Originally Posted by
ryan1234
The survivability is arguably better than most legacy helicopters right now, not to mentioned when combined with a speed advantage for less time over enemy air defenses.
Just how many people have "survived" V-22 crashes..... I think it is a pretty short list.
Speed advantage: Yes, it has one, but it is just 80 Kts faster than a CH-53 (250 vs 170) but the -53 can do 170 carrying DOUBLE the payload. The CH-47 is also a 170 knot airframe with almost double the payload. Faster isn't always better. To move the same load over the enemy, the Osprey has to make twice as many trips. The only thing worse than flying over hot territory, is having to do it again, or having to use twice as many airframes to get the job done.
No doubt a fair number of folks have perished in the legacy rotor wing airframes that are now in the inventory, but the osprey, no thanks. We (the services) could have done better in the acquisition process, but we didn't. Now our warfighters will have to work with what they've been saddled with.
The fact of the matter is that the Osprey is really on its initial combat exposure, we will all have to wait and see how it performs. We are now employing it in some pretty demanding circumstances. Time to see if we got our money's worth.
It is what it is.
SD