Introduction
The ability to move arms, troops, and vehicles to the required spot is one of the most critical factors determining the success of a mission. The quicker the assets can reach their destination, the better the outcome will be. Unsurprisingly, every military puts substantial effort and resources into developing novel solutions to logistical issues.
The United States Army is no exception, as it is explored in “A case study: Acquisition reform and the new V-22 Osprey program” by Riegert (1998). As the title of the paper implies, it analyzes the troubled development of a famous vehicle that offered an innovative solution to complex logistical issues faced by the American military since the 1980s.
Although the author has thoroughly examined the conditions under which V-22 Osprey was conceived and developed, the modern perspective may make the conclusions made in this case study less definitive. Overall, the innovative technology and the promising functionality of the V-22 project have ensured its successful implementation despite the highly challenging development.
Before applying the modern perspective, it is essential to dissect the case study. Its content revolves around two important elements: V-22 Osprey and acquisition reform. Riegert (1998) provides insight into the historical background of both the vehicle and the procurement regulations.
History Behind V-22 Osprey
The first section of the case study explores the history behind the V-22 Osprey. The author explains why the V-22 was needed in the first place—the Army required a heavy aircraft capable of quickly moving personnel to remote places. Although helicopters were already extensively utilized, their aerodynamic limitations prevented them from accelerating to the needed speed and covering the required distance.
As a result, there was no technological solution that would fit the set requirements, as neither helicopters nor airplanes could accomplish these tasks. Implementing the tiltrotor design allowed engineers to develop an aircraft that was essentially a blend of a plane and a helicopter. This breakthrough has led to the appearance of the V-22 Osprey project.
Yet, numerous issues prevented the project from swift and successful completion. Riegert (1998) outlines technical challenges, cost overruns, schedule delays, accidents, and fatalities during the testing phase as the most prevalent program difficulties.
Another problem stemmed from the lack of Congress approval, which had a direct negative impact on funding. The author places a particular emphasis on the difficulties associated with securing funds for the project. Riegert’s (1998) depiction of these setbacks portrays the continued development of the project as a constant struggle for survival in a highly bureaucratized environment. The acquisition reform provided the needed resources for the project to deliver actual test aircraft.
Development Context
The second section of the study focused on the external context within which the V-22 Osprey was developed. Specifically, the author explored the origin of the acquisition reform and why it was necessary to implement the V-22.
Riegert (1998) delves into a discussion of the significance of procurement for the military over the course of its history. As the complexity of logistical tasks increased, so did the oversight and regulation to the point that the system was no longer working effectively. It became evident that an acquisition reform was needed and in the 1990s, the Department of Defense started implementing such reforms.
The author accentuates ten guiding principles that showcase the essence of the new regulations. The implication is that these principles provided the value that helped the V-22 Osprey project get attention.
Influence on the V-22 Osprey Project
The third section of the case study explores how the acquisition reform influenced the V-22 Osprey project. The most important change was that the program was given a chance to be completed, which the author points out is a rare occurrence among canceled projects. The author meticulously explains how each of the guiding principles was applied in implementing this project.
Riegert (1998) also criticizes the reform’s bureaucratic nature and the still prevalent underfunding. However, his larger message is clear—despite all its weaknesses, the acquisition reform was essential for revitalizing the V-22 Osprey.
Overall, the case study provides a detailed and informative analysis of the V-22 Osprey program and the impact of acquisition reform on its development and success. The case study’s primary focus is on the V-22 program and the reforms of the 1990s. However, it also offers valuable insights into the significance of effective procurement practices in achieving success in major defense acquisition programs.
Understanding the difficulties the procurement sphere faces is crucial because they shape the distribution of resources by the Department of Defense. Overall, the deployment of V-22 Osprey was a significant achievement for the US military, and it would not have been possible without a policy change.
As the case study suggests, the V-22 is unique because it combines the characteristics of helicopters and airplanes. Yet, there are other important aspects that were not fully covered in the case study. As SchĂłber et al. (2012) write, “the V-22 Osprey was designed for future irregular warfare environment covering full scale of missions, especially in third-world conflicts with lack of infrastructure” (p. 87).
