There is always this "debate" that pops back up as if tiltrotor and compound where an either/or situation. This is not a zero sum competition, although it is being framed as one. There is a case for having both a tiltrotor and a compound helicopter in the future, and this is very likely the path the Army and other services will take. Tiltrotors are great for speed but lack in nimbleness, while compound helicopters are good (not great) for speed and excellent for nimbleness. Tiltrotor hovering is less than ideal, as seen on the CV-22 and MV-22, and this limitation is simple physics, it can be mitigated but not entirely. Tiltrotors will be excellent at supporting longer range raids and logistics to FOBs including troop transfers, but not for most applied combat missions in any reasonable theater size. The attack platforms which will replace the Apache and Cobra/Viper down the road will almost certainly be compound and not tiltrotor because they need to be extremely nimble, quick up and down, turn on a dime, etc, which a tiltrotor cannot do well, especially not in hot, high, and sandy/dusty places. Utility platforms at a tactical level, including medevac/CSAR, will also probably have to be compound or conventional as well, for the same reasons of nimbleness. One of the reasons the Air Force rejected using the CV-22 as a primary CSAR platform is that although it is fast, which gets troops on target very quickly, once it gets on target it is much more of a "pig" so to speak. Massive downwash on rappelling, guaranteed brownout in dusty places, enormous LZ required to land or hover, and basically can't operate over rooftops or in constrained valleys and canyons, the list goes on and on. AFSOC Osprey operations continue, because it is useful to get people far and quick, but it's messy and some would say dangerous. The V-280 will obviously be a major improvement on the V-22 but the basic limitations of tiltrotors will still be an issue going forward.