Editing Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey (section)

==Development==
[[File:XV-15 takeoff.jpg|thumb|XV-15 experimental tiltrotor, 1980]]

===Origins===
The failure of [[Operation Eagle Claw]], the Iran hostage rescue mission, in 1980 demonstrated to the U.S. military a need<ref name=AF_mag_Finally>Kreisher, Otto. {{usurped|1=[https://archive.today/20090211080603/http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/February%202009/0209Osprey.aspx "Finally, the Osprey"]}}.  ''[[Air Force Magazine]]'', February 2009.</ref><ref>Whittle 2010, p. 62.</ref> for "a new type of aircraft, that could not only take off and land vertically but also could carry combat troops, and do so at speed."<ref name=fotv22o>Mackenzie, Richard (writer). [http://military.discovery.com/tv/osprey/osprey.html "Flight of the V-22 Osprey" (Television production)]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090228021640/http://military.discovery.com/tv/osprey/osprey.html |date=28 February 2009}} ''Mackenzie Productions'' for ''[[Military Channel]]'', 7 April 2008. Retrieved 29 March 2009.</ref> Additionally, a concentrated force is vulnerable to a single [[nuclear weapon]]. Airborne solutions with high speed and range allow for their rapid dispersal to reduce this vulnerability.<ref>Whittle 2010, p. 55.</ref> The U.S. Department of Defense began the JVX aircraft program in 1981, under [[United States Army|U.S.&nbsp;Army]] leadership.<ref name=Norton_p35/>

[[File:V-22 concept.jpg|thumb|left|Early concept illustrations|alt=Early concept illustrations from late 1980s timeframe. The top view is an isometric view. Front, side and top views are shown below with a view of the wing folded.]]
The established tactical purpose of the USMC is to perform an [[Amphibious warfare|amphibious landing]], which the JVX program promised to facilitate. The USMC's primary helicopter model, the [[Boeing Vertol CH-46 Sea Knight|CH-46 Sea Knight]], was aging, and no replacement had been accepted.<ref>Whittle 2010, p. 91.</ref> Because the USMC's amphibious capability would be significantly reduced without the CH-46, USMC leadership believed a proposal to merge the Marine Corps with the Army was a credible threat.<ref>Whittle 2010, p. 87: "As Kelly saw it, the future of the Marine Corps was riding on it."</ref><ref>Whittle 2010, p. 155.</ref> This potential merger was akin to a proposal by [[Harry S. Truman|President Truman]] following [[World War II]].<ref>Whittle 2010, pp. 53, 55–56.</ref> The [[Office of the Secretary of Defense]] and Navy administration opposed the tiltrotor project, but pressure from Congress had a significant effect on the program's development.<ref>Scroggs, Stephen K. "Army Relations with Congress: Thick Armor, Dull Sword, Slow Horse" p. 232. Greenwood Press, 2000. {{ISBN|9780313019265}}.</ref>

The Navy and USMC were given the lead in 1983.<ref name=Norton_p35>Norton 2004, p. 35.</ref><ref name="Long_Road">Moyers, Al (Director of History and Research). [https://www.afotec.af.mil/News/story/id/123057888/ "The Long Road: AFOTEC's Two-Plus Decades of V-22 Involvement"]. [https://www.afotec.af.mil/News/story/id/123057888/] ''Headquarters Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center, United States Air Force'', 1 August 2007.</ref><ref>[https://archive.today/20120805115239/http://www.history.army.mil/books/DAHSUM/1982/ch09.htm "Chapter 9: Research, Development, and Acquisition"].  ''Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1982''. Center of Military History (CMH), United States Army, 1988. {{ISSN|0092-7880}}.</ref> The JVX combined requirements from the USMC, USAF, Army and Navy.<ref name=Norton_p22-30>Norton 2004, pp. 22–30.</ref><ref>[http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTable=mtgpaper&gID=79150 "AIAA-83-2726, Bell-Boeing JVX Tilt Rotor Program"]. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090211115555/http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTable=mtgpaper&gID=79150 |date=11 February 2009}} ''American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)'', 16–18 November 1983.</ref> A request for preliminary design proposals was issued in December 1982. Interest was expressed by [[Aérospatiale]], Bell Helicopter, Boeing Vertol, [[Grumman]], [[Lockheed Corporation|Lockheed]], and [[Westland Helicopters|Westland]]. Contractors were encouraged to form teams. Bell partnered with Boeing Vertol to submit a proposal for an enlarged version of the [[Bell XV-15]] prototype on 17 February 1983. Since this was the only proposal the JVX program received, a preliminary design contract was awarded on 26 April 1983.<ref name=Norton_p31-3>Norton 2004, pp. 31–33.</ref><ref>Kishiyama, David. [https://web.archive.org/web/20121105112424/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/672749922.html?dids=672749922:672749922&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Aug+31,+1984&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=Hybrid+Craft+Being+Developed+for+Military+and+Civilian+Use&pqatl=google "Hybrid Craft Being Developed for Military and Civilian Use"]. ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'', 31 August 1984.</ref>

