I'm a fan of the Osprey but I don't look at it like some wonder aircraft like some do.
Yes, it's a safe aircraft now. That myth had been disproven years ago. Reliable? Depends on who you talk to. You hear reports of the books being cooked to show OR rates higher than actual. Operating costs at 10K / hr are still almost twice of what was promised originally. At over 70 million a pop, you can buy and C-130 and operate it at roughly the same costs.
Some of the other concerns I have pertain to vulnerability. A 7.62 machine gun mounted on the bottom of the aircraft just can't replace a door gunner. Not gonna happen. I don't care about the lack of autorotation capability but I'm not sure I like the idea of an engine nacelle that far out from the CG with an interconnecting transmission going to it. Yes, it can hover on one engine but you take out the engine and connecting drive shaft at a hover and she'll be on her back in a hurry. Take out an engine or tail rotor drive shaft on a conventional helo and you can do a hovering auto. I think survivabiliy from a MANPAD goes to a conventional helicopter as well. The core of the heat signature is blocked by the fuse in most helos and impact from a missile won't necessarily end in complete destruction.
Then there's the vortex ring state issue. I don't think they've really solved the problem so much as they've just limited the aircraft's flight profile on landing. Although I keep hearing they can come in hot to an LZ, I haven't seen this first hand. At least not to the effect that a conventional helicopter can rapidly flare and decel for landing. Along with the VRS issue, I have concerns on its ability to do formation landings in confined areas. Haven't seen one do a mountain pinnacle insertion / extraction yet either. Not that it couldn't do a two wheel landing on a ridge, I just think it would be extremely difficult in a tilt rotor configuration.
The speed and range have significant advantages over helicopters. No doubt about that but not as great as one would think. Deep insertion capability was never a high priority in the last two wars. While the V-22s proponents will tout the Osprey eliminates the need for FARPs everywhere, that's just unrealistic. You still have a need for FARPs everywhere because we still use conventional helicopters. Not to mention most assault missions were well within helicopter ranges without the use of a FARP. Throw external tanks on the helicopter and you can re supply / troop transport most of the day without hitting a FARP.
Where the V-22 shines is long range CSAR. Proven in Libya with the downed F-15E a few years ago. It also makes for a good stand off platform for the Marines operating from LHDs. I think you could have a strong argument for a MEDEVAC aircraft. Only thing I'd be concerned of is its response time. No idea how long it would take a crew to spool up and get airborne.
Fortunately the Army waited out the V-22. Now that the bugs have been worked out Bell has learned from the mistakes in the V-22 and implemented changes to the V-280. Not doubt a needed replacement for aging legacy helos but I'd rather see them go with the coaxial design for its future vertical lift (FVL) program such as the Defiant and the Raider.
