"Tom McParland" (tommcparland)
04/22/2014 at 11:25 • Filed to: Militarylopnik, Truck Yeah, Foxtrot Alpha, Phantom Badger
3
15|
"Tom McParland" (tommcparland)
04/22/2014 at 11:25 • Filed to: Militarylopnik, Truck Yeah, Foxtrot Alpha, Phantom Badger | 3
| 15 |
The Boeing Phantom Badger, is the next generation light-vehicle designed for special forces use. It is a modern take on the classic Willies Jeep. And there may be a civilian version! !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!
For Sweden
> Tom McParland
04/22/2014 at 11:26 |
|
Do I have to buy one from the Boeing store in Everett?
|
Tom McParland
> For Sweden
04/22/2014 at 11:27 |
|
Dunno
RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
> Tom McParland
04/22/2014 at 11:32 |
|
We've been needing a MUTT replacement since the 70's. CUCV Blazer was all well and good, but just not on the same level.
FJ80WaitinForaLSV8
> Tom McParland
04/22/2014 at 11:33 |
|
can't wait for these to show up on government liquidation.
|
RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
> FJ80WaitinForaLSV8
04/22/2014 at 11:35 |
|
Wait for GIs to start flipping them, then they'll get barred by act of Congress from sale to the American public.
*starts grumbling about the MUTT again*
cazzyodo
> Tom McParland
04/22/2014 at 11:36 |
|
But really, I want one. Pity I don't have the disposable income necessary to add it to my collection...I would DD the crap out of it.
philipilihp
> Tom McParland
04/22/2014 at 11:38 |
|
I'm sure Danica Patrick would be all over it.
tromoly
> Tom McParland
04/22/2014 at 11:39 |
|
Obligatory.
|
FJ80WaitinForaLSV8
> RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
04/22/2014 at 11:46 |
|
Is that what happened with the MUTT?
|
RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
> FJ80WaitinForaLSV8
04/22/2014 at 11:58 |
|
More or less. It's why you couldn't ever get one unless it'd been disassembled/ built fresh from at least partly new/never used parts. They were literally cutting them up after decommission - breaks my heart. Even with the stability problem having been fixed.
|
FJ80WaitinForaLSV8
> RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
04/22/2014 at 12:04 |
|
that's awful. Who on earth lobbied for that BS. Safety slash consumer groups? I can't imagine the military was a fan of throwing money down the drain.
|
RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
> FJ80WaitinForaLSV8
04/22/2014 at 12:17 |
|
They flipped in large numbers. Unpopular war + draftee GIs dying from a vehicle therein and elsewhere = Something Must Be Done. Think about it like the armor uprating program for Hummers - a fix to something because the vehicle was being used in a manner outside its intent (i.e. driving 55+ mph), which was also an easier sell that Something Had To Be Done due to public sentiment toward war. They couldn't ban the vehicle in military use (obviously), but they could take symbolic action to protect the public from it - and the military fix took care of the rest.
Unlike Hummer armor, it could be argued that MUTT death rates would follow GIs home and cause deaths among the public, in other words. In fairness, they were genuinely unsafe at certain speeds, more so than the Corvair, and requiring a fix (which did come). It actually became common practice to drive them with a 20mm ammo can full of sand in the back right to reduce rear end hop and tuck-under at speed when unloaded before that point...
|
FJ80WaitinForaLSV8
> RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
04/22/2014 at 12:22 |
|
Very interesting. Thanks for the info. I'm still a bit surprised congress would have intervened without someone pushing for it, but there certainly aren't lobbying records from that far back.
|
RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
> FJ80WaitinForaLSV8
04/22/2014 at 12:24 |
|
All it took back then was for one congressman to get a bee in his bonnet over it - enough disinterest and minimally given fucks by everyone else, and such a thing could pass.
|
FJ80WaitinForaLSV8
> RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
04/22/2014 at 12:28 |
|
Indeed true. A lack of serious discourse leads to a lot more bad legislation than aggressive lobbying ever does.