Send comments to:  editorG2mil@Gmail.com   We have space for most, but not all comments.   Let us know if you want us to include your organization and e-mail address.  Some letters may end up as content elsewhere in G2mil.  Avoid political comments, this is a weapons, warfare, and tactics website.

Pro-Bush, Anti-Kerry?

You ask your readers to refrain from sending comments of a political nature, saying the website is about "weapons, warfare and tactics," yet the website is replete with your comments of a political nature, especially comments that are pro-Bush and anti-Kerry. I think it would be more accurate to say that, since it's your website, you reserve the right to air your political views, but you'd rather not let your website be used to promote the ideas of folks who disagree with you.

                                                                                   John B. Tally

Ed: If you read older editorials, you would think that I was anti-Bush.  The only "anti-Kerry" remark was that he didn't understand that most Americans support closing Cold war bases.  Even the editor of antiwar.com, Justin Raimondo wrote an excellent article on this subject, Kerry is Clueless on Bases He runs an informative website with articles from around the world.  Some may be put off by a website called "antiwar.com." All good people are anti-war, the debate is about justifiable wars, only a sociopath is "pro-war."  

I recently found this relevant quote:

"Over the years, the real purposes of many of these overseas bases has changed from tactical and strategic locations of military value to elaborate American housing and logistic installations away from home.  They provide locations and facilities for some units that would have no reason for existence if based in the United States, and they furnish justification for interesting and attractive overseas travel and adventure for the troops and their families."

Col. James A. Donovan, USMC (ret.)
Militarism, U.S.A. (1970)

Bogus North Korean Threat

I am a former Air Force officer and  just became aware of G2mil.com and read the article about the bogus North Korean threat.  Thank you for all the information. The article is proof that we can get key information from the web which is generally not available in my local newspaper. You write in a manner which suggests you know what you are talking about. I don't know what your bona fides are, but then even great qualifications do not guarantee quality. Only performance and accuracy over the long run prove one's worth.

                                                                          Edward H. Parker, Jr., MD

Ed: I don't know why so many think the poorest, most backward nation in Asia (North Korea) is a threat to South Korea, which has twice its population and 40 times its economic power.  Mostly it comes from those wanting to keep the US military bases there, and those selling National Missile Defense, which costs us $10 billion a year, by greatly, greatly hyping the North Korean missile program.  They are the same con men who pushed the WMD in Iraq BS.

In addition, North Korean leaders are living like royalty, so why would they commit national suicide by starting up a war?  At the very least, they'd end up in a cell with Saddam Hussein.  We are told North Korean leaders are dangerous because they are "crazy" by our "experts" who have never met them and don't even speak Korean.  North Korea has been trying to negotiate a peace agreement for years, but the US has refused to discuss it.  Meanwhile, US troops remain in South Korea and thousands more come over from Japan a few times a year to practice offensive operations, which include an amphibious landing. (I was an exercise controller on the command ship for "Team Spirit" in 1990, so don't tell me it was not an offensive exercise.)  Then Bush tells the world that North Korea is one of three evil nations, and destroys one of them (Iraq).  So why is anyone surprised that North Korea  pressed onward to develop nuclear weapons for national defense?

V-22 Unsafe?

Just in case you haven't heard I thought I'd pass along a little tidbit from Canada.  A V-22 has been undergoing cold weather testing at the Canadian naval air base Shearwater in Halifax, Nova Scotia.  Last week it  had to declare an emergency while on a test flight off the coast when a 15cm section of one of its rotor blades came off in flight. It terminated the test and managed to make it safely back to the base.  The pilots first indication of trouble were warning lights in de-icing system and vibrations in flight systems. Cause, is of course under investigation but the section of blade came off while the AC was shedding ice.