The JVX aircraft was designated ''V-22 Osprey'' on 15 January 1985; by that March, the first six prototypes were being produced, and Boeing Vertol was expanded to handle the workload.<ref>Adams, Lorraine. [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DM&p_theme=dm&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0ED3CD43A7B71E1B&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM "Sales Talk Whirs about Bell Helicopter"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121024125433/http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DM&p_theme=dm&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0ED3CD43A7B71E1B&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM |date=24 October 2012}} ''Dallas Morning News'',10 March 1985.</ref><ref>[http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=PI&s_site=philly&p_multi=PI&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB299149DB47D2B&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM "Boeing Vertol launches Three-Year, $50 Million Expansion Program"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121024125459/http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=PI&s_site=philly&p_multi=PI&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB299149DB47D2B&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM |date=24 October 2012}} ''The Philadelphia Inquirer'', 4 March 1985.</ref> Production work is split between Bell and Boeing. Bell Helicopter manufactures and integrates the wing, nacelles, rotors, drive system, tail surfaces, and aft ramp, as well as integrating the [[Rolls-Royce Holdings|Rolls-Royce]] engines and performing final assembly. Boeing Helicopters manufactures and integrates the fuselage, cockpit, avionics, and flight controls.<ref name=Boeing_V22overview>[http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/v22/docs/V-22_overview.pdf "V-22 Osprey Backgrounder"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100206025214/http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/v22/docs/V-22_overview.pdf |date=6 February 2010}} ''Boeing Defense, Space & Security'', February 2010.</ref><ref name=Bell_V-22>[http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en/aircraft/military/bellV-22.cfm "Military Aircraft: The Bell-Boeing V-22"]. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100328013808/http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en/aircraft/military/bellV-22.cfm |date=28 March 2010}} ''Bell Helicopter'', 2007. Retrieved 30 December 2010.</ref> The USMC variant received the MV-22 designation, and the USAF variant received CV-22; this was reversed from normal procedure to prevent USMC Ospreys from having a conflicting CV designation with [[aircraft carrier]]s.<ref name=Norton_p30>Norton 2004, p. 30.</ref> Full-scale development began in 1986.<ref name=V-22_CRS_RL31384>[http://opencrs.com/document/RL31384 RL31384, "V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft: Background and Issues for Congress"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090210092501/http://www.opencrs.com/document/RL31384 |date=10 February 2009}} ''Congressional Research Service'', 22 December 2009.</ref> On 3 May 1986, Bell Boeing was awarded a US$1.714&nbsp;billion contract for the V-22 by the U.S. Navy. At this point, all four U.S. military services had acquisition plans for the V-22.<ref>Goodrich, Joseph L. [https://web.archive.org/web/20121105112439/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/projo/access/601922891.html?dids=601922891:601922891&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=May+03,+1986&author=JOSEPH+L.+GOODRICH+Journal-Bulletin+Financial+Editor&pub=The+Providence+Journal&desc=Bell-Boeing+team+lands+contract+to+develop+new+tilt-rotor+aircraft+600+jobs+expected+from+$1.714-billion+project+for+Navy&pqatl=google "Bell-Boeing team lands contract to develop new tilt-rotor aircraft, 600 jobs expected from $1.714-billion project for Navy"]. ''Providence Journal'', 3 May 1986.</ref>

The first V-22 was publicly rolled out in May 1988.<ref>Belden, Tom. [https://web.archive.org/web/20121107035035/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/473702671.html?dids=473702671:473702671&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=May+23%2C+1988&author=Tom+Belden+Special+to+The+Star&pub=Toronto+Star&desc=Vertical-takeoff+plane+may+be+the+21st+century%27s+intercity+bus&pqatl=google "Vertical-takeoff plane may be the 21st century's intercity bus"]. ''Toronto Star'', 23 May 1988.</ref><ref>[https://sportsghoda.com/osprey-v-22-aircraft/ "Tilt-rotor craft flies like copter, plane"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230828074532/https://sportsghoda.com/osprey-v-22-aircraft/ |date=28 August 2023}} ''Sports Ghoda'', 28 August 2023.</ref> That year, the U.S. Army left the program, citing a need to focus its budget on more immediate aviation programs.<ref name=Norton_p35/> In 1989, the V-22 survived two separate [[United States Senate|Senate]] votes that could have resulted in cancellation.<ref>[http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=PI&s_site=philly&p_multi=PI&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB95F7F483B29F2&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM "2 Senators key to fate of Boeing's V-22 Osprey"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121024125550/http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=PI&s_site=philly&p_multi=PI&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB95F7F483B29F2&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM |date=24 October 2012}} ''The Philadelphia Inquirer'', 6 July 1989.</ref><ref>Mitchell, Jim. [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DM&p_theme=dm&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0ED3D0816D568CFD&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM "Gramm defends Osprey's budget cost: Senator makes pitch for V-22 as president stumps for B-2 bomber"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121024125607/http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DM&p_theme=dm&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0ED3D0816D568CFD&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM |date=24 October 2012}} ''Dallas Morning News'', 22 July 1989.</ref> Despite the Senate's decision, the Department of Defense instructed the Navy not to spend more money on the V-22.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20121107035121/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/24666558.html?dids=24666558:24666558&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Dec+03%2C+1989&author=&pub=Chicago+Tribune+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&desc=Pentagon+halts+spending+on+V-22+Osprey&pqatl=google "Pentagon halts spending on V-22 Osprey"]. ''Chicago Tribune'', 3 December 1989.</ref> As development cost projections greatly increased in 1988, Defense Secretary [[Dick Cheney]] tried to defund it from 1989 to 1992, but was overruled by [[United States Congress|Congress]],<ref name=Long_Road/><ref name=Wired_200507/> which provided unrequested program funding.<ref name=Norton_p49>Norton 2004, p. 49.</ref> Multiple studies of alternatives found the V-22 provided more capability and effectiveness with similar operating costs.<ref name=Norton_p52>Norton 2004, p. 52.</ref> The [[Presidency of Bill Clinton|Clinton Administration]] was supportive of the V-22, helping it attain funding.<ref name=Long_Road/>

