Follow us on social

Shutterstock_16143943-scaled

Osprey grounding highlights dangers of space-age aircraft

The Pentagon has thrown billions of dollars at over-engineered planes, but it can’t manage to keep them in the air.

Military Industrial Complex

The Air Force has grounded its fleet of Osprey aircraft in order to investigate a series of recent safety incidents, according to Breaking Defense. The news comes just a few weeks after the Air Force ordered inspections of its F-35 fleet due to ejector seat issues, which began flying again this week after an almost month-long stand-down.

The pair of incidents show the dangers of the military’s quest to replace older aircraft with high-tech planes that have a bad habit of breaking down. And the risk goes well beyond wasting taxpayer money: This year alone, eight U.S. soldiers have died in Osprey training crashes.

These recent incidents are far from the first issues that the Osprey has faced. The aircraft has a “tiltrotor” design, meaning that its twin propellers can be adjusted in order to fly like a helicopter or a plane. This leads to two things: The Osprey is very cool to look at, but it’s also very hard to keep in the air.

These issues have been clear from the start, as former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb told Responsible Statecraft back in June. “That darn thing should never have been bought,” said Korb, who was working in the Pentagon when the Osprey was being developed.

The Osprey’s latest problem is related to the aircraft’s clutch. In short, a safety feature that would allow the plane to fly with just one engine is malfunctioning, causing the power load to quickly shift back and forth between the plane’s motors. The sudden shift makes it difficult to control the aircraft, forcing the pilot to immediately land.

Air crews have managed to safely land the Osprey during a pair of such incidents that occurred in the past six weeks. But, as an Air Force spokesperson told Breaking Defense, “if the aircrew were unable to control the aircraft when the incident occurs, it could result in loss of control and uncontrolled landing of the aircraft.” In other words, a mixture of luck and skill was the only thing standing between the soldiers onboard and yet another deadly crash. 


A V22 Osprey doing a demonstration at an air show. (shutterstock/ jathys)
Military Industrial Complex
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.