Acquisition Reform
LillyWarsteiner
Ospreywarforitsownexistence.pdf
INCAS BULLETIN, Volume 4, Issue 3/ 2012, pp. 87 – 92 ISSN 2066 – 8201
Osprey – war for its own existence
Tomáš SCHÓBER* ,1
, Matúš GREGA 2 , Pavel NEČAS
3
*Corresponding author
* ,1
GCI, Operational Centre,
Borovianska cesta 1, 960 01 Zvolen, Slovak Republic
[email protected] 2 Armed Forces Academy of General M. R. Štefánik,
Demänová 393, 031 01 Liptovský Mikuláš , Slovak Republic
[email protected] 3 Armed Forces Academy of General M. R. Štefánik,
Demänová 393, 031 01 Liptovský Mikuláš, Slovak Republic
Abstract: The aircraft that flies like an airplane but takes off and lands like a chopper. It has been a
long, strange trip: the V-22 has been 25 years in development, more than twice as long as the Apollo
program that put men on the moon. V-22 crashes have claimed the lives of 30 men — 10 times the
lunar program's toll — all before the plane has seen combat. The Pentagon has put $20 billion into
the Osprey and expects to spend an additional $35 billion before the program is finished. In exchange,
the Marines, Navy and Air Force will get 458 aircraft, averaging $119 million per copy.
Key Words: V-22, range of missions, aircraft, helicopter, Boeing.
1. INTRODUCTION
The V-22 Osprey, It was designed for future irregular warfare environment covering full
scale of missions, especially in third-world conflicts with lack of infrastructure. But its
operational problems and deployment experience raise serious questions whether the aircraft
can accomplish the full range of missions of the helicopter it was intended to replace, or the
range of missions provided by other modern helicopters.
The Osprey provides a multi-mission, multi-service versatility. It is capable of carrying
24 combat-equipped personnel or a 15,000-pound external load. It also has a strategic self-
deployment capability with 2,100 nautical mile range with a single aerial refueling. Its
vertical/short takeoff and landing capability allows it to operate as a helicopter for takeoff,
hover and landing. Once airborne, the engine nacelles rotate forward 90 degrees, converting
the V-22 within 20 seconds into a high-speed, high-altitude (25,000 feet), fuel-efficient
turbo-prop aircraft.
The V-22 program began in the early 1980s, based on the XV-15 tilt-rotor prototype
developed by Bell Helicopter and first flown in 1977. The whole program has been revised
numerous times over its history and the aircraft has experienced a number of development
challenges relating to affordability, safety, and program management. The George H.W.
Bush Administration proposed terminating the V-22 program in 1989 as part of its proposed
FY1990 budget.
The cancellation efforts were through 1992, but Congress rejected these proposals and
kept the V-22 program alive.
Tomáš SCHÓBER, Matúš GREGA, Pavel NEČAS 88
INCAS BULLETIN, Volume 4, Issue 3/ 2012
Finally, after more than 20 years of development, the MV-22 made its maiden combat
flight when deployed to Iraq in October 2007 while CV-22 was declared fully operational in
March 2009.
2. MISSIONS
The V-22 was projected for vast scale of combat or non-combat missions from peace
evacuation operations, humanitarian assistance and disaster-relief mission to assault
transport, medevac, aeroscout, tactical recovery of aircraft and personnel, raids conducting
and support of widely dipersed units.
The Marine Corps are the lead service in the development of the Osprey. The Marine
Corps version, the MV-22, will be an assault transport for troops, equipment and supplies
and will be capable of operating from ships or from expeditionary airfields ashore. The
Navy's HV-22A will provide combat search and rescue, delivery and retrieval of special
warfare teams along with fleet logistic support transport. The Air Force CV-22A is built for
conducting long-range special operations missions.[1]
3. FINANCIAL RELATIONS
Like some other aircraft, the number of V-22s projected for production has reduced over
time. First order in 1989 was set on 663 aircraft. Now the Department of Defense (DoD)
plans call for procuring a total of 458 V-22s—360 MV-22s for the Marine Corps; 50 CV-22
special operations versions for U.S. Special Operations Command, or USSOCOM (funded
jointly by the Air Force and USSOCOM); and 48 HV-22s for the Navy. No HV-22s have yet
been procured for the Navy.
