I would have to agree with you on the fact that the mass majority of americans are stupid, illogical, and worthless(i should know, I have to live in the same country as them). The funny part is that we, as a society, are unwilling to spend extra money on defense to ensure that all american troops have the most effective weapons and thus, are less likrly to get killed in a war.

I agree that MV-22 idea is good, but what about the maintenance nightmare and extremely difficult pilot training. There are also major low speed helicopter mode manouverability concerns at low altitude. The Osprey needs time and in my opinion not enough testing has been done for such a revolutionary aircraft. In regards to the CH-46 crash rate, it inlcudes combat crashes and oh yeah the aircraft are like 30-40 years old. Compare the crash rate to EH101 test program no crashes or casualties, although 1 HM1 Mk.1 Merlin did crash off the coast of England due to an electronic anomaly. The MV-22 test program should continue, but the marines would be better off buying the EH101 or similar as an immeddiate replacement of CH-46 before more accidents occur. And what about cost, the MV22 are going to cost US$80 million plus compared with a similarly equipped EH101 US$30 tops.

Why does the US Marine Corp need this aircraft? Sure, it is quicker than a Sea Stallion, but carry's half the number of troops and a far smaller payload, necessitating more trips than the chopper to deliver the same load. How will it improve the Marines ability to conduct operations and is the cost justified?

"quicker than a Sea Stallion, but carry's half the number of troops and a far smaller payload" Half the payload at twice the speed is a wash. Why is it needed? Two reasons: First, the Marines hardware is ancient and desperately needs replacing. Why the Osprey, instead of another helicopter? To increase capability, of course. Faster, longer ranged, higher service ceiling. And, btw, once the technology matures, it will be VERY widely applied, by all the services, and in civilian use, as well. It's interesting, if sad, to see the criticism of this technology. There is nothing out of the ordinary going on for new tech. Helicopters, especially, had a miserable reputation for crashes in their first generation and are still service-hogs compared to fixed wing aviation. Indeed, aircraft of any type took many years to become reasonably safe. Fixed wing aircraft in *civilian* use were notoriously dangerous through the 1920s and 1930s, decades after the Wright brothers. For that matter, many millions of people refused to fly through the 1950s, even, into the 1960s, for fear of crashes.

bsl, we're back to agreeing on things. The only thing that I would add to your post is that the Osprey doesn't replace the CH-53. Its the medium lift ch-46 replacement. The crash rates that I mentioned in my first post were all developmental crashes. I left out any combat crashes so as not to skew the numbers. Although it would have made my position look better :) You will also see that the maint is not the nightmare portrayed in the news. One of the big problems was the maint management software. When the Navy/MC went to that system it dropped us below 50% combat ready. The deadline criteria had to be fixed. Although I will admit the MV-22 had a higher maint rate than any other system. New tech, new maint personnel its expected. As far as the EH 101 development crash rate. I put it in the same boat as the C-17. No new technology or radical design advancments so why would they crash?

"Half the payload at twice the speed is a wash." What do you mean by a "wash"? Does it mean rubbish? If it does, Why does the FAS site say that this is the case? By the way, I was not critisising the technology. I was merely questioning how the USMC can make use of the technology, so as to perform missions it can't achieve with helecopters(current or new). It seems to me that the Marines are virtually always going to be operating in an environment where air-superiority is guarrentee'd by the US Navy, Airforce or it's own aircraft. In any case, being able to fly at 270 kts is no better than 150 in the face of hostile missile/fighter defences. I don't see why the faster, more expensive Osprey makes a difference over a cheaper medium-lift chopper. They seem to perform all of their missions pretty well right now. What have they not been able to do that they needed to in recent years? Feel free to argue the point (I know you will:))

The basic need for the Osprey is due to the emergence of exocet/harpoon type mobile shore batteries with a range of 50 nautical miles. If You are a fat juicy target - like a carrier - you want to stay away from those buggers, than can be hidden and are cheap. This safety factor cuts down the effective rage of your helo's - and the marines like to get their feet on the ground - not in the water. Helo supplying af Bn at max helo-range is a nightmare.

I guess the resupply arguement is one bonus for the Osprey. However, on the other side of the arguement, how do you escort an Osprey equiped assault with helicopter gunships, when it is 100 knots faster and has a longer range? Scouting a landing area with gunships would mean giving away the speed and range advantage of the Osprey. MANPAD's and automatic smallarms, which are far more widespread than Exocet missiles, would make it far to dangerous to land without doing so first. Is it worth having merely to resupply and reinforce, especially when deck space is limited?

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. Escort? 2 ways to do that, 1 is with fixed wing, the other is to have a gunship variant of the osprey. Also, I wonder how much thinking outside the box is being done with the osprey. You're right in that simply using it as a helo seems to be a bit of a waste. So I suspect that it won't be used simply to replace an existing capability, but will add new capabilities and overlap some old ones. Frankly, the speed and range attributes add a LOT to the ability to exploit element of surprise. You can get there faster. You can get to more places. Immagine trying to defend against such a deployment...

"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." Yes, but for how much more money? "Escort? 2 ways to do that, 1 is with fixed wing, the other is to have a gunship variant of the osprey." A fixed-wing escort is not the same as a rotary wing one. Choppers are far better for low-level armed recon missions of a landing zone, due to their superior ability to fly close to the ground, to target small pockets of resistance with guns and rockets, and to hover behind cover. Sending Harriers or AV-8B's would put them into back into the low-level environment, where they are most vulnerable, and where they are less capable of doing the job. They would also have to spend a lot of time/fuel flying in circles, just to keep the speed down to the Osprey's. On the second suggestion, an armed version of the Osprey would be even more vulnerable as it is big and slow. "Frankly, the speed and range attributes add a LOT to the ability to exploit element of surprise. You can get there faster. You can get to more places. Immagine trying to defend against such a deployment..." The US has usually completely destroyed any early-warning systems in the area, by the time an airmobile assault occurs. Helecopters will still have the element of suprise. "Also, I wonder how much thinking outside the box is being done with the osprey. You're right in that simply using it as a helo seems to be a bit of a waste." I agree with this statement. I think that if the Osprey is bought, it should be done so on the basis of an identified deficiency in the capability of the US military, for which the aircraft is most suitable. Replacing CH-46's with is merely seems to be a case of "it's the newest, most expensive technology, so it must be the best". Frankly, I don't think it is the best replacement for a medium-lift chopper. Another medium-lift chopper is a far more flexible, invulnerable asset, when operated from ships with limited deck space. However, I do see it as a useful light airlifter, into remote area's that have been secured, that have no airfields. If it were used as a 21st century Caribou, it would definately constitute an improvement to current capabilty. The Australian Defence Association has canvased it as a replacement for our 40 year old but irreplacable fleet of Caribous, and it would represent a quantum leap in this context.