Don't forget also that the Osprey takes up more space than the CH-46, so their will be less of them on a ship. This translates into even longer to deliver a full force of Marines. Also, how does it compare when lifting loads other than troops? If it were less capable in any way, it would be hard to justify. The FAS site states that it is also intended to replace the CH-53, as opposed to just the CH-46. I don't see how it can do so, with its far smaller load carrying capability. That said, this discussion has me thinking about how they could be used, assuming the escort problem was solved. With their superior range, why use them from a ship at all? They could be flown from land-bases, inflight refuelled, or refuelled at the hover from ships, then flown directly into the combat zone. That would leave deck space for more of other assets, like whatever should be developed to escort the Osprey. As such Osprey bourne troops could take on the role traditionally done by paratroopers. The limitation would be the ability to deploy heavy equipment outside the range of helos with slung loads. Without this, the force would be restricted to "light" operations. However, LAPES dropping what is needed to capture an airfield, a beach suitable for amphibious landing or a port may be an option.

There won't be less v-22 than 46s. While true that you can't get 12 MV-22s,4 CH-53Es, 4 AH-1s and 6 AV-8Bs on the flight deck. Thats what the critics base it on. They forget about the hanger deck. Mv-22s do fit in the hanger bay on Wasp and Tarawa class ships. The Osprey will replace the CH-53D not the heavy lift Echo. athe Osprey can self deploy worldwide (with tankers of course) 1 squadron self deploying would save 5 C-5 sortes. They would also be ready for action that day. A ch-46 requires 2-3 days of reassembly after offloading from a C-5. OV-10s have flown off of LHAs. Last time during Desert Storm. However they can't land on one.But its a moot point since the last Bronco was retired in 1995.

Aussiegunner, I didn't attack you. I didn't call you antiAmerican. I suggested that the uniformed people pushing the Osprey might, perhaps, have some good reason to do so, and that's the context in which I brought up American expertise. If you find that offensive, so be it. As for the escort question, I repeat; it's overdrawn. What does "escort" mean? As far as air to air, you'd prefer Harriers to helicopter gunships in any context. As far as dealing with problems on the ground, I think you overestimate the value of gunships and underestimate the value of fixed wing aviation. And, continue to ignore the fundamental consideration which explains the interest in Ospreys, in the first place. Their speed, service ceiling, and range means a much wider choice of LZs. Even over helicopters. The idea, I repeat, is NOT to develop a better ability to assault heavily defended beaches. It's to be able to move troops to *undefended* areas; to sidestep the problem of assaulting prepared defenses, at all. No more Tarawas. I think it's wise to observe that, at this very time, there's a revolution in sensor/scouting technology going on which is making it more and more possible to look ahead and see what's waiting. It is well to connect this increasing capability with the Osprey to get an idea what's going to be possible to do and what will be done. Does the fact that it's precisely the Corps which has been the strongest proponent of the Osprey program not register? This is not a system being foisted by R&Ds types, or imposed on the Marines by another service. It's the Marines who want it and who are fighting, bureaucratically, to see that the program is funded and comes to fruition. IOW, the people with more experience in landing forces than any organization in the world are the ones who feel that the Osprey is not just acceptable, but highly desirable. This is the point I made in my last note and it bears repeating. The Marines are paying a price, in more ways than one, for this position, but they persist in taking it. Perhaps it's sensible to take a moment to try to see why?

