Pilots Discuss Use of Osprey

I wish the Osprey would do everything that it was suppose to do and do it safely, but I really don't think that the advantages outweigh the cost and the risk. Osprey proponents say that it can fly further, faster and carry more. But they don't say compared to what. If they are comparing to 1960s technology, it is not a fair comparison. The Marine CH53 can carry a lot more, go farther, go higher (landing with heavy loads in mountains) and depending on the mission distance, just as fast. On top of everything else, it cost the taxpayers about 1/3 the current price tag on the Osprey. The only real advantage is the speed in the cruise segment when it is airplane mode. But is the marginal reduction in time in the middle segment of the flight worth the trade offs? To do the same mission as a CH53, you would have to use twice as many V-22s and you may have to in-flight refuel to match the range of the CH53. If there are a limited number of aircraft (and there always is), you will get more combat power.

The mission of the osprey isn't to fulfill the role of both airplanes and helicopters, its mission is assault support. That is, to move people and supplies in and around the battlefield. The Marine Corps already uses both fixed wing and rotorcraft for assault support. While it is purchased to replace the CH-46E and CH-53D, it will take on other missions not currently done by the other airplanes and helicopters; simply because it has the performance to do more, we'll use it to do more.

People often comment that there are cheaper alternatives just to replace a medium lift helicopter, but that is not the intent. The Marine Corps Doctrine calls for an aircraft with more capability than is currently possible with just helicopters, and we need it to work anywhere without a runway.