V-22 Osprey Aircraft
Assessments Needed to Address Operational and Cost Concerns to Define Future Investments Gao ID: GAO-09-692T June 23, 2009Since the 1980s, the V-22, developed to transport combat troops, supplies, and equipment for the U.S. Marine Corps and to support other services' operations, has experienced several fatal crashes, demonstrated various deficiencies, and faced virtual cancellation--much of which it has overcome. Although recently deployed in Iraq and regarded favorably, it has not performed the full range of missions anticipated, and how well it can do so is in question. Given concerns about the V-22 program, GAO recently reviewed and on May 11, 2009, reported on MV-22 operations in Iraq; strengths and deficiencies in terms of the capabilities expected of the V-22; and past, current, and future costs. In that report, GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense require (1) a new alternatives analysis of the V-22 and (2) that the Marine Corps develop a prioritized strategy to improve system suitability, reduce operational costs, and align future budget requests. The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with the second recommendation, but not the first. GAO believes both recommendations remain valid. This testimony highlights GAO's findings from that report. In speaking of the V-22, we are actually speaking of two variants of the same aircraft. The MV-22 is used by the Marine Corps; and the CV-22 by the Air Force to support special operations. This statement largely focuses on the MV-22, but also refers to the V-22 and CV-22.
As of January 2009, the 12MV-22sin Iraq successfully completedall missions assigned in a low-threat theater of operations--using their enhanced speed and range to deliver personnel and internal cargo faster and farther than the legacy helicopters being replaced. However, challenges to operational effectiveness were noted that raise questions about whether the MV-22 is best suited to accomplish the full repertoire of missions of the helicopters it is intended to replace. Additionally, suitability challenges, such as unreliable component parts and supply chain weaknesses, led to low aircraft availability rates. Additional challenges have been identified with the MV-22's ability to operate in high-threat environments, carry the required number of combat troops and transport external cargo, operate from Navy ships, and conduct missions in more extreme environments throughout the world. While efforts are underway to address these challenges, it is uncertain how successful they will be as some of them arise from the inherent design of the V-22. The V-22's original program cost estimates have changed significantly. From 1986 through 2007, the program's Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation cost increased over 200 percent--from $4.2 to 12.7 billion--while the cost of procurement increased 24 percent from $34.4 to $42.6 billion. This increase coincided with significant reductions in the number of aircraft being procured--from nearly 1,000 to less than 500--resulting in a 148 percent increase in cost for each V-22. Operations and support costs are expected to rise. An indication is the current cost per flying hour, which is over $11,000--more than double the target estimate for the MV-22. After more than 20 years in development, the MV-22 experience in Iraq demonstrated that the Osprey can complete missions assigned in low-threat environments. Its speed and range were enhancements. However, challenges may limit its ability to accomplish the full repertoire of missions of the legacy helicopters it is replacing. If so, those tasks will need to be fulfilled by some other alternative. Additionally, the suitability challenges that lower aircraft availability and affect operations and support costs need to be addressed. The V-22 program has already received or requested over $29 billion in development and procurement funds. The estimated funding required to complete development and procure additional V-22s is almost $25 billion (then-year dollars). In addition, the program continues to face a future of high operations and support cost funding needs, currently estimated at $75.4 billionfor the life cycle of the program. Before committing to the full costs of completing production and supporting the V-22, the uses, cost, and performance of the V-22 need to be clarified and alternatives should be re-considered.
GAO-09-692T, V-22 Osprey Aircraft: Assessments Needed to Address Operational and Cost Concerns to Define Future Investments
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-692T
entitled 'V-22 Osprey Aircraft: Assessments Needed to Address
Operational and Cost Concerns to Define Future Investments' which was
released on June 24, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of
Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT:
Wednesday, June 24, 2009:
V-22 Osprey Aircraft:
Assessments Needed to Address Operational and Cost Concerns to Define
Future Investments:
Statement of Michael J. Sullivan, Director:
Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
GAO-09-692T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-692T, a testimony before the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Since the 1980s, the V-22, developed to transport combat troops,
supplies, and equipment for the U.S. Marine Corps and to support other
services‘ operations, has experienced several fatal crashes,
demonstrated various deficiencies, and faced virtual cancellation”much
of which it has overcome. Although recently deployed in Iraq and
regarded favorably, it has not performed the full range of missions
anticipated, and how well it can do so is in question.
