Bet you won't have Vkince or the other "Bash the Osprey" crowd admit that.
They're so fixated on bashing the V-22 that they don't suggest any
alternatives, other than a "generic" helo.
"Arved Sandstrom" wrote in message
newsbLzl.19022$Db2.14441@edtnps83...
Matt Wiser wrote:
And nobody's getting the ball rolling on a V-22 replacement. Which
means,
like it or not, it's the V-22 by default. The anti-Osprey crowd keeps
shreiking "No V-22s", without any suggestion of a OTS or other
replacement;
being against the V-22 has taken on religious overtones in some circles.
(the New York Twits' editorial board being the leader of the pack) H-46s
are
going to the desert parking lot in Arizona as fast as new Ospreys come
off
the line and crews get transitioned, so the time to get a new helo to
replace the Osprey (if you can find one) is either now, or never.
[ SNIP ]

That's one thing I haven't suggested - getting rid of the Osprey. As far
as I am concerned it works well enough, we're getting it, so live with it.

My observation wrt the CH-46 was for the early '90's period. The problem
with the helicopters then was substantially that they were getting old,
not that they were crappy (*). _At that time_, _if_ a decision had been
made to restart production (basic airframe, but avionics improvements),
new CH-46s would have been available to replace aged CH-46s now and over
the next few years.

That decision was not made, so it's the MV-22 or bust.

AHS

* You can almost always argue that something can be improved, or that
there's a more capable replacement. What often doesn't get argued is why
do you need something better if the current thing is good enough.