Osprey Readiness Improves; Bid On For WH

Osprey Readiness Improves; Bid On For WH

Operational readiness rates for the MV-22 are improving, Marine Corps and Boeing officials said at the Navy League’s annual conference today.

The ultimate goal is 82 percent for the aircraft once it achieves full operational capability in 2018 (note that this is a production term; it doesn’t mean that’s when the plane is ready to fly), said Marine Col. Greg Masiello, program manager. Also, Masiello dismissed the idea that the Marines or Air Force special operators avoid using the Osprey for tough missions to improve readiness rates. “There has been a lot of speculation about are we babying the aircraft. Absolutely not,” he said. Among the examples he offered: CV-22s flew from the U.S. to the North African country of Mali. a nine-and-half hour flight “straight over water. And MV-22s are deploying from a MEU and from land bases in Afghanistan, carrying combat troops and generally “performing outstandingly.”

The MEU flight managed a 72.6 percent mission capable rate. In Iraq, they came in around 68 percent. Yesterday’s mission capable report for the fleet had them managing a 69 percent mission capable rate. After finishing the public presentation he did with Gene Cunningham, Boeing VP for the V-22, Masiello took the straight Marine approach with me and another reporter. “Look, we aren’t content with the rates we’ve got and we’re working to improve them and we’re seeing results,” he said.

On other program fronts, Boeing will bid on the presidential helicopter program, Cunningham confirmed. And Masiello answered one of the most important questions surrounding the whole idea: can a V-22 land on the White House lawn: “It fits, by the way.”

And while Masiello declined to answer my questions about the recent loss of CV-22 in Afghanistan, he did make a point of saying the MV-22 and CV-22 fleets continued their operations “and did not stop them.” That would seem to indicate that no significant equipment problem was suspected in the crash. We keep hearing it was from brownout, but nothing official has been said and won’t be forthcoming until the crash investigation is complete.

Join the Conversation

Liars! Marines in Afghanistan will tell you only 2–3 out of 10 can fly missions each day. The CV-22’s flew over water, but not straight to Africa, not even to the Azores. They island hopped around the N. Atlantic, going all the way to Nova Scotia in Canada to get to Africa. The deployment was so bad the USAF now deploys CV-22s by ship.

Good Evening Folks,

I agree with Rob. The MV-22 has not been able to find a mission. I find it ironic that a couple of posts ago on tankers that a 20% down rate was way to high. It appears that the MV-22 will never achieve that high a level of readiness.

Quietly the USAF and Spec. Ops. are getting the word out that they are not happy with the CV-22. In Afghanistan as Rob suggested its performance has been, shall we say a disappointment. Freezing and canceling the Osprey Program now would be a good idea, it would free up funds for other items in need to fight the war in Afghanistan that are proven and ready to go.

The Ospery was conceived, designed, build and bought without a mission and has yet after two years in a combat zone been able to define one for itself. It is expensive to buy, fly and to keep in the air, it is lacking any self defense and is generally an unstable platform.

The Ospery is nothing more then the misplaced vanity of Marine Corp Brass of the past who are not around any longer to take the heat. Many I’m sure have found well compensating post career employment with Boeing, Bell or another contractor reaping profits from this project. The Ospery is the poster child of what is wrong with defense procurement.

Byron Skinner

I’m deployed to Afghanistan and contrary to Mr. Skinner and Rob, the Osprey a remarkable aircraft that serves a verity of missions very well. SPEED is one of our favorite things about it, as well as range. We can get to locations faster and farther then we could with any helicopter. Just think, we can go twice as far, in the same amount of time as a standard bird.. thus we sacrifice nothing and cover a much wider area, or the same size area that much faster. Truly remarkable aircraft in my humble opinion.

I’m deployed to Afghanistan and contrary to Mr. Skinner and Rob, the Osprey a remarkable aircraft that serves a verity of missions very well. SPEED is one of our favorite things about it, as well as range. We can get to locations faster and farther then we could with any helicopter. Just think, we can go twice as far, in the same amount of time as a standard bird.. thus we sacrifice nothing and cover a much wider area, or the same size area that much faster. Truly remarkable aircraft in my humble opinion.

This “MIKE” is not in Afghanistan. This is a classic Boeing PR stunt. Well written, with the current spin on SPEED and the lie that it can fly twice as fare. And then its “remarkable”?

