V-22 Readiness Rates OK: Conway

V-22 Readiness Rates OK: Conway

The V-22, slated to head to Afghanistan in October, is performing at acceptable readiness rates, Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway told reporters Wednesday.

“They are where we expected them to be at this level in the development of the aircraft,” Conway told me when I asked him about the consistent rumors about sub-par readiness rates. The V-22s are expected to eventually achieve a readiness rate of 90 percent, Conway said. He declined to give the current number, although when one reporter said 80 percent, Conway appeared to agree.

The commandant’s comments should be of interest to the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee, whose chairman accused the Pentagon — not the Marines — of “stonewalling” his committee when OSD refused to release “copies of two reports on the performance of the Osprey in Iraq, called ‘Lessons and Observations.’ ” Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY) also requested a list of all V-22 Ospreys acquired by the Defense Department, including their current locations and flight status. Committee staff there were concerns about the Osprey’s readiness rates.

The most exciting and persistent rumor about Osprey readiness holds that there is a Hangar of Shame where two dozen broken Ospreys have supposedly been sent to be picked apart for parts.

One source compiled the following theory:

Based on second-hand reports and my speculation, I suspect around two dozen V-22 are hidden in storage for these reasons.

1. The GAO reported in 2008 that V-22s continued to be accepted with “deviations and waivers.” This means Bell-Boeing got paid on delivery and probably promised to fix the problems. But some aircraft are not safe, and remain in storage in Amarillo. These may be “lemons” that must be scrapped for parts and built anew, but Bell doesn’t want to do that.

2. V-22s have suffered from unrepairable cracks or fire damage that can’t be fixed. These weren’t reported as “mishaps” and the aircraft were scavenged for parts by Marines at New River. Some were sent to depots for repairs, but sit there since they are not repairable.

3. Some earlier V-22s were sent to Amarillo for upgrades and during this process it was discovered they had cracks and were unsafe. These were pushed into storage.

I don’t know the truth, but I suspect this is where these V-22s can be found. These two dozen will be joined by more V-22s as they fail.

Another source said, “there are several damaged V-22s in a hangar at New River NC that were cannibalized for parts. I’ve been told there are several that were sent back to Amarillo for conversion to “Block Bs”, but their airframes had damage that couldn’t be repaired. Congress has funded 150 V-22s through FY2009, so around 140 have been delivered. The Corps claims only 84 are in service, and won’t account for the rest. Meanwhile, there are none in Iraq or Afghanistan. From what I understand, after two years of service they have so many problems with leaky hydraulic lines and cracks in wings or the floor that they are quietly retired.”

The Marines’ response to all this: “Nonsense.” Maj. Eric Dent, Marine aviation spokesman, said in an email that there are “a few aircraft used in the initial testing and development (pre-block A) that are pending disposition (convert/upgrade/etc).” And that’s it. Dent promised to provide more details and we will provide them as soon as he send them.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

You know I was in the second Apache battalion in the Army and we had multiple “hangar queens” that got parts “borrowed” by the other battalion as they went about demonstrating the greatness of the new attack helicopter. Our operational readiness rates were abysmal. We had systems like the Back Up Control system that to my knowledge NEVER worked. FLIRs that until recently allowed target identification at less range than you could shoot a TOW missile. Pilots talked about “blobology” as a means to detect targets. Lets talk about T straps on the rotor system or fires in the aircraft’s oil coolers.

Look my point is the same as I have put elsewhere, this is normal stuff for a new aircraft. If this is unbearable, you will never get a new aircraft.

Yasotay has it right — our procurement system never buys a system that is actually ready when delivered. It is sort of like every version of Microsoft Windows — never be an early adopter!
The C-5 had all sorts of problems and the C-5B is a far better aircraft. The M-16 had a bad habit of jamming just when you needed to shoot someone, but it has turned into a usable weapon. The V-22Bs will be usable aircraft.

I remember creating ads for the V-22 when I worked at the Martin Agency ( now famous for Geico). I worked on Allison Gas Turbines, which made the engine for the C-130, most light helicopters and of course the T-56 heavy engine was used in the V-22. We placed ads in Aviation Week and Space Technology.

There were so many critics about its speed and lack of armament, I thought it would be killed twenty years ago, but here we are and it’s flying.

BTW, I have started a military history and discussion blog and would like to invite any readers here to visit and comment.

civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup​.com

One of the faults of our American society is our intense desire for instant gratification.