Although the Army departed the program, it eventually developed and chose a tiltrotor to replace the [[Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk|UH-60 Blackhawk]] in the 21st century, and as of the mid-2020s the Army is planning to field the [[Bell V-280 Valor|V-280 Valor]] tiltrotor.<ref>{{Cite web |first=Meredith |last=Roaten |date=5 December 2022 |title=Army Chooses Bell Textron's V-280 Valor Tiltrotor to Replace Black Hawk |url=https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2022/12/5/bell-tiltrotor-wins-billion-dollar-helo-contract |access-date=27 April 2024 |website=National Defense}}</ref>

===Flight testing and design changes===
[[File:V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft.jpg|thumb|A V-22 during tests in 2003]]

The first of six prototypes first flew on 19 March 1989 in the helicopter mode<ref>[https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=OXwUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-gIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4248,6782946&dq=v22+osprey&hl=en "Revolutionary plane passes first test"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201222150201/https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=OXwUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-gIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4248,6782946&dq=v22+osprey&hl=en |date=22 December 2020}}. ''Toledo Blade'', 20 March 1989.</ref> and on 14 September 1989 in fixed-wing mode.<ref>Mitchell, Jim. [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DM&p_theme=dm&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0ED3D0966AF1C330&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM "V-22 makes first flight in full airplane mode"]. {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121024125618/http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DM&p_theme=dm&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0ED3D0966AF1C330&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM |date=24 October 2012}} ''Dallas Morning News'', 15 September 1989.</ref> The third and fourth prototypes successfully completed the first sea trials on {{USS|Wasp|LHD-1|6}} in December 1990.<ref>Jones, Kathryn. [https://archive.today/20120629160852/http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DM&p_theme=dm&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0ED3D14925CBE8FF&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM "V-22 tilt-rotor passes tests at sea"]. ''Dallas Morning News'', 14 December 1990.</ref> The fourth and fifth prototypes crashed in 1991–92.<ref>[http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=ST&s_site=dfw&p_multi=ST&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAF8E1952EE8AB7&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM "Navy halts test flights of V-22 as crash investigated"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121024125649/http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=ST&s_site=dfw&p_multi=ST&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAF8E1952EE8AB7&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM |date=24 October 2012}} ''Fort Worth Star-Telegram'', 13 June 1991.</ref> From October 1992 to April 1993, the V-22 was redesigned to reduce empty weight, simplify manufacture, and reduce build costs; it was designated V-22B.<ref name=Norton_p52-4/> Flights resumed in June 1993 after safety changes were made to the prototypes.<ref name=Norton_p55>Norton 2004, p. 55.</ref> Bell Boeing received a contract for the engineering manufacturing development (EMD) phase in June 1994.<ref name=Norton_p52-4>Norton 2004, pp. 52–54.</ref> The prototypes were also modified to resemble the V-22B standard. At this stage, testing focused on flight envelope expansion, measuring flight loads, and supporting the EMD redesign. Flight testing with the early V-22s continued into 1997.<ref name=Norton_p55-7>Norton 2004, pp. 55–57.</ref>

[[File:aircraft.osprey.678pix.jpg|thumb|left|U.S. Marines jump from an Osprey. |alt=Four U.S. Marine paratroopers jump from the rear loading ramp of an MV-22 Osprey.]]
Flight testing of four full-scale development V-22s began at the Naval Air Warfare Test Center, [[Naval Air Station Patuxent River]], [[Maryland]]. The first EMD flight took place on 5 February 1997. Testing soon fell behind schedule.<ref>Schinasi 2008, p. 23.</ref> The first of four [[low rate initial production]] aircraft, ordered on 28 April 1997, was delivered on 27 May 1999. The second sea trials were completed onboard {{USS|Saipan|LHA-2|6}} in January 1999.<ref name=V-22_CRS_RL31384/> During external load testing in April 1999, a V-22 transported the lightweight [[M777 howitzer]].<ref>[http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/M777-He-Aint-Heavy-Hes-my-Howitzer-04829/ "M777: He Ain't Heavy, He's my Howitzer"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120910064433/http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/M777-He-Aint-Heavy-Hes-my-Howitzer-04829/ |date=10 September 2012}}''Defense Industry Daily'', 18 July 2012.</ref><ref>[http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/lots-riding-on-v22-osprey-03110/ "Lots Riding on V-22 Osprey"] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120105091127/http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/lots-riding-on-v22-osprey-03110/ |date=5 January 2012}}''Defense Industry Daily'', 12 March 2007.</ref>

In 2000, there were two fatal crashes, [[2000 Marana V-22 crash|killing a total of 23 marines]], and the V-22 was again grounded while the crashes' causes were investigated and various parts were redesigned.<ref name=Wired_200507>Berler, Ron. [https://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.07/osprey.html?pg=1&topic=osprey "Saving the Pentagon's Killer Chopper-Plane"]. {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121106120946/http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.07/osprey.html?pg=1&topic=osprey |date=6 November 2012}} ''Wired'' (CondéNet, Inc), Volume 13, Issue 7, July 2005.</ref> In June 2005, the V-22 completed its final operational evaluation, including long-range deployments, high altitude, desert and shipboard operations; problems previously identified had reportedly been resolved.<ref name=InsideNavy_Castelli_20050912>{{cite web |last=Castelli |first=Christopher J. |url=http://www.navair.navy.mil/V22/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.detail&id=130 |title=Pentagon Testing Office Concurs With Naval Testers, Supports MV-22 |work=Naval Air Systems Command, United States Navy |via=Inside the Navy |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161201235013/http://www.navair.navy.mil/V22/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.detail&id=130 |archive-date=1 December 2016 |date=12 September 2005 |access-date=19 June 2019}}</ref>

