national

Japan asks U.S. to refrain from flying Ospreys in Japan

45 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

45 Comments
Login to comment

He can make the request, but odds are they aren't going to listen for very long.

7 ( +13 / -6 )

These things overfly Okinawan cities all the time. A disaster waiting to happen.

-8 ( +14 / -22 )

So what's going to happen with the JGSDF orders for Ospreys?

6 ( +10 / -4 )

Japan really needs to start protecting itself then they wont have anything to whine about...

6 ( +15 / -9 )

Northernllfe

Do America let Japan protect itself?

3 ( +10 / -7 )

Are not U.S. Forces in Japan staying in this part of the world for their own sake?

9 ( +16 / -7 )

Schopenhauer,

Are not U.S. Forces in Japan staying in this part of the world for their own sake?

They are staying in Japan because they get a free ride. Japan subsidizes the US military more than any other host country.

1 ( +15 / -14 )

Japan is asking. Should evict.

-8 ( +9 / -17 )

This contraption has had way too many accidents.

A flawed design, back to the drawing board.

2 ( +12 / -10 )

this article is misleading in that it sounds like only 3 accents happened.

The V-22 Osprey had 9 hull-loss accidents that resulted in a total of 39 fatalities. During testing from 1991 to 2000 there were four crashes resulting in 30 fatalities.[1] Since becoming operational in 2007, the V-22 has had five crashes including two combat-zone crashes,[2][3] and several other accidents and incidents that resulted in nine fatalities.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

"This contraption has had way too many accidents.

A flawed design, back to the drawing board."

Utter and complete nonsense. Brace yourself for some actual FACTS!

“In five years of operational flight, the MV-22 (Osprey) has only had two Class A mishaps; the most recent one taking place in Morocco in April of this year,”

"the Osprey has a bad reputation due to the crash record of the pre-2001 version of the aircraft, which was “designed, prototyped and tested with inadequate funds because of the politics of defense acquisition.”

"Safety statistics in the report indicated that the aircraft are slightly safer than the aging CH-46E Sea Knights, which the Ospreys are replacing."

What are we going to do with our opinions now? Now that we have the facts laid out, so you really want the marines to go back to using 1970 era helicopters? Because there are TWO options on the table. Use 50 year old helicopters or the Osprey.

12 ( +16 / -4 )

Instead of "going back," how about just going away?

-6 ( +9 / -15 )

They are staying in Japan because they get a free ride. Japan subsidizes the US military more than any other host country.

Singapore has offered them A "free ride" But it seems the Japanese Government wants them to stay.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

-On 11 April 2012, an MV-22 from the VMM-261 on USS Iwo Jima 

-On 13 June 2012, a USAF CV-22 crashed at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida

-One of three Osprey aircraft participating in a training exercise at Bellows Air Force Station (Waimanalo, Oahu, Hawaii) 

-On 13 December 2016, at 10 pm, an MV-22 crashed while landing onto a reef in shallow water 0.6 miles (0.97 km) off the Okinawa coastline of Camp Schwab

-On 5 August 2017, a U.S. Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey assigned to Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 265 with the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit crashed in Shoalwater Bay

-In June 2014 an Osprey encountered a lightning strike

-In early October 2014, an MV-22 Osprey lost power shortly after takeoff from the USS Makin Island in the Middle East

-On 13 December 2016 when a MV-22 crash-landed, a second MV-22 reportedly did a belly landing at MCAS Futenma

-On 29 January 2017, an MV-22 experienced a hard landing during a raid in Al Bayda, Yemen

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

Everybody knows the Ospreys are here to stay. Get over it already. The government talks like this just to make points with the population, then the people respond with a "SO desu ne" attitude, then it's business as usual. The government also understands that common Japanese people could never take care of themselves in a time of conflict and the Japanese military is not battle tested. Kind of makes sense to have the strongest friend in the world by your side, training,learning, building self confidence and getting ready for any future conflicts that could arise at any moment.

4 ( +11 / -7 )

"But without these, we cannot protect you from the big bad North Korea! So you have no choice." - USA

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Asking for planes to stop flying, yea sure great idea!

lets just have the pilots and their crew run up and down the flight line making airplane noises!

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Rock and a hard place.

Might it be better if they weren't here, perhaps in some ways, but for the US and their chosen vehicles to move on a few fairly scary things need to happen and would it really matter?

Constitution Change. No-one will accept a complete removal of US forces if Japan doesn't have its own large and well funded defense and offensive capabilities especially in the current climate.

Military build up and spending. Japan would have to massively increase its spending to be in a position to be able to defend itself without US troops on the ground.

And does it really matter, Japan and US will remain allies whether the are based here or not, to be allied on the level Japan and the US are Japan would have to outfit itself with similar equipment anyway.

(maybe Japanese crew and maintained osprey will somehow be magically better??)

