| I hear all your points, but it's still hard to believe the story is 100% BS. When someone like Cheney tried so hard to kill the program, it just makes me think there something fishy going on. And those cost overruns are out of control -- though, I know, not exactly new when it comes to new military hardware. The lack of autorotation does appear to be a significant issue, too -- at least all those helis in Vietnam had a good chance at a successful crash landing, no?
I'm not one to get embroiled in political debates about this stuff, just thought it was interesting -- the story also says the bird hasn't been adequately tested in sandy environments yet off it goes. I do hope the safety concerns proove to be unfounded.
At least the pilots seem to like the thing, I'm sure they could have easily got one to sound off on it (off the record) if the pilots agreed with the main theme of the story... if it is indeed as unsafe and untested an aircraft as is presented, you would think finding a pilot or two to agree wouldn't be that hard (again off the record). |
I think the debate has gotten too wrapped up in the hardware question. The bigger question is whether or not the technology will support the mission that is being asked of it.
Part of the problem stems from the Marine Corps' selling of the Osprey as a replacement for its assault helicopters. It is not an assault helicopter and is clearly more vulnerable than an assault helicopter, but its mission profile and tactical employment are wholly different than an assault helicopter. It doesn't autorotate because it is not a helicopter, and we shouldn't expect that it will autorotate any more than a C-130 will. The Marines had to sell the program to a skeptical audience by playing it off as the logical improvement of existing systems when it is in fact a whole different tactical approach as well as being a fundamentally new aeronautical technology. The unfortunate outcome of that salesmanship is that it set everyone's expectations that this would be able to do what an assault helicopter does (i.e. go into a potentially contested landing zone). If the Osprey comes under fire, it is already a tactical failure, because its operational employment is to put the troops where the enemy isn't. With UAVs providing real-time imagery, unlike Vietnam, this is not an unreasonable tactical expectation, provided it can occur in a situation where we have air supremecy.
In my perspective, the debate shouldn't be so much about whether the Osprey should be acquired, but rather that by doing so the Marines have left a gap in their operational capability. If the Osprey can't be flown into a hot LZ and the CH-46s are on their way out, then what are they supposed to use to fulfill this mission? The Osprey is also not ideal aircraft to deploy close to the front as it requires a fairly significant logistal chain and lots of specialized equipment. It is great that they now have the ability to rapidly deploy 300 miles behind enemy lines, but the UH-1Y is not a substantially large enough aircraft to provide the close-in assault mobility that is required for non-littoral operations.