U.S. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) worked on software upgrades to increase the maximum speed from {{convert|250|to|270|kn|km/h mph|sigfig=2}}, increase helicopter mode altitude limit from {{convert|10000|to|12000|ft|m|sigfig=2}} or {{convert|14000|ft|m|sigfig=2}}, and increase lift performance.<ref>Chavanne, Bettina H. [http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=mro&id=news/ospr6259.xml&headline=V-22%20To%20Get%20Performance%20Upgrades "V-22 To Get Performance Upgrades"].{{dead link |date=March 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes}}''Aviation Week'', 25 June 2009.</ref> By 2012, changes had been made to the hardware, software, and procedures in response to hydraulic fires in the nacelles, vortex ring state control issues, and opposed landings;<ref>Pappalardo, Joe. [http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/planes-uavs/the-ospreys-real-problem-isnt-safety-its-money-8347657 "The Osprey's Real Problem Isn't Safety{{snd}}It's Money"]. {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120617034117/http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/planes-uavs/the-ospreys-real-problem-isnt-safety-its-money-8347657 |date=17 June 2012}}''Popular Mechanics'', 14 June 2012.</ref><ref>[http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewStory/story_ID/24235/d/09202011 "Software Change Gives V-22 Pilots More Lift Options"]. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110925051728/http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewStory/story_ID/24235/d/09202011 |date=25 September 2011}}''thebaynet.com''. Retrieved 24 April 2012.</ref> reliability has improved accordingly.<ref>Capaccio, Tony. [https://archive.today/20120723025010/http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-13/v-22-osprey-aircraft-s-reliability-improves-in-pentagon-testing.html "V-22 Osprey Aircraft's Reliability Improves in Pentagon Testing"]. ''Bloomberg News'', 13 January 2012.</ref>

An MV-22 landed and refueled on board {{USS|Nimitz|CVN-68|2}} in an evaluation in October 2012.<ref name=USN_MV-22_Nimitz_tests>{{cite web |first1=Renee |last1=Candelario |title= MV-22 Osprey Flight Operations Tested Aboard USS ''Nimitz'' |url= http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=70031 |work= NNS121008-13 |publisher= USS Nimitz Public Affairs |date= 8 October 2012 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130524120127/http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=70031 |archive-date= 24 May 2013 |url-status= dead}}</ref> In 2013, cargo handling trials occurred on {{USS|Harry S. Truman|CVN-75|2}}.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aee72908b-a786-455f-8510-c35b64849f10 |title=Osprey on the Truman, Fishing for COD |last1=Butler |first1=Amy |date=18 April 2013 |work=Aviation Week |publisher=The McGraw-Hill Companies |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130520135407/http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aee72908b-a786-455f-8510-c35b64849f10 |archive-date=20 May 2013}}</ref> In October 2015, NAVAIR tested [[SRVL|rolling landings and takeoffs]] on a carrier, preparing for [[carrier onboard delivery]].<ref name=aw2015-11-12>{{cite web |url=http://aviationweek.com/defense/v-22-testing-could-lead-higher-takeoff-weights |title=V-22 Osprey Testing Could Lead To Higher Takeoff Weights |author=Tony Osborne |date=12 November 2015 |work=[[Aviation Week]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151116175310/http://aviationweek.com/defense/v-22-testing-could-lead-higher-takeoff-weights |archive-date=16 November 2015 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===Discussions===
[[File:CV-22 Osprey - RIAT 2017 (38727361971).jpg|thumb|CV-22 at RIAT 2017]]
<!-- Consider moving parts of content here to other sections as appropriate. See talk page. -->
Development was protracted and controversial, partly because of large cost increases,<ref name=texasobs>Bryce, Robert. [http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=1679 "Review of political forces that helped shape V-22 program"]. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927194024/http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=1679 |date=27 September 2007}}''Texas Observer'', 17 June 2004.</ref> some of which were caused by a requirement to fold wings and rotors to fit aboard ships.<ref name=nyp2015>Whittle, Richard. "[https://nypost.com/2015/05/24/the-osprey-half-airplane-half-helicopter-totally-badass/ Half-airplane, half-helicopter, totally badass]" NY Post, 24 May 2015. [https://web.archive.org/web/20150525104748/http://nypost.com/2015/05/24/the-osprey-half-airplane-half-helicopter-totally-badass/ Archived] on 25 May 2015.</ref> The development budget was first set at US$2.5&nbsp;billion in 1986, increasing to a projected US$30&nbsp;billion in 1988.<ref name=Wired_200507/> By 2008, US$27&nbsp;billion had been spent and another US$27.2&nbsp;billion was required for planned production numbers.<ref name=V-22_CRS_RL31384/> Between 2008 and 2011, the V-22's estimated lifetime cost grew by 61%, mostly for maintenance and support.<ref>Capaccio, Tony. [http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/11/29/3559148/lifetime-cost-of-v-22s-rose-61.html "Lifetime cost of V-22s rose 61% in three years"]. {{dead link|date=March 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes}} ''Bloomberg News'', 29 November 2011.</ref>

{{Blockquote||text=Its [The V-22's] production costs are considerably greater than for helicopters with equivalent capability{{snd}}specifically, about twice as great as for the [[Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallion|CH-53E]], which has a greater payload and an ability to carry heavy equipment the V-22 cannot&nbsp;... an Osprey unit would cost around $60&nbsp;million to produce, and $35&nbsp;million for the helicopter equivalent.<ref name="ohanlon 119">O'Hanlon 2002, p. 119.</ref>|author=Michael E. O'Hanlon, 2002}}

