In that long response I received a few months ago, my friend Dr. Burak Codur of the Turkish Scientific and Technological Research Council commented that
I am not sure whether militaries are certain about their future plans. For example, during the rush to service MRAPs, it seems that nobody really thought about Afghanistan and now development of modified MRAPs is sought for Afghanistan. Are we sure that the military is certain about what it needs?
Actually, I’m getting increasingly certain that the US Army never knows what it needs. That is, this past week brought news articles on nearly simultaneous Army decisions regarding two programs: the Stryker and the M113. Here are edited excerpts from three articles on the issues:
...Planning documents obtained by Army Times say 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division at Fort Bliss, Texas, and 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR) at Fort Hood, Texas, will be converted to SBCTs [Stryker Brigades] beginning in fiscal 2011 and fiscal 2012, respectively, and will take 24 months to become fully operational. Another combat aviation brigade would be built, with aviation assets reallocated from the 3rd ACR’s Longknife Squadron, mostly AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopters, and tracked equipment and other assets of the heavy units to undergo conversion will be redistributed to the Army’s heavy BCTs [brigades] as needed.
— Gina Cavallaro and Kris Osborn, ‘U.S. Army To Switch 2 Heavy Brigades to Strykers,’ Defense News, 1 October 2009
The first iteration of the Army’s new ground combat vehicle (GCV), the centerpiece of its multi-billion modernization program, will be known as the Infantry Fighting Vehicle and introduced in 2017, according to a previously unreported document obtained by Inside the Army.
— “First GCV to Be Known as Infantry Fighting Vehicle; Intended to Aid M113 Divestiture,” Inside the Army, 29 September 2009
The Army wants the first variant in its new ground combat vehicle effort to offer the mobility of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle but with better protection, according to a briefing from last week’s Infantry Warfighting Conference in Columbus, Georgia. The briefing—delivered by Donald Sando, director of capabilities development and integration at the Army’s Maneuver Center at Ft. Benning, Georgia—outlines broad design characteristics for the initiative, which will replace the canceled Future Combat Systems’ manned ground vehicle component.
— “Army Seeking Bradley Mobility With Improved Protection,” Inside Defense, 29 September 2009
The first part is easily understood. Emphasizing armored infantry in its force structure today, the Army high command has taken a shine to the Stryker and the organization of the brigades that drive it. So, the addition of two more Stryker brigades had been long rumored anyway. That the 3rd ACR was chosen for conversion also shouldn’t be shocking. Despite diehard enthusiasm for the concept in some quarters, the concept of a multi-battalion ground reconnaissance unit is wholly endemic to the US Army, so that idea was not guaranteed to last.
The Army is also repeating its interest in divesting itself of the M113 quickly. In this context, though, quickly seems to mean before 2018. That’s taking some time with a straightforward issue: lightweight, flat-bottomed, and aluminum-hulled, M113s are so vulnerable to blast damage that they clock just one-twentieth the mileage of Strykers in Iraq. If replacing them in their relatively quotidian roles is indeed important, the Army has a host of off-the-shelf military vehicles to choose amongst. Some of these options are already in its inventory, like General Dynamics’ Stryker, Force Protection’s Cougar, BAE Systems’ RG-series, and even, in some roles, vehicles like BAE Systems’ Viking or Singapore Technologies’ Bronco.
The part that’s less easily understood concerns eventual divestiture of the M2/M3 Bradley. It as well is unacceptably vulnerable to blast from below, with its similar flat bottom and aluminum hull. It’s also an impressive tank destroyer, though the Army’s emphasis today is not on tank destroyers. However, contrary to what I wrote in a paper a few months ago, the Army still seems content so far to upgrade the Stryker, but also to start paying for the design of a wholly new and rather heavier infantry fighting vehicle.
For now. Eight years is a long time, and the Army hasn’t shown any uncanny prescience about the kinds of kit that it will need. In 2017, the Army could be buying Strykers, something like ARTEC’s Boxer, something like BAE Systems’ RG-35, or like (in this last case of the so-called GCV-IFV) something like IMI’s Namer. The only thing that’s clear is that the M113 is high on the hit list, and the Army has over 6,000 of those vehicles in service. Its replacement will mean big money for the winning bidder.
Comments