What does it take to build a proper armored vehicle these days? If Goure from the Lexington Institute is right then the US Army doesn't have a clue...
The Army’s inability to deliver on a new armored fighting vehicle may also reflect a bigger problem: its ever-changing concept of future land warfare. The Army has radically changed its views on land warfare at least three times over the past decade. Instability of strategic thought doesn’t provide a secure basis on which to build a force structure or define the requirements for a new armored fighting vehicle.Changing theories of warfare?
Yeah. That and a series of SECDef's that had changing priorities practically doomed any effort by the US Army.
Consider this.
*Rumsfeld wanted a high tech, light weight force that could fight outnumbered and win against larger, heavier forces. This vehicle was to use information warfare and advanced munitions to make up for deficiencies in traditional armor.
*Gates wanted a force that was designed to fight a generational war on terror. Roadside bombs were the main issue and he demanded a vehicle that was capable of protecting a squad of infantry not only from the biggest bombs so far seen but also defeat RPGs and small arms fire.
*Hagel. This one is a bit confusing. He hasn't exactly spelled out any theory, just stated that we're pivoting to the Pacific and the Army is attempting to figure out the intent of the SECDef and get its house in order.
Is it any wonder that Army vehicle plans have been jacked up?
Sidenote: Shinseki showed how to do vehicle procurement in this day and age. First line up Congressional support for funding. Decide on how much you have to spend. Pick the vehicle you want. Label it interim and JUST FREAKING DO IT! No long solicitation. No messing around with competitions. Just get it done.
