From a business point of view, there no chance that LEGO is gonna scrap a product thats gonna launch in less then 2 weeks given it'll already have been produced and boxed by now.

From a 'should they' point of view... No. It's stupid to even suggest it. While Lego may not produce 'modern military craft', the majority of it range has something to do with fighting or combat in some way. Star Wars, Ninjago, The Marvel and DC sets etc etc and features blades, bows and guns galore and you don't see them trying to get all of Lego banned now do you?

Frankly this sounds like just another group trying to cause trouble for troubles sake... like PETA.

i don't see a problem.

Hmmm ist’t that interesting. But couldn’t the same be said for 10226 Sopwith Camel and its predecessors? I mean 10226 even has twin mounted guns on the front!

Think I'm gonna grab some popcorn for this.

EDIT - I think they shot themselves in the foot with the colors. This gray with orange highlights look reminds me of the silly orange cap toy guns get stuck on the ends of their barrels lol. Should've made it yellow or something (iirc there are yellow rescue ospreys).

There has to be a significant amount in warehouse by now. If they do cancel it I would not be surprised to see some sneak out the back door and go for big bucks on eBay.

I've never heard of this organization but I believe LEGO will give away and not have this released in Germany. They're of course afraid of the headlines this might be generating and the effect will likely be catastrophic to their business and relations with Disney etc. So better loose the turnover and keep their reputation.

There is actually one review on youtube... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFQLVez8m6w

While I do appreciate Lego's avoidance of modern military vehicles, I will be very disappointed if the set gets cancelled - it's an unusual-looking plane and the model has some interesting mechanical functions.

The thing says rescue on it 6 times! They have bent their own rules far more than this when it comes to war/violence/alcohol/religion.

What about set 42066 “air race jet” which is clearly a derivative of a F14 or F18 fighter plane. Did anyone complain about that? Come on LEGO I really want this set.

It's an interesting dilemma. Just as shadowwarrior016 mentioned, the Sopwith Camel is also a military plane with visible guns on it, but I would think the LEGO Sopwith camel set was made as an appreciation of the plane and the mechanical design in LEGO form such as the string-operated wings. The Osprey set seems along the same lines of appreciating the mechanical functions and design in the medium of LEGO Technic. No where in The LEGO Group's execution of this set have I seen it be used as a means to promote military, violence, or war related ideas.

So, according to these people, Bell and Boeing are "arms companies" and LEGO is collaborating with them.
They state "The „V-22 Osprey“ it is modelled on is a military freight aircraft. 400 planes are currently in use by the US armed forces, in afghanistan, Iraq, Mai and Yemen. These heavily armed aircrafs are often used in attack missions".
So what are they, Freight transports or heavily armed attack aircraft? I have never seen a heavily armed freight transporter; and yes, I was in the armed forces for many years, and these aircraft would not be retro fitted with the equipment to carry out strike operations. The military has adequate aircraft specifically designed for attack and strike roles, they do not need to retrofit a freight transport for this role, if they do, we are in trouble.
I will not deny that these aircraft could be used in support of various operations, but as an attack aircraft? Helicopters would be better suited for these roles.
LEGO has also announced that this set is modelled off a rescue variant, so now if they are back pedalling, they will be giving into these people and their inconsistent appraisal of the situation.
This would also mean that LEGO could not create sets from any corporation that is also involved in the developing and/or manufacturing of military vehicles or hardware, or the developing and/or manufacturing of components for said vehicles or hardware.
The very fact that it is modelled after a rescue variant should be acceptable, considering the fact that various armed forces around the world use various vehicles which are also used in the public and private sectors for transport.

@GrizBe said:
"From a business point of view, there no chance that LEGO is gonna scrap a product thats gonna launch in less then 2 weeks given it'll already have been produced and boxed by now.
"
What about 21038 Las Vegas? It was cancelled and later 21047 was released

@GrizBe said:
"From a business point of view, there no chance that LEGO is gonna scrap a product thats gonna launch in less then 2 weeks given it'll already have been produced and boxed by now.

From a 'should they' point of view... No. It's stupid to even suggest it. While Lego may not produce 'modern military craft', the majority of it range has something to do with fighting or combat in some way. Star Wars, Ninjago, The Marvel and DC sets etc etc and features blades, bows and guns galore and you don't see them trying to get all of Lego banned now do you?

Frankly this sounds like just another group trying to cause trouble for troubles sake... like PETA. "

I think the difference between the Boeing set and the ranges you mentioned is that the latter's more obviously fantastical. It's hard to justify taking swords and weapons out of toys that involve some kind of conflict. The Boeing set, though, is much more realistic in comparison, and a bit more fraught as a result.

@Theoderic said: "The very fact that it is modelled after a rescue variant should be acceptable considering the fact that various armed forces around the world use various vehicles which are also used in the public private sectors for transport."

Exactly. Don't see them protesting about Land Rover for instance when alot of armies have military land rovers.

@Theoderic said:
"So, according to these people, Bell and Boeing are "arms companies" and LEGO is collaborating with them.
They state "The „V-22 Osprey“ it is modelled on is a military freight aircraft. 400 planes are currently in use by the US armed forces, in afghanistan, Iraq, Mai and Yemen. These heavily armed aircrafs are often used in attack missions".
So what are they, Freight transports or heavily armed attack aircraft? I have never seen a heavily armed freight transporter; and yes, I was in the armed forces for many years, and these aircraft would not be retro fitted with the equipment to carry out strike operations. The military has adequate aircraft specifically designed for attack and strike roles, they do not need to retrofit a freight transport for this role, if they do, we are in trouble.
I will not deny that these aircraft could be used in support of various operations, but as an attack aircraft? Helicopters would be better suited for these roles.
LEGO has also announced that this set is modelled off a rescue variant, so now if they are back pedalling, they will be giving into these people and their inconsistent appraisal of the situation.
This would also mean that LEGO could not create sets from any corporation that is also involved in developing and/or manufacturing military vehicles or hardware, or the developing and/or manufacturing of components for said vehicles or hardware.
These people cannot even write an article that is consistent and without contradiction; let alone full of spelling and grammatical mistakes, so why is it that LEGO should bow down to their demands?
The very fact that it is modelled after a rescue variant should be acceptable, considering the fact that various armed forces around the world use various vehicles which are also used in the public and private sectors for transport."

it's nowhere near an attack helicopter. Is a transport helicopter (or plane...well better convertiplane actually) that can be armed like every other helicopter by adding weapons. Even a civilian helicopter could be armed with the same weapons.

Sounds like the 'German Peace Society' just want to cause a disturbance.

The world is going a bit crazy imho...

The Osprey is on its main purpose an utility aircraft, designed to be adapted to various situations/context. Speed landing/take off, rescue, transport, you name it! One of the most iconic air machines ever made.

No reference to war at all in this set. I can give you an example for comparison. Did you know that the Mercedes Unimog, older versions at least, was heavily used in war context? Also released a few years ago as a lego set... Hum...

Actually, with the same colour scheme as the Osprey, grey and orange.

Can't do anything nowadays can you? Anything can be a weapon, as long as your convictions are driven by violence and hate. This is just a toy.

The world is going crazy...

@ziomal said:
" What about 21038 Las Vegas? It was cancelled and later 21047 was released"

That was for a redesign because of a mass shooting at one of the locations featured in the skyline. Point is it still got released, not cancelled.

@alezago88 said:

it's nowhere near an attack helicopter. Is a transport helicopter (or plane...well better convertiplane actually) that can be armed like every other helicopter by adding weapons. Even a civilian helicopter could be armed with the same weapons."

Exactly, it is a transport aircraft, it is designed as a transport aircraft and that is it's role in the military.
If you think that fitting out any vehicle, especially an aircraft, with weapons is as simple as bolting a couple of guns and missile racks to it, I would say that you are a bit naive. Fitting the fire control systems, targeting systems, modifying the airframe to include hard points and then retraining the pilots to operate the aircraft as an attack aircraft would make it absolutely non viable, considering that they already have aircraft specifically designed and manufactured to fill these roles.

@Mister_Jonny said:
"I think the difference between the Boeing set and the ranges you mentioned is that the latter's more obviously fantastical. It's hard to justify taking swords and weapons out of toys that involve some kind of conflict. The Boeing set, though, is much more realistic in comparison, and a bit more fraught as a result. "

My point was that they are protesting over the fact this set apparently 'promotes violence'. I'm pointing out that many of their other sets can be interpreted in the same way, and they're not complaining about any of those.

My opinion is not in line with our current activist and "non-profit" organisation dictate that's being widely accepted. Sad day for Lego if they decide to answer positively. It will never end and these requirements will be pushed further and further if listened to... until the bitter end.

