All must remember that we are talking marine ops not army doctrine. Also that Osprey is only one leg in the OMFTS triad. The other 2 being the AAAV and the LCAC. They all compliment each other. Sling load. Your numbers come from the CV-22, the air force version that will be a MH-53/MC130 replacement/compliment. Their different requirements, internal electronics produce a lower sling weight. I used the MV numbers when using both sling points. I don't discount the deck space argument. I simply state that while the entire airwing package will not fit on the flight deck, thats OK. There is a big hanger deck that can take up the slack. Marines will have to find somewhere else to clean rifles and do the daily 7. For the sake of argument, lets say that I can only have 8 MV-22s on ship vice the 12 CH-46s I still win on troops transported. 24 x 8 = 192 (MV22) vice 14 x 12 = 168. Wheres the lack of lift? With 8 Ospreys I can lift an entire infantry company. The Osprey has sucessfully lifted the M777 howitzer. The only Marine equipment that the 53 will lift that Osprey won't is the LAV 25. Although it makes for good pictures, I have never heard of a real world mission where they were used that way. The UH-60L doesnt fold so it takes up as much deck space. The navalised version would only carry 9 troops so I need 3 (2.666) to carry the personnel load of an Osprey. Where will I put all those choppers? The hanger deck isn't that big. 36 UH-60s to replace 12 MV-22s. Even If they were to carry 11 Marines Im still at 2.18 seahawks to 1 osprey. Why do you think the Army used a aircraft carrier in Haiti vice a LHD? Aussie I think you are over emphasizing the escort point. The MEU only has 4 gunships. Would you task them to cover the deep helo raid/assault, the heavy equipment (LAR/Tanks)going ashore on unprotected LCACs, the boat company in CRRCs or your AAAVs? The problem I see is that most people don't know the make up of a marine unit and assume they have the same support as a army unit.

Sam, I accept your arguement on the Osprey replacing the CH-46 though I am less sure about the CH-53D on the deck space/troops carried arguement(and I am talking about all storage areas here). The escort issue still niggles though. I can see your point, in that the Marines operate differently to the army. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be saying that the Marines are emphasising a larger number of smaller operations, rather than on concentrating a large force in a few areas for an attack, at least in the initial stages of a campaign. However, I wonder has the doctrine you are talking about has been tested in a high-risk situation? When in recent years has the USMC sent assault transports into a risky situation un-escorted by gunships? It seems to me that this would be a terribly risky thing to do, given the power and range of modern man-portable weapons, especially MANPADS. I know the Osprey's range gives it a greater range of possible LZ's, but these are still going to be limited to the distance of a reletively quick forced march, if the element of suprise a light force needs is to be maintained. Additionally, the enemy will know which points are of strategic value, so will be able to place well-armed light forces around these points in anticipation of action by the USMC. Also, at the end of the day the Osprey only has a 200nm in assault transport mode, further limiting the choice of targets. The chances are that the Ospreys will come under effective fire, unless escorts clear the area first. As for the small number of escorts per ship, not all operations are going to be happening at once, so the escorts should be able to cover several contingancies. Also, as you have pointed out, the makeup of such flight wings can be adapted to the needs of individual situations. In a high-risk operation, you may need more escorts attached, perhaps at the expense of Harriers, until forward operating strips can be established.

I can see where you are coming from, though I would refer you to my last post to Sam on capabilites to discuss my concerns re: unescorted Ospreys.

Aussiegunner, I said that a Harrier is a better air to air platform than any helicopter. It is. And, any *other* fighter in the American arsenal is a better air to air platform than a Harrier. That, too, is true. One aircraft? Well, yes. If possible, of COURSE you want to minimize the variety of airframes. Doing so, you greatly simplify maintenance, repair, refueling/rearmament, etc.. Highly specialized craft allow you to engineer for narrow specialization. But, common craft allows you to simplify keeping those aircraft in service. It's always a tradeoff. The Marines, less than any other service, have few opportunities to begin virtually from scratch with major systems. If they have the chance, and seem to be favoring reducing the total number of systems, they have good reason. But, as some have intimated, the Osprey, if it DOES enter service in large numbers, will generate a number of variants, over time.

"Medevac & emergency resuply seem to be two missions that would benefit from the speed" Plus, special forces ops,

"One aircraft? Well, yes. If possible, of COURSE you want to minimize the variety of airframes. Doing so, you greatly simplify maintenance, repair, refueling/rearmament, etc.." The marines have got on all these years with several gunships and transports of completely specialised design. I do not see how providing a gunship that can do the job of protecting the Osprey, as well as an AH-1 can at protecting normal choppers, is going to cause any major maintainance problems.

The problem with finding a escort for the Osprey is that, right now, there isn't one out there. The army Commanchee program, after 20 yrs and 5 versions of the video game, still won't be operational untill 2009. Even if it could fly today it isn't fast enough. That leaves us with either a Attack version of the Osprey, fixed wing escort or design a tiltwing attack bird. Imagine a Osprey with the 12.7 chin turret plus 4 underwing hardpoints. I previously stated a 20mm gun but the 12.7 has been finalized. Didn't mean to be misleading.

That would go part of the way to solving the problem, though it would probably be more vulnerable than an AH-1 and would take up more space. If it were well armoured, had excellent protection against IR missiles, a good sensor suite and had a weapons fit to compensate for it's large size, it could be formidable. I'm imagining a couple of turrets out the side and perhaps a retractable one out the bottom, as well as the nose turret and underwing stores. Sort of a cross between an AC-130 and an A-1 or A-10. Wicked!

Perhaps they cold also be used to drop a big parachute retarded barrels of HE out the back, a mini-version of the 15000lb pounder used from hercs. Airburst a 4000lb "blockbuster" type weapon, with thin casing and therefore a very high explosive content, over an LZ, and most enemies within weapons range would be knocked stupid while the Osprey's are landing (subject to the LZ being clear of any civies). Also, BSL's comment about modern sensors has me thinking. An Osprey is probably big enough to house a couple of Predator operating stations. The drones could circle an LZ with IR sensors on, watching for weapons discharges, and when they are spotted, in come the Osprey gunships. You guys have me liking the idea more and more each day.

I agree with former mentioned arguments that the marines need a higher speed vertikal lift asset to get to shore. Higher speed because the WASP etc will be futher out to sea due to the advances in rocket technology and it higher use rate. Ok, but now I'm asking myself: WHY DID THEY USE A TILT CONCEPT!?!?!? A compound helicopter would have much more advantages. 1. the tilt tech is "new"technology the compound helicopter has been around from the 1960's and earlier. 2. The lift of a compound helicopter is around the same as a "normal" one so twice the tilt. 3. The speed of the compound could be around 225 knots, (415 km/h)higher speeds have been tested and modelled. So roughly between a heli and the tilt. 5.The handling qualities are comparabel/equal to the helicopter, so much better than the cumbersome/slow Osprey in helicopter mode. 6. It would be much much cheaper to develop. 7. Normal legacy helicopters can be modified to a compound helicopter (blackhawks, Apache/Cobra etc) Giving you a even shorter development time, lower cost and an escort attack version. 7. The compound idea can be scaled up, to the CH 53 and even hercules size () 8. Lower operating cost because of a reduction in vibration levels. So my idea would be: Ude the tilt for very specific tasks (insertion of special forces?) but please let the mainstay be equipped with compound helicopters....saves money and lives. http://www.stratmag.com/issueMar-15/page03.htm