| Re: Time Osprey story
Personally, I'm fed-up with the anti-Osprey crowd. They are a bunch of know-nothing, and the press, as usual, is looking for sensationalist stories even where there isn't one.
What Hoverbug says is right. I would emphasize even more the basic fact that all helicopters, bar none, are extremely vulnerable to air defenses (and just basic ground fire, even AK-47s and RPGs - anyone seen or read "Blackhawk down"?). The Osprey is no exception, and certainly is more vulnerable than an AH-64 let's say, but I'm not sure when compared to a UH-60 or CH-46. In any event, our huge losses in helicopters in all previous conflicts (Vietnam in particular) point to a simple fact of life: going into an opposed LZ with helicopters is a very bad idea. I believe the Osprey is finally forcing tactics to change in order to take this into account. Its range and speed will make it easier to bypass tough spots, but as Hoverbug says, this assumes good intel about where those are.
Despite all the negative press (and despite relatively poor program management), the Osprey has has a remarkably accident-free development, by historical standards. The F-16 is a great jet, and never got such bad publicity, but I remember the years in the early 80s when we used to lose an entire squadron (24 jets) or more a year (around one third were fatal accidents), and that was just in the US (more were lost in other nations). But a lack of historical perspective is so typically American, I'm not surprised by all this.
And oh, by the way, the Bradley turned out to be a great vehicle in actual battle (including during friendly fire incidents during Desert Storm), far more survivable than originally thought even by the military (and that was even before the additional armor was added in the late 80s/early 90s, though sacrificing the river-crossing capability which was more theoretical than anything anyway). That should tell you something...
FVD |