Sas,
Who is billing the V-22 as a “replacement for machines that can do things the Osprey cannot..”? It was meant to replace the CH-46 and CH-53D and does so. It was never meant to replace the 53E and no one is saying it can. What “machine” is it being billed to replace that it cannot?
“The Osprey is a great machine in certain mission sets....but it isn't the "Only" right answer.”
-Cannot the same be said of every aircraft that exist? Many of us ‘Osprey guys’ have said as much which is why we support a mix of aircraft. In fact it’s many of the ‘nay sayers’ who have advocated that the Marines essentially get rid of their medium lift assets and go to an all 53 force. Are there not missions a V-22 can do that a 53 can’t?
‘The Osprey is a great machine in certain mission sets....but it isn't the "Only" right answer. When you are trying to prove you are right having invested so much money, lives, and credibility into the program.....the only resort one has is to find examples that proves you right....and avoid the hell out anythiing that proves you wrong or mistaken.’
-In other words V-22 supporters are cherry picking the mission profiles they use to support the aircraft, isn’t that exactly what you did in your example? Do you have any doubt that 53K supporters will do any different to support their product?
“As to FARP's....every aicraft demands a "FARP"....even if it is a Carrier, Air Field, as there must be fuel close enough to the action to allow the use of that particular aircraft”
-A FARP by definition is temporary in nature and located in the main battle area. Therefore Carriers and friendly air fields are not FARPs, their logistics and security requirements are very different from those of a FARP.
Last edited by jeffg; 24th Jun 2011 at 20:13.