Nick you said:
"When the USMC general lamented that things would have been different in Afghanistan if only he had V-22's serves as an example. I guess nobody told him that the V-22 carries less and has shorter range than a Black Hawk when both are operated from 10,000 feet. It would be a similar sad story for Iraqi missions as well, where the 53's carry more than twice the payload, with more range, as well."
So I guess now I am in no danger of ridicule for "misquoting" you.
Now. Lets project that a V-22 can not hover above 10K, I have not seen any UH-60's operating at 10000ft or above in Afganistan with any meaningful load or doing meaningful work. The tail rotor deficiences of the UH-60 apparently kept it out of the game and the Army had to mostly use CH-47's. You like to say V-22 supporters claim pilot error for crashes (which I never have, except maybe for the guy that went the wrong way on the blottle, Grady ?), but the UH-60 lobby sure went out of their way to blame the pilot of the Mount Rainer (?) crash which was filmed from above by a Bell 407. I thought that film clearly showed why 60's are limited in high altitude operations.
As to the USMC general, I am sure he speaks from what he knows, and not as a marketeer. Think like a user, with the V-22 : fewer or no tankers, a significantly greater area of operation on a tank of gas, and I want to get a package at a specific location and the 53's and 60's can not do it without unreasonable support.
If the UH-60 is the end-all why are you trying to sell the USMC the S-92? Why did the FAA have to make a special rule to allow "contingency" engine power for routine commercial operations for an aircraft with no military systems? I bet the S-92 with the same mission equipment as the V-22 (radar, warning systems, flares/chaff, armor, defensive weapons) will really be a great performer. I sure it can beat the V-22 in every category. Well Done!
The Sultan