Given concerns about the V-22 program, GAO recently reviewed and on May
11, 2009, reported on MV-22 operations in Iraq; strengths and
deficiencies in terms of the capabilities expected of the V-22; and
past, current, and future costs. In that report, GAO recommended that
the Secretary of Defense require (1) a new alternatives analysis of the
V-22 and (2) that the Marine Corps develop a prioritized strategy to
improve system suitability, reduce operational costs, and align future
budget requests. The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with the
second recommendation, but not the first. GAO believes both
recommendations remain valid. This testimony highlights GAO‘s findings
from that report.
In speaking of the V-22, we are actually speaking of two variants of
the same aircraft. The MV-22 is used by the Marine Corps; and the CV-22
by the Air Force to support special operations. This statement largely
focuses on the MV-22, but also refers to the V-22 and CV-22.
What GAO Found:
As of January 2009, the 12 MV-22s in Iraq successfully completed all
missions assigned in a low-threat theater of operations”using their
enhanced speed and range to deliver personnel and internal cargo faster
and farther than the legacy helicopters being replaced. However,
challenges to operational effectiveness were noted that raise questions
about whether the MV-22 is best suited to accomplish the full
repertoire of missions of the helicopters it is intended to replace.
Additionally, suitability challenges, such as unreliable component
parts and supply chain weaknesses, led to low aircraft availability
rates.
Additional challenges have been identified with the MV-22‘s ability to
operate in high-threat environments, carry the required number of
combat troops and transport external cargo, operate from Navy ships,
and conduct missions in more extreme environments throughout the world.
While efforts are underway to address these challenges, it is uncertain
how successful they will be as some of them arise from the inherent
design of the V-22.
The V-22‘s original program cost estimates have changed significantly.
From 1986 through 2007, the program‘s Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation cost increased over 200 percent”from $4.2 to 12.7 billion”
while the cost of procurement increased 24 percent from $34.4 to $42.6
billion. This increase coincided with significant reductions in the
number of aircraft being procured”from nearly 1,000 to less than 500”
resulting in a 148 percent increase in cost for each V-22. Operations
and support costs are expected to rise. An indication is the current
cost per flying hour, which is over $11,000”more than double the target
estimate for the MV-22.
After more than 20 years in development, the MV-22 experience in Iraq
demonstrated that the Osprey can complete missions assigned in low-
threat environments. Its speed and range were enhancements. However,
challenges may limit its ability to accomplish the full repertoire of
missions of the legacy helicopters it is replacing. If so, those tasks
will need to be fulfilled by some other alternative. Additionally, the
suitability challenges that lower aircraft availability and affect
operations and support costs need to be addressed. The V-22 program has
already received or requested over $29 billion in development and
procurement funds. The estimated funding required to complete
development and procure additional V-22s is almost $25 billion (then-
year dollars). In addition, the program continues to face a future of
high operations and support cost funding needs, currently estimated at
$75.4 billion for the life cycle of the program. Before committing to
the full costs of completing production and supporting the V-22, the
uses, cost, and performance of the V-22 need to be clarified and
alternatives should be re-considered.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-692T] or key
components. For more information, contact Michael J. Sullivan at 202-
512-4841 or sullivanm@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am very pleased to be here today to discuss the current status of the
V-22 Osprey program. Since the V-22 Osprey began development in the mid-
1980s, it has experienced several fatal crashes, demonstrated a variety
of deficiencies, and faced the virtual cancellation of the program--
much of which it has been able to overcome. There are two variants of
the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft currently being used. The MV-22 variant
for the Marine Corps will replace the CH-46E helicopter as the Marine
Corps' medium-lift aircraft--to be used along with the heavy-lift CH-
53[Footnote 1]--to fulfill operational requirements such as
transporting combat troops, supplies, and equipment. The Air Force's CV-
22 variant will augment existing U.S. Special Operations Command
aircraft. Until recently, the MV-22 was deployed in Iraq. While it
accomplished assigned missions there, its usage did not encompass the
full range of tasks anticipated for the aircraft. In addition,
identified operational challenges raise questions concerning how
effectively it can perform the full range of anticipated missions.