In 2001, Lieutenant Colonel Odin Leberman, commander of the V-22 squadron at [[Marine Corps Air Station New River]], was relieved of duty after allegations that he instructed his unit to falsify maintenance records to make it appear more reliable.<ref name=V-22_CRS_RL31384/><ref>Ricks, Thomas E. [https://web.archive.org/web/20121105114126/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/66970987.html?dids=66970987:66970987&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jan+19,+2001&author=Thomas+E.+Ricks&pub=The+Washington+Post&desc=Marines+Fire+Commander+Of+Ospreys%3B+Alleged+Falsification+Of+Data+Investigated&pqatl=google "Marines Fire Commander Of Ospreys; Alleged Falsification Of Data Investigated"]. ''The Washington Post'', 19 January 2001.</ref> Three officers were implicated for their roles in the falsification scandal.<ref name= texasobs/>

[[File:V-22 Osprey wing rotated.jpg|thumb|left|A V-22 in a compact storage configuration during the Navy's evaluation, 2002|alt= A V-22 with its wing rotated 90 degrees so it runs the length of the fuselage.]]
In October 2007, a ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' magazine article condemned the V-22 as unsafe, overpriced, and inadequate;<ref name=time/> the USMC responded that the article's data was partly obsolete, inaccurate, and held high expectations for any new field of aircraft.<ref name=MCT_Hoellwarth_20071016>Hoellwarth, John. [http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/10/marine_osprey_071014/ "Leaders, experts slam Time article on Osprey"]. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071210130333/http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/10/marine_osprey_071014/ |date=10 December 2007}} ''[[Marine Corps Times]]'' (Army Times Publishing Company), 16 October 2007.</ref> In 2011, the controversial defense industry-supported [[Lexington Institute]]<ref name="POL1">{{cite web|author1=DiMascio, Jen|title=Playing defense – but at a price?|url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46155.html|work=[[Politico]]|date=9 December 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150525224040/http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46155.html|archive-date=25 May 2015|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="WIR1">{{cite magazine|author1=Ackerman, Spencer|title=Defense Industry's Favorite Think Tank Daydreams of Obama Defeat|url=https://www.wired.com/2012/04/lexington-obama/|magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]|date=12 April 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160416231844/http://www.wired.com/2012/04/lexington-obama/|archive-date=16 April 2016|url-status=live|author1-link=Spencer Ackerman}}</ref><ref name="HAR1">{{cite magazine|author1=Silverstein, Ken|title=Mad men – Introducing the defense industry's pay-to-play ad agency|magazine=[[Harper's Magazine]]|date=1 April 2010|author1-link=Ken Silverstein}}</ref> reported that the average mishap rate per flight hour over the past 10 years was the lowest of any USMC rotorcraft, approximately half of the average fleet accident rate.<ref>[http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/v-22-is-the-safest-most-survivable-rotorcraft-the-marines-have?a=1&c=1171 "V-22 Is The Safest, Most Survivable Rotorcraft The Marines Have"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110303034110/http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/v-22-is-the-safest-most-survivable-rotorcraft-the-marines-have?a=1&c=1171 |date=3 March 2011}} [[Lexington Institute]], February 2011.</ref> In 2011, ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' magazine reported that the safety record had excluded ground incidents;<ref>Axe, David. [https://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/marines-respond-osprey-safety/ "Marines: Actually, Our Tiltrotor Is 'Effective And Reliable' (Never Mind Those Accidents)"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131209023744/http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/marines-respond-osprey-safety/ |date=9 December 2013}}''Wired'', 13 October 2011.</ref> the USMC responded that MV-22 reporting used the same standards as other Navy aircraft.<ref>[http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/Pages/USMCSTATEMENTINRESPONSETOARTICLEONTHESAFETYRECORDOFTHEMARINEV-22OSPREY.aspx "USMC Statement in Response to Article on the Safety Record of the Marine V-22 Osprey"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120116172050/http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/Pages/USMCSTATEMENTINRESPONSETOARTICLEONTHESAFETYRECORDOFTHEMARINEV-22OSPREY.aspx |date=16 January 2012}} ''USMC'', 13 October 2011.</ref>