@Patrik78 said:
"My opinion is not in line with our current activist and "non-profit" organisation dictate that's being widely accepted. Sad day for Lego if they decide to answer positively. It will never end and these requirements will be pushed further and further if listened to... until the bitter end."

Well said, it has been proven time and time again, that no matter how much you do to appease groups like this, they will just demand more.

That would be a shame. Greatest set in this year's lineup.

@GrizBe said:
" @Mister_Jonny said:

My point was that they are protesting over the fact this set apparently 'promotes violence'. I'm pointing out that many of their other sets can be interpreted in the same way, and they're not complaining about any of those."

I don't entirely disagree, but the V-22 Osprey was specifically designed for the US military, unlike the Unimog or the Defender (the latter is indeed used by the military, but wasn't designed for that purpose). Though that still leaves the sets clearly inspired by modern military aircraft that others have pointed out, of course... maybe they're claiming plausible deniability for those?

I am inclined to say I agree it should be withdrawn. This is a plane that, regardless of it's non military uses is primarily operated by, and hence associated with, the US military. If the policy of Lego is not to make models of military vehicles, then yes, this clearly falls into that category.
But, I think this is also a good chance to review that policy. These days it still possible to draw a clear distinction between military =bad, police = good? Why should Lego allow one and not the other? And as others point out, plenty of licensed themes are violent, it seems hypocritical to allow licensed gun toting villain minifigs from a movie where the characters kill people, but not allow a technic rescue helicopter.
Interested to see how this pans out.

With all the terrible awful things in the world that need to be fixed or have attention brought to them this is what these people are wasting their time with. Unbelievable.

One difference between the Osprey and earlier sets is that this set is an officially licensed product. The Bell and Boeing logo's are right there on the box. That being said, I'm not so sure that LEGO will actually cancel the product. Their reaction gives them a lot of leeway to gauge public opinion.

This rather reminds me of a conversation on Twitter recently regarding "compatible" bricks, and that beside copyright violations, one of the reasons given for disliking other brands is that they sell models of military equipment, and Lego doesn't.

That Lego makes a moral choice to not create military sets is fine, I certainly don't have a problem with that. But when you look at the efforts this year in particular to reposition sets and branding to specifically target older, and specifically adult, demographics, there is a certain inconsistency there. On one hand we're only going to put out models that are thematically child friendly/appealing, but specifically sell the sets to not children.

It's like Disney taking the latest Pixar film, but deliberately asking the classification boards to give it an 18 rating just so that they will get more adults going to see it.

I’m of the opinion that the set should be cancelled. It’s a licensed vehicle that is only operated by the US Marine Corps and therefore is a direct depiction of current military equipment. If it was a Leonardo AW609 or even an unlicensed tilt rotor aircraft it would be fine. That fact the set doesn’t include weapons shouldn’t be a caveat because otherwise an SR71 or E3 would be fine for Lego as well.

That said, this is incredibly strange that it is two weeks before the set is released for the possibility of cancellation to arise.

Death Star mass destruction object is OK, but a multifunction aircraft is waaaaay to agressive.
LEGO you are drunk....

Now I have to buy 31096 which is almost the same, to make a Fallout Enclave vehicle.

@ausbrown said:
"I just quickly did a look a google images to see what variants of Osprey V22 there are and while most of them are showing military colours didn't see many (if any) armed heavily or otherwise.

I think the issue also relates to what is a military vehicle, for example the military use Unimogs, Land Rovers, Semi Trailer, Sedans etc as required does this make them military vehicles? Yes and no, their primary intent was transport etc as is this vehicle, Eg. the C130 transport while a military transport is use in so many humanitarian rescue missions, coast guard because it is a transport vehicle suited to the task.

I will be disappointed if the set is pulled, I looked at it purely for its coolness as a vehicle. "

This aircraft is used as transportation and for medivac operations, however, it is in fact "armed" but not "heavily armed" as this group is siting.
It has 1 mount on the rear loading ramp for a 7.62 mm or .05 cal machine gun but does not always carry one. Some variants were fitted with a belly mounted Gatling gun, but this was not widely used because of the added weight.
These arms are used as point defence and to provide cover during evacuations, sadly a necessity on the modern battlefield.

I've been pretty open in my criticism of their release of this set and I hope LEGO is considering reviewing their policies and how this set fits into them because of the hypocrisy of the set and because it's very strictly & clearly against their rules, not because of a small online protest group that will simultaneously get solely credited and viciously attacked for their movement.

The V-22 is a current, modern, strictly military aircraft, 100%, no question, no debate, irrefutable fact. There were initial plans to split it into military & civilian development tracks, a contingency of the program's final budget approval, but that did not occur. There was a *fuselage-only* rescue "demonstrator" offered to Canada, but that never got anywhere. There exists a civilian tiltrotor called the AW609 which is a rather distant cousin of the V-22, but it's not a V-22 (there's even one in the gray & orange color scheme). The V-22 is exclusively used in real modern warfare and warfare training to transport lethal weapons, lethal warriors, and supplies for war. Many of them have been deployed in active warfare with manual or remote gun turrets. It couldn't be more clear. This violates LEGO's policy on the relevant matter no matter how you read & interpret it. It's what the LEGO company itself would characterize as fundamentally wrong and ethically unacceptable. They messed up. Period.

That's not to say anything of how meaningless their anti-violence/war stance is when for decades they've made war & violence based themes, realistic weaponry parts, etc. In other words, the policy itself needs a serious review.

They just need to be consistent. Fix the policy to eliminate hypocrisy from LEGO Star *Wars* and the hundreds if not thousands of sets made with violent and war-based themes. Release the very cool model that's already been designed. Let parents choose what toys they want their kids (and themselves) to have.

the set is nice and i don't think kids care, or know,if it's a military vehicle or not. so Lego is supposed to remove the police theme because of what is happening in the Us in this period?

They clearly seem to think that this will promote war among the children that would buy this set, but I don't think that is at all a true point. A kid playing with this set would have no idea that this vehicle which says multiple times "rescue" on it is used in some places for the military. They would think they have a cool vehicle that helps people who are in trouble, not causes violence to people in war. I bet the vast majority of people, myself included, hadn't realized that this could be used for military operations. Its only when this group pointed it out that they noticed it and their entire perspective on the set changed. THEN, a kid might see it as a military vehicle, but only after you've pointed it out to them. I feel like by trying to stop people thinking about war, they're only making people think about it even more. Its only when you point things out that people notice it. If they had never pointed out the helicopter's alternative use, I bet hardly anyone would have noticed. But, thanks to them, people who wouldn't have noticed will, and people WILL think of war when they see an innocent pile of plastic bricks.

Soooo... no aircraft that in real life are military exclusive, even if they’ve been rebranded as rescue vehicles, but the clone turbo tank sets are ok? what about the Explicitly armed tie-FIGHTER, if they cancel it then they need to reconsider what they’re doing

...okay, just for that I'm going to buy some more COBI tanks...

Bad days ahead for Star Wars Lego.

@Theoderic said:
" @Patrik78 said:
"My opinion is not in line with our current activist and "non-profit" organisation dictate that's being widely accepted. Sad day for Lego if they decide to answer positively. It will never end and these requirements will be pushed further and further if listened to... until the bitter end."

Well said, it has been proven time and time again, that no matter how much you do to appease groups like this, they will just demand more."

Basically, if you pay the Danegeld you’ll never be rid of the Da....wait, hang on, that doesn’t really work here, does it?

The HYPOCRISY will surely cause the end of human race because dictates already everything we do.

Let's make fast a strong durable monument for Hypocrisy, so when we will long be gone from this Earth, other species will remember us. Something like the pyramids in Egypt.

Hundreds of rifle, bows, guns, fighting themes LEGO already made.

I think that the minds of the 11+ and adults (that are the target of this set) are so fragile that this set will make them instant warriors. An 11 years old young man never heard already about war and never "killed" thousands of people on those video games already.

The set is ugly as Hell and I couldn't care less about it, but the rest is human specie's true stupidity.

LEGO City/Town has--for decades--included a Coast Guard sub-theme. I don't know about other countries, but in the U.S., the Coast Guard is a branch of the military. This would also seem to violate their policy. My point is that it is that this policy requires nuance and is not black and white.

I appreciate and agree with @TheJang's words, but would like to emphasise it's not the first set VERY arms-related.

As discussed earlier on, 42066, but also 42076 (these days, hovercrafts are mainly used by armed forces), and indeed 42110 have significant ties to the armed forces (and that's just Technic sets).

The policy needs review; not this set - it's a very interesting Technic set, I think.

