That's American soil.

Okinawa is NOT!

There is a demonstration against the deployment of Ospreys in Futenma today.

I wonder whether it will be reported or censored?

Over 6,000 people demonstrated against Osprey deployment in Futenma today.

When is the Japanese government going to listen?

Good go protest, but also let the military of the US continue to do what it does with the best equipment it has.