My testimony today is based on our recently issued report Defense
Acquisitions: Assessments Needed to Address V-22 Aircraft Operational
and Cost Concerns to Define Future Investments.[Footnote 2] In view of
our past work and others' highlighting concerns about the V-22 program,
you asked us to determine whether the V-22 will perform as promised,
and if it will, at what cost. To do this, we reviewed and reported on
the system from three perspectives:
* Its operations in Iraq,
* Its strengths and deficiencies in terms of the capabilities expected
of it, and:
* Its past, current, and future costs.
Our work on both this testimony and the report on which it is based was
conducted from June 2008 to May 2009 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we
plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence
to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on
our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
Background:
The V-22 Osprey is a tilt-rotor aircraft--one that operates as a
helicopter for takeoffs and landings and, once airborne, converts to a
turboprop aircraft--developed to fulfill medium-lift operations such as
transporting combat troops, supplies, and equipment for the U.S. Navy,
Marine Corps, and Air Force special operations. Figure 1 depicts V-22
aircraft in various aspects of use.
Figure 1: Views of V-22 Aircraft in Various Aspects of Use:
[Refer to PDF for image: four photographs]
Source: U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps.
[End of figure]
The Osprey program was started in December 1981 to satisfy mission
needs for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Originally headed by the Army,
the program was transferred to the Navy in 1982 when the Army withdrew
from the program citing affordability issues. The program was approved
for full-scale development in 1986, and the first aircraft was flown in
1989. A month after the first flight, the Secretary of Defense stopped
requesting funds for the program due to affordability concerns. In
December 1989, the Department of Defense (DOD) directed the Navy to
terminate all V-22 contracts because, according to DOD, the V-22 was
not affordable when compared to helicopter alternatives, and production
ceased. Congress disagreed with this decision, however, and continued
to fund the project. In October of 1992 the Navy ordered development to
continue and awarded a contract to a Bell Helicopter Textron and Boeing
Helicopters joint venture to begin producing production-representative
aircraft.
Low-Rate Initial Production began in 1997. In 2000, the MV-22 variant
began operational testing, the results of which led the Navy's
operational testers to conclude that the MV-22 was operationally
effective and was operationally suitable for land-based operations.
[Footnote 3] Later evaluations resulted in testers concluding that the
MV-22 would be operationally suitable on ships as well. Based on the
same tests, DOD's independent operational testers concluded that the MV-
22 was operationally effective but not operationally suitable, due in
part to reliability concerns. Despite the mixed test conclusions, a
Program Decision Meeting was scheduled for December 2000 to determine
whether the V-22 should progress beyond low-rate initial production
into full-rate production. Following two fatal crashes that occurred in
2000 and resulted in 23 deaths, the last one occurring just before the
full-rate production decision, the V-22 was grounded and, rather than
proceeding to full-rate production, the program was directed to
continue research and development while low-rate production continued.
Before the V-22 resumed flight tests, modifications were made to
requirements and design changes were made to the aircraft to correct
safety concerns and problems. A second round of operational testing
with modified aircraft was conducted in June 2005. Both Navy and DOD
testers then recommended that the aircraft be declared operationally
effective and suitable for military use. The Defense Acquisition Board
approved it for military use as well as full-rate production in
September 2005.