With every licensed Marvel, Star Wars, etc.. set Lego's stance about non-violence is even more absurdly hypocritical.

They long ago "sold out" to corporate marketing. Any thoughts of them being the Danish happy toy maker is strictly warped nostalgia.

I think Lego needs to re-evaluate their "anti-military" position. They're already making toys that have "violence" in their themes and in the play style. Bionicle was a surprise to me back in the day, when I got those comic books in the mail. To say that "modern military" is wrong but cutting up with saw blades, blasters, explosives are ok is just really silly. They should just put all their cards on the table. With adult sit-com sets, possessed minifigs in Hidden Side, the anti-military thing is just a symbol of a standard that Lego once had. I did appreciate the stand back when it meant something. But it really doesn't mean anything now.

This wouldn't have happened, if this set wasn't licensed. You could've had the same coolness factor and functions of the set, without having the troubles with it, but it blew it.

When I left my dark age of Lego it was because those namby pamby activist groups had begun poisoning the well of all my other hobbies and interests. I found solace in plastic bricks again. And here they are once more making mountains out of mole hills. Tell them to get bent, the products happening and if they don't like it don't buy it. If the sales are poor, review and go from there. If the sales are excellent, review and go from there. But stop capitulating to these people. They crazy. If they wanna review their policy on modern military equipment that's fine I understand and fully welcome a conversation about it. But just don't let these people get a foot hold, they don't EVER care about what's best or what's good, it's only ever about power and control.

I think this issue is more related to Lego being viewed as tied to a arms manufacturer and promoting it; which goes against Lego's policy. This situation is somewhat similar to when Lego cut ties to Shell and not wanting to be associated with "big oil" (https://brickset.com/sets/theme-Promotional/subtheme-Shell)

dont like the situation? dont buy the set.
seems simple to me but it wouldn't be a day ending in a 'y' if a priveleged fanbase didnt moan at creators for some wafer-thin perceived wrongdoing.

So? Do these people attack Airfix and the like as well?

31039-1: Blue Power Jet was basicly an F-35 it just never was officially called like that.

And LEGO has made other models with appearance similar to other Jets/Attack Helicopters

Even the 2019 Sky Police used a helicopter somewhat similar to a Bell AH-1Z Viper , and and some type of Fighter jet.

And beside Sky Police, there were 4 Creator sets with either some (Potentially military-purpose) jet or helicopter in it (or both as they were 3-in-1) :

31086-1: Futuristic Flyer (Jet)
31094-1: Race Plane (Prop Plane + Helicopter + VTOL Jet)
31092-1: Helicopter Adventure (Helicopter)
31096-1: Twin-Rotor Helicopter (Jet alternate)

Also there have been numerous helicopters similar to a Boeing CH-47 Chinook in sets, even as recent as 2020 with the Black Widow set.

But the main difference must be, they were never officially designated as real-life licensed vehicles unlike this Technic set.

Cancel culture comes to LEGO? Give me a break. These radical lefty book burners will go after anything won’t they. Don’t give in LEGO!

Someone should point them in Cobi's direction

@Mechahamster said:
"Bad days ahead for Star Wars Lego."
Do you really think LEGO is going to even consider giving up the huge cash cow that is Star Wars over this?

@PjtrXmos said:
"This wouldn't have happened, if this set wasn't licensed. You could've had the same coolness factor and functions of the set, without having the troubles with it, but it blew it."

This and this alone, LEGO makes numerous fictional, or unnamed "military" vehicles , if this weren't licensed it could just be a slightly different twin-tilt rotor plane.

Technic Air Race Jet 42066 wasn't named after some real-life model.

I’m not a Technic fan, but even I can see this is a load of brick-bollocks.

@ALFIE22 said:
"Soooo... no aircraft that in real life are military exclusive, even if they’ve been rebranded as rescue vehicles, but the clone turbo tank sets are ok? what about the Explicitly armed tie-FIGHTER, if they cancel it then they need to reconsider what they’re doing"

The V-22 is a copter designed specifically the US military. It is currently only operated by the US army and cost guard, which completely rebukes your argument of “no aircraft in real life is military exclusive”. Yeah, I totally expect to see Foxbats, Tornados and Strike Eagles ferrying kids to school. Many fighter jets and military-exclusive vehicles (eg tanks) are used to inflict actual war and violence. The V-22 has transported troops which have definitely killed and harmed people, regardless of whether enemy or not, morally justifiable or otherwise. Meanwhile, Star Wars is a purely fantastical theme (the same applies to DC, Marvel, LOTR, Bionicle, possessed characters in Hidden Side - all squarely in the realm of fantasy). Nobody has gotten killed over Star Wars. Both are technically about “war”, but in two vastly different (one entertainment, the other death and suffering) contexts. Kids will have fun shooting down Rebels with TIE Fighters, playing out a clear-cut battle of good vs evil, knowing that nobody is actually getting hurt in that manner in the real world. But that play pattern becomes much darker and more morbid when shooting down military infantry with the V-22, mirroring horrific deaths that have and will continue to occur. Again, the CONTEXT matters.

Oh and as for the Land Rover - Land Rovers were not invented for the military! Thousands are used today to traverse rough terrain by thrill-seeking civilians. It is easy to separate the Land Rover from the military, while the V-22 practically has the military infused in its DNA. Same applies to other vehicles militaries have hijacked over the years. As long as they have a diverse range of uses outside of the military, it is okay. But if like the V-22, fighter jets and tanks, they are ingrained to the military, then it is a big, fat NO.

Oh come on! Don’t let this stupid cancel culture ruin Lego too! Don’t cancel anything, just bring it out! If you cater for the smallest and hardest yelling group there will be nothing left in the end

I was an intern at the Pentagon in 2000, working for the U.S. Army. There, I first learned about the almost mythical/cursed Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey, which had been in development by the military for nearly 2 decades and was still years away from operational activity.

When LEGO set 42113 was announced, I did a double take and wondered if the company had finally scrapped its policy against modern military models. I did not know that there were any civilian "rescue" versions of the aircraft. For the Osprey's backstory alone, I was immediately interested in this model, and I thought that it might be my first Technic purchase in 20 years. Then I saw it and wondered what the fuss was about. Now it looks like the Defender or perhaps the new Concrete Mixer Truck might be the set(s) to end my Technic "dark ages."

Ps. As a parent, I appreciate LEGO's policy, nebulous as it may be. If I need to have a modern military model made out of LEGO bricks, I'll do what I did back when I was a kid in the '80s, and build my own.

The set has disappeared from LEGO's website. This whole situation is profoundly irritating to me, obviously nobody at LEGO saw any problem with this or it wouldn't have made it this far, to suddenly pull it 10 days out because someone finds the license problematic is a huge waste. I did and still do really want this and if it comes out 4 months late without a big Boeing/Bell logo on the box, that wouldn't really matter to me, but at this point they should probably commit to the decisions they've made because obviously their "no military" thing doesn't mean anything these days. LEGO has been producing thinly veiled military aircraft with civilian getup for years now, I'm really not sure why officially licensing the same thing is a big change.

War rages in Eastern Ukraine, Syria, Libya etc, and these anti-war activists are complaining about a Lego toy. Absolutely pathetic.

Where was this "German Peace Society" when LEGO did the Sopwith Camel?
Or when they picked up the Volvo, Mercedes, or Land Rover licenses, since they all sell vehicles to the military?
What about Volkswagen?

At the end of the day LEGO is a company that needs to make money to survive - it was obvious that eventually they had to bend their own rules/morals.
IMO it should be fine to sell as long as there is no direct reference to the military (e.g. camo colourscheme, guns).
Technic is a line focusing on engineering, this isn't being released in your average line with stud shooters or guns, + this had to happen right as it was going to be released, so I guess they already have lots of copies produced, and I doubt they'll cancel it.

This is clearly a military aircraft and though I love it, it does in fact go against their standards. But as others have mentioned what about other non realistic fighting themes. If anyone can tell me that a kid won't use his or her imagination to pretend it's real than Lego's in the clear. But any normal child is going to think beyond the box and say their minifigures are killing each other either with swords or lasers no matter what the era and it'll seam real to them. To a child a machine gun can be just as real as a laser gun.

I think Lego should review their policy and change it to be more open to non threatening sets military or not. Because when you think about it, the military does helps a lot in emergencies beside war. What about the National Guard. They help rescue people after natural disasters.

Lego should really just be more specific as to what's violent and what's not.

I always thought, if you don't like something, just don't buy it. But today there are several very loud people that need to dictate others what is right and wrong and how to spend their money - on a toy.

