data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5978e/5978e8203440481250d7809668b0a8e1122b3a0c" alt=">"
QUOTE |
Secondly, when you are in a war such as the one in Iraq, there should be no price put on something which could be instrumental in saving a soldier's life. |
PENTAGON FALLS SHORT IN GOAL TO GET ARMORED VEHICLES TO IRAQ
The Pentagon will fall far short of its goal of sending 3,500 lifesaving armored vehicles to Iraq by the end of the year. Instead, officials expect to send about 1,500.
Ref. https://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1,1249,...03490,00.html
The article explains that the goal of 3,500 vehicles was believed to be "ambitious," and delivery/equipping issues have prevented that goal from being reached. The 1,500 estimated to be delivered was viewed all along as being "realistic," but of course that's now what people wanted to hear.
Actually, I am surprised technology has not reached to the point where the ground can be scanned for these things based on chemical make-up. Sounds Star Trek-ish, but if we can send Voyager near Uranus then I do not see why this cannot be done, especially with the amount of money being spent.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 3241 100%
The HMMWV is a scouting/transport/command car/support vehicle not really intended for frontline duty. It was the replacement for the MUTT which was an updated WWII jeep. Currently the Army uses the Striker as frontline ground support. This thing is darn good at what it does, they just need more of them.
Army may revise request for new combat vehicles
BAGHDAD - The Army, which rushed to get new armored vehicles to Iraq after being criticized for moving too slowly to protect U.S. troops from roadside bombs, will probably not need all of the 10,000 armored vehicles it had requested, a top commander here says.
Ref. https://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2007...p=DailyBriefing