RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,164275,00.html

Just because the GE engine works for the CH-53 does not mean it will work any better than the Rolls-Royce engine...The CH-53 has a totally different power train, power requirements, intakes, and filtration system than the V-22...

The engines need proper filtering for the type of dust in the ME and the blades require added leading edge protection to reduce erosion...

quote:

Originally posted by TheTinker:
RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,164275,00.html

Just because the GE engine works for the CH-53 does not mean it will work any better than the Rolls-Royce engine...The CH-53 has a totally different power train, power requirements, intakes, and filtration system than the V-22...

The engines need proper filtering for the type of dust in the ME and the blades require added leading edge protection to reduce erosion...

The Ch-53E has been a workhorse over in Iraq and Afghanistan since the start of the war. The engines that they are talking about are for the new CH-53K model which is capable of dealing with sand as well as weight.

quote:

Originally posted by rkgtactical:

quote:

Originally posted by TheTinker:
RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,164275,00.html

Just because the GE engine works for the CH-53 does not mean it will work any better than the Rolls-Royce engine...The CH-53 has a totally different power train, power requirements, intakes, and filtration system than the V-22...

The engines need proper filtering for the type of dust in the ME and the blades require added leading edge protection to reduce erosion...

The Ch-53E has been a workhorse over in Iraq and Afghanistan since the start of the war. The engines that they are talking about are for the new CH-53K model which is capable of dealing with sand as well as weight.

Very True...was trying to point out the fact that the V-22 may require more than just an engine change...and that the same engine which works for the CH-53 may not work for the V-22 because of the differences between the aircraft...

You need to make sure you are performing you compressor washes after each austere landings idiots

quote:

Originally posted by TheTinker:

quote:

Originally posted by rkgtactical:

quote:

Originally posted by TheTinker:
RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,164275,00.html

Just because the GE engine works for the CH-53 does not mean it will work any better than the Rolls-Royce engine...The CH-53 has a totally different power train, power requirements, intakes, and filtration system than the V-22...

The engines need proper filtering for the type of dust in the ME and the blades require added leading edge protection to reduce erosion...

The Ch-53E has been a workhorse over in Iraq and Afghanistan since the start of the war. The engines that they are talking about are for the new CH-53K model which is capable of dealing with sand as well as weight.

Very True...was trying to point out the fact that the V-22 may require more than just an engine change...and that the same engine which works for the CH-53 may not work for the V-22 because of the differences between the aircraft...

This is a trade off with the cost of changes to the aircraft vs the reduction in cost by having common components that are already in the supply chain and common training.

quote:

The only turbine engine available in the same power class as the AE 3007 is the General Electric GE38-1B, selected last year as the powerplant for the Sikorsky CH-53K helicopter. Mulhern says that the Navy has not reached the point of estimating the cost of a re-engining program.

Huh? When did they start putting the civil aviation AE 3007 into the Osprey? Last I heard they were still using the AE 1107C-Liberty, which is a very different engine although it shares the same core.

quote:

This is a trade off with the cost of changes to the aircraft vs the reduction in cost by having common components that are already in the supply chain and common training.

This is true...

History is littered with examples of the incompetence of the NAVAIR acquisition community. This is but one more example. A properly prepared and prosecuted test plan would have identified this deficiency years ago. Instead, they flight test the aircraft for a couple of hundred hours at places like Pax River, then deem the aircraft operationally effective and operationally suitable. If they actually tested the aircraft in the austere environments they expect to operate it in, this kind of thing would never happen.

It is hard to imagine that this issue did not reveal itself during flight testing. How or why is this just now being made public? Does the USAF know of this dilemma as their special forces plan to use this aircraft too? Could it be that the Marines (or Navy) were quick to rush this aircraft thought the flight testing process without enough engine data to forecast life cycle costs? If the engines do not meet contracted long term expatiations then the engine manufacture should fix the problem (no cost) or refund the cost of these engines so the using service can buy AMERICAN engines that have been tested and proven.

If the problems encountered were repressed in the testing results, or if tests were rushed, I might push for the manufacturer to make some kind of amends. However, companies are run by humans and we are not omniscient (otherwise, we wouldn't need flight testing to begin with). As much as I feel people should be both proud of their handiwork and responsible for it, you can't always test out every possible outcome.

This is not a blame/forced responsibility kind of issue. This is an issue of pure cost management. Is it more efficient to a) fix the problem, b) switch the engines, or c) slowly phase out the problematic aircraft in that theatre with another, more usable craft?

JMHO, and I claim no expertise in anything except general ignorance.

Well yet another waste of our tax dollars spent on a foreign vendor. No surpirse a foriegn vendor can't deliver what they promise.
Mark my words this same thing is going ot happen with the Airbus built tanker.

Oh yes one begs to ask why has this turkey been kept? It has had one of the worst track record of any aircraft being developed crashes,fires you name it.