Garry P.Burke
Operations Officer/Officier des opérations
Regional Operations Centre/Centre des opérations régionales
Canadian Coast Guard/Garde côtière canadienne
Maritimes Region/Région des maritimes

Many More V-22 Problems

The V-22 was supposed to be designed as a Troop Carrier Transport to replace what is cleverly called in PC language a "Legacy"; such as the Vertol H-46 (and Sikorsky H-3) which have been flying since the early 1960's. (Note: the "legacy" troop transport helicopters (H-46, H-3) have troop transport cabins which are about 20% larger than the V-22 troop cabin!)  After wasting over $14 Billion of taxpayer funding and the unnecessary death of some 27 crew members, it appears that the V-22 is severely lacking Safety and Human Factor Engineering capabilities - which had been successfully incorporated in the past.

A review of a few items and capabilities of what, after 18-20 years of waste include the following: 

Cabin size:  Was supposed to carry 24 fully equipped troops.  GAO and IG determined that it can safely carry 18 troops! The cabin size as noted is about 20% smaller than the helos 30-40 years ago. This is NOT progress.

Environmental Controls: Supposed to be designed for a wide range of temperature control!  It is actually limited to a temperature of only + - 10 Degrees!   At altitudes with temps of  - 30 deg, the cabin can only generated temps of  - 20 degree and at temps of 130 deg, can only cool down to 120 deg.

Pressurized Cabin: The design and added weight was found to add too much for the Empty Weight of the aircraft and was deleted from the contract Requirements and Specifications.  Virtually all aircraft certified by the FAA and Military for flight above 10,000 feet are pressurized! 

Nuclear Biological Chemical: These were basic requirements for all transports; but the sealing of doors and lack of pressurization caused this capability to be deleted. With this lack, crews must have special suits, masks and helmets which are time consuming and awkward for emergency NBC situations.

Oxygen: Again, because of weight and power requirements, there are only FOUR O2 outlets for the crew! This restriction makes the V-22 unable to carry Troops above 8-10,000 ft altitudes and restricts the Troop carrier to longer ranges and higher altitudes WITHOUT troops on board.

No Windows or Handholds: There are NO windows or Handholds for troops which severely decrease their environmental awareness and stability. With some flight conditions, the troops can become nauseous and sick because of  loss of situational awareness and potential of vertigo.

Baggage and Storage: The need for troop equipment for 'ruck sacks', weapons and other gear are nonexistent!

When 24 troops are jammed into the cabin area; the narrow width of the cabin requires gear to be stacked between each others knees and legs!  This further causes problems similar to the nausea experienced in WWII when prisoners were stacked into train boxcars - on the way to Dachau?

Vehicle Transport: Originally required capability to carry a "jeep" or equivalent. Because of the lack of use of standard cabin decks (replaced by new technology plastics);  the solution used for testing (maybe once?) was to have several troops carry two 20 foot extruded aluminum 'load spreaders' for the cabin and two 10 foot spreaders of the same for the dropdown ramp. When finally in to the narrow cabin, the crew chief has to go around to the aircraft entrance, because of lack of space to move from to back of cabin.

Radar Signature: The radar reflectivity of the two 38ft diameter propellers is such that the V-22 from distance of 150-200 miles looks like a pair of Boeing 707s in formation.  

Autorotation: For some 18 years, everyone involved in the V-22 -- Congress, Contractors, USMC, Navy, etc  - have all claimed that the V-22 would be easily capable of  conducting a SAFE auto rotation. We have been telling DOD and others that the V-22 cannot do an autorotation - which is a standard for ALL helicopters. Recently they DELETED this capability as UNSAFE. In all of this time, the test pilots actually attempted (ONCE ONLY) to accomplish a full autorotation and almost loss total control.

Effect of Vibration Loads:  The structural characteristics of the V-22 are such that the deformations are much larger than that of helicopters because of the shape of the structure and the very large weight of nacelles (engine, gearing, etc). The bending and tensile loads are such that the susceptibility is certain to lead to a much higher failure rate of components  - which can lead to catastrophic accidents.

Go-NoGo:  All civilian and military Twin Engine  certifications, require a Go-NoGo check before take off to determine the airspeed/torque vs takeoff distance in order to shut down and stop when necessary to avoid a forced landing before takeoff. The only decision in the NATOPS manual is that of "Pilots Discretion" !!  