@Librarian1976 said:
"LEGO City/Town has--for decades--included a Coast Guard sub-theme. I don't know about other countries, but in the U.S., the Coast Guard is a branch of the military. This would also seem to violate their policy. My point is that it is that this policy requires nuance and is not black and white. "

I think of that too, but Coast Guard is indeed at least here, a military service.

LEGO started bowing down to the mob of doung what they wanted when they started donating to the police brutality and reduced the advertisements in some sets (apperantly they were going to discontinue them until people started raisimv their voices) and now they found themselves with this mess. This is why you don't cave to the mob that likely never bought your product in the first place.
While the people who wanted the 501st BP did raised their voices it was done so because they literally let go of a much wanted set that we ate all willimg to buy multiple of (the same thing with the IDEA sets). The current world were we live at is so filled with people and this cancel culture that noting is permitted.

They released a F-35 Lightning II and a Sopwith Camel. Those are more war than this.

This is purely political. Lego keeps caving to these far left groups. They pull their city police advertisements and now this. I dont like technic, but if this set makes it to market it will be my first day one purchase in 5 years.

I’ll be disappointed. Although the color scheme is boring, I was looking forward to buying this one.
Osprey planes are awesome. No reason not to release this one.

Well, I see LEGO has no backbone, and like the whole Shell/Greenpeace incident, are bowing/caving to a small, but vocal group again. Some countries have been exploring SAR variants. The engineering behind this aircraft is really what makes it so unique.

LEGO did do military vehicles more than once. Yet, we've had military aircraft before (Sopwith Camel), German WWII equipment (Indiana Jones), and multiple fighter jets in show/demonstration liveries. And let's not even start talking about the licensed themes, yet; from comic book characters to Star Wars. Especially in that we had multiple "Little Green ARMY Men" sets with the Toy Story license.

On another note--I seem to recall both Creator and City having tiltrotor aircraft.

The whole problem here isn't LEGO. It's small, vocal groups who just want something to whine about; who never bought a thing from any company they complain about.

@Lordmoral said:
" LEGO started bowing down to the mob of doung what they wanted when they started donating to the police brutality and reduced the advertisements in some sets (apperantly they were going to discontinue them until people started raisimv their voices) and now they found themselves with this mess. This is why you don't cave to the mob that likely never bought your product in the first place.
While the people who wanted the 501st BP did raised their voices it was done so because they literally let go of a much wanted set that we ate all willimg to buy multiple of (the same thing with the IDEA sets). The current world were we live at is so filled with people and this cancel culture that noting is permitted."

Are you saying that LEGO shouldn’t have donated to Black Lives Matter? And btw, LEGO never intended to pull police sets from shelves - only to halt advertising, so that legitimate concerns of police brutality are not lost in the kerfuffle of mass media advertising for something as trivial (I know, blasphemy on a LEGO site, but ultimately entertainment is small peas compared to institutional racism) as toys. Yes, cancel culture over small hiccups is rampant and needs to be stopped. But cancelling racist policemen is necessary. I am sure that you are a fantastic person in real life, but your comment is poorly-worded at best and downright discriminatory at worst.

P.S: Being neither black nor in the US (I am Asian and live in Hong Kong, no idea as to why Brickset says I am currently in the US), I am not at all qualified to comment on the socio-racial climate in the US. My opinions come from reading the news (New York Times), and from listening to my friends. If I made any mistakes in the comment, please correct me by leaving a reply.

While I can see why there might be some concern over this set, and I do agree that in some respects such concerns are justified, I really don't think Lego should cave in this case. They have produced a number of sets over the years which possibly have gone too far, so to finally decide that THIS is where they draw the line would just be silly.

Were this a licensed fighter or bomber (joining all the unlicensed ones we've had over the years), aircraft which have no function other than combat, it might be more reasonable, but that's not the case here. While the V-22 may currently be only operated by militaries, that's not really Bell-Boeing's fault, as they have marketed it as a Search and Rescue aircraft over the years, a role for which it would be excellent - they simply have yet to recieve any customers for that role! Even in military use, however, it has served in this role, and was also involved in supporting the fight against Ebola, so to argue that it's purely a combat aircraft isn't borne out by the facts at all!

As others have already mentioned, there have been numerous sets over the years which depicted purely combat vehicles for little to no good reason other than that Lego could get away with it. And yet now we get a vehicle which has served in multiple roles and which will continue to do so, being released as a set because it is an inspiring example of excellent engineering, that will hopefully serve to educate those who buy it, and THAT's the straw that will break the camel's back?

More tyranny from the supposedly "tolerant" peaceniks. Not surprised. It is an un-armed transport aircraft. Grow up. I hope this set goes ahead as there are many pieces of technology we use today that started out as military-industrial designs yet have civilian purposes, as does the Osprey.

@TheRightP_art

Are you saying that LEGO shouldn’t have donated to Black Lives Matter? And btw, LEGO never intended to pull police sets from shelves - only to halt advertising, so that legitimate concerns of police brutality are not lost in the kerfuffle of mass media advertising for something as trivial (I know, blasphemy on a LEGO site, but ultimately entertainment is small peas compared to institutional racism) as toys. Yes, cancel culture over small hiccups is rampant and needs to be stopped. But cancelling racist policemen is necessary. I am sure that you are a fantastic person in real life, but your comment is poorly-worded at best and downright discriminatory at worst.

"

Yes the company shouldn't had donated to group that pushed it's black leadership to the sides and has been taken over by racists groups themselves that are setting fires to multiple communities along with ANTIFA in the U.S. (most of them dominated by our black brothers and sisters) in fact, you can say that the money the company donated to the groups has been used to advance their terror spree in the states demanding that statues of people like Abraham Lincoln on Boston comissioned by freed slaves be removed without knowing who put it there in the first place, there are more minorities in the police groups on the city of Portland than on the groups protesting racism.

60021-1: Cargo Heliplane was basicly a City version of a V-22 in 2013.

Again, the main difference seems to be the official brand name/licensing , instead of just calling this Technic set something like "Rescue Heliplane"

The actual set itself has no brand name shown on it anywhere, but the box clearly says "Officially Licensed Product" Bell(tm) Boeing(tm) V-22 Osprey(tm)

"This is clearly a military aircraft" No, it isn't. It is clearly a transport aircraft, with many uses, one of which happens to be by the military. It carries no weapons and in this case isn't even in military colors. The version portrayed in this set could not be further from a military vehicle.

@Lordmoral

At the risk of taking this even further off-topic, it does not appear that Lego did donate to BLM themselves (an organisation which has indeed gone far beyond the ideals they claim to represent), but rather donated to other charities which aim to support and educate black children, so I would say that while Lego's actions may have been at least somewhat politically motivated, they were at the very least well-thought out and legitimately aimed at doing the right thing.

We all indirectly support such things with our tax money, too, even if we don't want to. They're straining at a gnat, attention-seeking.

I think an important part of the argument for cancelling this set has been missed by most of the comments here. Designing a branded set requires Lego to work with and pay money to the brand owner (in this case boeing). Boeing produces military weapons and vehicles. Thus if Lego produces a boeing set (regardless of what vehicle that is) Lego is helping fund an arms manufacturer.

I hope Lego do withdraw this set for that reason, even though I think it's a cool model.

I own plenty of toy soldiers (Warhammer and such) but money I spend on those doesn't fund arms manufacture.

@Huw
While that's a fair point, where were such concerns with the Dreamliner, or the Unimog, or the Defender, or any other such licensed sets which involved licenses with companies that sell to military customers?

What bullshit is this. Just dont release in Germany. What about the billions of younglings and oldings killed in the SW and LOTR universe? And the trillions of living beings killed by Thanos?

@Lordmoral said:
"
@TheRightP_art Yes the company shouldn't had donated to group that pushed it's black leadership to the sides and has been taken over by racists groups themselves that are setting fires to multiple communities along with ANTIFA in the U.S. (most of them dominated by our black brothers and sisters) in fact, you can say that the money the compant donated to the groups has been used to advance their terror spree in the states demanding that statues of people like Abraham Lincoln on Boston comissioned by freed slaves be removed without knowing who put it there in the first place, there are more minorities in the police groups on the city of Portland than on the groups protesting racism."

"

Noted. The protests have been getting more violent and have blindly torn down statues left-and-right. But racism still needs to be fought against and most protesters are still activating in good faith, to correct an institution built on racism. I sincerely hope that LEGO’s donation goes towards police reforms rather than the vandalisation of memorials in memory of former rights activists. Regardless, it is impossible to fault LEGO in providing voices for the voiceless. LEGO’s act of support towards the Black community (and by extension any racial minority) through their donation is invariably a great act that should be commended and not criticised.

@jouhyo said:
"What bullshit is this. Just dont release in Germany. What about the billions of younglings and oldings killed in the SW and LOTR universe? And the trillions of living beings killed by Thanos?"

