Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Reaper
Not unless they throw away the weight restriction.
|
Exactly. And then we're back where we started. We have a Stryker, so we stick a Bushmaster on it to give it more punch (who could argue against backing up our boys with a bigger gun?), then, someone will complain that it's not survivable enough, so it'll get more armor (who could argue against giving the crew/passengers better armor protection?), then we'll find out we have to toss out the weight restrictions, because it's impossible with everything we want on the thing, and it'll start busting bridges and needing a C-5 to go anywhere. So we may as well have just used a Bradley.
The only way out of this never-ending upward cycle is just a common-sense view of what things are used for. If you want to send a Stryker on a mission but need it to have a bigger gun, use a Bradley. Because no one can win the 'no, this vehicle doesn't need any more armor' argument, as we're seeing with the HMMWV debacle. Unfortunately, I've never seen the NSN for 'Common Sense Module, General Purpose, 1 ea.'.
I'm with AL on this one. Why duplicate a capability our government already has?