A retired Marine who also happens to be one of the most powerful defense lawmakers, Rep. Jack Murtha, has begun raising questions about the future of the Osprey MV-22 The chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee said that he plans to go down to Camp Lejeune in the next few weeks to do a reality check. Thats where Im going to find out what the hell is happening, the ever-blunt Murtha said.
The military tends to give you nothing but optimistic portrayals, he added. They have been telling me the V-22 was doing fine. Well, not so much, as was made clear at yesterdays hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The Osprey does face severe maintenance problems, Murtha said, adding that they are to be expected in the early stages of an aircrafts deployment.
While he said its just too early to know just what to do about the aircraft, Murtha also made pretty clear that he does not think it necessary to shut down production of the MV-22, as his colleague, Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said yesterday. At this point we are committed and we have to go forward with the V-22, he said.
Meanwhile, the Marines began their counterattack designed to rescue the hostage MV-22. I spoke for about an hour this afternoon with Lt. Col. Rob Freeland, an Osprey pilot with about 1,000 hours on the plane.
He made it very clear that the Marines are doing everything they can to bring down maintenance costs. The GAO report presented at yesterdays hearing claimed the current cost per flight hour of the MV-22 today is over $11,000more than double the target estimate and 140 percent higher than the cost for the CH-46E. Freeland said the flying hour cost for the B model the plane that is flying in combat is closer to $9,700 and will come down over the next two to four years as the Marines implement a range of engineering change orders and craft a maintenance contract.
Among the engineering changes the Marines have recently made to save money, Freeland listed infrared suppressor panels. We used to replace those at $110,000 a piece. Thats because we didnt expect them to break, he said. Now the service is repairing them for $10,000 per unit. In addition, they have developed $10,000 repair procedures for flaperons that they used to replace $280,000 a pop. And Coanda valves will be repaired for $5,000 instead of replacing them for $27,000.
We know we are on a path that will get us there, to lower maintenance costs, he said. The performance based maintenance contract currently being negotiated will lead to the longest lasting and most substantial savings over time, he predicted. Due to be signed in 2010, that contract should start showing substantial savings after three years.
Read the rest of this story and others at DoD Buzz.
– Colin Clark
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
Lets be honest. The first time you do something new it always costs more. The time and energy required to put into production something new in a business is always more expensive than it is to replace those systems going forward. So for example if you put in a system on network printers in a business it’s going to cost you must more the first time, than it will years in the future when you replace them all, which will cost less in time and manpower the closer the new system is the old system.
In this example, the V-22 beyond just being a new airframe is very different from anything the US military has ever used. The starting costs to operate this airframe is going to be higher than existing time tested airframes while they work out how to maintain them, and it’s going to be higher because the stills used to maintain another airframe don’t transfer as well as they would to a similar airframe.
Having said all that, it seems a little silly that we can’t get good estimates within 10% or so on the cost of production or maintanance of our services as a whole and specificly our equipment in this example.
I like this Sneator, he’s got got some steel!
No a pansy wish he was in charge maybe then we wouldn’t spend how much shadowing a trawler hahahaha that we will never ever touch casue we got Obama in office.
Couldnt agree more cenobyte. The osprey is a new type of airframe. Its gonna take awhile to tweak it just right.
John dude….no no you dont. While he seems smarter than bambi in some respects hes a a$$hole and not in the ok but he’s our a$$hole way.
It seems a little unfair the focus the V-22 is getting.
There was not such hand wringing when the F-18 started bouncing bombs down the flight deck on landing. Or when its landing gear folded up on landing. Or when their frames cracked in the end. Then in the middle. And then in the front…..(or was it the other way?)
Or when the F-14 started blowing up because the new engines did not have enough cooling air flowing past the can in afterburner…..
I think it has to do with the fact it is a completely new technology.
Thousands die in regular cars every year; no story.
One guy dies in experimental car; News!
