Why wasn't the V-22 picked as Marine One?

Today the Pentagon announced that Lockheed Martin will build the next presidential helicopter, known as Marine One, beating its competitor Sikorsky.  In the following unpublished [written before the competition's conclusion] op-ed POGO's Eric Miller argued, "Why isn't the V-22 being considered as the next Marine One?"

The president is looking for a new state-of-the-art helicopter to pick him up on the South Lawn of the White House. So why isn’t the “revolutionary” V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft even on his radar screen?

This seems a bit puzzling because the V-22, which takes off like a helicopter but flies like a plane, would seem to be a perfect match for the Commander-in-Chief’s mission. If this bird really is as good as the Marines say it is, you’d think that the folks from Bell-Boeing, the partnership developing and building the V-22, would be camping out in the president’s reception room eager to take him for a test spin around the block.

But for some reason, they’re not. Could it be that all the president’s men are concerned that the V-22 isn’t safe or reliable? If that’s the case, then why do the Marines want it so badly?

As defense contractor competitions go, the contest to build the new and improved fleet of 23 presidential helicopters designed for a post 9/11 world has been increasingly ungentlemanly and uncommonly public. You may have noticed the pricey full-page ads running recently in several publications pitching higher-tech versions of the president’s helicopter, designated as “Marine One.”

It’s a real trophy for a contractor to build and maintain those sleek, shiny, aircraft, but the spoils that go to the victor are worth far more than the $1.6 billion contract, extra jobs, and new assembly line. Who could ask for better bragging rights than evening news images of the most powerful man on earth smiling and waving from the steps of your whirly-bird?

The field of competitors for the new Marine One has been narrowed in recent months to only two defense contractors. One is Connecticut-based Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., selling its “all-American” VH-92 helicopter. Sikorsky has been building Marine One since Dwight Eisenhower was president, but now is being challenged by a group led by Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin. Lockheed is offering to build a special version of the British-Italian EH-101 helicopter, renamed the US101 for obvious patriotic reasons. A decision is due later this year and the new fleet could begin operating by 2008.

But from the beginning, the V-22, predicted to “create a revolution in the executive/VIP transport role,” hasn’t even gotten to first base in the presidential helicopter competition. This omission is suspect.

How good is the V-22? Its program manager, Air Force Colonel Craig Olson, says it’s this good: “Twice as fast, six times the payload capability, and six times the range of the aircraft it’s replacing, the V-22 is not just evolutionary, it’s revolutionary.”

What is even more puzzling is that some of the same Marine and Navy pilots who fly the president’s helicopter are the same best-in-the-business pilots who also test the V-22. Something is amiss here.

Why would the pilots and program managers who publicly say the V-22 is an amazing machine not be pushing for it to also be the president’s helicopter? If it’s good enough to haul two dozen Marines to the battle front, why isn’t it good enough to shuttle the President from the White House to Andrews Air Force Base?

Here’s one possible scenario:  Maybe those same pilots who test the V-22 and fly the president to his gigs have gotten word to the White House powers-that-be that the V-22 is not a safe and reliable aircraft. Surely, such warnings have not been committed to paper, but they could have been communicated over a cold beer in a dark tavern or over a cup of coffee in a downtown Starbucks.

I raise this possibility because the presidential pilots are well aware that the V-22 is not a safe and reliable aircraft as evidenced by two crashes in 2000 that killed 23 Marines and another in 1992 that killed three Marines and four civilians. These same pilots lost a few of their own from the Helicopter Squadron One (HMX-1), based in Quantico, Virginia, in these crashes.

The Marine pilots also likely have experienced white-knuckle moments during testing. They’ve been around to see first-hand problems with hydraulics, swash plate actuators, and nacelle blowers – to name just a few. They’ve been forbidden to do real evasive combat maneuvering for fear the V-22 will spin out of control.

Which leads to my next question: If the V-22 is good enough for the Marines, why isn’t it good enough for the president? Of course, our Commander-In-Chief needs the best equipment made, but don’t the Marines also deserve top-notch weapons systems?

