Last week in Wired.com’s Danger Room, David Axe gave a USAF mishap investigation team a harrowing over their report of an Elmendorf-based F-22 crash. The mishap report itself seemed to me fair, factual and rational. Mr. Axe’s response, less so. This week he has the Marine Corps MV-22 in his cross-hairs in a post entitled “Controversial Marine Tiltrotor Fights Its First Gun Battle.”
Now, the Osprey used to be fairly controversial in military circles ten to twenty years ago, back when the design was in test and evaluation. There was a nacelle fire that killed seven crewmen in 1992, and a crew explored the vortex ring state phenomenon to their mortal peril in April 2000, killing 19 Marines. Four more were killed in December of that same year when a previously undiscovered software fault left the machine uncontrollable. Since then, there has been one combat loss in Afghanistan that took four lives, and left 16 injured. That was in 2010.
In 2001, a Marine commanding officer was relieved for cause after his squadron had been found dithering the maintenance logs to make the airplane’s reliability figures look better. That was pretty controversial, ten years ago.
Since then, the Osprey has flown 100,000 flight hours over 14 deployments and is the safest aircraft in the Marine Corps inventory, according to Loren Thompson:
Over the last ten years, the V-22 mishap rate has been about half the average for the entire Marine aircraft fleet, and it is currently the lowest of any rotorcraft in that fleet. These averages are adjusted to reflect time actually flown, so it really is a surprisingly safe aircraft, considering it only recently entered service. New airframes usually have higher mishap rates than aircraft that have been operated for many years. Of course, none of this would matter if the Osprey couldn’t do much, but in fact it is living up to its potential for versatility, conducting everything from night raids and medical evacuations in Afghanistan to logistical support and humanitarian assistance in Haiti. It is also proving to be the most flexible airframe employed by Air Force special operators, who use it for an array of harrowing combat and rescue missions. Readiness rates for the Marine version are around 70 percent, which is quite respectable for a new and novel airframe.
Dr Thompson, for those of that may not be familiar with the man, is the COO of the non-profit Lexington Institute, and “was Deputy Director of the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University and taught graduate-level courses in strategy, technology and media affairs at Georgetown. He has also taught at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. Mr. Thompson holds doctoral and masters degrees in government from Georgetown University and a bachelor of science degree in political science from Northeastern University.”
But let us get back to Mr. Axe: In his “controversial” article, an MV-22 successfully resupplied hard-pressed Marines in combat, directed other aviation fires, and used its ramp gun for the first time on egress to suppress Taliban positions. A pretty good hop.
But let us paraphrase the words Mr. Axe uses to color the event: accident prone, maintenance intensive, vulnerable, and “terrifyingly” unarmored. In fact, the successful resupply mission is used as a canvas upon which Mr. Axe paints a picture wholly inconsistent with the event itself, not to mention the aircraft’s recent track record. It would have been so much better a story had the plane crashed, but no. We’re not so lucky.
I searched in vain to determine Mr. Axe’s credentials, his military experience, where he went to school, what level of educational attainment he received, what work he had hitherto done. What, in essence, qualifies him to pick and poke at the services in the way he so evidently enjoys in such a high profile venue. This what I found:
David Axe is a military correspondent living in Washington, D.C. Since 2005 he has reported from Iraq, Lebanon, East Timor, Afghanistan and Somalia. He is a regular contributor to Wired, The Washington Times, C-SPAN and BBC Radio, among many other outlets. His graphic novel war memoir WAR FIX made Amazon’s 2006 top ten list. He is the author of ARMY 101, a nonfiction account of Army ROTC in wartime.
No matter where you go, the story is the same: Wikipedia, Amazon. At his home blog.
His online history starts in 2005. Been to lots of places. Contributes to lots of portals. Wrote a book about Army ROTC in wartime. But what public person, in the 21st century, has a biography so opaque? And why?
I just don’t know.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. “Correspondents” like David Axe try to shine the light of perfection on the military issues they cover.
Axe is one of those progressive bloggers who wants to reclaim the defense realm from conservatives, in addition to that he also one of those guys who likes to day dream about building a military on a budget like the now defunct but very enjoyable new wars site. Either way he gets more attention then he desreves and his book on the rotc read more like a NYT hit piece.
Any mention of involvement with a bloke called Bloefeld of S.M.E.R.S.H. ?
Who is actually going to Wired for legit military reporting? Oh thats right leftists with an agenda. If he was writing for Janes or Stratfor I would be concerned. As it is, he’s writing for the equivalent of Rolling Stone for the tech crowd.
I wonder if this comic book author/dude “Axe” ever served. I may have change my name to “Lance” to be as equally cool.
Starfleet Academy does not count.
here is his linked in profile page
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidaxe
note that he attended and graduated from Furman University in 2000. Since he entered Furman in 1996 one could assume he was 18 at the time and thus born in 1958
and his flickr page http://www.flickr.com/photos/david_axe/
With all respect, if he was 18 in 1996, he was born in ’78, not ’58…
yup math challenged to day thanks
Well there’s nobody as certain about what he “knows” as a 31 year old. Looks like he was born in 1978. He’s got a BA from Furman, and an MFA in English from University of South Carolina. Don’t think that there’s any real military experience in his background. He wrote for a year for the “Free Times” which I assume is one of those lefty throw away rags published in most major cities. And of course a staple in those rags is that military equipment is–the horror of it all–not safe for the soldiers who use it, and worse yet is harmful to living things. Of course that IS a problem with things that sometimes go “Boom”.
If you go to his Flickr site you see that he likes the graphic novel approach, i.e. comic books for aging kids.