I would like to know why the prop type engines can’t be replaced by jet engines.…computers could balance the thrust and the rotation to level flight„, and the horizontal speed could be doubled..

The Osprey is already in some trouble if it loses one engine in a vertical flight configuration, even with the cross shaft keeping both props turning. No way that works with jet engines. Ducted fans… maybe, but then where do the engines go, how many engines will it need, how many ducted fans will it need, and how can you ensure power to all those fans in the event of power loss? Remember you have to carry fuel and cargo/ pax someplace too. Hope that helps.

If you remember right, when Dick Chaney was SecDef he canceled the program — Twice. Both times congress continued to directly fund the program to pay off their donors.

V-22s are only half a MEUs aircraft, so when they state: “The MEU flight managed a 77.6 percent mission capable rate.” they are averaging in the 90% readiness rate of the old helos. They have also learned that the less they fly, the less the V-22 break down.

Heat from the Jet exhaust. Remember it lands & take off Vertically. The Turbine engines alone cause enough of a problem with heat exhaust imagine how much that problem would be amplified.

The main problem with the plane during the flight testing; as the nacelles rotated from vertical to horizontal flight the propellors are so big and heavy cause a quick shift of weight causing imbalance that rocks the plane out of control much like a gyro does when tilted; changing the nacelles to jet engines would eliminate that and give a more stable tranition. The engine nacelles could remain fixed using the nozzle to change direction of the thrust using the F-35 engine already tried a true; having passed all testing with stellar reviews, exceeding spec requirements. Could consider a divertor to use the jet exhaust to change direction making for a quicker direction change allowing for more control in the huver mode. I believe they had an intreging idea and was bound and determined to make it work, no matter what. They could give us a peek at this in short order. I still believe the idea is sound if they consider trying another approach.

Specs are facts not opinions.. so look them up and no one can argue..

Everything over in theater has issues not just this bird that everyone seems to key in on, everything the govt approves is over priced and the military never gets what they actualy requested but have to make do. A lot of aircraft have crashed over there, tucks and jeeps roll over and blow parts in the terrain, small arms malfunction, electronics gear shuts down due to heat and dust. Fort Hood rebuilds thousands of vehicles and helos a month as do other DOL’s across the country. Ospreys are not the only thing breaking down guys and they have been used a number of times for inserting/extrcating operators, MEDIVACS, and SAR of other downed craft, they are not the smoothest thing in the air but I got over my jitters of them pretty quick and actualy preffered them at times over a 36 or 53 for getting out of a hot zone.

For those stating the Osprey is searching for or never had a mission don’t know anything about the Osprey Program; from either the Marine’s perspective or SOCom’s.

For the Marines it was many fold. One of the most important being STOM & future Expeditionary Maneuver Warfare. The Marines are presently deployed as a Static Land Army out of the nations current needs, but thats not the traditional nor future role of the USMC.

So your judging an emerging Technology meant to thrive in an Expeditionary Environment based on the present static Theater.

5yrs from now the Marines will largely be out of A’stan. Less than 10yrs fr/now Marines will deploy BN’s to Individual Theater Commands that will be broken into Comp-sized MAGTFs spread thru-out those TCs Maximizing both the Speed & Range of the MV-22.

For SOCom its easy 3 words; OPERATION EAGLE CLAW and the ability to conduct potential Complex Long Range Missions of a similar vein in the Future.

Once they pull out of A’stan in #‘s serious Global CT will begin, the CV-22 future mission is well defined.

Some people are blinded by hatred to the Osprey that they can’t stand the specs, and thus ignore them. Then throw out lies that the specs are false, like a democrat defending the trillion dollar bailout of banks that make trillions a year…

The specs are old goals. Read the 2005 OPEVAL report to see how poorly the V-22 did. It is linked at G2mil​.com For example, lift cargo to 50 miles. Goal was 15,000 lbs, minimum contract requirement 10,000 lbs, the MV-22B can only do 6000 lbs.

The Marines tried to do the EAGLE CLAW thing a couple years back, but the V-22s failed horribly. They only have half the range Bell-Boeing claims. The H-53s have more range. When Congress checked last year, most of the remaining V-22s were broke down, around two dozen have crashed or been retired, not counting the ten test and development birds.

