my understanding is that it won't be a combat vehicle but more utility. if its able to move on its own without engaging its flight system on the ground and travel a useful distance then it will be a rather unique vehicle.
but back to the subject at hand. combat either in the air or ground is not part of this concept. i think.
I kind of like it, keep it simple and affordable though. Don't make so complicated, heavy and expensive that it defeats the purpose of it in the first place. Buy a couple and play around with the idea and concept.
Well, its here now. But this is part of the problem in DOD. we spend all this money on fringe technology instead of furthering the technology in core assets. 2/3 of FCS, 2/3 of the UAVs, at least half the small arms research, extensive competitions and prototyping involving several companies. You know most of the really expensive electronic/C5 hardware development never goes into service.
Then after all that waste we've got folks wanting a new vehicle and the government saying they can't afford it so we have the 'lets talk about this next vehicle' phase takes several years and that process winds up costing almost as much as the vehicles themselves.
You know the Army is about to put 2 million dollars worth of WIN-T increment 2 in the M113 because DOD hasn't bought them 1.8 million dollar Strykers already. I wonder if they will move that network equipment into the new vehicles or will they reduce the number so they can load them with WIN-T increment 3 @ 4 million dollars and then still be ridin M113s. dear god they aren't gonna load $4 million dollar WIN-T increment 3 into $200,000 old ass Gavins from the 70's are they, fuck me lol.
This concept is all wrong, because any flying vehicle cannot have sufficient armor needed for a ground combat vehicle.
ReplyDeletemy understanding is that it won't be a combat vehicle but more utility. if its able to move on its own without engaging its flight system on the ground and travel a useful distance then it will be a rather unique vehicle.
Deletebut back to the subject at hand. combat either in the air or ground is not part of this concept. i think.
I kind of like it, keep it simple and affordable though. Don't make so complicated, heavy and expensive that it defeats the purpose of it in the first place. Buy a couple and play around with the idea and concept.
ReplyDeleteNeeds some floats. :)
ReplyDeleteWell, its here now. But this is part of the problem in DOD. we spend all this money on fringe technology instead of furthering the technology in core assets. 2/3 of FCS, 2/3 of the UAVs, at least half the small arms research, extensive competitions and prototyping involving several companies. You know most of the really expensive electronic/C5 hardware development never goes into service.
ReplyDeleteThen after all that waste we've got folks wanting a new vehicle and the government saying they can't afford it so we have the 'lets talk about this next vehicle' phase takes several years and that process winds up costing almost as much as the vehicles themselves.
You know the Army is about to put 2 million dollars worth of WIN-T increment 2 in the M113 because DOD hasn't bought them 1.8 million dollar Strykers already. I wonder if they will move that network equipment into the new vehicles or will they reduce the number so they can load them with WIN-T increment 3 @ 4 million dollars and then still be ridin M113s. dear god they aren't gonna load $4 million dollar WIN-T increment 3 into $200,000 old ass Gavins from the 70's are they, fuck me lol.
Just sayin.