[Ranger]

According to last weeks testimony at the house armed services committee, the DoD opted not to use its powers to take priority production on armored humvees and it also did not exercise its available power to second source this matter. The issue is one of funding and not capacity. Peak planned but unbudgeted capacity this summer is 300 vehicles per month but plant capacity is 450-500. Meehan and numerous senators and reps of both parties are pushing to get additional funding to move the figure to full plant capacity and to hold it there. The fact is the army's estimates of need are skyrocketing and we might as well plant to produce into that need versus trail it by a year as we are right now.

[Southack]

Why do you want to armor general purpose utility vehicles?

If you want to save lives, insist that patrols be performed in suitably armored vehicles such as Bradley's...but adding weight to rear echelon non-fighting vehicles simply adds costs and increases our support convoy needs (more convoys = more chances to be attacked - offsetting the advantage of having armor in the first place).

He we are at the end of April, the "deadliest" month in Iraq, and we've lost less than 120 Americans there...compared to losing more than 3,000 this month in simple highway road accidents stateside. Do we want to uparmor all American civilian road vehicles to be able to withstand 65 mph crashes?! Can you imagine what that would do to our demands for imported oil??

I'm simply offering some perspective. If you want to save lives by using armor, then patrols should be performed in vehicles *designed* for direct combat patrols (e.g. Bradleys and M1A1 Abrams). Armoring HMMWV's is like trying to armor up racing motorcylces stateside...a conflict in priorities.

Yes, we want to save American lives...so lets concentrate on applying the right tool to high risk patrols rather than encumbering the incorrect tools in some attempt to force-fit them into usage that they were never intended for.