Now Hear This: The Commandant Speaks Out on the V-22

(Washington, D.C.): On last night’s edition of PBS’ “NewsHour with Jim Lehrer,” the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James L. Jones, responded publicly to criticism of the Corp’s revolutionary V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, known as the Osprey. The General forcefully defended the Osprey as a proven technology, of inestimable value to the military and a potentially huge “peace dividend” for the Nation as a whole when tilt-rotor technology’s civil applications are fully exploited.

The qualities of leadership, courage, integrity and candor that were recognized when General Jones received the Center for Security Policy’s 1999 Keeper of the Flame Award were much in evidence in this interview with Ray Suarez. Highlights include the following:

…The Osprey is, first of all, not a new technology. This particular airplane has been flying for over 11 years. The V-style concept goes back to almost 1953 with the XV-3 and more recently its precursor, the XV-15 back to 1977.

So we have many years of data on this kind of technology. Most of the difficulties that have been associated with the program over the 11 years that this type of airplane has been flying have been not related to the tilt-rotor technology itself but other ancillary events that have caused mishaps. Statistically it is within the norms of other new-type airplanes that come on line, and I won’t bore you with those details.

But in the experimental phases, there are tragically accidents that happen. And in the operational phase, we continue with every aircraft we bring in to our inventory to experiment, and we learn more as we go along. That doesn’t make it a test model flown by test pilots in the production phase.

So simply put, the tilt rotor technology is not nearly as new as it is being portrayed. So far, the accidents that have happened are not necessarily linked to tilt rotor technology but other problems that can be and have been resolved.

…I think that any commander and anyone in charge of the operational tests and evaluation phase of particularly transport airplanes wants to make sure that the aircraft is as safe as possible before you put troops in it.

It’s very disturbing to hear [about allegations that maintenance data has been falsified.] Obviously upon hearing of it, we ordered the Inspector General down to investigate and either substantiate or [disprove] the allegations. It is particularly disturbing in an organization like the United States Marine Corps, which prides itself on integrity and truthfulness. There is no program that I know of that would justify anyone to make false statements concerning readiness of a program. This is peacetime. We don’t have to do that.

The most important thing is the safety of our Marines. Whether it’s in the air, on land or at sea, that is job one for any commander. So this will be looked at appropriately and we’ll come to the conclusions that we have to draw from this lesson — including looking at ourselves to see what it is that might cause our commanders to feel or a commander to feel that he would have to do something like that.

We will investigate this not in limited fashion but in an unlimited fashion to make sure that all throughout the chain of command people have acted properly, and I’m confident that we’ll do a very thorough investigation that will be fully open and vetted in the public domain because of the people’s right to know.

This airplane has been looked at in over seven Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analyses since its inception. It has been studied. It has been delayed. It has even been canceled, but each time, it has survived the critics because of its enormous potential — a potential that really transcends the military community and extends, in my judgment, into the commercial sector as well.

When you think of the potential benefits to our industrial base by being able to market this kind of technology, it’s going to be, I think, a very big addition to reducing our crowded airways over our airports and the like.

The military application though is beyond question: Twice as fast, three times the payload, five times the range of any comparable helicopter. This enables not only Marines but members of the special operation forces and our Navy — who are also buyers in this program — to do things that we’ve never been able to do in a much more unlimited way against the threat and [that we will] face in the future.

So, as someone who is an advocate for safety and preserving the lives and the risk we subject our troops to, to have a technologically advanced capability to do this is exactly what we should do — but not simply because it’s a program that we have fallen in love with.

In 1954, the Department of Defense had over 770 airplane accidents. In the year 2000, it had 24. That’s what technology can do for you. But yet over those 770 accidents, all were regretted and all were unforeseen and on airplanes that we thought were safe, and humans did their best to make safe.

But the fact is that flying still has a certain amount of risk to it. It takes heroes to do it. We mourn their losses. We grieve for their families, but nonetheless, in the final analysis we have to do what’s best for our troops, what’s best for our military and what’s the safest thing that we can send our troops in harm’s way [in] if they have to go there and bring them back alive.

I’m confident in the technology. I’m confident in the research that’s gone into it. I’m confident in the people that advise me with regard to the potential of this airplane, but we are not going to do anything reckless. We are not going to expose our pilots or our crew chiefs or our crew members or our Marines unnecessarily.

If at the end of the evaluation period not only the IG, but the accident report and more importantly I think the blue ribbon panel that Secretary Cohen convened, we will take a measured look — and I’m reasonably confident that this technology is going to be a boon to our military. It will be a boon to our industrial base and will bring a great new concept into aviation.