V-22s are currently being procured under a $10.4 billion, multiyear procurement (MYP)
arrangement covering the period FY2008-FY2012 (Fiscal Year). The MYP contract, which
was awarded on March 28, 2008, covers the procurement of 167 aircraft—141 MV-22s and
26 CV-22s [2]. DoD expects the multiyear contract to save $427 million when compared to
the use annual contracting. [3]
DoD in February 2008 estimated the total acquisition cost of a 458-aircraft V-22
program at about $53.3 billion in then-year dollars, including about $9.9 billion for research
and development, about $43.1 billion for procurement, and $262 million for Military
Construction (MilCon). The program was estimated to have a program acquisition unit cost,
or PAUC (which is total acquisition cost divided by the number of aircraft), of about $116.3
million and an average procurement unit cost, or APUC (which is procurement cost divided
by the number of aircraft), of about $94.5 million. [4]
In addition, operations and support costs are expected to rise. The current cost per flying
hour is over 11,000$ - more than double the target estimate for MV-22. [5]
4. ACCIDENTS
Like other types of aircraft during development, testing or the operational phase didn`t avoid
several crashes and fatalities. There were five crashes and several notable incidents
enregistered till the end of 2010.
1. 11 June, 1991 - An Osprey crashed three minutes into its maiden demonstration flight at a Boeing helicopter flight test center in Wilmington, DE. There were no
serious injuries in the crash, which was blamed on gyro wiring problems. Two crew
89 Osprey – war for its own existence
INCAS BULLETIN, Volume 4, Issue 3/ 2012
members safely ejected, and the aircraft was badly damaged the accident.
2. 20 July, 1992 - Seven crewmembers lost their lives when a prototype of the V-22 Osprey fell into waters off the Quantico, VA, Marine Corps Air Station. The crash
occurred after an engine caught fire as the aircraft was completing a 700-mile non-
stop flight from Eglin Air Force Base. mechanical failure was found to have
triggered a fire that disabled an engine. The identified design deficiencies were
corrected and incorporated in all production aircraft.
3. 08 April, 2000 - An MV-22 crashed during a noncombatant evacuation evaluation mission. The crash claimed 19 lives -- the deadliest air disaster for the Marines since
22 died in a helicopter crash in 1989. The Osprey was one of four flying from
Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz. It crashed at Marana Airport near Tucson.
The mishap aircraft was one of five production aircraft delivered to the Marine
Corps for operational use. Officials said that an examination of data did not indicate
any mechanical or software failures. In the last seconds of its flight, the mishap
aircraft was in a high rate of descent at a relatively low forward airspeed. These
characteristics can lead to a condition known as power settling (or vortex ring state)
which can result in a loss of lift on the rotor system. Power settling is a phenomenon
common to helicopter flight. The primary cause of the crash was the pilot descended
too quickly -- 250 percent the acceptable rate.
4. 11 December, 2000 - An MV-22 Osprey crashed in North Carolina during a night training mission. Four Marines were killed when the MV-22 crashed in a remote
wooded area about 10 miles outside Jacksonville. The crash was the fourth accident
involving the tilt-rotor aircraft since 1991. The Navy and Marine Corps grounded all
MV-22 Osprey flights until further notice. The accident investigation concluded that
a leak in a chafed hydraulic line, coupled with a software glitch, had caused the
crash. The software problem contributed to the aircraft going out of control, rather
than compensating for the hydraulic leak. [6]
5. April 8, 2010 - a CV-22 Osprey, crashed approximately 11km west of Qalat city in Zabul province in southern Afghanistan attempting a night landing at a desert
landing zone. This was the first loss of CV-22 in combat. Two of the three cockpit
crew members — pilot and flight engineer died. The co-pilot who survived, told the
invetigators, that he didn’t have a clear memory of the flight’s last 30 seconds. Also
killed were a soldier and a contractor — two of 16 passengers in the cargo
compartment. A Taliban spokesmen claimed responsibility for shooting down the
Osprey helicopter, however, enemy fire, brownout or engine failure have been ruled
out by the USAF investigation. The true causes of the crash may never be known
because no irrefutable evidence exists to substantiate either explanation - the
wreckage and black box recorder were destroyed. [7]
5. LIMITS & EXPERIENCE
The Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA) claimed that the V-22 along with the H-53K
are “particularly limited” in their ability to perform vertical extraction of patients and
rescuers since they “do not have a hoist or are not practical options for hoisting live
personnel due to excessive downwash.” This feature is critical for rescue aircraft which often
cannot land at rescue sites. [8]
V-22 operational tests and training exercises identified challenges in maneuvering limits
that affect air crew ability to execute correct evasive actions. Moreover, due the large
Tomáš SCHÓBER, Matúš GREGA, Pavel NEČAS 90
INCAS BULLETIN, Volume 4, Issue 3/ 2012
footprint the Osprey is restricted in the number of places it can land. This can pose serious
troubles in urban environment, forested terrain or on shipboard. Identified challenges could
limit the ability to conduct worldwide operations. Worse, safe engine-out landing is a major
unresolved issue for the V-22. Emergency landing after the sudden failure of both engines in
the Conversion / Vertical Take-Off and Landing modes below 1,600 feet altitude are not
likely to be survivable. The V-22 cannot autorotate to a safe landing. [9]
In conjunction with resuming flight testing, the Navy Department modified certain V-22
requirements. For instance, the V-22 is no longer required to land in helicopter mode without
power (also known as “autorotation”), protection from nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons has been eliminated. The V-22 is no longer required to have an “air combat
maneuvering” capability; instead it must demonstrate “defensive maneuvering.” Also, the
requirement that troops be able to use a rope or rope ladder to exit the cabin at low altitudes
has been eliminated. [10]
As of January 2009, the 12 MV-22s in Iraq successfully completed all missions assigned
in a low threat theater of operations—using their enhanced speed and range to engage in
general support missions and deliver personnel and internal cargo faster and further than the
legacy helicopters being replaced. In addition, the MV-22’s ability to fly at higher altitudes
in airplane mode enabled it to avoid the threat of small arms fire during its Iraq deployment.