That’s what makes military aircraft projects such an easy target for politicians/officers wanting to gain political influence and credibility. Because the people generally don’t understand that aircraft naturally have growing pains and take time to get fully operational.

The powered fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft made their first flights at around the same time period (1903 and 1907), but the helicopter took 35 years longer to see it’s first mass-produced aircraft. Rotary flight already proved troublesome enough, but now trying to combine both fixed and rotary wing aircraft with tilt-rotors. In 1955 the first tilt-rotor flew, and then finally entered mass production in 1997… forty years. Of course we’re still working out the bugs, we’re still working on some design flaws with the F-15, F-16 and A-10’s… even 30 years after they were OK’d for production.

Military fixed-wing aircraft had numerous issues about their utility in the early 1900’s. They had problems with maintenance; early propeller designs had huge reliability issues among others. They were a logistical nightmare. They had a low payload; bombs were rarely carried on early WWI aircraft, and even then they were small. They faced the exact same type of criticisms as tilt-rotors are facing today. Where would we be today if we abandoned the concept of military aviation back then?

Some of you folks that post these comments above state that these things are normal and therefore should be acceptable.Things like cracks to airframes and fires , how long before a bunch more of America’s finest have to die in this piece of SH** before people wise up to the fact that V-22 is just no damn good! At 70million apiece it is just a waste of taxpayer money. The V-22 does not, and never will meet up to the billing . The V-22 is not fit to go into combat. , the first time it gets into contact it’ s going to be very very BAD! The Taliban are going to love knocking these things out of the sky. I am afraid we will get too familiar with the phrase” Osprey down” .

Far more had died testing the early versions of fixed-wing aircraft in the early 1900’s… and those aircraft had far less utility value, even back then. I stick to my original point.

ya plus its a first of its kind… let boeing hammer out the kinks..

Trophy: I’m not sure what your point is; surely we’ve moved past the point where we have to eat our own dead in order to advance the cause of aerospace research. I know that people like you really enjoy your red meat, but don’t you think maybe you’re carrying it a little far?

The point is this is a new generation of pioneers for human technology, and that this shouldn’t come as a surprise to us all. And with pioneering new technology, there’s gonna be risks. These men and women knew the risks, they’ve done all that they could to minimize the risks. They know that no risk means no reward. And they know that there is a reward involved from the risks they take. Just like the pioneers before them: the early mariners, automotive drivers, astronauts, aviators, etc.

A simple everyday task of driving a car on a public roadway has one of the highest accidental death rate than anything else, and yet we as a society can accept the fact that car accidents can kill over 40,000 a year. Majority of which are pointless deaths resulting from drunk drivers, ill-trained drivers, inattentive drivers… you name it. So where’s the outcry there?

Instead of hounding the job that these fine men and women do and support, we should be supporting them. Because they’re doing something that few of us would want to do, but will benefit us all in the future.

We take for granted what cars, trains, planes, helicopters, ships and spacecraft provide for us. And few are thankful to the pioneers, the earliest of which faced the same kind of scrutiny and ridicule. Read up on the early days of aviation and how slowly and unwilling the majority of the militaries of the world were to embrace it. It’ll sound very similar to what the V-22 is going through today.

Bill R, in 1960 you could change V-22 with CH-47A, about a million dollars and Viet Cong. In 1985 you could have changed V-22 with AH-64A or UH-60A, $20 million and $6 million and the Soviet Combined Arms Army. More fine young Americans died in CH-47A due to material failure than have died in V-22. My point to you is that your very same arguments were leveled at these paragons of rotorcraft in their early days. I’ve seen them all before. I’ve flown two of the aircraft in their early days so I have heard and read it all. Flew for twenty plus years. I will put my kids in a V-22.

There have been many “revolutionary” aircraft that didn’t work. Read about the “tail sitter” fighters. The problem nowadays is that if something works, the politics are too strong and the careerists too committed to admit that it doesn’t work. The V-22 has been flying since 1989, and its performance is less than half of what was promised, half of what its specs say on websites.

The Marine Corps says its has just 84 V-22s in service, but Congress has funded 150. That’s a big gap to explain away, which is why Maj. Dent said “nonsense” He says he will provide the reasons, later, sometime. Yeah, maybe next year or in 2020.

