 |
| Boxer |
_(1).JPG) |
| VBCI |
 |
| CV-90 |
 |
| Stryker |
 |
| Namer |
.jpg) |
| Puma |
 |
| BMP-3 |
Its official.
The US Army is on crack.
Check out this story from Aviation Week. Then take another look at the photos above and then reread the story. The US Army appears to be combining two programs into one, or they're opening up the GCV program to so many vehicles that any requirements have obviously been thrown out the window.
This is tailor made for a protest. Didn't anyone in the DoD learn anything from the USAF's troubles?
Someone in the procurement office needs to be fired.
TODAY!
_(1).JPG)
.jpg)
the BMP?! are you fucking kidding? we are going to seriously consider buying russian shit now?!
ReplyDeleteain't no way but someone in the army's program office thinks its a good idea.
ReplyDeletethey need to fire the entire staff and ship them off to afghanistan to defuse ieds.
In defense of the US Army I believe they are simply testing and evaluating different vehicles to get a handle on various capabilities not actually having any type of competition leading to a purchase.
ReplyDeleteFrankly the best thing about GCV is that after 10 years of combat the US Army has finally figured out they need more dismounts and hence the requirement is 9 for GCV as opposed to the 6 for the Bradley.
Moreover, the protection requirements for GCV mean something significantly heavier than the PUMA, which is 43 tons, and perhaps heavier than the Namer (60 tons). Frankly the only vehicle that meets the protection requirement and number of dismounts is the Namer of all the ones being tested.
It's possible the Army is trying to make the contractors for GCV believe they're serious about holding the line on cost and pointing out there are other alternatives. Consider that the Army wants to pay less than 10 million for GCV while Namer costs about 3 million and for 4 one could add an RWS and active protection.