This agility allowed the Osprey to operate at far lower operational risk while at higher
tempo. Three Marine Corps squadrons that have been deployed to Iraq have flown over 9800
hours while executing more than 6000 sorties, carrying over 45,000 passengers and lifting
2.2 million pounds of cargo without lost a single of these aircraft in combat. The Osprey has
shown that it can carry an operational load of 24 combatloaded Marines out to a combat
radius of 300 nautical miles at altitudes above the small arms and rocket-propelled grenade
threat envelope. On the other hand, the Marine Corps admit that during the deployment in
Iraq, Osprey was restricted to a very limited role due to its vulnerability to hostile fire, its
lack of maneuverability and its unreliability in the heat and sand of Iraq.
Experience from deployment shown need for a new upgrade program. Unfortunately,
planned upgrades to the aircraft could affect the aircraft’s ability to meet its requirements. A
limited-coverage, ramp-mounted defensive weapon was installed on aircraft deployed to
Iraq. The program plans to incorporate a mission-configurable, belly-mounted defensi-ve
weapon system that will provide fuller coverage. For missions requiring the new weapon,
however, the interior space needed to integrate the system will reduce the MV-22’s troop
carrying capability below its key performance parameter of 24 troops, as well as reduce its
internal cargo capacity. The program also plans to integrate an all-weather radar into the
MV-22. This radar and an effective de-icing system are essential for self-deploying the MV-
22 without a radar-capable escort and deploying the V-22 to areas such as Afghanistan,
where icing conditions are more likely to be encountered. However, expected weight
increases from these and other upgrades, as well as general weight increase for heavier
individual body armor and equipment may affect the MV-22’s ability to maintain the key
performance parameters, such as speed, range, and troop carrying capacity.
While in Iraq, the MV-22 also conducted a few AeroScout raid and external lift
missions. These types of missions were infrequent, but those that were carried out were
successfully completed. Such missions, however, were also effectively carried out by
existing helicopters. AeroScout missions are made by a combination of medium-lift aircraft
and attack helicopters. Participating in these missions, the MV-22 was limited by operating
with slower legacy helicopters—thus negating its speed and range advantages. Similarly,
external lift missions do not leverage the advantages of the V-22. In fact, most of Marine
91 Osprey – war for its own existence
INCAS BULLETIN, Volume 4, Issue 3/ 2012
equipment requiring external transport is cleared only for transit at speeds under 150 knots
calibrated airspeed (kcas), which is in the contrary with higher speeds at which the MV-22
can travel with internal cargo or passengers. According to Iraq-based MV-22 squadron
leaders, the CH-53, which is capable of lifting heavier external loads, was more readily
available than the MV-22 to carry out those missions and therefore was generally called on
for those missions, allowing the MV-22 to be used more extensively for missions that exploit
its own comparative strengths. [12]
The MV-22’s Iraq experience has also demonstrated some limitations in situational
awareness that challenge operational effectiveness. Crew chiefs and troops pointed out on
lack of visibility outside to the activity on the ground from the V-22’s troop cabin as a result
of small windows. The combination with brownout (reduced flight vidibility due to airborne
particles, especially from helicopter downwash) caused by the tiltrotor`s powerful downwash
was considered to be a significant disadvantage. Another key upgrades concerning the war
experience are adding forward firing countermeasures to enhance the aircraft`s survivability,
modifying the engine air particle separator to prevent engine fires and improve system
reliability.
