« MacLean v. DHS: TSA's Dubious Secrecy Marking Used Against Whistleblower | Main | The Nomination of Baroody: "Putting the fox in charge of the henhouse" »

May 15, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c68bf53ef00d8351adfb653ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Strykers Losses Raise Questions on Light-Armor Approach:

Comments

Craig

J comments: "We still need a light tactical vehicle for normal use. This is an extravagance we cannot afford."

Have you ever heard of Force Protection's "Cheetah"? Why don't you check into it a bit....it fits the bill perfectly. And yes "J" the MRAPs have demonstrated superior survivability to the "stryker" and in fact the new requirements for upcoming round of MRAP procurement require even greater survivability....the ability to protect against EFPs...not simply the run of the mill IEDs.

Lastly...you make the absurd statement that MRAPs are an "extravagence" we can't afford. What are you callously uninformed or just stupid? I suspect you would feel a bit differently were you or a family member the one's slated to ride in these vehicles. MRAPs are a necessity we can't afford to be without.

It is always best to engage one's brain before openiong one's mouth.

J.

Come on Beth, don't fall for the MRAP hype. Any POGO analyst ought to be all over this program. If the Strykers are being taken out by enemy explosives, you think the MRAP will do any better? The military may want to buy these 500 million dollar hulks, but they have a limited production line that will require it to run through 2009 to meet requirements. Are we still planning on being in Iraq then?

The MRAP makes for a losey HMMWV. We still need a light tactical vehicle for normal use. This is an extravagence we cannot afford.

The comments to this entry are closed.