I did not say that you accused me of being anti-American. I was suggesting that your comments, which essentially say “we know best about this, so shut-up and listen”, even manage to piss somebody who is pro-American off. They discount the views of your allies, who may have a different and valuable perspective on problems like this. Take note that there are anti-American elements in our country that would leap on comments like that as proof of why we can’t trust Americans to adequately consider our point of view, when it comes to joint operations. We have had some bitter experiences when it comes to serving in coalitions, under foreign commanders (alibiet mainly British ones) and at the very least it is why Australians are so sensitive about this occurring now. At the worst, it could translate into votes against our current government, which is very supportive of coalition operations, to elect the opposition who would have no compunction in riding a wave of populist anti-Americanism and weakening the alliance. When you are in an alliance the attitude that you display towards your allie's matters, if you want to keep them. Perhaps you don’t, and that is your prerogative, but I think doing that just to prove who knows the most is stupid. Back to the escort issue. Irrespective of the ability of the Osprey to deploy to a wider variety of airfields, the power of man-portable weapons means an opposing force deployed more thinly can still be a major threat. Even scouting a potential LZ with drones and satellites cannot identify every individual soldier, so you need to be able to avoid or take a hit when he fires first, minimize your casualties when he succeeds, and respond as quickly as possible. A gunship escort, or something similar, is far more valuable than a Harrier when it comes to this type of small scale air to ground work, and only carries 2 personal if the worst happens, as opposed to 26 in the Osprey. I have read that Iraqi soldiers in the first gulf war were far more scared of slow-movers like helecopters and the A-10, than they were of fast jets, because the slow movers stuck around and pounded them every time they popped up their heads to fire a rifle. The intimidation factor alone is worthwhile for keeping those heads down, while the assault transports are at their most vulnerable. Additionally, escorting the Osprey only with the Harrier will place a bigger burden on those aircraft, taking them away from the roles they do best, such as air to air and taking out area ground targets. Gunships and fast-movers are complementary, and taking one out of the picture can only increase the risk. As for the opinions of the US Marine Corps, yes of course it is highly valued. The fact that it is an experienced force does not however mean that it cannot get it wrong. This has happened in the past with equipment issues in the US armed forces, with decisions like the one to leave guns off Phantom fighters in the 1960’s, because of the supposedly superior ability of air to air missiles. This cost the US lives in Vietnam and I think leaving the gunships out of the airmobile assault equation would do the same. I also think there is an element of the “Gold Plated S**t Shovel” mentality (to use the words of a certain late USAF Colonel), coming to play here. Military people of all nationalities will always say that they need the biggest and best piece of equipment, without looking at the big picture of what is affordable and will still get the job done (perhaps even better). This is human nature I guess. I now work in healthcare, and the medical profession have the same tendancy, but it is something to be aware of.

The Harrier is not and never was intended as a primary air to air platform. Please believe me that it is never intended that the few Harriers of a MEU should be the primary air defense of the task group. If any serious enemy air capability is believed to be present, there will be a CBG attached, unless the operation is in range of some Air Force tactical air base. CAS, first. Air to air, second, if nothing else is available. Praise the lord and hope the bogies are running on fumes. As nice as the Harriers are to have around, there's a reason the RN has been trying, for decades, to find a way to get carriers large enough to operate conventional aircraft off of. Of course, you're correct that mistakes can be made. And, have been made. If you look a bit more closely at the sorts of examples you've offered, however, you'll find that they tended to involve situations where one service was resisting spending limited resources on capabilities it felt tended to benefit another service more than itself. The decision to champion the Osprey involves the end-users deciding on a question at the center of their raison d'etre and their expertise. You might turn out to be correct, in the long run. It's a genuinelly new technology, and there is often trouble midwifing really new tech. First generation hardware sometimes just doesn't work well enough.

I saw the 2x speed 1/2 payload post and decided to get the facts from various, normally the service, sites. Here are the facts as presented by the Army and Marine Corps. Cargo personnel range speed CH46 6000 internal 14 132NM 145KTS 4000 external (use to be 25) UH-60L 2640 internal 11 306 NM 142KTS 9000 external 1150NM self deploy MV22 20000 internal 24 200 NM 240KTS 15000 external 2133NM self deploy MV 22 is also protected against 12.7 and 14.5mm. Has quieter signature than CH-46. The UH-60, EH 101 and S-95 were looked at by congress/GAO as an alternative to Osprey. All found lacking. There are plans for a gunship variant of the osprey. For now the tactic is to launch the cobras early and have the Osprey catch up near the LZ. If we want light armor at the LZ we will also launch 53Es to arrive at same time. Before you say that LHA would have to steam closer to shore negating advance range advantage of 46. All amphibs have a flight deck and it isn't unusual for a LPD/LSD to have a section of 46s, AH-1s, a 53 or even Harriers attached. Mission specific. Splitting the ships of the ARG is done all the time.

