Fixed wing aircraft deliver more fuel efficiency, longer range, and greater cargo capacity than helicopters. They are also less prone to crash and have a greater capacity to glide to an emergency landing in the event of a mechanical failure than helicopters. Obviously, fixed wing aircraft can't land vertically, but a small fixed wing aircraft can handle a pretty small, primative field airstrip.
The Marine's V-22 Osprey exists largely to take advantage of the benefits of fixed wing aircraft while still being able to land like a helicopter when needed. But, lots of the time, the immense technological risk, complexity and cost that goes into the vertical take off and landing capability of the V-22 isn't necessary. A smaller than a C-130 and comparable to a heavy lift helicopter sized fixed wing transport aircraft would be very useful to the Army.
In fact, the Army actually has aircraft that fit that description. The C-23 Sherpa is one of the few classes of aircraft that the Army has been allowed to keep in the Air Force-Army split, largely because the Air Force doesn't want them. For comparison purposes, the C-130, the main short range Air Force transport plane, can carry 92 troops for 2356 miles at 374 miles per hour. The Army's C-47 Chinook heavy lift helicopter is designed to carry 33 troops 250 miles at 160 miles per hour. The C-23 Sherpa is designed to carry 30 troops for 770 miles at 218 miles per hour. Thus, the Sherpa has about three times the range and goes about a third faster than a helicopter that can carry a comparable load. The Sherpa also costs less to buy and maintain than either a comparable capacity helicopter or a C-130.
I'm not the only one who thinks it would be wise to let the Army develop a successor to the Sherpa, sooner rather than later, unburdened by Air Force indifference. Such a plane would be far cheaper than the V-22, yet fill many roles now inappropriately filled by helicopters simply because that is all that the Army has that it can rely upon.