Please refer to my first comment. To quote: Meanwhile, Star Wars is a purely fantastical theme (the same applies to DC, Marvel, LOTR, Bionicle, possessed characters in Hidden Side - all squarely in the realm of fantasy). Nobody has gotten killed over Star Wars. Both are technically about “war”, but in two vastly different (one entertainment, the other death and suffering) contexts. Kids will have fun shooting down Rebels with TIE Fighters, playing out a clear-cut battle of good vs evil, knowing that nobody is actually getting hurt in that manner in the real world. But that play pattern becomes much darker and more morbid when shooting down military infantry with the V-22, mirroring horrific deaths that have and will continue to occur. Again, the CONTEXT matters.

Please lead me, with a straight face, to all the material bodies and carnage left by Vader and Thanos. They are FANTASY universes!!! It is downright insulting to compare the deaths of real soldiers to nameless Doe from the MCU.

@Theoderic said:
" @TheRightP_art said:
" @ALFIE22 said:
"Soooo... no aircraft that in real life are military exclusive, even if they’ve been rebranded as rescue vehicles, but the clone turbo tank sets are ok? "

The V-22 is a copter designed specifically the US military. It is currently only operated by the US army and cost guard, which completely rebukes your argument of “no aircraft in real life is military exclusive”. Yeah, I totally expect to see Foxbats, Tornados and Strike Eagles ferrying kids to school. Many fighter jets and military-exclusive vehicles (eg tanks) are used to inflict actual war and violence. The V-22 has transported troops which have definitely killed and harmed people, regardless of whether enemy or not, morally justifiable or otherwise. Meanwhile, Star Wars is a purely fantastical theme (the same applies to DC, Marvel, LOTR, Bionicle, possessed characters in Hidden Side - all squarely in the realm of fantasy). Nobody has gotten killed over Star Wars. Both are technically about “war”, but in two vastly different (one entertainment, the other death and suffering) contexts. Kids will have fun shooting down Rebels with TIE Fighters, playing out a clear-cut battle of good vs evil, knowing that nobody is actually getting hurt in that manner in the real world. But that play pattern becomes much darker and more morbid when shooting down military infantry with the V-22, mirroring horrific deaths that have and will continue to occur. Again, the CONTEXT matters.

Oh and as for the Land Rover - Land Rovers were not invented for the military! Thousands are used today to traverse rough terrain by thrill-seeking civilians. It is easy to separate the Land Rover from the military, while the V-22 practically has the military infused in its DNA. Same applies to other vehicles militaries have hijacked over the years. As long as they have a diverse range of uses outside of the military, it is okay. But if like the V-22, fighter jets and tanks, they are ingrained to the military, then it is a big, fat NO."

You miss quoted and took the quote completely out of context, your entire argument is invalid.
If you quote someone, do not take a few words from what was actually said and omit words to suit your purposes.
It was not stated that "no aircraft in real life is military exclusive".
What was stated was "Soooo... no aircraft that in real life are military exclusive, even if they’ve been rebranded as rescue vehicles" and then onto the Star Wars vehicles.
In other words, so, we cannot have sets which are based on vehicles that are exclusively military vehicles, even though they are re-branded as rescue vehicles; but military vehicles are a prominent part of the Star Wars line.
Also, the Osprey does not shoot anything down, it is not equipped to do so. A soldier with a machine gun on the rear ramp is only there to provide cover fire, the chances of hitting anything is quite remote. Those that were fitted with belly mounted Gatling guns were rarely used because of the weight issues, and were never used to attack anything.
You forgot to mention that most of the operations performed were extractions and medivacs. Also the fact that they were used to extract and medivac civilians."

Yes, the V-22 being used to rescue civilians and during the Ebola crises is heroic and should be commended. But ultimately, the V-22’s purpose is to sustain war (by transporting more troopers who will invariably kill more people). Real life war is still war; it is still carnage, death and destruction, no matter how you choose to frame it. As for the quote, yes I should have addressed the second half of the sentence. My response to that would be the first half of this paragraph. But to say I misrepresented the commenter when his comment was on clear display above my reply?! Come on!

Protesting companies that produce military weaponry seems...kind of weird to me, particularly when people swear that they support the troops but hate the wars. If you support the troops, then they need to have the equipment to perform and win. You don't have to like war, but I'd feel better about the argument if some of that ire was directed at the countries and terror groups that generate war rather than the companies that supply the equipment to the countries that are fighting back.

I'm not going to say that Boeing has entirely clean hands, but I'm angrier at North Korea, Iran, and China than I am at Boeing. Well, maybe if Lego ever does another partnership with the NBA, somebody will protest that given their current heavy links to China. (Shrug)

At a first glance I should say 'well, it' s true, it goes against their 'no military based sets' philosophy and so in theory I agree that this set is controversial'. But at the same time I don't know if I understand why people are upset just on this specific occasion. If this is not okay why no one said a word about creator 31039 which was CLEARLY a mix between an F22 and an F35 was perfectly fine? It's like the two most lethal fighter jets available on earth! Why was the whole Indiana Jones line ok if it basically depicted military vehicles and planes every where? Why was it ok to have not one but two sopwith camels? And the red baron? I hate military related things but, like Hayao Miyazaki I am fascinated by the technical achievement some of those represent and that is why I don't get mad if I see them becoming a LEGO set.

@ResIpsaLoquitur said:
"Protesting companies that produce military weaponry seems...kind of weird to me, particularly when people swear that they support the troops but hate the wars. "

I agree, when companies like Boeing, Airbus both have under 30% of their revenue from Defense, yet are some of the most flown commercial airliners.

Also Honeywell , which has about 11% of its revenue in Defense, is a large producer of Thermostats people have in their homes.

Kawasaki has about 15% of it's revenue from Defense, but also produces a lot of other equipment like Motorcycles, Trains (including Shinkansen), Monorails, Construction Machinery, which all could be LEGO sets.

Just some examples.

Let me just add Karl von Clausewitz's famous axion: "War is politics by other means." You can hate war, but war is an extension of political systems, which are themselves an extension of human behavior. War is as old as human history and is how human beings have resolved things for centuries. (Poorly. I am emphasizing that this is not a good thing, but a realistic statement of world history. War is a thing that countries populated by human beings do.)

I would like to think that it's better to direct our energies at the countries and political systems that are generating war, rather than the concept of war itself. War is not something you can simply wish away. Indeed, my big worry is that China is going to moving into the same position in the 21st century as Germany was in the 20th: a large national and economic power with a lot of conquest and killing on its mind. It's killing its Muslims, it's rolling over Hong Kong, it's having skirmishes with Pakistan, it has an astonishing human trafficking problem, and it constantly has its eyes on Taiwan. (And there's not a lot of objection to Lego expanding into Chinese markets right now.)

A war with China seems inevitable, and opposing "war" as a concept as opposed to, say, China's growing expansion and saber-rattling seems very misplaced. (And this is just China--we also have to worry about Iran, North Korea, and any number of small terror groups.) I'm not expecting anyone to like the defense industry or human killing, but I'm also not pretending that continued war isn't on the horizon and that we shouldn't be prepared to be ready to fight it. And as a paradoxical necessary evil, that means working with private companies who can make the best equipment possible for that day.

Based on a brief skim of the article, it seems very biased and makes some questionable accusations. This is just another group looking for any way they can to get sympathy and support by targeting a major organization, with their main argument being support by accusations that are shaky at best. Are there even any figures which would indicate how much in royalties per-set that these companies make by licensing their trademarks to LEGO?

(Although, if I squint, do 3 backflips, and believe a flat-hollow-earth conspiracy theory, it makes about 5% sense.)

In short, LEGO should still release the set. LEGO has released sets like 42066 Air Race Jet, which according to one reviewer "is clearly inspired by the design of the F-35 Lighting II fighter jet, currently being produced in large numbers by Lockheed Martin." If this is such a big issue, where were the protests and boycotts when this set was being marketed and released?

As far as I can see it, the best thing LEGO can do is change the name, either just in Germany or worldwide. That way, there is some room to say “it may be based on an actual aircraft, but it’s not called (insert aircraft name), so it’s not technically a model of a real aircraft”. That would make it the best kind of distinct: legally distinct.

@ALFIE22 said:
"Soooo... no aircraft that in real life are military exclusive, even if they’ve been rebranded as rescue vehicles, but the clone turbo tank sets are ok? what about the Explicitly armed tie-FIGHTER, if they cancel it then they need to reconsider what they’re doing"

What about the Nazi Luftwaffe plane in that Indiana Jones set

I always liked this set, but now with this stupid controversy around it I really want it. Also A German peace group is one of the last things I would ever listen to for advice.

