Logic only operates within the parameters we specify, however. Okie01 raised some additional important points to consider in post 40:
Me: I don't believe the Osprey's have anywhere near that kind of toughness.
Okie01: The A-10's job is to get up-close-and-personal with the enemy at ground level. Consequently, it's highly offensive...and built tough.
The Osprey's job is to deliver troops and supplies to forward areas -- which the A-10 can't do. It would be a good thing if the Osprey could defend itself -- and pass out a little punishment -- while it's performing this role./p>
He's absolutely right; they are two different aircraft, designed for two different missions. I agree with him that giving the Osprey the ability to defend itself is a good thing. My problem was the article seemed to imply that the Marines thought it could replace the A-10 as an offensive CAS (close air support) platform. I'm an admitted A-10 fan, and think we should just give it to the Army. (I also don't much care for the inter-service rivalry argument, wherein the Air Force doesn't want it, but they don't want the Army to have it even less.)