Bradley Replacement: Army Risks Third Failure In A Row
7th October 2019
The underlying anxiety here is that the Army has tried and failed repeatedly to modernize its Reagan-era arsenal over the past 30 years — the problem Army Futures Command was created to fix. Armored fighting vehicle programs, above all replacements for the Bradley troop carrier, have been particularly fraught. The Future Combat Systems family of vehicles, which included a lightweight Bradley replacement, was canceled in 2009, while the Ground Combat Vehicle, a better-armored and correspondingly heavier Bradley replacement, was cancelled in 2014. The Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle is the Army’s third swing at this ball.
Maybe the Russians have something we could buy. They don’t seem to be having these problems.
October 8th, 2019 at 08:29
Typical Pentagon over-thinking (and under-achieving).
The Bradley basically replaced the deuce-and-a-half truck. Almost anything would be better than a truck with a tarp.
Once you armor something, you are effectively challenging your enemies to come up with something that destroys your armor. Add more armor and pretty soon your vehicle becomes a cramped, slow, rolling coffin.
Put everything you’ve got in road vehicles and your enemy avoids roads except as a place to target your vehicles.
Worst of all, there are Congressional Districts with vehicle manufacturing plants, so you know you’re stuck building something that will funnel money to the right members of The Crust.
Where’s Robert McNamara when you need him? (Roasting in hell, most likely.)