“SIKORSKY NEW TANDEM HELICOPTER WILL RUN CIRCLES AROUND..” MV-22
Can it fly as far and as fast and as high as the V-22 can? The trick here is that it’s not a Helo, it’s not limited by what most helos are. If you are correct (and I would like to see the side by side stats) that there are helos out there that can do what this bird does then we should have them. But I don’t think you will find that to be true, which is why we dumped so much money into it.
THE CENOBYTE
THE FATAL DESIGN FLAW OF THE V22 IS THE WHOLE WING IS BEING ASKED TO MUCH OF IT TO ACHIVE PLANE SPEED AND MEDICORE LOW SPEED HELICOPTER HANDLING. ITS JUST PLANE PHYSICS.
THE X-2 SIKORSKY TANDEM HELICOPTER DEMOSTRATER IS 21ST CENTURY DESIGN WITH A FRESH START, NO GYPSY RIGGING GOING INTO DECADES. TAKE A LOOK AT IT AT SIKORSKYES WEB PAGE AND THEN GOOGLE ITS NAME AND YOU WILL SEE SOME AWESOME SPEED , WITH THE ABILITY TO HOVE ON A DIME.
It just seems like every military program has a slew of detractors that seem to be lobbyists for the other company that has the “alternative” product. Can the V-22 be improved? It sure can and it’s WELL on it’s way to doing better and better. Now is NOT the time to stop. Move forward, make it better. Use it!
The Marines had an aircraft that could provide armed escort for the Osprey,but they got rid of it. It was called the OV-10 Bronco. Let’s admit it,we’ll never see another new weapon’s system fielded again in our nation. That includes the F-35 JSF. If they cancel & ground ALL MV-22 Ospreys,there is nothing to replace it because the CH-46E is too old & worn out to continue flying.
Shocker of shocks,the U.S. Marine Corps may need to depend on the U.S. Army Aviation to provide them with helicopter support. Next on the list of cancelation will be the upgrades for the AH-1W/Z SuperCobra & the the UH-1N/Y Huey. This will force the Marines to depend on the U.S. Army’s Blackhawks & Apache helicopters. I guess next they’ll go after the CH-53 Super Stallions & force the marines to depend on the U.S. Army’s CH-47 Chinooks for heavy lifting.
While the FST is here at Cherry Pt, we have only a small number of actual birds here. Only a few have been inducted for depot maintenance so far. We (FRC-East engineers and logisticians) routinely go to New River (the air station part of Lejeune) to get to the bottom of issues reported by the squadrons and MALS. There are many manufacturing and design problems with the Osprey, but this is not the first nor last system like that.
I designed the fixture to repair the infrared suppression panel because there was a run on scrapped units and no replacement assets. The parts that were failing were built backwards when compared to the drawings. The IR suppressor is exposed to a violent vibration and temperature environment in the direct blast of the engines. The titanium and Inconel panels were coming apart, but not always in the same place. We are now able to take two or three damaged units and produce one good one. Last year we just had to throw them all away.
But really, what are our options for the future? The 46 is composed of parts that haven’t been made in decades and everything we do is a band-aid to keep it flying. We can make small volume runs of parts, but we aren’t a manufacturing facility. I think we’re past the point where we can cancel the V22, despite it’s problems. There’s just too much invested and there isn’t a viable alternative.
Good Morning inganeer,
Your points are well taken but are not the issue. Maintenance, engineering and design problems are all solvable, and are part of the maturing of any technology heave product. The issue is does the MV-22 fulfill it’s mission. I won’t repeat Krag Culloden’s post, he covers what is a summary the GAO’s report quite well.
Congressman Murtha doesn’t need a show and tell tour of New River and the guarded , scripted glowing reports about the MV-22 by some spit, polish and well rehearsed designated “Congressman Bull Sh***er”, but to have an open give and take, with out, any of the chain of command present, one on one and in crew groups with the Marines who have had to fly and service the MV-22 in Iraq.
Before he does this he has to learn the what to ask and encourage honest and straight forward answers. Perhaps off base at a Pizza parlor, Congressman Murtha picks up the check, where there are no eyes and ears of the chain of command.