Operations in Iraq Demonstrated Effectiveness for Assigned Missions but
the Aircraft Continues to Experience Challenges:
The MV-22 deployments in Iraq were considered successful. As of January
2009, the 12 MV-22s deployed in Iraq and utilized by three separate
squadrons had successfully completed all missions assigned to them
including general support--moving people and cargo--in what was
considered an established, low-threat theater of operations[Footnote
4]. These deployments confirmed that the MV-22's enhanced speed and
range enable personnel and internally carried cargo to be transported
faster and farther than is possible with the legacy helicopters the MV-
22 is replacing. According to MV-22 users and troop commanders, its
speed and range "cut the battlefield in half," expanding battlefield
coverage with decreased asset utilization and enabling it to do two to
three times as much as legacy helicopters in the same flight time.
Cited advantages include more rapid delivery of medical care, more
rapid completion of missions, and more rapid travel by U.S. military
officials to meetings with Iraqi leaders. The MV-22 also participated
in a few AeroScout missions and carried a limited number of external
cargo loads.[Footnote 5]
However, questions have arisen about whether the MV-22 is the aircraft
best suited to accomplish the full mission repertoire of the
helicopters it is intended to replace, and some challenges in
operational effectiveness have been noted. Also, aircraft suitability
challenges, such as unreliable parts and supply chain weaknesses, drove
availability significantly below minimum required levels.
The aircraft's use in Iraq demonstrated operational challenges. For
example, the introduction of the MV-22 into Iraq in combination with
existing helicopters has led to some reconsideration of the appropriate
role of each. Battlefield commanders and aircraft operators in Iraq
identified a need to better understand the role the Osprey should play
in fulfilling warfighter needs. They indicated, for example, that the
MV-22 may not be best suited for the full range of missions requiring
medium lift, because the aircraft's speed cannot be exploited over
shorter distances or in transporting external cargo. These concerns
were also highlighted in a recent preliminary analysis of the MV-22 by
the Center for Naval Analysis, which found that the MV-22 may not be
the optimal platform for those missions.
Availability challenges also impacted the MV-22. In Iraq, the V-22's
mission capability (MC) and full-mission capability (FMC) rates fell
significantly below required levels as well as rates achieved by legacy
helicopters.[Footnote 6] The V-22 MC minimum requirement is 82 percent,
with an objective of 87 percent, compared with actual MC rates for the
three squadrons of 68, 57 and 61 percent. This experience is not unique
to Iraq deployment, as low MC rates were experienced for all MV-22
squadrons, in and out of Iraq. In comparison, the Iraq-based legacy
helicopter MC rates averaged 85 percent or greater during the period of
October 2007 to June 2008. Similarly, the program originally had a FMC
requirement of 75 percent; but its actual rate of 6 percent in Iraq
from October 2007 to April 2008 was significantly short of that, due in
large part to faults in the V-22's Ice Protection System. In areas
where icing conditions are more likely to be experienced, such as in
Afghanistan, this may threaten mission accomplishment.
Repair parts issues and maintenance challenges affected the
availability of MV-22s in Iraq. V-22 maintenance squadrons faced
reliability and maintainability challenges, stemming from an immature
supply chain not always responsive to the demand for repair parts and
aircraft and engine parts lasting only a fraction of their projected
service life. The MV-22 squadrons in Iraq made over 50 percent more
supply-driven maintenance requests than the average Marine aviation
squadron in Iraq. A lack of specific repair parts took place despite
having an inventory intended to support 36 aircraft as opposed to the
12 aircraft deployed. However, only about 13 percent of those parts
were actually used in the first deployment. In addition, many parts
that were used were in particularly high demand, which led to a
shortage that caused cannibalization of parts from other V-22s, MV-22s
in the United States, and from the V-22 production line. Thirteen V-22
components accounted for over half the spare parts unavailable on base
in Iraq when requested. These 13 lasted, on average, less than 30
percent of their expected life, and 6 lasted less than 10 percent of
their expected life. V-22 engines also fell significantly short of
service life expectancy, lasting less than 400 hours versus the program
estimated life of 500-600 hours.
Operational Tests and Training Exercises Have Identified Challenges to
Accomplishing Full Range of Possible Operations:
V-22 missions in Iraq represent only a portion of the operations
envisioned for the aircraft, but operational tests and training
exercises have identified challenges in the V-22's ability to conduct
operations in high-threat environments, carry the required number of
combat troops and transport external cargo, operate from Navy ships,
and conduct missions operating in more extreme environments throughout
the world. While efforts are underway to address these challenges,
success is uncertain since some of them arise from the inherent design
of the V-22.