So the Commandant had a news conference to refute claims that the V-22’s mission capable rate was poor. He admitted to problems, but refused to tell anyone what those rates are. So far as the dozen of missing V-22s, he has refused to provide a list and status of all the V-22s Congress has funded. This was denied to the GAO, a Congressional committee, and now the interested press. Something seems wrong to me.

With the V-22 the gains ( actual performance gains) do not exceed the risks, plus the fact that our troops could really take the money spent on this death trap /money pit and get far more utility out of it than they are getting from buying Ospreys.

Open Letter to Conway and Dent:

Data talks, bull@@@@ walks.

Produce the data. There’s nothing classified here, so quit stalling and produce the data. I mean…if you can’t tell me the good news, it ain’t good news.

And, by the way, can MV-22s be used in California firefighting roles? I’ve not seen one testing with a fire-bucket lately.…Or is that classified too?

Really. This coyness…it’s like a tech version of “don’t ask don’t tell.”

Lots of people citing the CH-47 as an example. It’s important to remember, though, that “it’s so old that we’ve fixed all the problems” doesn’t mean that it was a good solution (or even the only conceivable one.)

To all posters,
When the House Committee (Oversight and Government Reform) eventually get to the hearing on V-22, they will show everyone the four binders (500+ pages) of extensive data we have sent to the Sec of Defense showing the specifics of every MV-22 the Marine Corps has. There is nothing to hide from folks. Hate to burst your conspiracy bubbles, but there is nothing “juicy” about the Osprey. Readiness is still lagging at a level we’d not prefer, and there are some systems (e.g. ice protection system) on the aircraft that simply do not work consistently.
Seriously, being a critic is literally the easiest job in the world. You don’t need data, just an opinion and an Internet connection.
Let’s have a look at the numbers with some context and explanation; then some of these comments, which are probably well-intentioned, may have merit.

Respectfully,
Maj. Eric Dent

Hey Trophy–this is not the early days of aviation when things were hit and miss. The science and computers are much further advanced. Today’s Marines “know what they sign up for” –does not mean they want to get into aircraft that are unsafe just to test aerodynamics.
The Marine Corps would not put into service an unsafe aircraft. The “maintainers” are the best and brightest. They understand they ultimately support the grunt and his mission. No aircraft in recent times performs as advertised–the question is: Is it good enough? I am a Phrog guy and have serious reservations about the Osprey (and it being the best choice to replacing the CH-46). Maj Dent is right that time and stats will tell.

Caveman: Seriously. I know that it’s romantic to think about “stand and be still t’the Birkenhead Drill”, but that’s not the same thing as suggesting that the Marines are a suicide squad.

All this speculation.. geez jus wait for the stats to be released…

Maj. Dent,

What happened to that hearing to present the truth? I was supposed to happen last week. Did the Bell-Boeing and Marine Corps lobby crack down on the Congressmen? If so, I’m sure the Marine Corps will post the basic data on its website to prove nothing is amiss? Right? Toss that idea at your Generals and let us know.

Maj Dent,

Sir,

I understand to philosophy of let see what the numbers say. I also understand maintenance numbers can be cooked to meet the mission. I know because I have flown in Phrogs that were only 80% operational, landed while the transmission ate itself. When you’re with the Marine Corps if your stuff breaks down the feel they gave you LPC (leather Personnel Carriers – Boots) use them. Know what we still completed the mission. I would like nothing more then to see the expected numbers and believe the engineers. However I was with the grunts, I flew with the wing, and down inside I love the phrog (CH46). I was a front line guy, I never like it back at HQ to many college educated guys playing the game stratigo on the big map and knowing those are the same guys I am with. The loss of human life is expected in our line of work and we knew what we were getting into. This is not the old college try here “hey guy lets throw the ball out there and go for it”. This aircraft need to work and work well the day it arrived in new river, Not Iraq. You can’t tell me that it working in the field because the military channel has already had office stating on video, that the field commander will not give them missions. The field commanders do not trust or willing to put their lives on the line to use this platform (hard to be the tip of the spears when you and your men crash on the way to the fight). Weather this is self preservation or true concern for their men, well I keep that opinion for my fellow grunts. All this talk aside sir the truth is this thing either needs to be fixed or shelve before we have to see good intentioned officers in front of congress explaining for all the live lost not how may cracked airframe are in Amarillo.

Yo ! .… Youz people talkin’ bad about the V22 must work for Sikorsky or somethin’.

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement