New V-22 Multiyear Could be Near

New V-22 Multiyear Could be Near

The Navy hopes to hear back from Bell-Boeing on a proposal for a second multi-year contract for 122 V-22 Ospreys on May 26, such a  deal would round out the Air Force and Marine Corps buy of 50 and 360 aircraft, respectively.

If the five-year deal is approved, it means that the Pentagon will save a minimum of ten-percent over a one year buy of the tiltrotors, according to Col. Greg Masiello, NAVAIR’s V-22 program manager. The flyaway cost for each bird is roughly $65 million.

“At this point we’re confident of ten-percent savings over a single year price,” is all John Rader, Bell Boeing’s executive in charge of the V-22 program, would say when asked if the deal will save more than ten-percent.

Congress must approve the deal before it can go forward.

Meanwhile, the Air Force variant of the tiltrotor is seeing readiness rates pushing 80-percent for deployed units while Marine MV-22 squadrons operating in the field are up to around 70 percent, according to Masiello. Stateside units are still a little lower than that.

And in a very interesting piece of Osprey news, HMX-1, the Marine chopper squadron that flies Marine One presidential helicopters will receive 14 MV-22 Ospreys to haul the president’s gear starting in 2013, said Masiello. The tiltrotors will replace the VH-53D Sea Stallions used to carry the president’s gear (not the president) that are being pulled out of VIP duty and back into regular cargo hauling squadrons. Last year, Boeing announced that it was offering up the V-22 in response to a NAVAIR request for information on a new Marine One replacement chopper.



Join the Conversation

Outstanding. Great Aircraft. Where are the idiots at time magazine?

Now that they have most of the kinks worked out, these things are turning out to be a real asset. Anything that gets boots on the ground faster is good for the marines.

Good Evening Folks,

Did anybody else notice that any dollar amounts were conveniently not mentioned in this article. We are saving 10% of what?

Byron Skinner

Given that it is flyway cost, then it is the sale cost for the multi-year contract. The cost of ordering on single year contract would therefore be 11% higher, or about 72 million each. The next question real should be how much could be saved if we bought them over four years instead of five years. Given the amount of overhead on a Pentagon project, they might save another ten percent.

keep in mind, there built to last 30 plus years

10% of the 600% budget overrun, a real bargain

We can build a brand new F/A-18G for less than the cost of this worthless platform. What do we NEED!!! OV-22 or F/A-18G that both the Air Force and Navy Needs on the Battlefield. The problem is that the Air Force decided to with their stupid leadership, stop producing an EW platform and instead put all their marbles in one bag until the S-400 came out.…now they have to beg the Navy for support. GO Wall Street!!!

What exactly is your point? Can you fit a squad of marines on an F/A-18? How is the V22 worthless? CH46 is retiring. The Marines NEED a replacement. They already have ~150 successfully operating Ospreys out of their total REQUIREMENT of ~350.

Guess what? CH53K isnt being built yet. Its not even finished with design. First flight testing isnt until next year. And guess what, its over budget already too. Why such premature cheerleading for an over-budget unfinished platform? You talk like its success is a foregone conclusion.

V22 is flying, successfully, fufilling operation requirements, and the marines love its capabilities.

The Point is Why are we retiring the CH46? This platform should be upgraded and kept in service. If we need to go from point A to Point B with a platform that has no Connectivity or Offensive Capability other than deploying the Greatest Marine Corps in out History, why do we need the V22? I head that the V-22 Could not land troops at high altitude such as high Mountain Terrain do to it’s Engines and thin air. Is this True? I have no Beef with giving the Marines anything they want for any reason. However, I believe the Marines could use some F/A-18E/F and EA-18G at $45,000,000.00 each verse $65,000,000.00 each for a V-22 or $150,000,000.00 each for JSF at this point the methodlogy seems a little strange. Dropping paper that states “Get out in 2 Hours”, We are going to Napalm all the Hills of Afghanistan and burn them out of hiding should be our first priority. Let’s take Colin Powell advise. If we are going to go in let go in and stop playing around with these crazy individuals. Enough is Enough.

I build the MV-22 and the CV-22 for Boeing (in fact I am sitting ten feet from one right now), and I for one couldn’t be happier to hear about the aircraft’s success. Also love knowing that it is in demand. Which is great for job security.