Although its main function is to transport military personnel and cargo, its use is not limited to combat operations. It can also be used in non-combat missions, such as disaster relief and evacuations. V-22 outperforms helicopters in that it is substantially better at sustaining small arms fire, which allows for safer movement of troops (Rhodes, 1996). Overall, V-22 provides a versatile solution to a dynamic logistical challenge.
The exact mechanism that determines the value of the V-22 Osprey is its Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) capabilities. This technology is helpful because it allows the aircraft to operate in confined spaces. V-22 has two tiltrotors, which can be tilted forward or backward. This is a considerable advantage in comparison to traditional aircraft, which have fixed wings. Consequently, V-22 can land on a small landing zone or a ship without a runway (Zhou et al., 2020).
Furthermore, the shifting position of the rotors improves the aircraft’s aerodynamics. When they are positioned vertically, the V-22 can take off or land in the same way a helicopter can. When the rotors are tilted forward, the V-22 gains wings, which increase the aircraft’s speed due to airflow (Yang et al., 2019). As a result, not only can the V-22 fly fast and fat, but it can also land in tight places where other types of aircraft cannot.
Considerations of flexibility, speed, and distance should make it evident why the Department of Defense kept the project alive despite the development difficulties and the increasing costs. The project life cycle of the V-22 Osprey can be traced back to its conception in 1981 (Riegert, 1998).
Implementing the tiltrotor solution itself can be attributed to the cooperation between the US aerospace companies Bell and Boeing. The promise of this technology was so high that in 1983, the Department of Defense agreed to provide funding for the project.
Overall, the period 1981-1989 was characterized by the development of the tiltrotor concept, prototype design, and funding concerns.
Since 1989, the project has experienced financial issues, as almost all funding sources have been cut. Notwithstanding the bureaucratic complications, the project continued into its next phase, during which the V-22 team refined the design and developed the first production aircraft.
The team also tested the aircraft in flight, including on the water and during mock battles. The V-22 Osprey’s performance and capabilities were assessed during these tests, which covered takeoff and landing, switching between helicopter and airplane modes, as well as general flying stability and control.
These tests were essential in confirming that the V-22 adhered to the standards and specifications established by the American military. The team was also able to pinpoint any technical problems or areas for development that needed to be fixed before the aircraft could be approved for operational usage, thanks to the flight testing. This phase lasted until 1997, when the first aircraft were finally delivered.
The next phase was production and deployment, which lasted from 1997 to 2018. Although the V-22 was already operational, over these years, different models of the aircraft were produced (CV-22 Osprey, n.d.). To make sure the V-22 was satisfying the military’s requirements, this involved making changes to the design and software of the aircraft as well as carrying out further testing and evaluations.
The team not only delivered the aircraft but also offered maintenance and support services to keep the V-22s on the ground operational. This required not only providing the necessary replacement parts and logistical support, but also instructing military personnel on how to maintain and repair the aircraft. This phase is still ongoing, as V-22 is still being produced. Modernization initiatives, which involve incorporating new technology into the aircraft to increase its capabilities, reliability, and operating costs, are nevertheless a crucial part of the current period.
Naturally, none of the V-22 aircraft would have been deployed had the procurement system not managed to resolve its inefficiencies. Procurement regulations govern how government agencies buy goods and services, including military equipment like the V-22 Osprey. The U.S. Department of Defense’s procurement process has grown convoluted, bureaucratic, and ineffective, which resulted in cost overruns, schedule delays, and program cancellations, necessitating the acquisition reform (Carril & Duggan, 2020).
In essence, the procurement process had shifted its emphasis from results to compliance and regulation. The Department of Defense understood it needed to streamline and modernize its procurement procedures to stay up with the evolving military environment.
A change in defense priorities was also brought about by the end of the Cold War, and the Department of Defense had to modify its acquisition strategy to account for this new situation. The acquisition reform aimed to reduce bureaucracy, improve efficiency, and ensure that the Department of Defense acquired the right equipment at the right price and time.