By 2012, the USMC reported fleetwide readiness rate had risen to 68%;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20130813/NEWS04/308130010/DoD-watchdog-audits-Osprey-readiness|title=Pentagon watchdog to release classified audit on V-22 Osprey|work=Marine Corps Times|access-date=6 April 2015|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130817095918/http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20130813/NEWS04/308130010/DoD-watchdog-audits-Osprey-readiness|archive-date=17 August 2013}}</ref> however, the DOD's Inspector General later found 167 of 200 reports had "improperly recorded" information.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-10-25/pentagon-s-inspector-general-finds-v-22-readiness-rates-flawed |archive-url=https://archive.today/20131025231009/http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-10-25/pentagon-s-inspector-general-finds-v-22-readiness-rates-flawed |url-status=dead |archive-date=25 October 2013 |title=Pentagon's Inspector General Finds V-22 Readiness Rates Flawed |last1=Capaccio |first1=Tony |date=25 October 2013 |website=Bloomberg BusinessWeek |publisher=Bloomberg News}}</ref> Captain Richard Ulsh blamed errors on incompetence, saying that they were "not malicious" or deliberate.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.stripes.com/news/us/are-the-marines-faking-the-reliability-record-of-their-79-million-superplane-1.250587 |title=Are the Marines faking the reliability record of their $79 million superplane? |last1=Lamothe |first1=Dan |date=2 November 2013 |work=Foreign Policy |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131103045618/http://www.stripes.com/news/us/are-the-marines-faking-the-reliability-record-of-their-79-million-superplane-1.250587 |archive-date=3 November 2013 |url-status=dead}}</ref> The required mission capable rate was 82%, but the average was 53% from June 2007 to May 2010.<ref name=shal>Shalal-Esa, Andrea. [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bell-boeing-v22-international-idUSTRE81P0ND20120226 "U.S. eyes V-22 aircraft sales to Israel, Canada, UAE"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924162523/http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/26/us-bell-boeing-v22-international-idUSTRE81P0ND20120226 |date=24 September 2015}}''[[Reuters]]'', 26 February 2012.</ref> In 2010, [[Naval Air Systems Command]] aimed for an 85% reliability rate by 2018.<ref>Reed, John. [https://archive.today/20120919002442/http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/05/military_osprey_boeing_050510w/ "Boeing to make new multiyear Osprey offer"]. ''[[Navy Times]]'', 5 May 2010.</ref> From 2009 to 2014, readiness rates rose 25% to the "high 80s", while [[operating cost|cost per flight hour]] had dropped 20% to $9,520 through a rigorous maintenance improvement program that focused on diagnosing problems before failures occur.<ref>Hoffman, Michael. "[http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/04/09/osprey-readiness-rates-improved-25-over-5-years/ Osprey Readiness Rates Improved 25% over 5 years] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140413124502/http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/04/09/osprey-readiness-rates-improved-25-over-5-years/ |date=2014-04-13}}" ''DODbuzz'', 9 April 2014.</ref> {{as of|2015}}, although the V-22 requires more maintenance and has lower availability (62%) than traditional helicopters, it also has a lower mishap rate. The average cost per flight hour is {{usd|9,156}},<ref name="whittle2015-05">Whittle, Richard. "[http://vtol.org/74BFE740-E9BA-11E4-8AB70050568D0042 Osprey Shows Its Mettle] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240125033114/https://vtol.org/files/dmfile/VertifliteMJ15-OspreyWhittle1.pdf |date=25 January 2024}}" pp. 23–26. ''[[American Helicopter Society]]'' / Vertiflite May/June 2015, Vol. 61, No. 3.</ref> whereas the [[Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallion]] cost about $20,000 (~${{Format price|{{Inflation|index=US-GDP|value=20000|start_year=2007}}}} in {{Inflation/year|US-GDP}}) per flight hour in 2007.<ref name=op>Whittle, Richard. [http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/commercial/eng/Rotorcraft-Report_7571.html USMC CH-53E Costs Rise With Op Tempo] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140502013618/http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/commercial/eng/Rotorcraft-Report_7571.html |date=2 May 2014}}''Rotor & Wing, Aviation Today'', January 2007. Quote: For every hour the Corps flies a −53E, it spends 44 maintenance hours fixing it. Every hour a Super Stallion flies it costs about $20,000.</ref> V-22 [[Total cost of ownership|ownership cost]] was $83,000 per hour in 2013.<ref name=mag2015>Magnuson, Stew. "[http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2015/July/Pages/FutureofTiltRotorAircraftUncertainDespiteV22sSuccesses.aspx Future of Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Uncertain Despite V-22's Successes]" ''National Defense Industrial Association'', July 2015. [https://web.archive.org/web/20150621212900/http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2015/July/Pages/FutureofTiltRotorAircraftUncertainDespiteV22sSuccesses.aspx Archive]</ref> In 2022, the Pentagon evaluated its cost per flight hour at $23,941.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/rates/fy2022/2022_b_c.pdf|title=Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Department of Defense (DoD) Fixed Wing and Helicopter Reimbursement Rates|access-date=29 August 2023|archive-date=12 November 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211112120521/https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/rates/fy2022/2022_b_c.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref><!--TCO includes purchase price, running cost does not-->

[[File:Bell-Boeing CVM-22B Osprey of VRM-50 lands on USS Nimitz (CVN-68) on 12 March 2022 (220312-N-DU622-1010).JPG|thumb|A CMV-22B lands on USS ''Nimitz'' in March 2022.]]
While technically capable of [[autorotation]] if both engines fail in helicopter mode, a safe landing is difficult.{{r|v22fly}} In 2005, a director of the Pentagon's testing office stated that in a loss of power while hovering below {{convert|1600|ft|m|sigfig=2}}, emergency landings "are not likely to be survivable." V-22 pilot Captain Justin "Moon" McKinney stated that: "We can turn it into a plane and glide it down, just like a [[Lockheed C-130 Hercules|C-130]]."<ref name=time>Thompson, Mark. [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1665835-1,00.html "V-22 Osprey: A Flying Shame"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081011055732/http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1665835-1,00.html |date=11 October 2008}} ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'', 26 September 2007. Retrieved 8 August 2011.</ref> A complete loss of power requires both engines to fail, as one engine can power both proprotors via interconnected drive shafts.<ref name=Norton_p98-9/> Though [[Vortex ring state#Vortex ring effect in helicopters|vortex ring state]] (VRS) contributed to [[Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey|a deadly V-22 accident]], flight testing found it to be less susceptible to VRS than conventional helicopters.<ref name=AF_mag_Finally/> A GAO report stated that the V-22 is "less forgiving than conventional helicopters" during VRS.<ref>Schinasi 2008, p. 16.</ref> Several test flights to explore VRS characteristics were canceled.<ref>Schinasi 2008, p. 11.</ref> The USMC trains pilots in the recognition of and recovery from VRS, and has instituted operational envelope limits and instrumentation to help avoid VRS conditions.<ref name=Wired_200507/><ref name=Proceedings_Sept2004>Gross, Kevin, Lt. Col. U.S. Marine Corps and Tom Macdonald, MV-22 test pilot and Ray Dagenhart, MV-22 lead government engineer. [http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190, NI_Myth_0904,00.html "Dispelling the Myth of the MV-22"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240125033111/https://www.military.com/benefits |date=25 January 2024}}. ''Proceedings: The Naval Institute''. September 2004.</ref>

