[QUOTE=MattC86;35608]
. . .
[quote]I understand current Chinook variants are not optimized for naval use. But the Sea Knight is similar in configuration (and the Super Stallion is in size) to the Chinook, and I don't see why it couldn't be modified for effective from-the-sea capabilities (though I certainly don't know enough to say for sure - that seems to be a permanent caveat of my posts. . .)[quote]

Folding rotor blades for the hook would cost big $ -- the Ch46 had 'em in the design spec. The Hook is too high for the hangars aboarg ship, the CH53 was specifically designed to fit them and its tail boom folds giving it a smaller footprint than the hook.

My problem with the V-22 is more a general issue with military procurement - they simply don't understand the concept of a sunk cost. Because of Congressional oversight, they fear having to say, "We spent a few hundred million in development of this, but it turned out to be a mediocre or non-optimal idea, so we bagged it," and thus they essentially force the development of a system. In some cases that has worked - the AMRAAM should, in all fairness, have been killed given its difficulties in the late 1980s - and in some cases it doesn't work; the service would be better off swallowing the lost development costs and moving on.
While we can agree there's much wrong with the process, it's not nearly that simple -- that is for a separate thread.

The Marines seem to be growing as bad at this as the other services; both the V-22 and the EFV are troubled systems that have been or are being ramrodded through because (1) the service claims it needs them and can't use anything else (which may not be entirely true) and (2) the service shows all the money its (usually wastefully) spent on the system already, and says we owe it to the taxpayer to finish the development.
All the last two paragraphs of complaint are true -- but much of the meat is the fault of Congress, not the services. The EFV will probably die, OBE and a step too far. The MV 22 will get fixed; any technological leap is gong to have beaucoup bigs initially. Is it overpriced, sure -- but IMO almost ALL aircraft are (including the civil side). Sellers market...

... I can't think of any system procured by the military in recent history that has think-tank papers published urging the military to can the program even after it has entered service.
That settles it. If the Think Tanks are against it, I'm for it!!!

Those turkeys make a lot of noise and while there are unquestionably some good and smart guys working for them; they have zero responsibility and do not have to live with the results of their products.

The per-unit cost of even a modified MH-47 would be less than the Osprey, and the reliability and survivability (at least in terms of armament) would be increased.
Possibly, still won't fit in the hangars, still doesn't have the speed -- and even more importantly, it doesn't have the range.

That's my concern. Sorry to hijack this thread from our beloved "Good Lord do I hate the way the USAF does its business" message, but I wanted to say it. Saying "Osprey" and "good and needed" was waving a red flag to me. . .
Sorry, I guess we can disagree on that. However, do note that I said good and not great; and needed and not irreplaceable...