@ResIpsaLoquitur said:
"Protesting companies that produce military weaponry seems...kind of weird to me...

but I'd feel better about the argument if some of that ire was directed at the countries and terror groups that generate war rather than the companies that supply the equipment to the countries that are fighting back."

Fighting back, rofl. USA is the biggest instigator of war on the planet. They started most of the wars they've been involved in the last 50 years. They also spend more on military than most of the other countries in the world combined.

Maybe Boeing could state that they will donate any license fees to charity. Problem solved?

Oh yeah, it's another day on the planet "Theatre of Absurd"!!! We all know that the background of this creation has a military background, BUT it is a product from two companies (Bell and Boeing), that do NOT produce warmachines exclusively. Saying that buying the LEGO model of it is a way of supporting the military complex is just silly. We all support the military by paying taxes! Anyway, I think this is all about media hype, and nothing more. Everybody got their piece from the "cake of our attention". So, all is fine!

I find it difficult to believe that a company the size of Lego, with the plethora of departments that are involved in taking a model from initial design sketches to shelf-ready product, could have failed to realise that this might cross their self-imposed 'no military models' line.

I suspect that it came up, was debated at a number of levels, and it was seen as a Search and Rescue craft, thus it was signed off.

If it's mothballed, then that's simply a sign of Lego becoming hyper-sensitive to negative publicity rather than having made flawed design decisions.

As some have suggested, it could be redesigned as a non-branded, generic heli/plane hybrid in the same way that the Las Vegas skyline set was redesigned to remove the scene of an appalling shooting. However, given that there has been a considerable amount of publicity demonstrating that it *is* a Bell / Boeing V22, it would have to undergo a significant redesign to avoid being just a 'debadged' V22.

It'll be interesting to see where they go on this one. With this, and the recent decision to create the 501st Clone Trooper pack after fan pressure, it seems that the Lego corporate mind is very susceptible to external pressure.

Darn people are sensitive over a little toy modeled after a military vehicle. Lego has made a long-standing policy about no military vehicles or weapons because they don't want children playing about war. This set here was designed for kids to make a sort of hand on here. If people are sensitive over this kind of thing, they shouldn't even say it. It's all a matter of fact to respect one opinion here and there. Okay, Lego don't make military vehicles (save for a few modeled after them), but they know what are some family friendly firearms like lasers for example. Hasbro did the same thing for G.I. Joe but instead of bullets, just lasers in the TV shows. So, the next time people are sensitive over some military vehicles made for kids, it's best that they keep the opinions to themselves instead of going full gung-ho moral guardian and angrily telling toy companies that "oh kids don't want this or that".

Edit: So what is this overly sensitive society of German hippies are enraged over the V-22 Osprey because not only does it didn't break Lego policy of no depiction of war but also they claimed that "with every purchase, Lego fans indirectly support two defense companies", but box of that set didn't show the promotion with a simple logo of Bell and Boeing. Boeing is a manufacturer for commercial airlines too, not just military aircraft manufacturing. This is why some overtly sensitive people didn't open their eyes and make claims and allegations before actually seeing what's in front.

I fear we reach times, when people walking around will be brain-washed beings watching dumbed-down Teletubbies because of these ""minorities""

@Huw said:
"I think the problem the peace society has with this set is not so much that this is a model of a modern military aircraft, but that "With every purchase, LEGO fans indirectly support two defense companies"

From https://www.stonewars.de/news/dfg-vk-vs-lego-group/ "

That actually is a really solid point. However, it's still ridiculous to think a toy will give a massive profit to a defense company. Won't be little, but not enough for them to do anything spectacular with. Asides from most adults, military enthusiasts, and anti-military folks, who in the world will know that this is a military vehicle. People really need to not exaggerate everything and not take it as an attack.

I hope LEGO doesn't cancel the release of this since they already spent the resources to develop and produce this. If they do, I expect this to not be on the shelf's for long due to some asinine minded individuals that will continue to overly criticize LEGO for this.

What about the Landrover, fighter Jet planes (Creator & Technic), transporter planes, helicopters, Sopwith Camel, all the castle sets, prates sets? Double standards.

Aren't those the same people that regularly complain about German public banks inversting money into Airbus?
I cannot take them seriously.
And their protests won't be visible anyways, since Lego Stores are within shopping centres anyways so you can't really protest in front of them without getting problems with security.

@Huw said:
"I think the problem the peace society has with this set is not so much that this is a model of a modern military aircraft, but that "With every purchase, LEGO fans indirectly support two defense companies"

From https://www.stonewars.de/news/dfg-vk-vs-lego-group/ "

But what if it was a model of a Boeing passenger airplane like a 747? Or their spacecraft the Boeing Starliner? Remember Lego has done Boeing licenses in the past with both the Dreamliner set and the Mars rovers from the early 2000's in the Discovery theme having Boeing branding.

In the US almost every major company has done work for the military. Even Disney and Warner Brothers which both have multiple licenses with Lego have explicitly done military work in the past, most notably many WW2 era propaganda cartoons. Personally I am all for Lego doing the Osprey, since its one of the least offensive military vehicles they could choose and it highlights a unique engineering design. However if we are going to highlight Lego doing military vehicles, as mentioned the previous Coast Guard sets, Creator sets based on jet fighters, superhero sets with stuff based on real world military vehicles albeit in a fantastical setting, the WWII and Cold War stuff of Indiana Jones, and the WWI Red Baron and Sopwith Camel all seem to suggest that Lego's rule of no-military has always been a bit of a hypocritical one that they have violated already.

Either this situation suggests that Lego had a) never done a Google search on the V-22 Osprey failing to realize it was almost always used in military roles which would make Lego seem ignorant and incompetent, or b) they knew very well it was a US Marine Corp vehicle and were releasing it anyway and are only pausing now because somebody called them out on it. At this point, I wouldn't be shocked if Lego soon were to drop the whole rule entirely and we'll begin seeing stuff like the SR-71 and the Eurofighter make it into official Lego form. Either they drop the rule, or Lego will have to have a long very long hard look at their own set history and recognize their often inconsistent and sometimes hypocritical adherence to said rule.

My 2 cents worth here. If we really want to go down the street of companies that have ties directly or indirectly with defense companies then the 42111 Dom's Dodge Charger was designed by the Chrysler Corp. Which at the time was the company that initially designed and built the Original M1 Abrams Tank. True that at this time both of those companies have gone off through how many other different corporations but they are still involved in selling to the defense industry. The current generation of Chrysler owns Jeep which was founded as a purely military vehicle gun mounts and all, then converted to civilian use. To this day they make variations of the current generation Wrangler for military's around the world.

Now continuing this line even Microsoft, Apple, Amazon and nearly every big Tech company has contracts around the world with military's. Trying to separate anything from a governmental or military use would end in nothing available for anyone. So unless we suddenly find utopia and can ban all weapons then trying to separate things will be impossible.

@SeekerBear said:
" @Eaglefan344 said:
"They released a F-35 Lightning II and a Sopwith Camel. Those are more war than this."

Exactly. There's no way they pull this one based on the fact that it's "similar to a military aircraft" if they've released sets that are intentionally designed to be military combat aircraft."

The main difference is that the V-22 is in active military use, and the set is promoted as the official real thing, the F-35 was never branded as one, and the Sopwith Camel was retired in 1920.

LEGO did make a Tilt Rotor helicopter in City before, it just had a very generic set name without any reference to the V22 or it's maker so might as well be something fictional, like the Creator "F35", similar but not licensed as such.

https://brickset.com/sets/60021-1/Cargo-Heliplane

Now, still, my opinion is I have no issues with this set itself, but the licensing is against LEGO's own policy of real world military vehicles.

So I do hope LEGO will find a solution of solving the situation without making branding anything remotely related to Defense as bad.

Like I said before, it'd be a shame to exclude everything from being made, just because the company has some involvement into the defense sector.

Thanks, Germany. You ruined videogames in the 90s, continue to ruin videogame covers to this day, and now you're ruining Lego. Way to go.

Wow this comment section is genuinely awful. So many people in here are too focused on wanting to have their fun with their toys that they're complete ignoring the real world reasons why an officially licensed LEGO set based on a US Military vehicle is problematic. And I'm disappointed but not surprised by the commentors calling this "cancel culture" and a "far left move."

Speaking as a leftist myself, there's literally nothing inherently far left about not liking or not wanting to support the US Military and I really think a lot of people here need to do some research on the crimes and atrocities they've committed, maybe then you'll understand why it's so concerning to make a LEGO set based around that.