Not the most reliable reporter in the world.
As a Wired (light) reading Tech and up to about a year ago a frequent reader of Danger Room I can say that thankfully he is no Spencer Ackerman.
Unfortunately, Danger Room jumped the shark about 18 months ago. While never to be confused with objective – IMO – they have gone far off from wherever they were a few years ago.
Heck I spent nearly 10 years herding antique airplanes around the sky(with equally antique engines) and this klown is
a aviation expert? Give me a break! Osprey is useful!
Not S.M.E.R.S.H more like S.O.R.O.S…
I had a Gunnery Sergeant who would have pegged him in a heartbeat. On day we had to attend a planning session at Lejeune with a particularly obtuse and officious major who came very, very close to a high speed collision between my hand and his jaw.
As we left the meeting, with me still steaming, the Gunny said, “Ah, sir, don’t pay any attention to him, he’s just a sexual intellectual.”
I asked the Gunny what he meant by that, and his reply was classic: “He’s a f*%#*n know it all.”
Case closed.
…I think it’s been clearly demonstrated that for reasons unknown this flippen know it all… knickers in a bunch ass-h*le, has a giant axe to grind. Best
The comments in the Wired article are just as crazy as the article. It’s amazing how many opinions can be expressed by those with no knowlege. The only decent comment was the guy commenting on the picture who said something like “Cool! It shoots lightning out it’s a$$!”
George V.
Drivel like this was the reason I stopped reading Danger Room and cancelled my Wired subscription
Also, be careful with quoting Thompson on some things. He is a paid mouthpiece for LM which means any trouble in F-35 development is basically ignored or papered over while going into the Baghdad Bob mode.
On the flip-side, Danger Room is infamous for leftist drivel; even if I agree with them or Axe on some occasions.
Yeah, I won’t be going there to read anything.
I remember in the 90s when the V-22 was experiencing all its problems. I was pregnant with my 3rd son I think, working for a big aerospace firm. I told the guys I worked with I didn’t want my boys growing up to fly those. Now? I’m happy with how that aircraft has progressed. I didn’t see that coming.
I *still* think the MV-22 should be canx’d.
But not for reliability issues.
I just can’t fathom paying $44 million for a helicopter!
Xbad,
I, respectfully disagree.
Yeah, it costs too much, but what it does is unprecedented, and valuable.
The high-speed cruise and range is VERY cool, way more better than a CH-47.
Can’t you say something similar about the F-35?
Chrispy, it NEEDS to cruise twice as fast. Because the Chinook carries twice as much.
True enough, XBrad, but sometimes one needs both sorts of capability depending on the situation. “Both And” not “either or.” (But bean-counters don’t like to hear that–which is why bean-counter par excellence McNamera was so enamored of the TFX “multi-role” concept. )
Xbad,
You got me there…
No worries Chris P.
XBrad hates the Marines and all that it entails.
Check his blog.
90% hate towards Marine Aviation both tactical/strategic down to aquisition.
Btw Army Avi as a whole is lockstep with his POV.
He refs his hit piece early and often not only here butt his blog as well.
Good points sometimes butt his hate is crystal clear.
He’s got a a handle on history too.
So as long at supports his altar of Army Avi.
Stand by and watch Hot Mic.
From a search and rescue standpoint, the V-22 would be a gamechanger. It carries more gas faster than any conventional helo. It’s expensive, but that’s kind of like comparing a Ferrari with a Chevrolet. You’re buying greater capability with those dollars.
I remember in Kodiak, there were a lot of SAR cases where we were at the very, naked limit of the 60′s range (USCG doesn’t air refuel). The weather up there is, changeable and often terrible. Imagine trying to maintain a stable hover in 60 knot winds while you’re hoisting a survivor. That’s fun.
If a mission was too far, the Alaskan Air Guard, with their refuelable 60s, got the job.
A V-22 would alleviate this, big-time. Also, since its cruising speed and ceiling are higher, you could get out of the really bad stuff and get there and back faster, making it more a likelihood that your survivor makes it to a hospital.
I don’t know anything about this David Axe, but I think the true story lies in between his nattering negativity and the cheerleading. I’m sure it’s a great bird (I’d love to fly one), but I know since it’s a wholly new way of doing things, it’s going to have some bugs spring up from time to time. I’m just glad the Wright Brothers didn’t have to deal with our media in their day. Aviation would’ve never gotten off the ground. Literally.
There is an “expert” by the name of John Pike at Global Security dot org. Was billed for years on the mainstream media as “Dr.John Pike”. He was Michael DuPharkus’ science advisor during the 1988 presidential campaign. Finally admitted during questioning under oath that he had no Phd or any other degree.
He “attended” Vanderbuilt University and “studied technology and public policy”.
Bet your Axe is similar. No credentials but has a mouthpiece.
“But what public person, in the 21st century, has a biography so opaque? And why?”
Uh, POTUS?
I still have reservations about the V-22; you can’t dead-stick land the sucker in airplane mode if something goes south, nor can you revert (AFAIK) to heli mode under those circumstances. IIRC, heli mode is only assumed during takeoff & landings, so you lose both dead-stick and auto-rotation as emergency procedures at pucker time.
This does not sound very safe to me.
On the other hand, I recall the infamous B-26 Marauder; AKA “Widowmaker,” “Flying Coffin,” and “Flying Prostitute” (the plane had “no visible means of support”). There was also for a time the the slogan “One a day in Tampa Bay,” referring to the number of crashes there.
Ironically enough, the Marauder ended up with the lowest operational loss rate of any USAAF bomber of WW2.
So, maybe, there’s hope for the Osprey yet.