* High-Threat Environments: The Osprey was intended to operate across a
spectrum of high-threat combat situations, facing a broad range of
enemy land-and sea-based weapons. However, its ability to do so is not
yet demonstrated.
- The V-22 has maneuvering limits that restrict its ability to perform
defensive maneuvers and it does not have a required integrated
defensive weapon needed to suppress threats while approaching a landing
zone, disembarking troops within the landing zone, or while leaving the
landing zone. Currently, the Marine Corps intends to employ the
aircraft in a manner that limits its exposure to threats--a change from
the original intent that the system would be able to operate in such
environments.
* Transporting Personnel and External Cargo: Operational tests and
shipboard training exercises have determined that the capacity of the
MV-22 to transport troops and external cargo is, in some cases, below
program requirements.
- The V-22 cannot carry a full combat load of 24 Marines if equipped as
intended. The average weight of each Marine fully equipped with
improved body armor and equipment has risen from 240 to 400 pounds. As
a result, the aircraft can only transport 20 fully loaded combat troops
rather than the 24-troop requirement. Troop-carrying capacity may be
further reduced in other configurations and flight scenarios.
- Most external cargo loads have not been certified for high-speed
transport and thus would not enable the V-22's speed to be leveraged.
Anticipated new and heavier equipment would not be able to be
transported by the Osprey. A 2007 Center for Naval Analysis study found
that the MV-22 will not be able to externally transport heavier
equipment, such as the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle--which is to
replace the Marine Corps' High-Mobility, Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle
(HMMWV). As a result, the study concluded that there will be less need
for MV-22s for external lifting and an increased need for heavier lift
helicopters.
- The weight of the MV-22 with added equipment planned as upgrades to
currently configured aircraft may pose a moderate risk to the program.
The heavier the aircraft is, the less it can carry. Weight growth as a
result of planned MV-22 upgrades could reduce the aircraft's
operational utility transporting loads in higher altitude regions of
the world, such as Afghanistan.
* Operating on Navy Ships: Efforts to ready the V-22 for deployment
onboard Navy ships have identified numerous challenges.
- Because it is larger than the helicopter it is replacing, ships can
carry fewer V-22s than the predecessor aircraft. Also, the V-22 cannot
fully utilize all operational deck spots on ships. The MV-22 is only
cleared to take off and land from four of the six operational deck
spots of the LHA-and LHD-class ships usable by CH-46s.
- The Osprey's large inventory of repair parts also constrains hangar
deck space essential for maintenance actions on the V-22 and other
aircraft. The space needed for its repair parts is so large that some
parts may need to be prepositioned ashore.
- Safety concerns caused by downwash have been documented. The V-22's
proprotors create downwash significantly greater than that of the CH-
46s it is replacing. The downwash impacts operations below the
aircraft, including troop embarkation and debarkation, hooking up
external loads, and fastroping.[Footnote 7] During shipboard exercises,
the V-22's downwash dislodged equipment such as life raft container
securing bands and was so severe in one instance that another person
was assigned to physically hold in place the sailor acting as the
landing guide. Recently completed tests on the CV-22 found that the
significant downwash also had various negative effects on land-based
missions.
* Challenges Operating Globally in Extreme Environments: The Osprey's
ability to conduct worldwide operations in many environments is
limited.
- The V-22 had a requirement that its fuselage and cockpit be designed
to restrict the entry of nuclear, biological, and chemical contaminants
into the aircraft.[Footnote 8] During initial operational tests
numerous problems existed with the seals that maintained cabin
pressure, so the system could not be used. Without it, operational V-
22s are forced to avoid or exit areas of suspected contamination and
decontaminate affected aircraft, likely reducing their availability and
sortie capability.
