• @neidu2@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    811 days ago

    As much as I like the sentiment, is launchers the bottleneck, though? Wouldn’t the missiles be a better purchase?

    • WilshireOP
      link
      7
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      These could replace those that need maintenance or have been damaged.

      • DarkThoughts
        link
        fedilink
        111 days ago

        I thought the US wanted to replace damaged US gear? Also, don’t they have lots of M270 launchers too? They’re more protected for more dangerous launch areas.

        • WilshireOP
          link
          211 days ago

          There was only ammo for them in the last aid package.

    • @thepreciousboar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      510 days ago

      More launchers with less ammunition could be a good deterrent. You can cover more area and launch less missiles becuase the enemy would just avoid more area. Also they can be useful spares in case of massive attacks.

      That, or maybe the purchase also covers ammunition. I expect they come with technical support and maintenance service, so why not supply service?