By Geoff Fein
Concerns with the long-term durability of Rolls-Royce‘s V-22 engine has led the Navy to examine options running the gamut from modifying the current system to looking at a new engine, according to a program spokesman.
Additionally, the Navy earlier this week awarded Rolls-Royce a nine-month bridge contract with one option year, similar to previous “power-by-the-hour” arrangements. However, under the new contract, the Navy will assume more of the repair burden, taking on responsibility for certain engine components on currently deployed Ospreys.
“Certain components in that sandy desert environment over there are going to wear out faster. The government, under this new arrangement, is going to assume responsibility…financial responsibility…for those repairs instead of making Rolls-Royce accountable for that,” a spokesman with the V-22 Joint Program Office told Defense Daily Tuesday.
Although the V-22 is built by a Bell Helicopter Textron [TXT]-Boeing [BA] team, the AE 1107C turboshaft engines are purchased under a separate contract between the program office and Rolls-Royce. The original contract was for both the engines and support. The support contract was called “power- by-the-hour.” According to the spokesman, it is a performance-based logistics arrangement where the V-22 program paid an agreed upon amount per flight hour.
“And then the company did whatever they had to do to support the engines with certain exclusions allowed for,” he added.
Program officials were figuring to get about 600 hours out of Rolls-Royce’s engines.
“Fast forward a few years…we find ourselves asking, ‘OK how long are these engines actually lasting?’ What we find is the V-22 fleet-wide average on MV-22, CV-22, is about 420 hours, compared to the 600 [hours] on the government side that we expected,” the spokesman noted.
But the 600 hours, the spokesman added, was never actually a requirement.
The spokesman, however, made clear the issue isn’t one of engine performance. The engines perform to, or in excess of, their specified requirements, he added. “It’s not a reliability issue, it’s a durability issue, on those engines.”
“They just are not lasting as long from a maintenance standpoint as what we had expected and what we would like to see,” the spokesman said.
There has also been some confusion regarding the performance of the engines on aircraft deployed to Iraq. “The engine service life is actually pretty close to what we get state side,” the spokesman said.
“The average across all the fleet is 420 hours. When the aircraft went over to Iraq and operated in the desert environment we expected to take a pretty big hit in how long the engines would last,” the spokesman said. “In fact we are averaging about 380 hours…about a roughly 10 percent decrement in engine service life, which is really kind of better than what we had planned for. We had planned for a much worse case.”
But those engines are still giving the fleet 100 to 200 fewer flight hours, as compared, for example, to what is being seen in other rotary wing aircraft that are averaging in the desert, between 500 and 600 hours, compared to 380, the spokesman said.
“So, on one hand, they are doing better than what we had planned for. On the other hand, relative to the baseline…their baseline is significantly shorter than what other aircraft engine types, rotary wing engine types see,” he said. “And shorter than what other aircraft, even on deployment over in the desert, are seeing in terms of the service life they are getting out of their engines.”
The original support contract was for one year with five option years. They were all exercised, the spokesman said. Two years ago, program officials de-coupled the engine purchase contract from the support contract.
Now program officials are getting down to the point of negotiating the next contract, looking to continue the “power-by-the-hour” arrangement. But Rolls-Royce told the program office the current arrangement was not going to be a sustainable arrangement on their part, the spokesman said.
“[Rolls-Royce was] looking to renegotiate the terms as we were coming up into another contract negotiation,” he said.
While it is certainly understandable, and in nobody’s best interest to see a government contractor losing money, the spokesman added that at the same time at the program office level “we have to drive to an agreement that’s going to be in the best interest for the overall V-22 program and most cost effective from the government standpoint in terms of the amount we pay and the amount of service we get back.”
But that still left the program office trying to resolve the durability issue of the V-22 engines. The spokesman said there are two ways to approach it.
“All things being equal, we’d like to see the service life of those engines go up and the government and Rolls-Royce have some strategies for how we’d like to see that happen,” he said.
One idea are some possible modifications that could be made to the engines to hopefully increase their service life, the spokesman noted. “That would not only relieve the maintenance burden on the fleet, but also make it more cost effective, theoretically, for Rolls-Royce to support them, because they wouldn’t have to be pulling them as often to repair or refurbish them.”
That’s kind of the best case scenario, he added.
“On the other end of the spectrum would be to say, ‘look if we have an engine that is not lasting as long as we want and a support arrangement that is not as favorable to the government as it was originally negotiated, then perhaps we need to go look at other options for engines in the aircraft,” the spokesman said.
One advantage a new engine could bring is that as the aircraft gets heavier, as block upgrades are done and new equipment and capabilities are added, and there is the desire to maintain the same cargo capacity and range, then the efficiency of the engine is going to need to be improved, the spokesman said.
But there is a lot involved in that, he added. “It’s not a simple thing. It has implications throughout the whole drive train, in terms of the gearing and everything else.”
“Looking at that as an option has benefits both from the standpoint of potentially a longer lasting engine, more favorable service arrangement for the government and the taxpayer, as well as potentially realizing an increase in capability in the engine that would give us extra margin to add capability and weight to the aircraft without taking any sort of a penalty on performance, range, or payload,” the spokesman said. “This is nothing that is called for…nothing that is funded…it is one option on a range of options on the table in front of the program office at this point.”