I understand the problem when it is bound with a licence.
I was also concerned with the Liebherr R 9800.
I have no problem with the Red Baron or the Sopwith Camel which by the way are tagged Military (https://brickset.com/sets/tag-Military).
Western, Castle and Pirates are part of the LEGO genetic.
Star Wars, Indiana Jones and others are based on movies. These companies are not developing and producing war materials.
But other companies are also contributing to destroy our planet.

Personally when I buy a licensed set, I accept that some money will go to the owner of the license.
And when I'm not OK with this, I don't buy the set (e.g the Liebherr R 980).

I think LEGO has transgress its own rules with the Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey.

As someone who works on the real ones (US Air Force) I was super excited to see them in LEGO.
Yes, it has potential for war, but it doesn’t have any offensive weaponry, and the marines don’t even use them for carrying out real missions like the Air Force does, and even then, it’s primary role is extraction/SAR. It’s not an attack aircraft, or “heavily armed.”
Whoever this group is, is just trying to cause trouble. Rolls Royce makes the engines for them, and various other aircraft. Is any Rolls Royce set out of the question, seeing as they supposedly deal in the “arms trade?”
It’s just stupid. I really hope LEGO does release it, even if it is postponed.

I think that is utter stupid. The Osprey is an engineering marvel and is used in so many more roles than just the military. It is not even an attack vehicle, just a transport. Following that weird narrative not a single helicopter should be used for a LEGO set. Blackhawks have Coast Guard, search & rescue and firefighting variants! That is the most awaited Technic set for me and I am super disappointed in hearing that everything nowadays has to have some dumb, politically correct flare to it. I strongly disagree with that decision.

Their rule to not want to promote contemporary war goes back to before classic space even was a thing. That's why they initially only used grey plates on classic space, and not bricks!
It's not new, it has nothing to do with current politics. It was never about 'war' on its own, as classic castle literally had axes, swords, catapults etc. But it wasn't contemporary war.

It was an original vision of the company in its early days.

Long ago, lego made the decision to not make contemporary military models.
Now we are at the point where they not only make many licensesed models, but also licenced a military helicopter (even though it's a rescue helicopter).

We are at the point were lego is making a helicopter model based not just generally, but directly (it's licensed!) on a military vehicle.
Regardless of the motives of the German Peace Society, regardless of if the helicopter itself is used for destructive purposes or not... this is pushing their own line.

If anything I hope this makes lego look closer at their own line-up. If anything, just for their own integrity.

@alice_ said:
"Wow this comment section is genuinely awful. So many people in here are too focused on wanting to have their fun with their toys that they're complete ignoring the real world reasons why an officially licensed LEGO set based on a US Military vehicle is problematic. And I'm disappointed but not surprised by the commentors calling this "cancel culture" and a "far left move."

Speaking as a leftist myself, there's literally nothing inherently far left about not liking or not wanting to support the US Military and I really think a lot of people here need to do some research on the crimes and atrocities they've committed, maybe then you'll understand why it's so concerning to make a LEGO set based around that."

Thank you!
99 percent of the comments made me wish that I never became a member of this community...

@alice_ said:
"Wow this comment section is genuinely awful. So many people in here are too focused on wanting to have their fun with their toys that they're complete ignoring the real world reasons why an officially licensed LEGO set based on a US Military vehicle is problematic. And I'm disappointed but not surprised by the commentors calling this "cancel culture" and a "far left move."

Speaking as a leftist myself, there's literally nothing inherently far left about not liking or not wanting to support the US Military and I really think a lot of people here need to do some research on the crimes and atrocities they've committed, maybe then you'll understand why it's so concerning to make a LEGO set based around that."

Yes, this comment nicely sums up what I was thinking but couldn't quite articulate.

This set presents such a conflict-of-interests for me: I'm certainly a lefty peacenik, but love aircraft and the technology behind them... but detest what that technology is used to do & support.

Ugh, maybe they'll let the instructions out? I'll rip apart as many Technic sets as it takes to reconstruct this...

@alice_ said:
"Wow this comment section is genuinely awful. So many people in here are too focused on wanting to have their fun with their toys that they're complete ignoring the real world reasons why an officially licensed LEGO set based on a US Military vehicle is problematic. And I'm disappointed but not surprised by the commentors calling this "cancel culture" and a "far left move."

Speaking as a leftist myself, there's literally nothing inherently far left about not liking or not wanting to support the US Military and I really think a lot of people here need to do some research on the crimes and atrocities they've committed, maybe then you'll understand why it's so concerning to make a LEGO set based around that."

All LEGO had to do was to not license this set, which automaticly links this to multiple things :
- A particular model used in the real world (V22 Osprey)
- A particular military (even if Japan just got it's 2 craft very recently, this is a US Military aircraft)
- A particular manufacturer

And it's not even about Boeing or Bell, because by that logic of "Arms Trade Involvement" the Liebherr or Land Rover couldn't have been sets either, and it would rule out hundreds of other vehicles that way, which is the worst that could happen.

So this is mainly about the license toward the actual V-22, being the problem, and not so much the manufacter.

This set wasn't an issue, and it was the same type of vehicle: https://brickset.com/sets/60021-1/Cargo-Heliplane

Even reviews on 60021 on Brickset refer to it as a V-22, but still it never had any official connections between LEGO and the real world vehicle/army etc. , similarly the Creator 3-in-1 "F-35" and dozens of others, even recent sets.

A lot of these comments are simultaneously "these people shouldn't care about this, there are more important things!" with "But I care so much I have to yell about it here"

Where was the complaint when LEGO made the Red Baron triplane, guns & all? It was a military plane. There wasn't any stink at all.
The Osprey is being depicted in a rescue op, no military insignia, no sign of a battle.
What's next to be targeted? No more SW or city police sets? I wish people would stop inflicting their thoughts on others. If they don't like it, they don't need to purchase it, but no they want to control what is made available to others.

I guess we should all just forget that Lego Indiana Jones ever existed

Please don’t let this be cancelled!

I admire the principled stand Lego have made in not producing sets which glorify realistic war. This is understandable for a European company post WW2, even though the war was fought to liberate peoples against ideological evil, and without that war, ironically - no peace, no freedom, no Lego, no us to post on a forum freely in the comfort of our homes.

Isn't promoting the rescue and saving of innocents, though, and the bravery of those who put their lives on the line to do so, a cause worth attention? Heroism, courage, valour, freedom, doing the right thing? We need more of that modelled to our kids, so I think the rescue version could be made to work with some adjustments.

Lego should brush this off and donate some of the profits from it to rescue organisations that do real good in real situations.

They’ve already released a version of it in the city line...

https://brickset.com/sets/60021-1/Cargo-Heliplane

@alice_ said:
"Wow this comment section is genuinely awful. So many people in here are too focused on wanting to have their fun with their toys that they're complete ignoring the real world reasons why an officially licensed LEGO set based on a US Military vehicle is problematic. And I'm disappointed but not surprised by the commentors calling this "cancel culture" and a "far left move."

Speaking as a leftist myself, there's literally nothing inherently far left about not liking or not wanting to support the US Military and I really think a lot of people here need to do some research on the crimes and atrocities they've committed, maybe then you'll understand why it's so concerning to make a LEGO set based around that."

Thank you for your words. Most of the comments above are just shameful, so full of spite.

I'm a lifelong LEGO and aviation enthusiast; even so, it's quite clear to me that LEGO should not have developed this set. If it takes some external group to point it out to them, freely expressing their opinion - and not, as is said in many comments, forcing or imposing anything - then so be it.

Try to express your opinions in a civil, respectful way. You'll notice that those are the comments with more "likes".

Nuke everything. Salt the earth. Start again.

@LegoRobo said:
"Okay, so this is a somewhat sensitive topic. Please bear with me if some or all of this is “politically incorrect” as I’m 13 and don’t really know much about politics at all. In regards to past sets dealing with warfare vehicles, Sopwith, Red Baron, Indy, etc., they all have one thing in common, they’re not modern aircraft. I mean, when was the last time you saw a vehicle like the Sopwith engaged in a battle? LEGO’s policy only vetos modern war machines. This particular plane was produced for the U.S. military, but is also used by civilians. Just like other sets; Unimog, Land Rover, etc., are used by both civilians and by militaries. The thing these sets have in common is that they’re all depictions of the vehicle in a civilian setting. In terms of the creator fighter jets, those aren’t armed, so I think of them more like stunt jets. It’s literally labeled “rescue,” not U.S. Marine Corps or something like that. Sure, the companies that produces the this deal with arms, but they also produce large amounts of civilian aircrafts to. I understand the U.S. military doesn’t have the best record, but what army does? We all make mistakes, some worse than others. In terms of the article, they talk more about what else the companies produce then the actual aircraft, and they fail to mention the civilian products. In terms of their claim of no “civilian” osprey, they failed to mention that one is currently in development and apparently almost done via an Italian manufacturer called “Leonardo.” I personally see no problem with this becoming a set, and do not really see it, or as far as I can tell, any “military” set as a breach of LEGO’s policy as all the ones I’ve come across that are specificly military can’t really be called modern. And all other vehicles used by the military aren’t depicted as such, and do not contain any weapons. That’s just my two cents, and if you disagree, then let’s agree to disagree :D

If you got this far, thank you.
-LegoRobo"

Well said. I especially like the “agree to disagree” part at the end. It’s a shame to see a LEGO set start a political and ethics debate, but this is the world we live in nowadays. Like my Grandpa said: “You don’t have to like them, you just have to learn to live with them.”

