Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Module88, Sep 6, 2006.
First Dragon Skin, now...
This. Yay politics!
So instead of killing the people in the tank it kills the people in the crowded market place it was fired from?
I see the usefulness of it and want it deployed, but I don't know if it is applicable in all cases.
RPGs are people too...
Haha! That sucks! They stop this because they want guarantees that their pals are going to get rich? :laugh:
They want to build their own because that's the American way!
USA = so ****ing owned!!! :laugh:
Erm, didn't we just agree that no tank in Iraq has been taken out by an RPG since "Mission Accomplished"? Or was it even before that? They were all hit by IEDs, maybe the military wants to spend its time and money trying to combat them. On the other hand it probably is just politics and I'm being overly optimistic about their intelligence...
P.S. It said they're 90% effective at stopping an attack, but how often do they go off mistakenly? And how bad is the damage when they do?
there will be many sad kids as all those soccer balls explode
We can't spend money on an Israeli system developed with American money! We have to develop a new system with American money!
The US has had a policy for a long time about purchasing defense weapons from non US companies. The US has said it develops and buys in house because they want exclusive rights to the weapon and be able to decide how much of the technology is sold to its allies and by doing that the US "should" always have the upper hand with the system being used and also have the knowledge to counter the system. Really it makes sense, granted some US companies will make a ton of money this way, but better to have your own system that can't be stopped then your neighbors that can be.
Some of you may also have heard about the big pissing match going on about the next troop transport. Boeing usually gets the go ahead with little to no questions asked but there are people on one side of the isle in congress that really want the next troop transport to be Airbus and I think we all know where that is built.
We have couple guns in service that are foreign such as the MP5 and MP10, and we have a truck/front end loader/back hoe call the UMILOG that is also foreign but most things are engineered, test, produced, fielded and so far with great success.
But the american system will take at least five years to develop. You have no alternative today.
Why not deploy the israeli system for now while giving a guarantee that the american system will recieve funding?
Can't disagree with your point, but as a matter of interest isnt the disputed contract over mid-air refuelers rather than troop transports?
RPGs are useless against tanks. They are however usefull against humvees and armored transports but the US wont even buy armor for thier humvees, why would they waste $400.000 per vehicle on an anti RPG system that is blown to peices when a remate charge placed on the street blows up the vehicle.
Not to mention the bad PR this would cause.
Imagine if a vehicle with this system drives through a crowded area then one person in the crowd fires an RPG and in an instant the system open fires into the crowd and blows up the RPG. To all the civilians it would look like the americans attacked.
Also at $400.000 a pop only a few vehicles would have this and the insurgents would quickly identify the system and then save thier RPGs for vehicles without it and then save the remote charges for the vehicles using it.
RPG-27's killed at least one Merkava in Lebanon.
You're right about IED's though.
Did they smelt the RPGs metal into a cork then shoved it into the tanks barrel?
It may be both I only heard about the troop/cargo transport to replace the aging C-5 fleet. Oh and a contract hasn't been issued as of yet the discussion is still about allowing Airbus to put in a bid for the contract.
All tanks are vulnerable from the rear of the tank. Even the M1-A3 can be hit in the back where the engine exhaust is and be disabled. Once that happens the crew either waits for help or gets out. Either way not a good place to be.
Whoops, you're right, that should have read 'disputed contract negotiation'. I knew it was in the bidding (or pre-bid) phase, but I should have made that clear.
The mid-air refuelers bit I am remembering from a story on Fox a while ago, so I may be mistaken, but I think that is one of the contentious areas. I also find this interesting considering just how much business the US defense sector in general do with the UK, which has significant links with (or in many cases owned by) the French.
A one star general with 20 years of service makes $10,015 a month. That same general can make double or triple that working for a defense contractor.
Now involve him in the process of choosing a new weapon and/or defense system. He knows which side is bread is going to be buttered on. He's going to do everything possible (and for a general - that's a lot) to ensure that a future prospective employer gets the contract. Nevermind that it's not the right system - he's looking out for #1. It's a time-honored tradition.
Need proof? Watch the movie about the making of the Bradley fighting vehicle. The movie only tells half of the insanity in that project.