Folks,
How HARD it is to change American ways? I find it pretty darn hard. A while back, I posted on a DG that the U.S. conventional forces need a TRUE armored car even since the Somalia days. The M1114 was meant for the MPs and the M1117 only had 96 then-on-order. Even with the deaths of 18 U.S. soldiers in Somalia, response to the problem was lackluster. Do you know what the DG responses were? "Isn't the Stryker an `armored car?' Isn't the USMC LAV-25 an `armored car?' Isn't the M1117 an `armored car?' Isn't the M1114 an `armored car?'"
OK, if such people see it only from the AMERICAN standpoint: USMC LAV-25 = still USMC. Stryker = only SCBT. M1117 and M1114 = then MP. And for Army conventional forces = still no armored car. And then the replies were, "Oh, U.S. MPs need armored cars, not other soldiers who are combat." OK, then...bring home every non-MP soldier then. See, some Americans don't see this as a problem, respectively. Instead they see maintenance headaches, high costs, training problems, etc. But they don't see it from the soldiers' perspective per se.
So, if there is such an attitude and "we do no wrong" thinking on the DGs, imagine how the REAL ARMY bureaucracy is! And I don't have to tell fictional stories: Space Shuttle Columbia..."Should we take spy pics of it in orbit? It is fine! It is not fine!" Finally, the decision was made by one manager. What happened? The engineers who squealed quit their jobs; the manager who said "no" just got transferred and kept her job (IIRC).
The soldier in Iraq who stood up to Rumsfeld about lack of Humvee armor got "flamed" on the DGs as being "anti-soldier." Yet Rumsfeld's reply seemed to suggest that the Govt. wasn't going to support the soldier---soldier's on his own---and Rumsfeld got a pat-on-the-back. As such, who wants to stand up anymore? Who wants to strive to change things? But I tell you, that soldier standing up got attention on armor like never before! What sad is that he didn't get it from the U.S. Govt., but from the U.S. media! And boy, I tell ya, that changed the U.S. Govt's thinking!
My point of my rambles is to show how hard it is sometimes for the American thinking to change, to adapt, to modify, and to push down the superstars and to push up the grunts.
I agree that a new vehicle is needed, not so much a replacement for the Humvee, but a true armored car. Yet the American Army is mostly reactive, not proactive (unlike MOWAG and Otokar). We have no German Wiesels, Fennek, Dingo, Luchs, or Fuchs. We have no French VAB, AMX-10RC, AML, or VBL. We have no Japanese Type 89 or LAV. We have no Russian BTR or BRDM. We have no UK Saxon, Scimitar, Spartan, Saladin, Saracen, Ferret, etc. for our CONVENTIONAL non-SBCT and MP forces. Only NOW do M1114s go outside of MP units.
If "transformational" for the U.S. Army is to yield just 18 FCS variants, well FCS is still COMBAT! (Top of the ladder yet again!).
As the other DG replies to my post show, does it hurt the U.S. that we don't have this-and-that variant? I say "yes," others say "no." So what can I say? The general American public will never understand. The general American public thinks that all the taxes being paid pays for such items when in truth it goes to the top of the ladder (FCS) and works its way down. (Such as missile defense---billions there).
NOTE: The Otokar Cobra is the only Humvee armored variant that can withstand a claymore mine...says Jane's. Also, how many soldiers died because there's no fully-enclosed turret until one gets to the M2 Bradley weight and armor level? (If M1117 ASV is excluded). The Europeans and Russians already have fully-enclosed armored turrets at their armored car level.
These are hard questions the Govt. should answer, but who's responsible? (Actually, Sec. of Defense should be. It's his defense department).
FCS = Future COMBAT System, and not trucks, Humvees, or trailers.
