You don't have to steal them. They are the core functions. They are how you defeat and avoid defeat in any environment against any enemy. First written down by Ferdinand Foch in 1903Originally Posted by jcustis
Agreed. Wildcat is a cheaper, simpler, 80% solution.Back to the subject though. Wildcat posts comparable numbers, but it cannot traverse the same terrain (berne ,gaps etc.) as a 6 or 8-wheeled vehicle. Having said that, Stryker is more complex from a maintenance perspective, but probably among only certain variants.
Agreed. It's just an APC/MRAP.Wildcat will fit a role as a lightweight APC, but other variants will gain weight from the basic model. Looking at its arrangement, however, it doesn't seem to have fighting characteristics. It looks great for self defense, but Stryker compares differently because it has sensors to allow it to "fight for information", which is a big role within certain formations it finds itself in.
Agreed. According to the figures it is two centimetres higher than the StrykerAnd Wildcat looks too damn high for chrissakes. I know it's a function of mine resistance, but what will have to be done to reduce that signature from a short halt?
More screwed than with CV-22 and AAAV?The Marine Corps was looking at the LAV (logistics variant type-ish) as a MPC candidate, but that died for good reasons which would have otherwise negatively impacted the LAR community.
The balance to be struck is difficult to achieve, and no matter how fair the selection criteria are supposed to be, one "best value" consideration can leave us with a platform that does'nt fill the best niches. If we have to write new doctrine to account for MPC's the USMC is screwed.
Bookmarks