Marine MPC vs. Army AMPV

via AOL Defense.

Last night, the Michigan-based Tank-Automotive Command (TACOM) issued a draft Request For Proposals for a new Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle. The final RFP is expected in June and the contract award in mid-2014. Variants of the General DynamicsStryker and the BAE Bradley are the leading contenders. Our industry sources are still poring over thousands of pages of documentation, but here are the highlights.

The Army needs a big pat on the back and a hearty "way to go" with how they've handled their vehicle programs.

Not only did they push through the Stryker as a Interim Combat Vehicle (supposedly a lead in to the FCS) but they've been up and at'em when it comes to replacing both the Bradley AND the M-113.

Marine YAT-YAS boys and Grunts should take note.  While we're still waiting for the Marine Personnel Carrier and the Amphibious Combat Vehicle, the US Army could well have both the AMPV and GCV in production.

The time has come to do something drastic for Marine armor.  We need to take a page from the War on Terror playbook and do an Urgent Operational Requirement for the MPC.

SIDENOTE:  I'm not buying that there is no money.  Sequestration seems to be a joke.  Did you notice how much money the President pledged in foreign aid on his trip to the Middle East?  Bring a portion home to buy Marines a new vehicle.