Do you have an argument if you were to remove the talk of “boondoggle?”
Take a look at how many helicopters have been brought down because they are slower and can’t overfly the manpads threat.
Consider what it means when you’re the initial landing party and turn around time for follow on chalks is a lot longer because platforms are slower and don’t have the turn around times.
Factor in the threat to the amphibious landing vessels that need positioned closer to shore and within threat range when you don’t have something like the V22.
“Do you have an argument if you were to remove the talk of “boondoggle?””
Yeah, no 1., the military’s action in Iraq in not using the Ospreys in “combat” and the bureaucrats’ redefinition of combat zone to pretend the Ospreys are used in combat.
Of course they are not shot down, they don’t go near combat, and our current enemies don’t have intermediate range AA threat.
And how about the fact that senior Pentagon officials tried to dump it in the past, but it was saved by Bell and Boeing giving money to politicians?
It’s a political weapon system, not a battlefield one, but some pretense of it being the second has to be made for appearances purposes.
I don’t think the Taliban threaten Navy ships. Maybe resources should fit the threat. Anyway, a 90 million, fragile system, isn’t as good as three, or four heavy lift helicopters, where if you lose one, you still have 66%-75% of your lift. Manpad threat is the same, the Osprey doesn’t bring anything new.
I got from the report that the approach, miles out, was too fast. Pilot error, not the craft in this case.
Just because the military bought it doesn’t mean that it was a good idea. The military has invested 30 years and tens of billions of dollars into this aircraft despite a LONG history of crashes, under performance, and other problems. It is a good idea that has been poorly executed.