Is MDHI going to make it?

Matt,

In the 21st century the task of pure "RECON" is performed by UAVs.
There is no reason to risk American soldiers lives when a machine can
accomplish the same task. For missions requiring insertion, extraction
or precision close air support, with current technology you need a man
(on site) in the loop. Don't get caught up in the acronym ARH. The
Armys ARH RFP (Request for Proposal) is for a medium armored and armed
helicopter.

Again, I think the Little Bird is a great machine. But if you are
sending soldiers into hot urban areas, IMHO you want armor. The 407
can carry more armor, carry it further and carry more armament to boot.

Take care,

CTR

"CTR" wrote in message
oups.com...
Matt,

In the 21st century the task of pure "RECON" is performed by UAVs.
There is no reason to risk American soldiers lives when a machine can
accomplish the same task. For missions requiring insertion, extraction
or precision close air support, with current technology you need a man
(on site) in the loop. Don't get caught up in the acronym ARH. The
Armys ARH RFP (Request for Proposal) is for a medium armored and armed
helicopter.

Okay...I think of RECON as the Marines "Force Recon".

Again, I think the Little Bird is a great machine. But if you are
sending soldiers into hot urban areas, IMHO you want armor. The 407
can carry more armor, carry it further and carry more armament to boot.

Blackhawks?

Matt,

Blackhawks? Not likely. For the same reasons the Army uses Humvees
instead of APCs to ferry soldiers. It would be great if all US
soldiers could have the protection of an APC all the time. But because
of logistics and cost it is just not practical.

The Army learned a tough lesson in Iraq by not having enough Humvees
with adequate armor early on. This forced soldiers to develop
improvised armor from what ever steel plate they could scavange.

They won't make the same mistake with the ARH.

CTR