===Production===
On 28 September 2005, [[the Pentagon]] formally approved full-rate production,<ref>{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20091206022925/http://defensetech.org/2005/09/28/osprey-okd/ "Osprey OK'd"]}}.  ''Defense Tech'', 28 September 2005.</ref> increasing from 11 V-22s per year to between 24 and 48 per year by 2012. Of the 458 total planned, 360 are for the USMC, 50 for the USAF, and 48 for the Navy at an average cost of $110&nbsp;million per aircraft, including development costs.<ref name=V-22_CRS_RL31384/> The V-22 had an incremental flyaway cost of $67&nbsp;million per aircraft in 2008,<ref name=usaf_fy2008_budget>[https://web.archive.org/web/20080227122030/http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080204-081.pdf "FY 2009 Budget Estimates"]. p. 133.  ''[[United States Air Force]]'', February 2008.</ref> The Navy had hoped to shave about $10&nbsp;million off that cost via a five-year production contract in 2013.<ref name=DJ_Christie_20070531>{{cite web |last=Christie |first=Rebecca |url=http://www.navair.navy.mil/v22/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.detail&id=177 |title=DJ US Navy Expects Foreign Interest In V-22 To Ramp Up Next Year |work=Naval Air Systems Command, United States Navy |agency=Dow Jones Newswires |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161201231351/http://www.navair.navy.mil/v22/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.detail&id=177 |archive-date=1 December 2016 |date=31 May 2007}}</ref> Each CV-22 cost $73&nbsp;million (~${{Format price|{{Inflation|index=US-GDP|value=73000000|start_year=2014}}}} in {{Inflation/year|US-GDP}}) in the FY 2014 budget.<ref>{{cite web |title=War Funding Climbs in Omnibus Bill for First Time Since 2010 |url=http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140114/DEFREG02/301140032/War-Funding-Climbs-Omnibus-Bill-First-Time-Since-2010 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20140401071506/http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140114/DEFREG02/301140032/War-Funding-Climbs-Omnibus-Bill-First-Time-Since-2010 |url-status=dead |archive-date=1 April 2014 |work=[[Defense News]] |author=John T. Bennett |date=14 January 2014}}</ref>

On 15 April 2010, the Naval Air Systems Command awarded Bell Boeing a $42.1&nbsp;million (~${{Format price|{{Inflation|index=US-GDP|value=42100000|start_year=2010}}}} in {{Inflation/year|US-GDP}}) contract to design an integrated processor in response to avionics obsolescence and add new network capabilities.<ref>Keller, John. [http://www.militaryaerospace.com/index/display/article-display/373712/articles/military-aerospace-electronics/executive-watch-2/2010/04/bell-boeing-to-design-new-integrated-avionics-processor-for-v-22-osprey-tiltrotor-aircraft.html "Bell-Boeing to design new integrated avionics processor for V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110714094702/http://www.militaryaerospace.com/index/display/article-display/373712/articles/military-aerospace-electronics/executive-watch-2/2010/04/bell-boeing-to-design-new-integrated-avionics-processor-for-v-22-osprey-tiltrotor-aircraft.html |date=14 July 2011}}''Militaryearospace.com'', 18 April 2010.</ref> By 2014, [[Raytheon]] began providing an avionics upgrade that includes [[Situation awareness|situational awareness]] and [[blue force tracking]].<ref>[http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensenews.jsp?id=4691 "Raytheon wins $250 million contract for V-22 aircraft avionics from US"]. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110723091619/http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensenews.jsp?id=4691 |date=23 July 2011}} ''defenseworld.net''. Retrieved: 30 December 2010.</ref> In 2009, a contract for Block C upgrades was awarded to Bell Boeing.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20100301224951/http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4168 "DOD Contracts"]. [https://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4168] United States Department of Defense. 24 November 2009.</ref> In February 2012, the USMC received the first V-22C, featuring a new radar, additional mission management and electronic warfare equipment.<ref>McHale, John. [http://mil-embedded.com/news/block-c-v-22-osprey-with-new-radar-cockpit-displays-and-electronic-warfare-features-delivered-to-marines/ "Block C V-22 Osprey with new radar, cockpit displays, and electronic warfare features delivered to Marines"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130522192505/http://mil-embedded.com/news/block-c-v-22-osprey-with-new-radar-cockpit-displays-and-electronic-warfare-features-delivered-to-marines/ |date=22 May 2013}}. ''Military Embedded Systems'', 15 February 2012.</ref> In 2015, options for upgrading all aircraft to the V-22C standard were examined.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://breakingdefense.com/2015/08/ltg-davis-talks-to-boeing-on-upgrading-half-of-marine-v-22-fleet/|title=LTG Davis Talks To Boeing On Upgrading Half Of Marine V-22 Fleet|work=Breaking Defense|date=13 August 2015|access-date=31 October 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151023080945/http://breakingdefense.com/2015/08/ltg-davis-talks-to-boeing-on-upgrading-half-of-marine-v-22-fleet/|archive-date=23 October 2015|url-status=live}}</ref>