- The MV-22 is intended to support diverse mission requirements that
will require it to fly during the day or at night, in favorable or
adverse weather, and across a range of altitudes from close to the
ground to above 10,000 feet above mean sea level. Current V-22
operating limitations do not support helicopter operations above 10,000
feet. The MV-22 currently does not have a weather radar and the
Osprey's Ice Protection System is unreliable, so flying through known
or forecasted icing conditions is currently prohibited.
V-22 Costs Rose While Performance Requirements Were Modified:
The V-22's original program cost estimates have changed significantly
as research and development, and procurement costs have risen sharply
above initial projections. Operations and supports costs are just
beginning and are expected to rise. This has taken place in spite of
the fact that performance standards and metrics for V-22 were modified
throughout the development effort.
V-22 Business Case and Acquisition Strategy Have Eroded as Costs Have
Increased Significantly and Are Expected to Continue to Rise:
From initial development in 1986 through the end of 2007, the program's
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation cost increased over 200
percent--from $4.2 to $12.7 billion--while its procurement cost
increased nearly 24 percent from $34.4 to $42.6 billion.[Footnote 9]
This increase coincided with significant reductions in the number of
aircraft being procured--from nearly a thousand to less than 500 (most
of which will be procured for the Marine Corps)--resulting in a 148
percent increase in procurement unit cost for each V-22. Operations and
support (O&S) cost are also expected to rise. Table 1 details key
aspects of the V-22 program's cost and schedule experience from
development start to 2007.
Table 1: V-22 Cost, Quantity and Schedule Changes from Development
Start to 2007:
Costs in millions of constant fiscal year 2009 dollars.
Research & Development;
1986: $4,211.8;
2007: $12,682.0;
Percentage: change: 201%.
Procurement;
1986: $34,362.9;
2007: $42,585.2;
Percentage: change: 24%.
Procurement unit cost;
1986: $37.7;
2007: $93.4;
Percentage: change: 148%.
Average program unit cost (Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
plus Procurement costs)/Quantity;
1986: $42.3;
2007: $121.2;
Percentage: change: 186%.
Procurement quantities;
1986: 913;
2007: 456;
Percentage: change: -50.1%.
Production years;
1986: 1990-1999;
2007: 1997-2018;
Percentage: change: [Empty].
Initial operational capability;
1986: 1992;
2007: June 2007;
Percentage: change: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Navy V-22 Selected Acquisition Reports.
[End of table]
O&S costs--typically the largest portion of a weapon system's total
costs--are currently reported at $75.41 billion for the life cycle of
the program, but O&S costs for the program are just beginning and are
expected to rise. One indication they may rise is the current cost per
flying hour, which is over $11,000--more than double the target
estimate for the MV-22 as well as 140 percent higher than the cost for
the CH-46E.[Footnote 10] The Osprey's Iraq experience demonstrated that
the rise in cost is due in part to unreliable parts, the cost of some
parts, and required maintenance.
As illustrated in figure 2, the program's estimated future funding
needs are approximately $100 billion (then-year dollars)--nearly $25
billion in procurement and around $75 billion in O&S.
Figure 2: V-22 Funding Profile (Then-Year Dollars)[Footnote 11]
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Spending category: Research and development;
Appropriated and requested funds (program start through 2009): $9.6
billion;
Estimated future funding: $0.31 billion.
Spending category: Procurement;
Appropriated and requested funds (program start through 2009): $19.26
billion;
Estimated future funding: $24.78 billion.
Spending category: Operations and support cost;
Appropriated and requested funds (program start through 2009): 0;
Estimated future funding: %75.41 billion.
Spending category: Total;
Appropriated and requested funds (program start through 2009): $28.86
billion;
Estimated future funding: $100.50 billion.
Source: V-22 December 2007 Selected Acquisition Report.
[End of figure]
According to Marine Corps officials, the presence of unreliable parts
contributed to reliability and maintainability issues for MV-22
deployed in Iraq, and a program is in place to address underperforming
components. However, program management does not consider the current
reliability and maintainability strategy to be coherent. Problems with
parts reliability have resulted in more maintenance activity than
expected, and if there is no improvement, overall cost and maintenance
hours may remain high. Changes to the current engine sustainment
contract with Rolls Royce--the V-22's engine manufacturer--could also
affect the program's already rising O&S costs.