It looks like the Marines should be using a sea version of the UH-60L. Updated avonics, better range, near lift capacity. But knowing the Marine/Navy budget situation, they will use the CH-46 until it falls out of the sky from old age or until the follow on MV-22 is fully operational and with wide availability.

I know the Harrier is not primarily a fighter, but I'd like to draw your attention too your words from a previous post. "As for the escort question, I repeat; it's overdrawn. What does "escort" mean? As far as air to air, you'd prefer Harriers to helicopter gunships in any context." It is used as a backup to fighters in the air to air escort role, but is primarily available to use a superior weapons load for close-air support and tactical strike against area and hard targets. Gunships are better at tackling vehicles and small groups/individual soldiers, and are complementary to Harriers. As for the Osprey's technology, I repeat again that I am not critisising it. I don't pretend to know enough about it to do so. I am not even critisising the Marines's proposed doctrine. I am however saying that the utility of this doctrine is limited while it rests on this one aircraft. The escort question has to be solved, I think with a specialized aircraft. Additionally an Osprey equiped force is going to be limited to light operations unless the question of getting heavy equipment to to the landing area quickly is solved. In this context and considering limited budget's/deck space, purchasing the Osprey at the expense of other capabilites vital to getting a viable marine force ashore would be foolhardy. If these problems are sorted out, it will probably be a very successful airmobile assault platform. Until then, I can only see it in a complementary light-transport role, via self-deployment/inflight refueling capability.

The 1/2 the speed, 2x the payload argument primaraly related to the CH-53D, which the Sea stallion will also replace. This carries up to 55 personal at 130 knots and can lift over to 6000kg (about 14000 pounds) as a slung load. I do not know where you got 15000 pounds as a slung load for the Osprey. According to http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/osprey/specs.htm, the slung load is around the 8000 pound mark. This is probably the more important spec to consider in replacing the CH-53D, as this would require heavier use of the CH-53E's for the loads the Osprey can't handle and in vertical lift mode the Osprey's speed advantage is negated. I accept that the Osprey is more capable than the CH-46, but do not see how you can discount the deck space arguement. Even on bigger ships like the Wasp class, you can only fit the number of aircraft that physical contraints allow, and this in turn limits the number of troops you can move. I also do not see how you can discount the range limitations on the gunships and heavy lifters as relevant to the proposed role of the Osprey. The ability to land the largest possible force of Marines, properly supported by heavy equipment and escorts is always going to be limited to the range of the aircraft in the fleet with the shortest legs (in this case CH-53E's with heavy slung loads). Playing around the make-up of the airwing might allow you to perform some other less demanding missions at longer ranges, but it is not going to change this fact. Considering the limitiations imposed by current lack of supportability for the Osprey, another medium lifter like the EH-101 or NH-90 might be more efficient when it comes to getting the most troops onto the ground from an assault ship.

Aussie, I think your critique is valid, and I think that a deliberate tradeoff has been made. The flexibility and capabilities provided by heavy lifting helos tha can be incorporated into an assault package with attack helos has been sacrificed. I think this capability will still exsist, but there will be fewer of these machines to accomodate the ospreys. What has been gained is the flexibility and capabilities that come with speed and range. Medevac & emergency resuply seem to be two missions that would benefit from the speed. The range and speed too would allow a commander to respond faster to emerging battlefield developements, and exploit opportunities that might otherwise be missed. Due to the load restrictions, this is not likely to involve large unit manoeuver, but smaller operations more on the SpecOps end of the spectrum. I believe the buzzword is "force multiplier." And then of course, you get rid of the CH46.