Follow us on social

Shutterstock_16143943-scaled

11 Marines have died in Osprey training crashes since last year

The space-age plane is cool to look at, but safety concerns continue to rise amid a rash of accidents.

Reporting | Military Industrial Complex

A V-22 Osprey crashed during a training exercise in Australia on Sunday, killing three Marines and leaving an additional five in critical condition. The accident is the third deadly crash including an Osprey since 2022.

The tragic incident has reinvigorated debate over the Osprey, which has been plagued by controversy since its prototype was first adopted during the Reagan administration. The aircraft’s unique “tiltrotor” design, which allows it to take off like a helicopter and fly like a plane, has often led to cost overruns and safety issues in its two decades in service.

“It’s probably time to retire the Osprey and look at a new tiltrotor/VTOL option for the Joint Force,” said Michael DiMino, a fellow at Defense Priorities.

“I’d never step foot in one of these things,” wrote military analyst and Air Force veteran Patrick Fox in a post on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.

The cause of the crash is “under investigation,” according to a press release from the Marine Corps’s rotational force in Darwin, Australia, where the crash occurred. The V-22 was “transporting troops during a routine training exercise,” the statement noted.

The Air Force briefly grounded its entire Osprey fleet last year following a string of engine malfunctions that led to crashes or near misses. The Marines and Navy also grounded an “undisclosed number” of their V-22s last year while they tried to repair a component that had helped cause the malfunctions, according to Defense News.

The rash of V-22 crashes is part of a trend of increased U.S. military plane accidents in recent years. A 2020 congressional report, which found that 198 soldiers and civilians had died in crashes since 2014, argued that the increase in accidents was primarily due to weak safety oversight and a years-long drop in average flight hours for military pilots, which has left them less prepared to react to rare but potentially disastrous mechanical issues.

Flight hours have continued to decrease in the intervening years, a problem caused in part by the Pentagon’s focus on purchasing big-ticket items while skimping on maintenance costs for existing platforms.

Poor record-keeping and inventory practices have only worsened maintenance issues. As the Government Accountability Office noted in May, weapons maker Lockheed Martin has lost over 2 million spare parts for the F-35 fighter jet since 2018, further driving up the plane’s costs while also driving down flight hours. But the military continues to argue that the F-35 program is a necessary and effective replacement for America’s previous generation of fighter planes.

It should perhaps be no surprise, then, that the Pentagon has already set its sights on a shiny new tiltrotor aircraft. The Department of Defense announced last year that it would replace the Black Hawk helicopter — one of the military’s primary workhorses for moving people and cargo — with the V-280, a tiltrotor aircraft that strongly resembles the V-22. It remains to be seen whether it will finally fix the problems that have plagued the Osprey.


A V22 Osprey doing a demonstration at an air show. (shutterstock/ jathys)
Reporting | Military Industrial Complex
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Are American 'boomers' at risk?

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Nuclear explosion
Top image credit: Let’s curb loose talk of using lower-yield nuclear weapons

Reckless posturing: Trump says he wants to resume nuke testing

Global Crises

President Donald Trump’s October 29 announcement that the United States will restart nuclear weapons testing after more than 30 years marks a dangerous turning point in international security.

The decision lacks technical justification and appears solely driven by geopolitical posturing.

keep readingShow less
Sudan al-Fashir El Fasher
Top photo credit: The grandmother of Ikram Abdelhameed looks on next to her family while sitting at a camp for displaced people who fled from al-Fashir to Tawila, North Darfur, Sudan, October 27, 2025. REUTERS/Mohammed Jamal

Sudan's bloody war is immune to Trump's art of the deal

Africa

For over 500 days, the world watched as the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) methodically strangled the last major army garrison in Darfur through siege, starvation, and indiscriminate bombardment. Now, with the RSF’s declaration of control over the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) Sixth Infantry Division headquarters in El Fasher, that strategy has reached its grim conclusion.

The capture of the historic city is a significant military victory for the RSF and its leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, though it is victory that has left at least 1,500 civilians dead, including 100 patients in one hospital. It is one that formalizes the de facto partition of the country, with the RSF consolidating its control over all of Darfur, and governing from its newly established parallel government in Nyala, South Darfur.

The SAF-led state meanwhile, clings to the riverine center and the east from Port Sudan.

The Trump administration’s own envoy has now publicly voiced this fear, with the president’s senior adviser for Africa Massad Boulos warning against a "de facto situation on the ground similar to what we’ve witnessed in Libya.”

The fall of El Fasher came just a day after meetings of the so‑called “Quad,” a diplomatic forum which has brought together the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates in Washington. As those meetings were underway, indirect talks were convened in the U.S. capital between a Sudanese government delegation led by Sudan’s foreign minister, and an RSF delegation headed by Algoney Dagalo, the sanctioned paramilitary’s procurement chief and younger brother of its leader.

The Quad’s joint statement on September 12, which paved the way for these developments by proposing a three-month truce and a political process, was hailed as a breakthrough. In reality, it was a paper-thin consensus among states actively fueling opposite sides of the conflict; it was dismissed from the outset by Sudan’s army chief.

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.