• neidu2@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

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

    • WilshireOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

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

      • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months 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
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

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

    • thepreciousboar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months 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?