Key Performance Standards and Other Performance Metrics for MV-22
Modified:
Initially, the Marine Corps' proposed performance parameters for the V-
22 were focused on speed, range, and payload. However, the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council deferred consideration of system
requirements until completing the 1994 Cost and Operational
Effectiveness Analysis that validated the V-22 over other alternatives.
While reports indicate that the MV-22 is meeting all its key
performance parameters, program officials said modifications were made
to balance aircraft operational requirements against technical risks
and program costs. In 2001, for example, modifications consolidated 14
key performance parameters into 7 for the MV-22 variant.
While the office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation
(DOT&E) found the MV-22 operationally effective in 2000, it did not
find it operationally suitable, due in part to reliability concerns.
Mission capability, one of the metrics used to measure suitability, was
modified in 2004 such that the mission capability rate does not now
have to be met until the aircraft reaches system maturity (60,000
flight hours), whereas the requirement previously specified no minimum
required number of flight hours. According to Marine Corps Headquarters
officials, the aircraft currently has over 50,000 hours and may reach
the 60,000 hour threshold within a year.
Concerns about V-22 weight increase and how it may affect aircraft
performance have continued. In 2005, a DOT&E report on the second
operational test of the MV-22 predicted a drop in performance due to a
projected weight increase. However, according to Navy operational
testers who tested the aircraft in 2007, performance did not decrease.
DOT&E did not report on the 2007 test. The program office is currently
tracking weight increase in the newest version of the aircraft as a
potential risk to the achievement of select key performance parameters.
Concluding Observations:
After more than 20 years in development and 14 years since the last
cost and operational effectiveness analysis was developed to reaffirm
the decision to proceed with the V-22 program, the MV-22 experience in
Iraq demonstrated that the Osprey can complete missions assigned in low-
threat environments. Its speed and range were enhancements. However,
challenges may limit its ability to accomplish the full repertoire of
missions of the legacy helicopters it is replacing. If so, those tasks
will need to be fulfilled by some other alternative. Viewed more
broadly, the MV-22 has yet to fully demonstrate that it can achieve the
original required level of versatility. To be useful to the warfighter
in a variety of climates and places, its ability to address and resolve
a range of operational challenges must be re-evaluated. Furthermore,
suitability challenges that lower aircraft availability and affect the
operations and support funding that may be required to maintain the
fleet need to be addressed. Based on the Iraq experience, the cost per
flight hour is more than double the target estimate. DOD is therefore
faced with the prospect of directing more money to a program, the
military utility of which in some areas remains unproven. Now is a good
time to consider the return on this investment as well as other less
costly alternatives that may fill the current requirement.
The V-22 program has already received or requested over $29 billion in
development and procurement funds. The estimated funding required to
complete the development and procure additional V-22s is almost $25
billion (then-year dollars). In addition, the program continues to face
a future of high operations and support cost funding needs, currently
estimated at $75.4 billion for the life cycle of the program. Before
committing to the full costs of completing production and support the V-
22, the uses, cost, and performance of the V-22 need to be clarified
and alternatives should be reconsidered. Questions to consider include:
To what degree is the V-22 a suitable and exclusive candidate for the
operational needs of the Marine Corps and other services? How much will
it cost? How much can DOD afford to spend? To what degree can a
strategy be crafted for ensuring control over these future costs? If
the V-22 is only partially suitable, to what degree can another
existing aircraft or some mixture of existing aircraft (including V-
22s) or a new aircraft perform all or some of its roles more cost
effectively? Some consideration should be given to evaluating the roles
such aircraft play in today's theaters of war and whether their
performance warrants their cost.
