Hey I had a great experience - has nothing to do with that. I just shake my head at the engineering and requirements decisions that made your senior leadership folks reinvent the wheel with an aircraft that has basically the same footprint and capabilities as the Sikorsky S-70/H-60.
As lean as the Marine Corps is, why insist on evolving an airframe from the 70's - when what came out of the Navair/PMA effort looks in fact like an H-60 on paper!
Are your communities warfighting requirements so unique? Or is it more parochialism at work.
Just frustrating to read about this airframe and my common sense says "huh?"
Now there win't be any re-manufactured airframes - instead bending new aluminum and composites. So much for the economy of reusing 25 year old metal.
I am sure there are tons of detailed PPT decks with mission requiremets, gap analysis, swim lanes, etc. And I'm sure it was all conceived by smat folks with sound decision making capabilities.
But the big picture? You are getting a 20,000 lbs aircraft with a 6-8,000 lb payload, that doesn't do anything different than the one designed by Sikorsky - and no other servive besides USMC will use it!
That's my point Skid Kid, not an attack on anyone - but soap box / rant... absolutely.
Whew!