Use it for anti-drone platforms of various types. It seems warfare is going in this direction and something needs to counter them.

quote:

Originally posted by 4MUL8R:
Who gets the 80 units already procured? Maybe we can donate them to an ally?

ATF/DEA/FBI joint mission enforcement tactical residential entry teams

At least they killed it before they paid for and received the planned 504 of them. That really is a step in the right direction.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:

quote:

Originally posted by 4MUL8R:
Who gets the 80 units already procured? Maybe we can donate them to an ally?

ATF/DEA/FBI joint mission enforcement tactical residential entry teams

Don’t go there. One “Branch Davidian/Ruby Ridge” siege was enough. Just remember, what was instituted by Republicans gets abused by Democrats.

quote:

Originally posted by Shackelford:

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
See the Bradley development debacle. (And cue up "The Pentagon Wars".)

From what I gather, that film was unfair to the actual program, and the Bradley is a pretty good vehicle..

The movie is a parody/exaggeration, albeit rooted in truth, especially in regards to the military development bureaucracy.

And it did become a solid vehicle, though mainly against non-peer enemies.

But that doesn't change the fact that the Bradley changed dramatically from what was originally requested, as each new successive person with a finger in the pie decided to slap on yet another "good idea" and make yet another drastic change. (Which the movie does demonstrate somewhat accurately.) The "good idea fairy" is a real phenomenon, and insidious.

That's one of the reasons that Bradley development dragged for nearly 20 years, and the end result only vaguely resembled the original request (much like the M10 "light" armored vehicle).

The Bradley became a sort of platypus that got stretched in many different directions to fill too many roles without necessarily being great at any:

"In summation, what you have before you is... a troop transport that can't carry troops, a reconnaissance vehicle that's too conspicuous to do reconnaissance and a quasi-tank that has less armor than a snow blower but carries enough ammo to take out half of D.C."

I checked the CMP website and they weren't on there yet. Fingers crossed they will be soon!

But really, these are in a long line of weapon systems bought that were designed as unworkable fighter/bomber/cargo planes (of the ground I guess, maybe tank, truck, howitzer for the Army?) and purchased to make someone promoted/money/both. Any money that went to these should have gone to A-10s and AH-64 upgrades.

quote:

Originally posted by Loswsmith:
I checked the CMP website and they weren't on there yet. Fingers crossed they will be soon!

Unfortunately, seeing as how it has a bore diameter larger than .50, that would make it a Destructive Device. And the CMP doesn't sell NFA items.

quote:

Originally posted by 4MUL8R:
Who gets the 80 units already procured? Maybe we can donate them to an ally?

Ebay?

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by Loswsmith:
I checked the CMP website and they weren't on there yet. Fingers crossed they will be soon!

Unfortunately, seeing as how it has a bore diameter larger than .50, that would make it a Destructive Device. And the CMP doesn't sell NFA items.

Humor. It is a difficult concept. It is not logical.

ETA, sometimes the humor crosses streams, and Egon says that's bad.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Loswsmith,

That was also humor.

Being a NFA device isn't the reason why the CMP won't sell you a freaking tank...

Now there is talk they will end up going to the Marines:

The Army cancelled the M10 Booker. As the leaders of the Marine Corps' 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, we believe the Army's loss could be the Marine Corps' gain.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Now there is talk they will end up going to the Marines:

The Army cancelled the M10 Booker. As the leaders of the Marine Corps' 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, we believe the Army's loss could be the Marine Corps' gain.

They should.
Marines are still going to need some kind of mobile/mechanized direct fire weapon especially when dealing with a dug-in opponent. While I understand the desire to remove the M1's from service because of its logistics tail was very long, my understanding from at least the last decade most of MEU deployments left w/o taking their tanks in favor of more versatile and more mobile vehicles.
I always thought the USMC should be using a lighter tank, I believe its either the Japanese or, South Koreans have a tank that has a shorter-wheel base and lighter because its operational design was for use in the mountains..narrow roads, switch-backs, constantly wet, loose terrain. Amphibious operations or, over-the-beach ops are hamstrung by the tyranny of weight, M1's could only come ashore via LCAC or LCU both very juicy targets requiring complete security before they're cleared to land.

Anyone remember the M247 York, wasting money is a tradition.

Airdroppable but not survivable reminded me of this video.

Just declare them surplus and donate or sell to some law enforcement departments. ............................. drill sgt.