During a visit to Japan over the weekend, Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter fielded a number of questions about the deployment of V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft to that country. Here are some excerpts from his briefing with reporters:
Q: In order to implement your new strategy, I believe that deployment of the Osprey, MV-22, are essential. And as you know, the cargo ship carrying the Ospreys are now heading to Iwakuni. And it's going to be unloaded on Monday, I guess. And Osprey flight operations are expected to be in full swing in October. My question is, can you confirm that you are still sticking to the deployment schedule, regardless of the growing concern among local people in Iwakuni and Okinawa about Osprey's safety? Or do you have some flexibility on that? Thank you.
DEP. SEC. CARTER: Well, you're absolutely right that the Osprey is an important capability; it’s going to make an important new contribution to deterrence and to the deterrent capabilities of the Alliance. And it's an aircraft that we are flying, and flying the world over. However, safety is a very important issue, and I am the chief, as I said, the chief management officer of the Department of Defense. The safety of aircraft is a great concern to me, and a great responsibility of mine. I take it very seriously, and I think the Government of Japan and the people of Japan also take it very seriously. I think that’s entirely appropriate. And we are committed to providing your airworthiness experts with all of the data and all of the information about the entire flight history of the V-22, including the two recent incidents, and allowing them to analyze that data and take every step they need to make to reconfirm the airworthiness of that airplane. And the two governments have agreed that flight operations will not begin until reconfirmation has taken place.
You asked about the landing of the airframes; that’s a technical step that does not address the safety issue. That’s a technical step; the aircraft will land at Iwakuni. But the plan, jointly agreed by the two governments, is to deal with the safety issue. That will be dealt with. And there's been no change in that plan at all.
Q: Ospreys are expected to be fully operational in October. Can we understand that?
DEP. SEC. CARTER: Well, I think that that is the goal of the process. But again, this is a process, a technical process of assessing airworthiness. And I think you have to let the experts do their work, have their access to their data, and so forth. So, that’s the current plan, but again, you have to allow people to do their technical work.
I should say, by the way, that this is not something novel. Our two governments and our two militaries operate a large number of aircraft, and common types of aircraft. So it’s not unusual to have Japanese experts address airworthiness issues in aircraft -- not just military aircraft, obviously, but commercial aircraft as well. It’s a normal part of the process of confirming flight safety of aircraft of all types. So it’s something that is totally understood by Japanese experts as it is by our experts, and let them sit around the data and do their work.
Q: Yoichi Kato with Asahi Shimbun. A follow-up on the Osprey issue: I understand you had a meeting with Vice Defense Minister Watanabe yesterday, and according to his briefing, that he expressed his concern about the negative impact of this deployment, as it is planned already, on the Alliance itself. And I wonder, whether having all those meetings with your Japanese counterparts, does it have any impact on your assessment of the impact of this deployment on the Alliance itself? Do you see any negative impact, or even damage to the Alliance if you proceed with the plan as it’s been agreed-decided on the U.S. side? Thank you.
DEP. SEC. CARTER: No, I think safety concerns are not damaging to the Alliance. That’s a very legitimate thing, and we need to address it, and we will address it, and we have a plan to address it. You’re right; Mr. Watanabe expressed his concerns that if we don’t do what we need to do and plan to do, which is cooperatively address the safety issues, that would be harmful to the Alliance.
Denying ourselves a capability that’s important to the Alliance also would be harmful to the Alliance; that’s why it’s so important to resolve this safety issue. And so, that’s what we’re going to do. And that process is a reflection of the strength of the Alliance.
We’ve agreed on a path ahead. And I absolutely understand the concerns of the Japanese people for flight safety, because I share their concerns for flight safety. I don’t have any problem with that at all. These are serious technical issues; they’ll be resolved.
Q: Thank you very much, Hiro Akita from Nikkei newspaper. Sorry for to keep asking about Osprey, but everybody is interested. My question is that, according to the plan, the size of the Marines in Okinawa will be reduced, the combat troops will be reduced by about 50%. So, people wonder why Marines in Okinawa still needs the same number of the helicopters, Osprey, which is about 24 or 26. Will it be reduced in the future, when some of the Marines will be transferred from Okinawa to Guam? Or, still 24 or 26 Osprey will be deployed?
DEP. SEC. CARTER: That’s still the plan, because that’s the part that goes with a Marine Corps unit of that size. You’re right that in other respects the number of Marines will come down on Okinawa; that’s one of the whole objectives of the two governments and the 2+2 agreement. And that means that we will be returning land as part of that agreement to Okinawa; that’s spelled out in the 2+2 agreement.
When I referred earlier to making progress on the Okinawa issue, I spoke of each side doing its part. One of the things that’s our part to do, to implement the 2+2 agreement, is the land returns. And we understand that absolutely, and we’re completely committed to it as is spelled out in the 2+2 agreement. And that’s a reflection of the lowered numbers.
Q: Keiko Iizuka from the Yomiuri newspaper, and sorry to stick to the Osprey issue again. I understand that the concerns of the Okinawan people, or Yamaguchi/Iwakuni people, is if there is any flexibility to deploying, fully-operationally, in Okinawa in October, no matter what result comes out of the investigation or review of the two recent incidents. So I wonder, following up to Mr. Kawakita’s question, is there any flexibility in the room to review the schedule of deploying in October? And maybe, let’s put the question in this way: how important, or necessary, strategically, to deploy V-22 in Okinawa in October? Could it be delayed? I just would like to know how strategically important it is.
DEP. SEC. CARTER: The schedule is not the main thing. Airworthiness and safety is the main thing. That is what we are trying to work through together. And I think we both agreed that the Osprey won’t fly in Japan until its airworthiness has been investigated, analyzed, and reconfirmed. So it’s the airworthiness, not the calendar, that matters. And to your point about the importance: yes, it is important. That’s why we’re all working so hard on this issue, because it is an important capability for the Alliance and for deterrence.
Q: Perhaps most Japanese people think this is important because this symbolizes how the U.S. government and the Japanese government care about, perhaps, the sentiment about safety -- or maybe bigger than that, about the Alliance, the importance of the Alliance. And of the impact of the Alliance. So, would it be absolutely important to deploy it in October? Could it be delayed in December, just two months would make a big difference?
DEP. SEC. CARTER: As I said, the calendar is not the important thing. Safety is the important thing. That’s what both governments care about; that’s what longstanding, trusting allies that are democracies -- this is how they work things through. They work cooperatively on issues; they work in a way that’s respectful of the attitudes of their people. That’s what it’s all about. We’re used to that. We’ve been doing this for decades together, Japan and the United States. It’s not a new kind of thing.