Seems that there’s a big dichotamy between what’s said by the V-22’s lovers & haters. How are we to know which side is correct?

There’s nothing like combat to give equipment a real “shake down.” Ya gotta walk the walk in the zone b4 ya pick “fly specs outa pepper!“
God Bless America! USMC graduate

Tough to tell really. But the V-22 pilots are proud of their mounts for sure.

Thank goodness we did not have internet when the CH-47A and CH-46A were breaking, crashing and killing Troopers and Marines in the early 1960’s they never would have made it the 40 years they have served. Man were they dangerous! Turbine engines and intermeshing rotors (combining gear box with crossshafting fore and aft). Ask any CH-47 crew chief prior to a D model why their flight suits were always soaked with transmission fluid. Imagine the outrage we would have expoused as pundits when we found out there were pilots that REFUSED to fly the helicopter known as the “Boeing Body Bag”. Yet we now hold them as the paragon of reliability. But then that was way back when we did not know how to develop a new rotorcraft right?____I sat around at Rucker for a month waiting for the Army to figure out why UH-60A’s were flipping over and killing everyone, NOT wanting to transition into the “Crashhawk”. Shortly there after I was at Ft. Hood watching an army of McDonald-Douglas blue suited maintainers take parts off of one Apache to get another up. They had controlled substitution down to an art but our reaidness rate was great!____Early model aircraft are fraught with problems.__

Yes, those helicopters had problems as they were rushed into service in large numbers. The V-22 had many troubles in its early years. It first flew in 1989. Yet over 20 years later, it is still unsafe and broke down 70% of the time, costing $10 million a year in spare parts per aircraft. Experts all say they can’t be fixed because the basic design is flawed. The Marines have kept them far from the action and flying only in good weather, from concrete runways, and with light payloads to prevent mishaps. Only 20 of the Corps 150 MV-22s are deployed overseas or on ship.

2005? That’s 5 years old… your outdated

Its the same aircraft as in 2002! Same engines, same lousy performance. They’ve added a gun and flares, so more empty weight and it even worse. Three times the size and cost of a Blackhawk, with the same lift capacity. Those small proprotors just can’t lift much.

Again that Byron guy attacks Amy weapon system which provides power projection capability in lock step with Barry an usofkkka j wright who believes america needs to be cut down to size.

He must have anal poisoning from doing whatever Barry telss him to do.

This site would improve if his nonsense was removed.

Please elaborate on your statement “around two dozen have crashed or been retired”. That’s 24 aircraft…that’s a huge number! Please provide mre details on the 24 v-22 aircraft that have crashed or been retired…

HHHMMM Well I guess you need to get off your ass and go to where the action is.
While in Afghanistan I have been dropped in grass fields,dirt roads and pads, gravel LZ all from an aircraft you say can only land on concrete.

It is very simple compare the Ospry to what it is replacing (CH46) and it will always win. It is a transport aircraft not a cobra gunship. In Afghaistan we can hit more LZ’s in one hour than a 53 can in almost twice the time. (Yes the 53 can carry more) In todays combat environment it is about speed and stealth.
It’s amazing how many Osprey haters have NEVER flown in one at all.
If you follow the history of aviation you will clearly see vthat all GREAT aircraft had there challenges when they tried to do something no other aircraft could.

A little research and some facts will quickly show you that “V-22 haters” rely on the same recycled arguments over and over, 99% of which are directly false or distortions of the truth. People that actually fly this aircraft (like myself) are constantly amazed at what people who have no idea what they are talking about say about the V-22, based on myths perpetuated by the media and others.

“The Marines are presently deployed as a Static Land Army out of the nations current needs, but thats not the traditional nor future role of the USMC. ”

You better hope not since the mission projected by current USMC leadership is not a real mission. They are making it up to justify the high cost of the USMC. We do not need a sea borne reaction force in todays world, it is too slow to provide any utility whatsoever. Fact, the current SECDEF is not high on USMC plans, too much buck for too little bang. I predict in 20 years the USMC will either be gone or a shadow of its current self. There simply is no reason for them to exist as they currently exist or as they project they should exist, too expensive.

Funny, I do not remember all of these pilot killing crashes that are supposedly attributed to the Blackhawk? I was in then and remember a lot of crashes but they were all caused by the Army switching to night goggle flying. That has zero to do with the helicopter.


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

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.