@pgdNorz said:
" @alice_ said:
"Wow this comment section is genuinely awful. So many people in here are too focused on wanting to have their fun with their toys that they're complete ignoring the real world reasons why an officially licensed LEGO set based on a US Military vehicle is problematic. And I'm disappointed but not surprised by the commentors calling this "cancel culture" and a "far left move."

Speaking as a leftist myself, there's literally nothing inherently far left about not liking or not wanting to support the US Military and I really think a lot of people here need to do some research on the crimes and atrocities they've committed, maybe then you'll understand why it's so concerning to make a LEGO set based around that."

Thank you!
99 percent of the comments made me wish that I never became a member of this community..."

I triple this! While not American, it is baffling to me how anti-war can be seen as far-left propaganda. Isn’t peace a global ideal. And many of these comments are pointing towards past military-inspired sets and the Indiana Jones franchise as some sort of proof that the V-22 should be released. Just because LEGO screwed up in the past doesn’t mean that it is okay to release a set based on a vehicle designed purely for military use. That would be the equivalent of saying it is okay to murder because Jack the Ripper got away with it.

I understand their argument and I agree but it seems a bit spurious... I would think that these protestors would have spoken up when LEGO entering into licenses with BMW, Mercedes, VW, or Porsche. We all love the Saturn V set, but when you look at history of that rocket and its designer, there's "issues" there too...

It's ludicrous for Lego to give in to this attention seeking organization. Here are two more examples of modern military aircraft they've made:
7683 Fight on the Flying Wing
7198 Fighter Plane Attack

Since they obviously do not care about superhero sets, just slap a bat insignia somewhere on it and call it the 'Batcopter'

Just an additional note on this.... but the website this 'German Peace Society' pushed their message on has had up a petition on change.org for something like 2 days now... that petition as of my time of posting this hasn't even hit 100 signatures. Given that even their own group doesn't seem to care enough about this to sign their own petition, you have to wonder why lego would listen to them as clearly they don't have the numbers to push this even with their own supporters.

I'll also note that a quick google search shows that its pretty much only lego sites like here and brickfanatics carrying this story too.

edit: Infact, I believe the petition counter to be faked given I've just gone back on the site, and its now showing 20 less signers then it did 5 minutes ago.

Oh, just wait when these German Peace Society guys go to any LEGO convention and look at the WWII dioramas...

Sounds to me like more whiny snowflakes trying to ruin another hobby. Not that I don't entirely see their point about LEGO crossing a line here. Though they have been creeping up on it for quite a while: Castle, Pirates, Wild West, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, two sets inspired by the F-35 (42066-1 and 31039-1), and so on.

With that said I was actually hoping to see this set released given that its a non combat aircraft and all. And me believing that it hasn't quite cross that line just yet.

It seemed a baffling set all along. An official license of a vehicle that, as Jang has pointed out, is only used (and planned to be used) in military service. With the combination of those two factors, I'm surprised that it got as far as it did.

And holy crap, these comments are full of bad takes, unaware of or happily ignoring any measure of nuance and context. It's really equal parts amusing and worrying when one of the most measured and considered posts here comes from a 13-year-old kid.

I think that if you don’t like this fine set, then that is your choice. The last time I checked, I still have the freedom make my own choices. Lego should not cave in. Let the market place determine the outcome of the Osprey set. Just remember Lego that we as consumers control your fate.

This is no sense.
Let's break it down. Boeing has made planes for decades and I believe many of us have been traveled in their planes before. You all have contributed to this company and airlines which bought Boeing's planes. Even Airbus makes military aircraft, we are all feeding and helping them growing big. You have no idea how many commercial aerospace companies are also making military aircrafts. So does that mean Lego should not make any plane based on real life to avoid contributing to those companies? Those aircrafts in Sci-fi films are more appealing? That is completely against Lego Technic "Just like real" slogan. Bell Flight Company also makes drones. Does that mean you should not buy their drones?

This can also lead to more questions which would tear Lego apart and I don't think everyone want to see that.
- Those classical exploration themes can relate to colonialism.
- Those classical pirates themes can relate to both Somali pirates and more colonialism.
- Those mining themes can relate to environmental protection.
- Those classical kingdom themes now can be related to things like Game of Thrones or the witcher, which contains adult and violent contains.
- Those city sets give false imagery of police in the U.S.
- Those race car themes support gasoline cars but not electrical cars.
- Those feminist themes was too girlish.
- Etc.

You know, it is not about good vs bad anymore. This is called double standard. If Bell's and Boeing's logo are not on the box, is that what you guys want?

@linkf78 said:
" - Those classical kingdom themes can relate things like Game of Thrones."

Didn't know Game of Thrones invented medieval fantasy.

This is just more bad news for Boeing. Not only have airlines cancelled orders of the 737 Max and Dream liners, now this. Their stock price is going to take hit when this makes the market news tomorrow. All seriousness this is frustrating and Lego should not let the SJWs win for they will always find something wrong. Policy needs review else Defund Lego Police will be next. For me, Lego got political with the Chinese New Year Sets, especially the first two that were regional exclusive. Here you have a company that decided to cater to China who knowingly steals IP to the point where Lego sued and still opened a factory in country. Last I checked China is not on the world’s most righteous of countries with everything going on there (Read the news). The Monkey Kid Theme is just another example to appease to China (although I do like some the sets). Point being I would rather do business with Boeing than China if are talking ethics as this example is much more easy to hold Lego accountable. I love Lego, but this is sad with all the doom and gloom in the world right now, people have to attack a Toy which is one thing that brings happiness into this world. For me this set represents a marvel of real life engineering and to the Lego Designers.

I'm so thoroughly confused by... all of this.

Firstly, Why is being pro-military an exclusively right-leaning thing? Sure, awful things have been done in the past, but given some of the reasons (*cough* 9/11, 2001 *cough*) I feel like the military to defend us and protect people isn't a bad thing? Especially when groups we'd be battling are very definitely against the LEGO (and human) morals of peace and equality?

Secondly, why is LEGO listening to a group that isn't a LEGO group?

Thirdly, friendly neighborhood reminder that most of what we take for granted today have military purposes. If you're that damned concern, please return your computer or phone or whatever you're reading this on. The money you spent on it went to companies supporting the military.

Lastly, and most importantly, everyone in general needs to realize there is rarely clear cut good and bad and that most things tend to lay in a hazy shade of gray. We tend to look at things as either pure heroes or pure villains. In reality, it is almost never so simple, with some exceptions in history (I feel like we can all agree Nazism is pure evil). Really, both sides need to stop and think: no one is perfect. Everyone has done something they're not proud of. And I'm not advocating for the amnesty of horrible people, but rather that people need to look and see life as it is.

Its just an organization made up of Germans trying to get something banned...Nothing to lose sleep over, is it?

Also, a lot of people here, really, REALLY need to have a world history lesson. Unfortunately, the only way to end some terrible things we stand against (I refer back to WWII and the war on terror) can only be solved by war.

And as have been stated by others, just don't buy it. I don't care about the company angle, just don't like Technic so I won't be buying it LOL. This is like every other LEGO release, people think the company has to cater to your exact interests and ideals. This comment section is pretty much exactly the same as every other release, just this time there is politics, morals, and ethics behind it.

It's funny that if they change the look of it slightly and change the name to just "Tiltrotor plane" then probably no one would complain lol Just like the several creator fighter jet sets. They would have avoided the licencing fee too.

Let’s put some pressure on LEGO.
If they cancel this set I will vow to buy knock-offs from China instead of sets from LEGO for the rest of the year.
MONEY TALKS!

Has this set been released anywhere else in the world? Here in New Zealand they are available in multiple stores from one of our main retailers, albeit in small quantities.

With the amount of softness going around these days, and not caring about context, this isn’t surprising. It’s a shame they buckled though even if it is just Germany.