Flap Exceedence:  Whereas virtually ALL helicopter rotors have a limit of 28-30 Degree Blade Flapping capability, the V-22 Propellers are limited to 10 Degrees - to avoid damage to the rotor, rotor swash plates  and rotor hubs. The result of exceeding these limits can result in rotor failure or breakage, leading to aircraft control failures. This has been a big problem for the V-22 design and is very seldom ever involved in normal helicopter rotors.

Tendency of PIO: The tendency of PIO (Pilot Induced Operation)  is a direct result of design features, which include a very high roll moment of inertia and roll control differential rotor thrust.

Susceptibility to Wake and Tip Vortices: There is  considerable flight evidence that the V-22 response to the interception of a wake and wing-tip vortex by ONE of the proprotors is that of an uncontrolled rollover. That is yet another problem with the side by side rotors.  Helicopter rotors blow FOD away, yet the two outboard V-22 rotors blow FOD back toward the aircraft.  When they open the rear ramp in a sandy, snowy, or debris areas, everyone is pelted with incoming.


Ignoring other problems with aerodynamics, maintenance and low reliability, it is easily determined that the V-22 is NOT a Safe Troop Aircraft, and is totally lacking any evidence of Human Factor Engineering/Safety Design.  Congress, GAO, IG, FAA and NTSB should immediately initiate an Investigation and Audit of the V-22, for the significantly defective Safety and Human Factor shortfalls and other problems such as the 5-6 emergency landings required during the last 6 months, because of other failures.

                                                                                   Col Harry P Dunn USAF ret.

Your the Hanger Queen!

Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies ,Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies.                   

The V-22 will be a Success you suc as.

                                                                                          Richard Word

                                                                                  Bell Helicopter-Textron

Ed: Thanks for the input.  I'll make corrections based upon your expert response.

V-22 Safety

I do not think the impact of ultra high air downwash should be neglected either.  I know of one helicopter incident where downwash blew a piece of snow fence into a tail rotor leaving the helo resting on its side.  I am sure there are a lot of examples.   The downwash associated with the V-22 will greatly limit operation to prepared sites and brings another vulnerability into play.  You could not use over sand,  water, loose dirt etc  - you no longer have a helicopter or helicopter utility - and can only use between FOD free prepared sites etc.  This problem with Helo ops in Iraq is already a formidable one with actions to wet the sand in LZ often required etc.  Some form of simple STOL airplane would be far more practical useful -  a Cessna "super"  STOL caravan, Dehaviland Otter or such.  Use what UPS uses.

I also think there should be a high emphasis on the probable (and somewhat proven) correlation of fatalities to accidents - almost certain to be a direct ratio as the typical loss of control impact circumstance for the V-22 will almost never be survivable (either roll over or excessive sink as you discuss).  At least the sole occupant AV-8 has an ejection seat.  It is just not survivable. 

It would seem the supports either have a $ or status stake in this.  Most practical people simply can see that it will never work.  Dick Cheney should stick his nose in this again.  He was right the first time: "It will not do what it was supposed to do and if it could, it would be too expensive."  That succinct position was right on.  If it is necessary to support a welfare program, two could be provided to NASA for ongoing testing and the true believers could go work there.  The project will undoubtedly die at OPEVAL or shortly after,  as the true circumstance of it will come to the front stage.   Probably sooner is better as delay will not make it healthy as the fundamentals are lacking. 

                                                                                                  Name Withheld

Ed: The program often notes that downwash from a V-22 is no worse than a CH-53E when standing near the landing site.  That may be true, but the V-22's smaller and faster turning rotors have three times the disc loading, which means their downwash is three times more concentrated at the landing site.  This matters little on a hard deck like a ship or airfield, but acts like a huge sandblaster at unimproved sites.

They did desert testing at the Marine base in Yuma a couple years ago.  The outboard rotors tossed FOD back toward the aircraft, breaking a window and filling the cabin with debris.  They decided to repeat the testing last year, but at Nellis AFB near Las Vegas.  I'm not sure why.  Perhaps because area around Nellis has finer sand with fewer small rocks, and of course Las Vegas is more fun than Yuma.

