Okay so my app bugged out while sending my response, so this is a loose reiteration. Apologies if its redundant.

Five of six selected Army ground combat vehicles

This isnt 6 individual vehicles. Its 6 fleets of different vehicle models. 5 of the 6 fleets of army combat vehicles have not held a 90% mission capable rating for a full fiscal year.

That is very different than saying 20% of ground vehicles are mission capable.

Edit: It refers to “types” in the cover letter, not fleets

To address our objectives, we selected 18 types of Army and Marine Corps ground vehicles.

Misinformation. The article (which is just an uncited quote from the GAO report) says

selected Army ground support vehicles achieved mission capable goals about 20 percent of the time

That does NOT mean 20% of vehicles are mission capable. It means in the past 10 years, the Army has only acheived their missian capable target twice.

Their mission capable target is 90%. All the article says is the army is usually sitting at <90% mission caapble, which honestly isnt saying much

to the best of my knowledge, that would be a major Illegal Campaign Contribution

I dont think Donny would be my go to subject matter expert on campaign finance laws