Ronnie I see it just the other way - the Apache as an attack helicopter
costs more than an F-16 and it remains totally unsurvivable in the
environment we are seeing it in Afghanistan and Iraq and hence they are
holding it back at every opportunity. It''s reliability is still
terrible and its avionics is good but now quite in need of an update yet
the Long Bow does't apply to the present combat and was a waste to buy.
Could it be made to do better - you bet - but there does not seem to be
any interest in the Army in doing so.

If the Osprey is as bad as you say then we are in real trouble - but the
Osprey is a transport / lift machine, what we need to replace the Apache
is a "Blitz fighter" tailored for COIN


"RapidRonnie" wrote in message
oups.com...

I guess common sense is not your forte. An Apache has a hell of lot
better chance at survival than a troop-carryong transitional
rotorcraft with exposed engines at the tips of vunerable wings. It is
not heavily armored as well.

When civilians and the military alike call the V-22 things like
Turkey-
Shoot, Easy Prey, and Let's Pray, I think they show a definate lack
of
confidence with the craft. Time will tell.

You missed who the comment was directed to, didn't you??

The Apache is a moderately good, quite overpriced attack helicopter.
The Osprey is a flying deathtrap and a worst-possible-design attempt
at VTOL. It can't be flown as a conventional aircraft-I guess it can
be landed in shear-off-the-rotors forward mode, but it's something you
can't practice. It has two engines, a pessimal number for VTOL even
with cross-shafting and suffficient excess power.

We should concede we were bamboozled, yes, bamboozled and have the
Osprey fleet used for reefage in salt water and walk away.