Anyone read this story? Kind of sounds like the airborne equivalent of the Bradley  I hope for the troops' sake that the article is overly dramatic, but the lack of a forward firing heavy gun does seem like a problem... as does the survivability. (and I also though the statement that more than 30% of the harrier fleet had crashed... but that's since 1971, and the number of total harriers isn't given.)
Be a cool looking piece of diecast kit I would think though (Osprey). |
It was a pretty biased story, though there is some valid criticism there. The business about the gun is a red herring because if it comes in under fire it's toast anyway - gun or no gun - because it can't manuever well and its a huge target and it's nearly impossible to hit it without impacting some sub-system (of which many are critical). The whole operational employment doctrine of the Osprey is using its quantative leap in range to bypass enemy concentrations that couldn't be bypassed with the CH-46. However, it can't be operated in a serious air defense environment (of course, that holds true for any transport) and can't be used in contested LZs (again, the CH-46s weren't hugely successful in doing that either). In other words, it's a great aircraft for current operations where you can park a UAV overhead unseen to make sure the bad guys aren't going to be waiting for you, but it is a useless asset when going up against a well organized enemy or in fighting Vietnam-type operations where the enemy has the leg up in intelligence.
It is worth noting that the unit currently deploying to Iraq is taking only 10 aircraft, when the squadron complement is 16. Of the 100+ airframes completed, only 10 are of the latest mod standard to meet deployment criteria. At the very least, it has not been a well managed program. Only time will tell if the investment was worth it. Provided we don't have to take it into Iran or North Korea and stick with less formidable opponents, it should probably do pretty well.