Well I fly this thing and love the aircraft but it is not without its flaws and when our senior leaders try to hide these flaws it only hurts our community rather than trying to fix the aircraft. 80% for the CV-22 is completely misleading. A CV-22 hasn’t bean deployed for about 6 months, and then there were only 4. Know why they don’t report stateside numbers? Because all the parts (cannibalized and new) went to keep the four near 80%. If the V-22 is so great and needed in combat then why are they giving 14 to HMX-1 and pulling the old VH-53 back into combat? Because just like any V-22 aircrew member will tell you, it is NOT a helicopter and CAN NOT do everything a helicopter can do. And what they really need in Afghanistan is helicopters, not the V-22. High, hot and dust don’t work well with this aircraft. Yes its a great aircraft. Yes it can do missions that no other aircraft can do. But until senior leaders realize and acknowledge its limitations they will only continue to hurt the community and those who fly it.

Right on… failure to understand the amount of money to shut down one production line prematurely to ramp up another one to build legacy aircraft… lets see the math on that one. Because I guess most people fail to realize that these production lines are owned and funded by the government and not the manufacturer. I understand cutting losses… but a viable asset… I think not.

Yes, we should definately keep flying a 50+ year old airframe for the next two decades. Fantastic idea! Because it is obvious that the CH46 are so incredibly flawless that there is no way anything in 2011 could be worthy of replacing it.
Please. Get real. With this attitute we’d still be riding horses to work.

Geez, I wonder if you are an F-18 guy???????

At last! Someone who unrdesantds! Thanks for posting!

Ja3q1J ssvsrzlygkof

You will never know the cost to build this a/c . This is a well kept secreat , well hidden, if the truth were known it have been cancelled long ago.

Replacing the ch46 with the v22 is like replacing a 1/2 ton F150 w/a Ferrari. They are both great at wha they do but they don’t do the same job. Who wants a Lance Corporal working on there Ferrari? Crickets? Yes thats what I thought.

No, the CH-46 & V-22 do EXACTLY the same job! The V-22 does it SO much better though AND is able to do many other jobs.

V-22 Osprey is an immense, technology abundant eye catching aircraft. Unfortunately, old and initially conservative design, burdens Osprey with insurmountable limitations. Although faster from helicopters, V-22 clearly is not fit for ferocious combat environment. With inferior payload it is too luxurious and oversophisticated for transport services. Immanently slow descends and delicate awkward landings render Osprey in helpless sitting duck. Any temptation for real combat ordeal would definitely lead in disaster. Aside of fatalities, loosing trivially such precious collection of technology is plain absurdness. Full combat capability is what USMC presumably expected and need. Inherent fragility and insufficiencies will not fade away thru occasional lenient commendations. By inertia of high expectations and accumulated spending it seems USMC and Industry became hostages of both.

The MV-22 and the CV-22 allow you to “git there the first’ust with the most’ess” which is the first rule in how to win a battle

I don’t understand why so many people are up in arms about the V-22’s lack of armament. It’s a cargo aircraft, not an attack aircraft. That’s what the Cobras and Hueys are for. And you know why the 53’s are going to back to the fleet and 22’s to HMX? Because, among other reasons, the fleet actually needs those 53’s in service for heavy lifting operations. The last statistic I heard was 40 man-hours of maintenance per flight hour compared to the Phrog’s (the 46’s replaced HMX’s 53’s; the V-22 is replacing the 46’s just like every other 46 squadron, eventually)
I am a Marine crew chief from the phrog community, now in the Osprey community. I see what it can do. Sure, the phrog can mount weapons on its sides (which most crew chiefs/door gunners I know never used anyway), and yes it can perform a spiral decent. But in the time it takes to do a “hard to hit me” spiral decent, unload the passengers and take off, the Osprey has already dropped off its packs, performed a STO (short take off) and is several miles from the LZ performing 60-degree turns and hitting altitudes the overweight, burdened 46 could never hit.
I love my H-46, but the V-22 really is the future for medium lift (its lifting capability is hindered mostly by the composite frame, not the vertical lift produced). I just wish people who never stepped foot on an Osprey would quit regurgitating the stuff they read from others who have never flown or tested an Osprey. Otherwise, you don’t know what you’re talking about and are spreading nothing but FUD.

1. Last statistic I heard about the phrogs was 14 man-hours per flight hour. I have no references other than word-of-mouth.
2. Comparing the 46 and 22 to and F-150 and a Porsche is absurd. It’s more like comparing a Nissa Versa to a turbo-charged Subaru Legacy — the Legacy is bigger, heavier, faster, and carries more people and cargo over further distances.


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.