"Big Army For Big Wars? Yes! GCV? Probably Not. " Topic

"The Army won't be able to replace its '80s-vintage M2 Bradleys, like the one shown here in Iraq, for years to come…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

I still think the Army screwed up in canceling the Future Combat System program. Every single vehicle was transportable by C130 and airdroppable. Even the tank.

I'd settle into a 2-level (maybe 3 like we have today) Army. On the first side are all the FCS units for rapid deployment. None of this 30+ days to get ground forces into the area headache like we had with Desert Storm. The entire 82nd on the ground, with armored support, in 48 hours if you use enough strategic airlift. But they're really set up to spend not more than 90 days deployed. Basically, the FCS/Rapid Deployment Forces do the initial entry and can hold on long enough to get troops better equipped and trained for long-term stability missions.

Then you have the 'long-deployment' or Counter-Insurgency forces, with MRAPs, Strykers or whatever. They're intended for peacekeeping or other ops where they will be close to the bad guys for an extended period, so they need MRAPs, maybe some heavy armor, whatever they need to win the hearts and minds.

For many years I've seen the US military emphasis on the newest bestest technology and become reliant on technological superiority. Hopefully sequestration will force the armed forces to become more imaginative and able to squeeze more out of existing equipments.

The problem is that there's not much more to squeeze out of a 30-year-old Bradley chassis. Not to mention that wheeled MRAPs are actually better protected against mines and big IEDs than the tracked Bradleys.

The Abrams still have some growth potential, but even they are running out of expandability.