This is certainly not to say that any of the Pentagon’s honchos don’t care if Marines die. Of course they do. But when you get right down to the nitty-gritty, shouldn’t they be striving for the same standard for both the president and the rank-and-file fighting men and women? That’s a no-brainer.

It seems there is a double standard operating here. Either the V-22 is safe for the Marines and the president, or it isn’t safe for either.

We may have a better idea of the Osprey’s capabilities and limitations early next year after the Osprey completes its final operational testing, this time under the watchful eye of the Pentagon’s top independent tester, Thomas Christie. Some say the Osprey is doing better during recent testing, and there are predictions that it could get the nod for full production by late summer 2005. That is, of course, if it passes Christie’s evaluation and remains accident-free between now and then.

If the V-22 can deliver as promised, wouldn’t the president want to wait a year or so to be transported in the “helicopter of the future” right now? Or do he and his staff know something we don’t know?

Eric Miller is a senior defense investigator with the Project On Government Oversight, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, Washington-based watchdog group.

Comments

[Posted on: Apr 16, 2006 at 05:59 PM]

I don't buy the rotor diameter issue as being the only reason why the V-22 wasn't selected. The US101 is going to be replacing current HMX CH-46 and CH-53 aircraft and the V-22 isn't any larger than those so either HMX needs at least two types of aircraft for it's mission (US101 cannot get into all the same small places that the VH-60 can nor can it carry the loads that the VH-53E's can) or the V-22's size would have been just fine.

[Posted on: Feb 04, 2005 at 08:25 AM]

Come on! We've seen Bush in a flight suit on the deck of an aircraft carrier. We all want to see our Commander in Cheif rappel out of the back of a V-22.

[Posted on: Feb 03, 2005 at 11:42 PM]

This comes down to a simple size matter:

Osprey:
Length 57 feet 4 inches (17.47 metres)
Width 84 feet 7 inches (25.78 metres)
Height 22 feet 7 inches (6.73 metres)

EH101: Choosen for Marine One
Length with both rotors turning 22.80m
Width excluding main rotor 4.55m
Overall height 6.65m
Main rotor diameter 18.60m

Now try to imagine fitting the Osprey down on all the small locations Marine One has to land at. We can’t have the President having to rappel out of the back of the Osprey.

[Posted on: Jan 31, 2005 at 03:22 PM]

Your first comment addresses the time issue. While it is true that the V-22 isn't a mature craft, you have to wonder why it's not mature yet since it's now been nearly 20 years since the program's inception (more if you include the JVX). Maybe this is so because it's such a complex craft, which when you think of one of the cardinal rules of military vehicle design--to Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS)--then the V-22 isn't the bright idea Boeing sells it as.

The issue of slow and inadequate testing/V-22 development dovetails into your second point regarding crashes. The V-22 has been barred from combat manuevering tests for years now. Why? Probably because the sucker is too unstable and accident-prone for those tests to be safe. Once those tests begin, let's cross our fingers and hope more Marines won't die in crashes.

[Posted on: Jan 29, 2005 at 04:58 PM]

One other note:

It is simply false that, "V-22 is not a safe and reliable aircraft." It's certainly true that there have been four crashes during it's development, but during the testing of the F-14 (One of the best planes in the history of the Navy) *there were 42 crashes!* http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-serial-date.htm

The sad and tragic fact of the V-22 is that during those crashes, there were marines in the back, and 30 souls were lost. I am not excusing that, and it was a major fault of the accelerated testing program.

Since that time, though, the V-22 has seen major improvements, and will soon be as safe and reliable as the CH-46 "chinook" it's going to replace in the marine corps.

[Posted on: Jan 29, 2005 at 04:52 PM]

Uhh, perhaps because the V-22 is in it's infancy, and isn't even approved for use by the marines? If this competition had been held 10 years from now, the V-22 would probably be very high on the list, as of now, though, it's still too early in the testing/development phase for it to be seriously considered.