Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: konaice
But will we need it? With hunter-killer missiles currently under development, we might be able to do with fewer tanks. Remember that the Battleship was expected to dominate WWII's naval battles. Maybe a faster stronger Bradly controlling an armada of long-loitering hunter-killer cruise missiles will win the next war.

The future combat vehicle's planned capabilities are impressive, but assuming the technology can be developed, it's at least ten if not 20 years away.

The weapons you describe don't address the problem of increasingly sophisticated ATGM's. Fortunately, Saddam acquired few Kornets due to the embargo and relied on old RPG's. That's not the case with other potential adversaries. Sending Strykers or Bradleys with no tank cover into that environment would be suicide. It makes no sense to shift to less survivable vehicles in a more lethal environment. We can't assume we'll always go up against an enemy starved of technology by a 12 year embargo, but may go up against an A-Team armed with the latest Russian-developed technology. So, there's no alternative to maintaining a tank force until FCV is available.

26 posted on 04/03/2003 5:21:43 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: colorado tanker
The latest Soviet technology? Do you mean the GPS blockers they sold to the Iraqi's that worked so well?
40 posted on 04/03/2003 5:44:49 PM PST by peacethroughstrength
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson