Worried Murtha Checking MV-22

Worried Murtha Checking MV-22

By Colin Clark Wednesday, June 24th, 2009 5:13 pm
Posted in Air, Naval, Policy

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 told our own Christian Lowe this morning that he plans to go down to Camp Lejeune in the next few weeks to do a reality check. “That’s where I’m 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 yesterday’s 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 aircraft’s deployment.

While he said “it’s 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 yesterday’s hearing claimed the current cost per flight hour of the “MV-22 today is over $11,000—more 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. That’s because we didn’t 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.

There was one other major issue that has dogged the Marines before and during yesterday’s hearing — just how many Ospreys actually fly. Here’s the service’s breakdown. Of the 94 aircraft looked at on 3 June by the committee, 48 are Block B, 29 are Block A, and 17 are pre-Block A.

There are 48 Block B aircraft — 47 on June 3. Those are the planes flying day to day.

Of the 17 pre-Block A, one is a developmental test plane, two were destroyed in the 2000 crashes, six have been turned into trainers, one was sent to the Air Force, two are being modified to a Block B configuration, and five are in storage. Those storage aircraft are pre-Block A aircraft. The Marines say they were going to be modified to Block B, but decided against that because the costs were just too high. They will probably be turned into trainers.

Of the 29 Block A’s, nine are being modified to the Block B variant.

Folks who believe there is a Hangar of Shame with dozens of planes in it will be disappointed to learn that, according to Freeland, those five aircraft are the only ones in some sort of storage. Occasionally, a single part does get cannibalized from them but they are by no means being stripped for parts to keep the fleet flying, he said.

Now we wait for Murtha’s visit.

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

Daniel June 24th, 2009 at 7:33 pm

In 2005, I was shooting commercials for the USAF at Edwards AFB in the Mojave. As you know the AF has a huge airbase/test facility there. We were shooting the B-2 sitting the hangar. It is a beautiful, filmic plane.

My art director partner walked to the far corner of the hangar and there was a V-22 parked with the nacelles pointed upwards and the engine shroud on the port engine open. He took out his camera and started taking pictures.

Two guards asked him to stop. One said, “I need the film, sir.”

My partner turned over his film. I was furious because I knew this would bite me in the butt. It never did.

But it was interesting to note that the other guard said “I don’t know why he can’t shoot photos, I’ve seen picture of the inside of this thing in books. This aircraft ain’t no secret. If only they could keep them out of the maintenance bays.”

At the end of the shoot day, my crew walked past another hangar that was open and sitting there was a Y-version F-35. This was before the contract had been awarded. Behind the F-35 was a row of V-22s in repair.

After that comment, and the rows of V-22s, I knew this was might end up as another albatross. Yes, it may do its job very well, if we stop considering the costs. Which we shouldn’t.

Daniel
civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup​.com

Dan June 26th, 2009 at 9:27 pm

The V-22 promoters always compare the V-22 to the 40-year old CH-46E, which is safety restricted to half its original payload, is half its size, and has one-sixth its engine power. Compared to modern helos of the same size, the V-22 has one-quarter their payload, a much smaller cabin, and less range. Read about the CH-53K, which is the same size of the V-22 but can carry two heavy HMMWVs internally.

The V-22 does have around 40% more cruise speed. The V-22’s average cruise speed (depending on gross weight and altitude) is around 210 knots, 270 is its top speed at ideal conditions. They did cram 24 Marines with only rifles in for the OPEVAL, but then you can put 10 people in a phone book too. There are 24 troop seats, but the cabin is 6 inches narrower and 6 inches lower and 4 feet shorter than the Phrog.

Here is the latest update from http://​www​.g2mil​.com It seems 40 V-22s are missing.

June 26, 2009 — The V-22 Scandal Explodes

In May, Marine Generals refused to provide Congress with an inventory list of V-22s, which Congress sought to dispel allegations from G2mil that dozens of damaged V-22 are hidden in hangars. In his prepared testimony, the head of Marine Aviation, LtGen George Trautman stated that: “We have accepted delivery of 91 Ospreys, a quarter of our program objective of 360 aircraft.” The requested status list was not provided. After threats of subpoena, his staff said they had 105, when they must have known that simple check of budget documents would reveal they should have around 145. That just happened, as the Congressional Research Service released a report that says Congress has funded 156 V-22s for the Marines from FY1987 through FY2009.

Since Bell stated that V-22 production is on schedule, the last of these 156 should be delivered by Oct. 1, 2009. Therefore, the Marines should have had around 145 V-22s on June 3, 2009, the date they reported that only 105 had been delivered. Since these cost around $100 million each, it seems the Generals misplaced $4 billion worth of new aircraft. Maybe I can find some missing V-22s on E-bay! Looks like we’ll see a lot of dancing Generals this year.

Congressmen Jack Murtha said he is going to the Marine airbase at New River soon to find out what’s happening. He’s a former Marine who says the military always lies about problems. However, he is a politician and big spender, so I suspect this is a common ruse. Major contractors have one of their Congressmen act angry and promise to find out what’s really happening, only discover some minor problems, and assert there is nothing really wrong.

Musket104 June 28th, 2009 at 9:50 pm

If I were a REAL SMART Marine O-6 (I assume this is the level who would be briefing the Congressman (high enough to be appropriate, but close enough to reality to be credible) — I would be prepared to show him whatever he wanted to see.

A few years ago, Rep Murtha was a passed-over has-been anachronism, out of touch and out of style. Today he is a very powerful member of the party in power. I may not agree with every one of his positions, but I think he is honest and sincere. Ruse? I don’t think so!

Outside his office in the Congressional Office Building are two flags: the State of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Marine Corps. That said, he does not shy from calling the USMC on the carpet when he thinks it’s appropriate.

As with the Harrier (although it was developed in large part by the UK) — this is an overwhelmingly Marine program. It’s not buying something already developed by another service (F-4 Phantom, M-1 Abrams, F/A-18 Hornet, C-130, etc.).

The Marine brass better be prepared to to all the grubby congressional/pentagon mud-wrestling of advocating and defending their program.

They also need to tell the truth to Rep Murtha about the Osprey — whatever it is — warts and all.

*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