I don't agree with many choices the US makes with their military, and they are clearly here for their own interests first, however given the current political climate, an increasingly aggressive China, a North Korea which seems almost determined to push things to breaking point, is now the time to be pushing this?

Some may say the US being here makes Japan a target, that may well be true to a degree, but I doubt North Korea for example would see the distinction should they do the unthinkable.

On the craft themselves, it appears the risk is actually relatively low, and its more something to be outraged at.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

luckily no serious accidents have happened over populated cities here. but accidents do happen. have happened.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

luckily no serious accidents have happened over populated cities here. but accidents do happen. have happened. yet there have been far more helicopter and plane crashes in Japan over the last couple of years, maybe we should ask all aircraft from refraining from flights over populated areas

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Two case scenarios - Americans can, as proper allies and responsible, reasonable people, abide by the request and stop flying Ospreys over the islands (y fly them tho). OR Americans show their pride as an "eternal" winner and keep flying them without any regard to the wishes of the nation the soil belongs to (by international standards). The air is their as well.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

"Hard Landing" means a "crash".

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Are they gong to banned every military plane and copter that has an accident?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Okay, remove the Ospreys and Marine Corp presence and have more B-1Bs and B-52s based at Kadena AFB in Okinawa, especially in the light of active Chinese and North Korea activities in the area. Also install the THAADs.

If that's not acceptable, then Japan should modify their Constitution, build up their military power, occupy the departed U.S. bases and take responsibility for protecting their mainland island and Okinawa. And if a Japanese military aircraft crashes near populated areas, then what?

There was a recent Japanese military aircraft crash near Hokuto, on Japan's Hokkaido island, but there were no protests from the Japanese civilians.

Japan can't have it both ways: Either fish or cut bait.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

And then when an isolated community is in danger because of the next quake or typhoon, Onodera will suddenly change his tune, not to mention when Japan gets possession of some Osprey themselves.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

No chance. The men and women of the armed forces need to train. Okinawa airspace historically and legally belongs to the US army. They can train there if they wish

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

And the Osprey in that picture no one will ever see above them flying in Japan.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Maybe they should refrain from overflying civilian areas to give everyone some peace of mind. But I think the way forward to fix any issues with this plane is to fly more so they can figure it out

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It probably doesn't matter if the marines left Okinawa, the only combat unit is in Australia and nothing has happened.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Isn't there a rule that military aircraft should refrain from flying over centres of population? I remember a story from a few years ago when a metal bucket fell out of one of these things and smashed through the roof of a house in Okinawa.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Any vehicle is susceptible to failures, and those are thankfully far and few between.

However what the article doesn't go into is just the pure noise these things throw out when flying, which is more my complaint of them. Living along an often used flight path, they are exceptionally loud, especially when they do a low fly by landing at 10pm or even later at times. You can feel the rotor thud in the building.

I think there would be less "hate" of them if they weren't operated so late and fly in so low for so long. The noise makes them feel so much closer, which mentally you equate to that could be dangerous as it is so close.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yes Goodlucktoyou - We all know there have been plenty of minor accidents with Osprey because they make BIG news. But very FEW "Class A mishaps" which are IIRC over accidents that cause over $2 million in damage and/or loss of life.

I mean wow... You have a list of TEN accidents. Has anyone who complains about the Osprey, I don't know, spent 5 seconds looking at a single other aircraft in service? Take the C-130 for example. It has has over 15 accidents in the last 15 years JUST in the USA. If we include other countries and its entire history we are talking hundreds of accidents.

From my research 36 have died in the entire time the Osprey has been in service. 30 of those were the 2001 prototype version. Not the active service version now in use.

Lets look at the last 40 days... yes 40 days of the c-130 accidents. 136 people dead from 2 c-130 crashes. Thats right. In just the last 40 days 100 more people have died from the C-130 than the ENTIRE lifespan of the Osprey, but of course let's go nuts about the Osprey, because its the only aircraft of any kind that flies over populated land?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

 few years ago when a metal bucket fell out of one of these things and smashed through the roof of a house in Okinawa.

It was back in 2013, and it wasn't a metal bucket, it was a plastic military canteen.

https://japantoday.com/category/national/okinawan-govt-complains-after-pet-water-bottle-falls-from-osprey

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"Japan subsidizes the US military more than any other host country."

This seems to be true in terms of the % paid by host countries. Japan pays a higher % than South Korea, Germany or Italy to be sure.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Did Japan ask the US to stop flying F-15s when USAF or JASDF F-15s crashed? Did I stop flying my 777 when there were accidents? What about 737 crashes?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Those Ospreys have a design failure like those Takata airbags.

Therefore the only Ospreys that should be allowed in Japan are those backpacks.

But what can a virtual colony still suffering from Stockholm Syndrome do to its captors?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Osprey aircraft never should have been allowed to serve in US Military. This aircraft is unsafe to fly and not much advantage over Chinos Aircraft. Osprey aircraft design has design problem. How can you use this Osprey in the combat zone? I’ll pray for those marines and pilots’ lives every time every time Osprey aircraft was taken off.  How many soldiers and pilots have died in crashes since it was introduce to US Military?

Please, send all current Osprey aircraft to the museums around the United State and stop production of current design Osprey aircraft. I believe the Osprey aircraft should put extra Rotor of the top of fuselage between two rotors tilted to stabilize aircraft take off and landing.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

How many soldiers and pilots have died in crashes since it was introduce to US Military?

Less than compared to any other platform of aircraft the US Military flies. It's has a better safety record than the majority of other military aircraft.

Most accidents related to the aircraft have been determined to be human error vice mechanical error

2 ( +3 / -1 )

-On 11 April 2012, an MV-22 from the VMM-261 on USS Iwo Jima  Pilot error

-On 13 June 2012, a USAF CV-22 crashed at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida Pilot error

-One of three Osprey aircraft participating in a training exercise at Bellows Air Force Station (Waimanalo, Oahu, Hawaii)  Pilot error

-On 13 December 2016, at 10 pm, an MV-22 crashed while landing onto a reef in shallow water 0.6 miles (0.97 km) off the Okinawa coastline of Camp Schwab Pilot error

-On 5 August 2017, a U.S. Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey assigned to Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 265 with the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit crashed in Shoalwater Bay Under investigation;

-In June 2014 an Osprey encountered a lightning strike Environmental weather phenomena. No fatality. Lightning strikes to aircraft are not unusual.

-In early October 2014, an MV-22 Osprey lost power shortly after takeoff from the USS Makin Island in the Middle East Technical;

-On 13 December 2016 when a MV-22 crash-landed, a second MV-22 reportedly did a belly landing at MCAS Futenma Pilot error

-On 29 January 2017, an MV-22 experienced a hard landing during a raid in Al Bayda, Yemen Pilot error

In the above sample incident citings, 67% was attributed to pilot error. As CyburneticTiger pointed out, MOST of these incidents are caused by human/pilot error attributed to insufficient training or proficiency.

The Osprey is a unique aircraft that demands more pilot skills as the rotors are tilted during its transition from horizontal flight to vertical flight (hover) or vertical to horizontal flight. This is the most hazardous spot in the flight envelope: wing lift diminishes as speed decreases, yet vertical lift from the rotor blades are not yet effective until the rotors rotate full 90 degrees for maximum downward thrust.

The Harrier, which has similar VTOL capability, also had a high accident rate. As pilot training and proficiency improved, accident rates dropped significantly

It's not that the Osprey is more dangerous or has resulted in more fatalities than other aircraft, it is that we've become less tolerant of accidents.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Don't ask, TELL THEM, these aircraft are not wanted.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

ZENJI- Their are many Americans who do not want this aircraft as well.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Why are do the pilots of the aircraft let their guard down so much (compared to those of other aircraft then)? I am curious, and would like to know from those who are knowlegable about such things.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

do

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The government of Japan has asked and the US military says we do not accept your requests. FYI the SDF has CH-47 aircraft for search and rescue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@bruinfan wrote: Why are do the pilots of the aircraft let their guard down so much (compared to those of other aircraft then)? I am curious, and would like to know from those who are knowlegable about such things.

It's not a matter of pilots letting their guard down when flying the Osprey; it is a complicated aircraft and very demanding (in terms of skill proficiency) aircraft to fly because it is the only aircraft that can transition from vertical flight to horizontal flight and vice versa in a manner that is different than helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. You'll note that the two engines and props rotates through a 90 degree arc when it does this vertical to level flight transition. That entails a complex and admittedly complex and troublesome tilt-rotor mechanism. Secondly, when the aircraft slows down to transition to vertical flight or hovering, the wing loses lift as the props rotate to about 45 degrees. At this point, the props have not yet developed sufficient downward thrust to maintain altitude until it rotates to a full 90 degrees vertical. This demands exceptional pilot flying skills to maintain that delicate balance.

It's kinda like trying to ride a unicycle.

Now you wonder why did they design such an aircraft. The Osprey is an attempt to combine both fixed wing and helicopter capabilities. A conventional helicopter with its single main rotor system is great at vertical takeoff and landing and hovering, but cannot fly in horizontal flight very fast; speed is limited to around 200 mph. At the same time, a fixed wing aircraft cannot hover or land in a vertical manner, but can fly fast in level flight. The V-22 Osprey can fly as fast as 275 mph in level flight.

By the way, the Harrier is another aircraft that flies like a conventional aircraft and takeoff and land like a helicopter. It uses tiltable jet exhaust nozzles that rotates 90 degrees when in hover mode. The Harrier also had its share of accidents under similar circumstances.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites