Originally Posted by
Rated EC-10
Yes but your logic also applies to rifles, relatively complicated sticks soldiers do break and not unusually ditch that generally cost over $1000 apiece for frontline infantry models.
But you don't see any military abandoning issuing them because of that. The same applies to everything from canteens to goggles all the way to humvees and fighter jets. "Someone could break it", when applied to a group of people whose job is breaking things will receive the reply "Of course". Everything can be broken, EVERYTHING. It's not a reason not to use it.
Yes, but rifles are rather essential to a soldier. This isn't. The easiest comparison I can think of to this (In terms of cost-> effectiveness) is the V-22. The MH-53 could do it's job just fine, but the V-22 could do it a bit faster and at longer ranges. Is that really a good enough reason to spend loads of money developing (modifying in this case) something new to implement?
"An Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt II flew a show of force and expended flares for emphasis over Salerno after enemy forces attacked a coalition forward base. The arrival of the aircraft prompted an immediate retreat by enemy personnel."
Register To Reply
