On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:57:54 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:22:05 -0800, Lyle wrote:

Then there will probably be developed a ASW Version of the Osprey, if
you ask me the Osprey is the most logical assest we have to replace
the C-2 Greyhound, E-2 Hawkeye, and S-3 Vikeing, and Tanker aircraft
with a common platform.
JMO

Interesting. I'm of the opinion myself that for the USN's purposes,
the best replacement for all of these is another production run of
E-2, plus an updated C-2 (turboprop powered, naturally) fitted out as
required for the S-3 and tanker missions.

I just don't see the extra complexity of the VTOL as a good thing for
a navy that is committed to CTOL carriers.
one of the duties of the Wasp class is SeaControl/CVE duties.

But it does make some sense for a Navy that is trying to further stretch its
reach by implementing such things as the Expeditionary Strike Group concept,
using the less capable amphibious assault ships, etc., as the core of those
forces as opposed to having a CVN required in all instances. The fact that
we remain sommitted to CTOL carriers does not mean that we have an infinite
supply of them ready for handling multiple contingencies spaced out around
the globe, nor does it mean that those vessels possess an unlimited
on-station capability--which is why the ESG concept is being pursued.
remember that the CVE during world war 2 were used to escort the
convoys/assault ships to the destinations protecting them from both
subs and aircraft. And once they got to their destination provided
airsupport for the amphibous landings. This freed of the CVA for
attacks on the enemies fleet, or to attack targets inland. And it were
the Marines that were assigned to the CVE's not the Navy.

Brooks


Now for the RN, there may well be some use in an AEW/Tanker Osprey,
but IMO it's unlikely to happen. More likely a Merlin will get a
radome, and we'll do without organic tankers :-(

--
Peter Kemp

"Life is short...drink faster"