Since the Congressman, by his own admission doesn’t know much about the MV-22 that he has supported with tax payers money for score and a half years, he might start with having someone read to him the GAO report and explain what it’s saying.
Will Congressman Murtha, do this? Take off his Eagles, and humble himself for the truth? If you believe this then I would like to talk to you about buying some GM stock ay par value.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
@ inganeer:
RE: “…there isn’t a viable alternative”
That simply isn’t the case. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt as a fellow Marine. The case for the V-22 was consistently presented by USMC Air as a comparison of the “paper V22″ versus the CH46…never as a comparison of the “paper V22″ versus contemporary helicopters. It was a dishonest sales pitch from the get go, driven far more by the Marine Air VTOL-only cabal than by any honest appraisal of performance versus cost across the range of options.
We went from a service that prided itself on frugality and “doing the most with the least”, to a service begging for dollars for the flashiest bling on the market.
The fact is there are numerous platforms, on the market today, that far surpass the performance of the CH46, yet cost a fraction of what the V22 does, and will, in the years to come. Both purchase and support costs. No, none of the alternatives are tilt rotor, but they do provide better range, lift, speed, and crew/cargo protection than the CH46. That is what was needed – a replacement for the medium lifters that were wore out. Instead, we got ourselves into the bleeding edge of aerospace engineering. Marine Air simply can’t afford to be there.
My personal hope is that this V22 issue will finally result in a much needed housecleaning of Marine Air. The VSTOL-only cabal need to leave the USMC, for good. We need to get back to basics of providing the best support for the cheapest price…that means contemporary helos for assault support, Super Hornets for CAS, and further investment in our already outstanding expeditionary airfield capability. If we continue on this VSTOL only path, Marine Air will bankrupt itself on limited numbers of pricey hanger queens, leaving the riflemen unsupported. That will signal the end of Marine Air for good.
One other point – if the readiness numbers are accurate, this is a moot issue anyway. The Fleet cannot function at its current optempo with a medium lifter that can’t get above ~60% readiness at the expected V-22 end strength. The remaining -46s can’t be patched indefinitely. Missions simply can’t be performed – you’re not expeditionary if you can’t get off the ship and go anywhere. Something will *have* to augment, if not replace, the V-22.
Has it gone past the point of no return? At first glance I’d say yes. But then again we’re talking decades of deployment and potential problems so maybe it’s not so clear.
Ideally it would have been canned a decade or more ago, and replaced with (say) a ‘CH-47M’ or something. Just another helo and not transformational in the way the cv-22 might be, but by now the marines would have a large fleet of proven, maintainable, new-build helicopters.
Or maybe they’d contrive to take a proven flying airframe and so complicate the spec and development for their version that the program would make the cv-22 look good ;)
I think the Osprey is great. The problem is it is too complicated.
The Marines feel in love with the machines capabilities and did not look hard enough at the complexity.
The answer of course is new technology. Take a look at this:
http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2008-10/personal-tilt-rotor
Even though they are focused on a small platform, the technology behind it is a quantum leap in aircraft.
Unlike the Osprey, there will be no:
-Fuel being sent to the engines on the wings
-It will be able to land without internal combustion support (the complex part, the engine, and its support systems will be secondary).
-The electric motors on the wings will be the most reliable part of the craft
-Redundancy will be accomplished by running two sets of power wires to the motors (separate from each other of course).
-No 3000 PSI Hydraulic systems
This system will have a thousand less parts and hundreds less critical parts and be able to do the same thing as the Osprey.
All do to new battery technology that will only be getting better.
Obviously, this is still in the prototyping phase and may not be seen for a decade of longer depending on how stupid our procurement system is.
So until then they are stuck with the Osprey….
We used to spend $22,000 on replacement 17″ LCD screens in Missile Control. I wrote something up about that, and got a political @#$% storm brought down on me, straight from SSP.
COTS? MILSPEC? BS.