Failure to re-examine the V-22 program at this point risks the
expenditure of billions of dollars on an approach that may be less
effective than alternatives. Furthermore, if the suitability challenges
facing the program are not adequately addressed, the future cost of the
program could rise significantly requiring funds that might otherwise
be made available to satisfy other needs. This is why we recommended in
our May 11 report that the Secretary of Defense (1) re-examine the V-22
by requiring a new alternatives analysis and (2) require the Marine
Corps to develop a prioritized strategy to improve system suitability,
reduce operational costs, and align future budget requests. DOD
concurred with our second recommendation, but not the first. In non-
concurring with our recommendation for a new V-22 alternatives
analysis, DOD stated that it supports validating required MV-22
quantities and the proper mix of aircraft, but not by means of a new V-
22 alternatives analysis. Rather, DOD stated that planning for all
elements of Marines Corps aviation (including required quantities,
location, and employment of medium-lift assets) and total force
affordability are reviewed and updated annually in the Marine Aviation
Plan. We maintain our recommendation for a new alternatives analysis as
a means of providing a comparison of a fuller range of alternatives,
including their costs, operational suitability, and operational
effectiveness under varying scenarios and threat levels. Furthermore,
development of a V-22 alternatives analysis could assure congressional
decision-makers that a reasoned business case exists that supports the
planned acquisition of an additional 282 V-22s and an expenditure of
almost $25 billion in procurement funds in fiscal years 2010 and
beyond.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Committee may
have at this time.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
For further information about this testimony, please contact Michael J.
Sullivan at (202) 512-4841 or sullivanm@gao.gov. Individuals making key
contributions to this testimony include Bruce H. Thomas, Assistant
Director; Jerry W. Clark; Bonita J.P. Oden; Bob Swierczek; Kathryn E.
Bolduc; Jonathan R. Stehle; Johanna Ayers; Jason Pogacnik; Hi Tran;
William Solis; and Marie P. Ahearn.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] CH-53 helicopters are also being used, in part, to conduct medium-
lift operations for the Marines Corps.
[2] GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Assessments Needed to Address V-22
Aircraft Operational and Cost Concerns to Define Future Investments,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-482] (Washington, D.C.:
May 11, 2009).
[3] Operational Effectiveness is the measure of the overall ability of
a system to accomplish a mission when used by representative personnel
in the environment planned or expected for operational employment of
the system. Operational Suitability is the degree to which a system can
be placed and sustained satisfactorily in field use.
[4] Low threat includes sporadic small arms fire from random locations
(maximum caliber 7.62 mm/.30 cal), and automatic weapons (assault
rifles). Medium threat includes those threats, plus larger caliber
weapons (.50 cal/12.5 mm and 23mm, but not Anti-Aircraft Artillery
(AAA)) adapted for anti-aircraft fire, more sophisticated aiming
devices, and legacy man-portable air-defense systems. High threat
environment may include mobile and/or stationary surface-to-air
missiles, early warning radars, integrated AAA fire control systems,
and interceptor aircraft.
[5] AeroScout missions were developed for and conducted by legacy
helicopters. The concept arose prior to the V-22 arriving in Iraq.
AeroScout missions are made to identify suspicious targets and
neutralize those threats.
[6] An aircraft that is mission capable (MC) is one that is in a
material condition to perform at least one of its designated missions,
while an aircraft that is fully mission capable (FMC) is in a material
condition to perform all of its designated missions. The program has
modified the MC requirement by stating that this threshold should be
achieved by the time the fleet completes 60,000 flight hours, which
officials expect to occur sometime near the end of 2009.
[7] Fastroping is a method used by troops to quickly exit a hovering
aircraft.
[8] This requirement has since been dropped.
[9] Amounts are in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars.
[10] These data were gathered after the Material Support Date, October
1, 2008, when the Navy assumed responsibility for all spares and repair
parts needed to support a new weapons system, subsystem, or support
equipment end item at Fleet operational sites.
[11] O&S expenditures to date for the recently fielded MV-22 are not
reported in the Selected Acquisition Report. O&S funding represents
past and future funding needs. In fiscal year 2009 dollars, R&D would
be $12.6 billion in past funds and $0.3 billion in estimated future
funding; procurement would be $21 billion in past funds and $22.3
billion estimated future funding, and O&S would be $54.5 billion in
estimated future funding.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
