via Daily Intercepts
Since the GCV is the Army’s second-highest acquisition priority after the WIN-T communications network and is being billed as the centerpiece of its armored formations of the future—replacing the Bradley Fighting Vehicle—Odierno told the audience that “we need the Ground Combat vehicle and we have to have it. Now, we might have to delay it because of budget cuts. I don’t know; we haven’t made the decision yet.”Sorry. I'm running out of fucks to give for the plight that the services find themselves in.
While this wasn’t necessarily anything new, the GCV has taken its share of lumps in recent months, having been delayed in January and then being on the receiving end of a highly critical Congressional Budget Office report in April that evaluated several existing foreign infantry carriers that the government budgeteers said would meet most of the requirements of the GCV at a lower cost.
Still, the Army will do what it can to leave the program intact even as it prepares to absorb $52 billion in cuts in fiscal year 2014.
The Army is following the USMC's lead by shielding its aviation programs and ignoring the issues with its armored forces. Buys of the AH-64E and CH-47F are continuing. Meanwhile the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) and the Armored MultiPurpose Vehicle (AMPV) appear to be on life support.
I point to the Stryker and talk about Army modernization efforts but the reality is that it was only meant to be an interim vehicle and served more to bring into being a Brigade based operating doctrine more than fulfill a requirement for a new Army troop carrier.
I don't know the hows or the whys but it appears that in both of the services that concentrate on winning battles and wars on the ground, aviation is taking a seat of dominance over armored protection for the troops.
I've got to figure out why.
I don't know if I like ground combat vehicle more than Bradleys but we could at least use an upgrade for them. My guess for the Army shielding it aviation is the cost of training crews and buying replacement helos once someone catches us with our pants down again and we have to rebuild the force versus the time and money it takes to train armored crews. No expert but I first learned to drive a Brad in less than a week. my Aviation degrees has taken 4 years so far and thats for planes, helos cost like 3-5 times more to operate than a similarly tasked airplane.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Army aims are concerned, a focus on aviation is necessary. The rotary wing fleet is worn out. Nearly a decade and a half of high op tempo has taken a heavy toll on Army Aviation.
ReplyDeleteThe GCV program is a mess, as was FCS. A more sensible solution would be procurement of the CV90.
The plan appears to be No Boots on the ground larger than SOCCOM and war by air strikes and drones.
ReplyDeleteI do not see any ground wars being fought that would require invasions or ground combat vehicles.
The idiots in charge think they can win a war with air power alone, once again.
Lot's of good soldiers, Sailors and Marines will pay for this mindset.