One of the significant challenges of the V-22 program was securing funding for the project. As Riegert (1998) noted, the lack of congressional approval directly impacted funding. Furthermore, the costs of V-22 development and production rose from the planned $2.5 billion in 1986 to $30 billion in 1988 (Zhou et al., 2020).
Meanwhile, the price of a helicopter was almost half the cost of the V-22. It became clear that the only way for the procurement system to manage expenses was to prioritize essential and promising projects (Page & State, 2012). One of the reasons why the V-22 was preferred over cheaper helicopters lay in the formers’ higher efficiency, which convinced the Department of Defense to continue financing the project (Riegert, 1998). However, it had to adopt the concept of affordability as its top priority.
Another critical aspect of procurement regulations is their role in developing the Request for Proposal (RFP) process. It contains the requirements for the products or services that must be purchased, the delivery schedule, the price, and other crucial information. The RFP process establishes the parameters and expectations for the bidders to comprehend the scope of work. It gives the procurement team a way to assess and contrast the received vendor offers (Flammer, 2018).
The RFP procedure in the instance of the V-22 program encountered substantial difficulties in identifying the proper technical specifications for the aircraft. The precise technical requirements required for the program were unclear because of the V-22’s original design and distinctive capabilities (Riegert, 1998). The lack of clarity during the RFP process caused confusion and delays, negatively impacting the program’s success.
The choice of contractors is the final way that procurement restrictions affect the program’s success. The rules stress a careful selection procedure that takes into account the contractors’ technical and financial resources (Uttley, 2018). During the V-22 program, for instance, it was necessary for Bell and Boeing to work together to complete the project (Riegert, 1998).
The procurement regulations ensure that the chosen contractors have the knowledge, assets, and financial stability needed to deliver the program per the specifications. Bell and Boeing were selected as the joint contractors for the V-22 program based on their technical and financial capabilities. Although the joint venture had its own set of difficulties, the careful selection procedure ensured that the best contractors were hired, which was instrumental in the program outcome.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the analysis of Riegert’s case study, V-22 Osprey’s design, Project Life Cycle, and procurement regulations has ascertained that innovation and efficiency were the driving factors behind the aircraft’s success. The V-22 Osprey program demonstrates the crucial part that procurement laws play in the success of programs. The program’s growth and ultimate success were greatly aided by the complex and drawn-out process of obtaining funds, the ambiguity of the RFP process, and the stringent contractor selection procedure.
Effective procurement practices are essential for achieving program success, and the V-22 program provides valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities of major defense acquisition programs. The most important lesson is that any cost can be paid as long as the project has value and can contribute to national security.
References
Carril, R., & Duggan, M. (2020). The impact of industry consolidation on government procurement: Evidence from Department of Defense contracting. Journal of Public Economics, 184, 1-54. Web.
CV-22 Osprey. (n.d.). Web.
Flammer, C. (2018). Competing for government procurement contracts: The role of corporate social responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 39(5), 1299-1324. Web.
Page, R. A., & State, K. W. (2012). Affordability tradeoffs in the defense industry. Competition Forum, 10(1), 212-221.
Rhodes, J. E. (1996). The V-22 procurement rate problem. Marine Corps Gazette, 80, 61-65.
Riegert, P. M. (1998). A case study: Acquisition reform and the new V-22 OSPREY program [Master’s thesis, Naval Postgraduate School). CORE.
SchĂłber, T., Grega, M., & Necas, P. (2012). Osprey-war for its own existence. INCAS Bulletin, 4(3), 87. Web.
Uttley, M. (2018). Routledge handbook of defence studies. Taylor & Francis.
Yang, S. H., Zheng, Y. J., & Liu, X. X. (2019). Research status and trends of downwash airflow of spray UAVs in agriculture. International Journal of Precision Agricultural Aviation, 2(1), 1-8. Web.
Zhou, Y., Zhao, H., & Liu, Y. (2020). An evaluative review of the VTOL technologies for unmanned and manned aerial vehicles. Computer Communications, 149, 356-369. Web.