6. SELF DEFENCE
Back in 2007 and prior to the type’s first operational deployment, the USMC decided the
aircraft needed a self-defence capability to supplement the machine gun fitted to the
aircraft’s rear ramp. The US Marine Corps operated a ramp-mounted. 50-calibre gun on 10
MV-22 Ospreys deployed to Iraq, but this configuration limited the weapon to firing on only
rearward targets. At the time, BAE Systems were developing the Remote Guardian System,
a belly-mounted turret fitted with a 7.62mm mini-gun that could fold into the fuselage while
on the ground but slide down under the belly of the aircraft during flight.[5]
The gun is operated from inside the aircraft by using a controller. The operator can
rotate the gun 360°and acquire targets using a monitor that is fed colour images from a
forward-looking infrared sensor. But after using the gun with some success in Afghanistan,
recent reports say the marines are ditching the gun system as the drawbacks frequently
outweigh its benefits. At 363kg the gun is heavy and this limits the payload the aircraft can
lift in Afghanistan’s hot and high altitude environment. It can also cause nausea for the
crewman operating the system since they must stare at the screen while the aircraft
manoeuvres. United States Air Force (USAF) and USMC say they are now looking for a
long-term solution. The future system should be perhaps installed in the nose of the aircraft
or in the hell hole.
7. STEPS TO FUTURE
Every new design is struggling with problems such as unreliable component parts and supply
chain weaknesses, which led to higher operations and support costs and low aircraft
availability rates. The V-22 is not an exception. The deployments confirmed that the V-22’s
enhanced speed and range enable personnel and internal cargo to be transported faster and to
extended ranges than is possible by the helicopters it is replacing. On the other hand, lack of
autorotation capability makes the aircraft vulnerable especially during final approach to
landing. The low-threat missions assigned to Ospreys in Iraq were accomplished at high
level. However, questions have risen whether V-22 is the best suited to accomplish the full
mission repertoire of the helicopters it is intended to replace, as the current Marine Corps
Tomáš SCHÓBER, Matúš GREGA, Pavel NEČAS 92
INCAS BULLETIN, Volume 4, Issue 3/ 2012
plan is to replace all of its medium-lift helicopters with the MV-22. The question is whether
mixed fleet of MV-22s and legacy helicopters would be better. Warfare needs indicate, that
the V-22 may not be best suited for the full range of missions requiring medium lift, as the
aircraft’s speed cannot be exploited over shorter distances or when transporting external
cargo. In addition, attack escort helicopters are not be able to keep pace with the Osprey.
Over the years, the aircraft has been the subject of controversy for development delays,
highly publicized crashes, and many funding debates. Osprey has strong supporters but
equally tough critics, both sides claiming that it is either better or worse than conventional
helicopter alternatives. Those favoring the program cite its speed, range, and altitude
advantages over helicopters, characteristics that make it possible for Marine Corps forces to
execute operations from increased distances. Those against the program cite its troubled
developmental history and its high cost (relative to helicopters). Moreover less expensive
helicopters can just as effectively support ship-to-shore deployments, amphibious landing
operations, and various amphibious assault missions.
REFERENCES
[1] U.S. Navy Fact File, V-22A Osprey tilt rotor aircraft. Available at:
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1200&tid=800&ct=1&page=1.
[2] Contract modifications have since then increased the multi-year contract total to 174 aircraft. Available at:
http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/v22/docs/V-22_overview.pdf, October 2010.
[3] Ch. J. Castelli, Navy Awards $10.4 Billion V-22 Multiyear Deal, Inside Washington Publishers, March 28,
2008. Available at: http://www.insidedefense.com.
[4] DOD Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) report for V-22 program, February 29, 2008.
[5] Government Accountability Office, V-22 Osprey Aircraft[:] Assessments Needed to Address Operational and
Cost Concerns to Define Future Investments, Statement of Michael J. Sullivan, Director Acquisition and
Sourcing Management, Testimony Before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House
of Representatives, GAO-09-692T, June 23, 2009, summary page.
[6] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22-losses.htm.
[7] B. Rolfsen, Generals clash on caus e of April Osprey crash, January 22, 2011 Air Force News,
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/01/air-force-generals-clash-on-osprey-crash-012211w
[8] Pentagon`s Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA) report, August 2009.
[9] The Pentagon, Office of Operational Test and Evaluation, Office of the Director. V-22 Osprey Program:
Report on Operational and Live Fire Test and Evaluation, 35, September 2005.
[10] J. Neff, Eased Standards ‘Fix’ Osprey, Raleigh News & Observer, May 19, p.1, 2002.
[11] M. Jezný, P. Puliš, R. Šulej, The explosive detection system allocation task for airport security, MOSATT
2009, Košice, SDS-SAV, ISBN 9788097020217. p. 124-128, 2009.
[12] J. Gertler, V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft: Background and Issues for Congress, Congressional Research
Service, CRS Report for Congress, March 10, 2011.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
