homesweethomeMrL ,

What time is it!?

LaFinlandia OP ,
@LaFinlandia@sopuli.xyz avatar

https://sopuli.xyz/pictrs/image/765240c7-c86a-4119-82ae-0a2d8ea2a8a0.webp

SubArcticTundra ,
@SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml avatar

phonk drops

neidu2 ,

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

LaFinlandia OP , (edited )
@LaFinlandia@sopuli.xyz avatar

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

DarkThoughts ,

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.

LaFinlandia OP ,
@LaFinlandia@sopuli.xyz avatar

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

thepreciousboar ,

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?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • tech
  • kbinEarth
  • testing
  • interstellar
  • wanderlust
  • All magazines
    •