V-22 Ready for Action: Boeing

V-22 Ready for Action: Boeing

After calls for a V-22 production halt from a House committee because of problems with parts and logistics, and with the Marines planning to deploy about a dozen planes to Afghanistan, Boeing and the Marines came under intense pressure to prove they could fly the aircraft and maintain it at reasonable cost.

Boeing says the aircraft are ready for Afghanistan and other deployments, and the logistics issues are under control, although readiness rates and parts management will not soar immediately as the maintenance and logistics changes the company has made will work their way through the program over the next few years.

“Obviously, we want to hit the availability requirements that the Navy and Air Force has for all its systems out there. We think we’ll reach those targets in a couple of years as the component changes work their way through the system, Gene Cunningham, Bell Boeing’s VP for the V-22 program, said in an exclusive interview with DoD Buzz before the start of the Air Force Association’s annual conference. “I believe we have taken a very aggressive posture on moving ahead on readiness improvements in a way that I don’t think any other program has done in the past.”

Bell Boeing has completely reworked its logistics planning based on data gathered during the V-22 deployment to Iraq, Cunningham said. Most of the logistics and maintenance snafus for the planes in Iraq were caused by the fact that the company based its planning on fixed wing and rotorcraft performance — and not on actual V-22 performance — since the V-22 had never deployed for combat before.

“We went out and projected what we thought would be the issues with the airplane. Some we got right, and some we got wrong,” he said in a bit of understatement. To fix things, the company poured through the Iraq deployment data to see what how long parts really last under the intense pressure of bad conditions and combat and has rebuilt its logistics model to take that into account.

He said they also “have identified low or no cost items that can improve reliability” to help keep costs down as the aircraft is deployed aboard both Marine ships and on the front lines of Afghanistan.

Also, Cunningham said that one crucial concern that recently resurfaced — the effects of downwash from the V-22s engines on troops as they deploy from the aircraft and as the plane lands on Marine ships — does not pose any new problems to using the aircraft.

“Obviously, some folks weren’t satisfied with the answers or would like to see different answers from us,” he said. “The downwash is what the downwash is. We believe the downwash concerns are addressable and can be mitigated. We are not convinced there is a downwash problem.”

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

Townes does not know the diff between a v-22 and an f-22. Neither does barry osbama.

Re: bad parts planning

How could they not project how parts would behave in Iraq? We wear the crap out of our hardware in the Southwest US all the damn time. If they bothered to fly the plane at 29 Palms in the summer for a few weeks and they should have had a pretty good idea.

This is a total load of crap. Why does this piece of equipment need a year to recover from IRAQ before it will barely drag itself with its special staff to the main front.

Bottom line The Osprey was not ready for the AFGHAN front , especially when it is hot. The most expensive war machine in US history was left at Cherry Point NC. That is the Reality

Every time I read about this darn aircraft I’m left feeling like I’m either reading propaganda written to get me to believe this thing is the greatest thing since slice bread, or I’m reading an incoherent list of complaints which are worrying but don’t necessarily = cancellation…

The craft works or it doesn’t. (Period) Logistics and Sustainment issues can be dealt with, an airframe that just isn’t up to the task can’t. WHICH IS IT? Surely someone can illuminate me.

the thing flys, and does what its supposed to do… but they havnt hammered out repairs and logistics of parts… nuff said

The question is why is it not in Afghanistan?

Gee this thing is so great debate is pointless if it is sitting in a hangar at Cherry Point, NC.

Unless we are making North Carolina the main front for the war against AQ. Are we?

Kipling wrote a stanza I never understood until now:

When you’re trapped in a burning osprey on Afghanistan’s plains,
because in flight the V-22 failed to remain,
jus’ roll to your M4 an’ blow out your brains,
An’ go to your gawd like a soldier.

I’d like to see Bell-Boeing take 24 combat loaded superfans to an Afghan-like LZ in an osprey to show us how safe this bird is. Any takers?

I can say they work, they have been practicing ops here! Lets just say they are far from base right now. Well at least 2 are, they seemed to perform very well. The neighbors don’t like the rotor wash though,lol.

What happened to the ITVs the osprey was supposed to carry?

What happened to the ITVs the osprey was supposed to carry?

A few ITVs have made it to units. Supposedly its going to Afghanistan soon, if it isn’t already there.

I read the comments and wonder why the negativity? I’ve seen the testimony from the guys that fly the thing and they say its good to go. Has any of the critics flown the airplane? Performed maintenance on it? Or are these knee jerk reactions and a case of taking popular positions?

They promised a 300mph aircraft that could drop 24 combat loaded Marines off over the horizon.

We got an aircraft that is the size of a H-53 with the lift capability of a H-60 and has less range then a H-47. Oh, and it can’t operate in thin mountain air.

No 300mph. No 24 Marine capability. For the low, low price of $100,000,000 dollars each. We could buy one each of the above with that money. And they can fly in Afghanistan. They’re doing it right now.

As for the guys who fix it and fly it? They’d deploy with M1 Garands and H-34s if that’s all they had. It’s up to us to give them the best and to hold the mil-ind. complex responsible for their errors. This is one of those errors.

The ITV s the osprey is supposed to transport would be ideal for Afghan terrain. There is the LSV and the PM
The PM tows a 120mm Mortar it seems our men could use this kind of fire power. I wonder what there waiting for?

They have been flying these things since 1989. They have flown them over 60,000 hours, including desert conditions. They are still broke down half the time, and can only carry half as much as promised. Bell and Boeing are making billions “fixing” this thing, and will do so until it is retired. Just buy more CH-53Ks that will enter production soon at half the price, with twice the range and five times the payload.

The only people who say positive things about the V-22 are corporate spokesmen or Marines whose career is tied to the V-22. You never hear any Marine gripe about the V-22 to the media, because he will get hit with NJP for disobeying an order and sent to a remote Iraqi outpost the next day.

Mr. Cunningham is pocketed millions of dollars working on this failed program. Ask him why readiness rates for squadrons in the USA were even lower than those in Iraq. They were not subject to ‘harsh conditions” nor “combat.” sic. yes, he really said “combat.”

The answer is that after four years V-22s are so broke down they must be retired. That is why half of the 156 V-22s the Corps has purchased are not in service.

Am I missing sumptin here or what? This program is right inline with programs such as Stryker. Bloated, failed to meet expectations or logistical goals ala C17 transportability and continually shoved through by politicians more interested in the economies of their districts then utility in the field.
Why are we surprised when these systems don’t perform as expected?

Case: we put composited fairings on the lower fuselage of the C17 and wonder why we have high rate of mechanical casualties operating in the Afghan theatre. Don’t these procurement strategist ever get out of the D ring?

Or, are we expecting the new and expensive crop of ac to do more then is reasonable?

Maybe some of all the above. It’s still being flown all over Iraq loaded up on low density alt conditions.

I’ll reserve critical opinion til I see OFFICIAL readiness reports.

What is the source of the fairings issue with the C-17?
Also what are your thoughts on the c-17’s readiness rate compared to the C-5?

All those other issues aside.…. where’s the gun.….?

*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