[[File:JGSDF V-22 Osprey landing on the JS Ise（DDH-182）-03.jpg|thumb|left|A Japanese V-22 lands on {{JS|Ise}}]]
On 12 June 2013, the U.S. DoD awarded a $4.9&nbsp;billion contract for 99 V-22s in production Lots 17 and 18, including 92 MV-22s for the USMC, for completion in September 2019.<ref name="contract">[http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bell-boeing-award-v-22-multi-year-contract-387024/ Bell-Boeing award V-22 multi-year contract] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131006234554/http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bell-boeing-award-v-22-multi-year-contract-387024/ |date=6 October 2013}} – Flightglobal.com, 12 June 2013</ref> A provision gives NAVAIR the option to order 23 more Ospreys.<ref>[http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/us-military-orders-additional-22-v-22-ospreys/ US military orders additional V-22 Ospreys] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140201222930/http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/us-military-orders-additional-22-v-22-ospreys/ |date=1 February 2014}} – Shephardmedia.com, 13 June 2013</ref> As of June 2013, the combined value of all contracts placed totaled $6.5&nbsp;billion.<ref>[http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_06_13_2013_p0-588065.xml Pentagon Signs Multiyear V-22 Deal] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140203074941/http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=%2Farticle-xml%2Fawx_06_13_2013_p0-588065.xml |date=3 February 2014}} – Aviationweek.com, 13 June 2013</ref> In 2013, Bell laid off production staff following the US's order being cut to about half of the planned number.<ref name=bell325>Berard, Yamil. "[https://archive.today/20140517165952/http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/05/05/5793642/bell-to-lay-off-325-workers-as.html?rh=1 Bell to lay off 325 workers as V-22 orders decline]". ''[[Fort Worth Star-Telegram]]'', 5 May 2014. Retrieved 8 May 2014.</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/05/05/5793642/bell-to-lay-off-325-workers-as.html |title=Bell to lay off 325 workers as V-22 orders decline |last1=Berard |first1=Yamil |date=5 May 2014 |website=Fort Worth Star-Telegram |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140702060207/http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/05/05/5793642/bell-to-lay-off-325-workers-as.html |archive-date=2 July 2014 |url-status=dead}}</ref> Production rate went from 40 in 2012 to 22 planned for 2015.<ref name=ain2015-02-25>{{cite news |first=Mark |last=Huber |url=http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aerospace/2015-02-25/bells-garrison-new-programs-full-speed |title=New Programs at Full Speed |work=Aviation International News |date=25 February 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150302151655/http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aerospace/2015-02-25/bells-garrison-new-programs-full-speed |archive-date=2 March 2015 |url-status=live}}</ref> Manufacturing robots have replaced older automated machines for increased accuracy and efficiency; large parts are held in place by suction cups and measured electronically<!--older method is fixing with clamps-->.<ref>Laird, Robbin. "[http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/2015/V-22-Osprey-0827152.html A Hybrid Manufacturer For A Hybrid Airplane]" ''Manufacturing & Technology News'', 27 August 2015 Volume 22, No. 10. [https://web.archive.org/web/20150831071650/http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/2015/V-22-Osprey-0827152.html Archive]</ref><ref>Laird, Robbin. "[http://www.sldinfo.com/the-maturation-of-the-osprey-a-perspective-from-visiting-the-boeing-plant-near-philadelphia/ A Perspective from Visiting the Boeing Plant Near Philadelphia]" ''SLD'', 28 May 2015. [https://web.archive.org/web/20150831074010/http://www.sldinfo.com/the-maturation-of-the-osprey-a-perspective-from-visiting-the-boeing-plant-near-philadelphia/ Archive]</ref>

In March 2014, [[Air Force Special Operations Command]] issued a Combat Mission Need Statement for armor to protect V-22 passengers. NAVAIR worked with a Florida-based composite armor company and the Army Aviation Development Directorate to develop and deliver the advanced ballistic stopping system (ABSS) by October 2014. Costing $270,000, the ABSS consists of 66 plates fitting along interior bulkheads and deck, adding {{convert|800|lb|kg|abbr=on}} to the aircraft's weight, affecting payload and range. The ABSS can be installed or removed when needed in hours and partially assembled in pieces for partial protection of specific areas. As of May 2015, 16 kits had been delivered to the USAF.<ref name="airforcetimes17sep14">[https://archive.today/20140920011939/http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140917/NEWS04/309170042/Air-Force-special-ops-looks-add-armor-firepower-Ospreys Air Force special ops looks to add armor, firepower to Ospreys] – ''Air Force Times'', 17 September 2014</ref><ref name=whittle2015-05-15>Whittle, Richard. "[http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/afsoc-ospreys-armor-up-after-painful-lessons-learned-in-south-sudan/ AFSOC Ospreys Armor Up After Painful Lessons Learned In South Sudan]" ''Breaking Defense'', 15 May 2015. [https://web.archive.org/web/20150516002422/http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/afsoc-ospreys-armor-up-after-painful-lessons-learned-in-south-sudan/ Archive]</ref>

In 2015, Bell Boeing set up the V-22 Readiness Operations Center at Ridley Park, Pennsylvania, to gather information from each aircraft to improve fleet performance in a similar manner as the F-35's Autonomic Logistics Information System.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://aviationweek.com/shownews/aliss-children-networked-prognostics-v-22 |title=ALIS's Children: Networked Prognostics For The V-22 |last1=Batey |first1=Angus |date=12 July 2016 |website=Aviation Week & Space Technology |publisher=Penton |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160713192757/http://aviationweek.com/shownews/aliss-children-networked-prognostics-v-22 |archive-date=13 July 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Two programs, the ''V-22 Cockpit Technology Replacement'' (VeCToR) and ''Renewed V-22 Aircraft Modernization Program'' (ReVAMP), are being studied to upgrade the aircraft and extend its life. VeCToR would upgrade the cockpit with more modern electronics in the 2030s and 40s, and ReVAMP would be a fuselage life extension program to extend the V-22's service beyond the 2060s.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Eckstein |first=Megan |date=1 May 2024 |title=V-22 Osprey could see second life, with new drive system, wings in 2050s |url=https://www.defensenews.com/air/2024/05/01/v-22-osprey-could-see-second-life-with-new-drive-system-wings-in-2050s/ |access-date=11 September 2024 |website=Defense News |language=en}}</ref>