Vortex Ring State

     As an Army two tour Vietnam helicopter pilot with over 4,000 flying hours I am puzzled over that assertion (estimate) that 1/3 of all helicopter accidents were a result of VRS.  In the early years 1965-1967 the majority of accidents on approach were due to a lack of engine power because of the high load factors and the pilots wanting to accomplish the mission. In later years with higher engine power this type of accident was significantly reduced.

     I do agree that helicopters can perform the mission better than the V-22. Not just the CH-53 but the CH-47 which can also out perform the V-22. Do not think that any opposition to the V-22 will succeed, because politically President Bush will not cancel such a high profile project from his state.


Ed: Those assertions by a rotorcraft expert seem high to me as well.  VRS was probably just a contributing factor, yet enough to cause the accident.  If you note that link to an article by a Marine Colonel about VRS, there is a graph which shows VRS regions which reduce performance.

Tiltrotors Have Failed 

I served two Vietnam tours.  One as a HH-3E Air Rescue Crew Commander and the second as the director of the 3rd Air Rescue Group Plans Officer in the 7th Air Force Hq. Saigon.  The latter had me again fighting against establishing a South East Asia Operational Requirement for the Tilt-Rotor aircraft.  Even before that while serving as the Long Range Plans Officer for the Air Rescue Service in 1962-1965 I fought tooth and nail against the validation of the Tilt-Rotor to fulfill an outstanding operational requirement for a specified Combat Aircrew Recovery Aircraft (CARA).

Among the stated requirements was a downwash velocity limitation of not more than 15psf - and a complete power loss autorotational capability.  Noteworthy is that neither then nor now does the V22 Osprey meet those requirements.  The inherent design flaws leading to dynamic instability at low speeds and inability to safely execute combat maneuvers associated with the Air Rescue Mission eliminated the V22 as a candidate to meet the requirement as early as 1952 (XV-15).  After eighteen years and $14 Billion dollars--not one of the limited production V22s produced has met the Joint Operational Requirements Directives (JORDs). 

Recent near catastrophic uncommented in-flight aircraft oscillations have again delayed programmed V22 Operational testing.  The aircraft are now produced at the rate of one per month and then put in storage at a cost of $124 million per aircraft!  I had some limited success with publication of these facts in the San Antonio Express News --i.e... Letters,  following announcement of axing the Comanche Helicopter.  You published some material addressing the revolving door Marine Corp Generals whose support for this albatross is either born of a dangerous ignorance or total loss of integrity born of self-serving greed.  The charge also applies to Air Force General Charles Holland (SOC) who ought to know better -he's an aero-engineer and has been briefed on the inherent design flaws of this aircraft  I seek a compilation of Senior General Officers and Executive Level DOD Civilians over the past eighteen years who have influenced the continued life of this tar-baby - and have acted so as to seemingly work a fraud upon the United States and cause the wrongful deaths of 30 unwary young Marines.

                                                                             LT COL John H. McLeaish, USAF (ret) 

Border Dangers

I read that article you linked and I’m glad the subject is being brought up again. I did plenty counter-drug operations down in the SW U.S. and can tell you first hand it doesn’t stop 365 days a year. They’re bringing in people, drugs, guns, machinery, you name it. They’re living in remote areas until they can move into cities. They’re growing marijuana, mushrooms and cooking crystal meth. Running prostitution rings out of RV camps and digging up American Indian burial sites to make money. 

We’ve got to get specially trained military back out there in the entry corridors to establish presence or greed and corruption will open the door for the worst case scenario’s concerning terrorism and WMD. Make use of our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Don’t let them sit on the bases too long. That’s when all the hell raising begins and leadership loses control. Keep them focused and they will perform the border mission well.


Ed: Read this older G2mil article for more info about this real threat to National Security: Defending America at the Border.

War Criminal or War Hero?

     Something puzzles me. I've seen news film this week of US Army "Specialist" e.g. E-4 Corporal Graner arriving at court with four rows of ribbons on his left breast.  As I understand it, this man is a weekend soldier and, in civilian life, a prison guard. His military service has been in a non-combat role.  How the hell can a soldier earn all those honors in a non-combat role?


Ed: That is yet another example of the need to reform the grossly inflated and corrupted awards process in the US military.

Other Editor Comments