Of course it would be best to have a gunship helo with the same speed and range as the Osprey. as it is the question is one of timing: When to hit the beach with what, and the plan in reverse for take off time.

The idea of helo landing on a assault beach a bad nightmare. Never happen. For the driving reason behind getting Osprey and what it will do for the MC you have to look at the doctrine. Starting with Sea Dragon which morphed into Operational Maneuver from the Sea (OMFTS). Since then Ship to Objective Movement(STOM and Exp Maneuver Warfare (Current Buzzword) have been refinements of the concept. http://192.156.75.102/omfts.htm When the Osprey hits the fleet, it will have a 20mm (i think) chin turret controlled by the copilot.

Timing the Osprey's to reach the LZ at the same time as a gunship defeats the purpose of the Osprey. The assault would still be limited to the speed and range of the Osprey.

Thanks for the link. It does show the value of a faster, longer-range aircraft like the Osprey, in being able to threaten a larger area than helecopters. It would mean the enemy has to further spread it's forces out, in order to counter the threat, or cede some territory in order to protect it's most valuable objectives. That said, I do think the escort issue needs to be sorted out, before the Osprey is used as an assault transport, as opposed to a light freighter). It would only take one enemy with an RPG to down a landing Osprey, and it is unlikely that the Osprey will see him in order to get the first shot off with it's 20mm. That means 24 dead Marines, + the crew, which if repeated 3 or 4 times counts as a major catastrophie in the eyes of the public nowdays. Fast fixed-wings jets are unsuitable for this sort of scouting mission, the A-10 is land based and UCAV's do not currently have adequate armament, and I remain sceptical about them, due to the risk of jamming. I beleive the OV-10D operated off carriers, and had a nose gun suitable for taking out individual targets, though I believe it is now only used for FAC. Additionally, I doubt it could operate off ski-jump equiped amphibious warfare ships, limiting the flexibility of the force. AC-130's are an option, but only if major air defence sytems have been completely destroyed. That leaves gun-ship helecopters as the only consistanly safe way to escort an assault and using them makes the Osprey an expensive way to do what helo's currently do adequately. If a smaller, tilt-rotor gunship was developed, the Osprey might be a viable assault transport. The gunship would have to be able to do everything that current gunships do, as well as having enhanced capabilities within roughly the same sized package. Until that occurs, I see the types use as limited

Aussiegunner, You've criticized the Osprey for small load. Now you complain that too many troops would be killed if one was destroyed? How many troops would be killed if a helicopter transport was hit? The Osprey, faster and longer ranged, has a much better chance of finding and reaching an undefended LZ. See the point? The "helicopter gunships can't keep up" argument is weak. A Marine landing force comes as part of a MEU. An MEU comes with Harriers. The Harriers aren't really their do deal with an enemy air force. If we expect a significant enemy air force, we'll task a CBG to escort the MEU, and the incoming enemy aircraft won't have to worry about Harriers; they'll have to worry about F-18s and long range SAMs and Aegis detection and targeting. The Harriers are there for close air support. They'll handle undetected defenders on the ground, along with some MG fire from weapons on the Opreys. Detected defenders will be hit with long range fire from weapons on the TG. We may be a lot less than perfect, but America has more experience in this area and vastly more capacity than the rest of the world, combined.

"You've criticized the Osprey for small load. Now you complain that too many troops would be killed if one was destroyed? How many troops would be killed if a helicopter transport was hit?" The point is that the helecopter transport will be escorted by gunships, whereas the Osprey won't, hence is less vulnerable. Tha said,I believe LZ's should be secured with smaller Blackhawk sized helo's, so for this very reason, with larger transports following on. However, I accept that shipboard space requirements may dictate medium-lift choppers, which are more efficient load carriers. I don't accept that harriers are as good as gunships at detecting individual defenders. In any case, do you want to use a cluster bomb to take out a soldier with an RPG, if a burst of 20 or 30mm will do? "We may be a lot less than perfect, but America has more experience in this area and vastly more capacity than the rest of the world, combined." Apparently not all of America shares the same view on the Osprey, hence the "bad press" highlighted in this discussion board. In any case, have you read any of my posts while I have been on this discussion board? I would say that they are generally pretty politically pro-American and acknowledge the US military as the world's premier force, without discounting the military capabilities of other nations. Comments like the one above even manage to piss this pro-American Aussie off. Pretty stupid buddy.

"2x speed, 1/2 payload. Do the math & it means the 22 can do the same amount of work in an hour that a chopper can." Ummm, this technically would not be correct. Your math is a little flawed. Here is a sample timeline: 1:00 v-22 and a chopper depart from carrier. The 22 carries half as much payload. 2:00 The 22 arrives and delivers it's first half of the payload. 3:00 The v-22 arrives back at the carrier to pick up the other half of it's load. Also, The chopper arrives and delivers it's complete payload. 4:00 The 22 arrives and delivers the second half of it's payload. 5:00 both arrive back at the carrier. So, while total flight time is the same, the chopper delivered it's entire payload an hour before the 22. I'm not saying the chopper is better or worse, but the 2x as fast / half as much argument is not as simple as it sounds. Do the math before you tell someone else to.

The USMC has retired all of its Broncos (OV-10D). Would be an interesting escort, tho'. It could operate off of the amphib carriers, as US ships do not have ski jumps.

The equation for work is: w = P x T W = Work P = Power T = Time So from a mathematical perspective, the statement that 2x the speed and 1/2 the payload is a wah IS technically correct. Now you do raise an interesting point, and not to be rude, but I think you are looking at the glas as half empty. Take your hypothetical for a moment. You have freely assumed that the only thing that matters is getting 2x the V-22 payload to the LZ in two hours. What if all that mattered was getting a wounded marine to a hospital that had 2.5 hours to live, or getting 1,000 rounds of 5.56 to marines out of ammo that have an hour to prep for a defense? In such a situation, the V-22 can do the job, and the chopper can't. It's the flip side of your own argument.

Thanks for that. How do the amphibious carriers operate Harriers at full capacity without ski-jumps? On the OV-10, would they be able to operate from the amphibious carriers without catapults?