Here's an idea. For once we need to hold the company to their agreement. We pay what was agreed upon to maintain these engines and if they take a loss on the deal then so be it, they signed the agreement. AND WE DON'T PAY ANY EXTRA. Thats what an agreement, contract ETC is.

I think everyone is missing the point here... RR should resolve the issues and honor the contact. We (the tax payer) have been paying for all of the cost overruns over the years on just about every project known to man - and now a supplier wants to back out?! Forget it! RR created this "Power by the hour" maintenance contact, not the military... RR signed the contract - now honor it!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Drag these people out onto the production floor and throw 'em a beating for the ages.
The GAO should have its own little Gestapo.

Basic Training, When are you going to quit whinning and face facts, This is the history of the Corps Aviation sector. We went up against the Brits, "RR" and their Pegasus in the AV8 and AV8-A, But you wouldn't know about that now would you? What I'm saying is this, the Corps has always pulled someone else's head out of their rear and we did it without complaining and whining! We can do it again! BTW, refering to maintenance crews as "Idiots" is uncalled for and unacceptable. You really need to pull up your pampers and grow up!

According to this very interesting article the root of the issue seems to be buried in a Performance Based Logistics contract the Marines have with RR. Briefly, PBL is a fixed price contract with incentives, in which a company (RR) agrees to deliver an agreed upon level of "performance". In these PBL contracts the contractor accepts considerable risk in facing up to the task of delivering performance at a fixed price (it also enjoys the potential for finding process efficiencies that could drive down sustainment cost and increase their profit). The "gamble" between the government and the contractor is that the former has established a low enough cost to sustain and that the latter has the skill to drive that sustainment cost even lower (while delivering the required performance) and make a greater profit. A not insignificant problem arises when the contractor discovers it costs more to sustain performance than was thought to be the case. And in a fixed price contract this can actually result in the contractor either loosing money to maintain required performance, or not loosing money and failing to maintain required performance, or defaulting.

In the case of the V22 engines PBL may be some form of engine Operational Availability. The Marines probably had a keen expectation as to how many hours the aircraft would be flown and the environment in which it would operate. Apparently RR is having a dickens of a time sustaining the engine Oa.

There are some rumblings that PBL may not be what it is cracked up to be. The GAO (GAO.gov) did a study in the past year or so that was critical of some of the claims PBL BCAs make regarding cost savings. The essence of the GAO study is that it's not all so clear that PBL "savings" can be accurately stated. The GAO report cited a number ACAT I programs, including the V22.

Certainly, I defer to PBL and V22 experts who can further elaborate on the issue. This is all the time I had to blab about the subject.

Question? Is Rolls Royce meeting their obligations under power by the hour, if not why aren't they being penalized? These Penalty dollars will help pay for all the money being paid to Rolls Royce to repair these excluded motors. Anyone who knows anything about the V-22 and Allison (now Rolls Royce ) know that under power by the hour the Marines pay Rolls Royce approx $195.00 for every ESMH (equivalent systems mission hour ) or LUI accumulated on every engine. This is maintained in the VSLED and downloaded every month to Rolls Royce so that the Marines can be charged on the # of ESMH's accumulated during the month on that specific engine. If the VSLED is not operational the Marines will be charged 4:1 for every ESMH almost $800.00. Rolls Royce uses that money to repair the engines at no cost to the govt. Allison is also required to provide a replacement engine w/in 72 hours, any where in the world. this could be achieved using any one of Allisons 7 authorized repair facilities and ofcourse with the Marines buying many spare engines at approx 3 million dollars apiece, held by allison,so allison can meet this requirement. However, with that said, Rolls Royce also has what they call excluded motors under this concept, in otherwords if the engine fails due to sand erosion, corrosion, FOD, etc... not because of a premature failure, such as the bearings failing etc.... the govt. is charged for the complete repair of the engine. Allison tears apart the engine, determines the cause and then gives the price of the repair to the Marines. These monies are above that already collected for this motor under power by hour. Allsion had to meet many parameters with this motor during development phase, one of which was sand ingestation and corrosion. corrosion testing was done in trenton and was one of the worst failures in trenton history. Sand ingestatin at the Allison plant in Indianapolis failed several times. The engine was originally a t406-ad-400, allison petitioned to have the engine rated as an FAA approved engine which the marines allowed to happen, upon approval the engine was re-designated the AE1107C. This also allowed allison to pass the sand ingestation testing even though it failed miserably as the T406-AD-400. Now Marines are operating in the sand and you guessed it the engines are failing. who'd of ever guessed that. As a tax payer I guess the only thing we could ever hope for is that the Marines will never operate this aircraft over salt water. bottom line is the Marines knew of this problem and allowed it to happen at a great cost to the tax payers. Fleet Readiness Center East, Cherry Point was involved in working with Allison to provide them with a coating to put on the compressor blades to reduce errosion during the development phase.

Excellent analysis. And an excellent question. Right in the "V" ring.

It wasnt the military pushing this damn thing through. It was the damn politicians who basically said "you will buy this". They new it was junk, they didnt care they arent on it