Gates says the [FCS] vehicles' flat bottoms that sit 18 inches off the ground in the original design reflected "no lessons learned" from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. The MRAP, by contrast, has a V-shaped hull that deflects roadside blasts and makes survivability far more likely.
The Marines new amphibious landing craft, is also in danger because it lacks the MRAPs V-shaped hull, said Dakota Wood, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
Insurgents using roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan exploited the same weakness in Humvees, the military's longtime workhorse vehicle. Flat-bottom vehicles built close to the ground absorb explosions and transmit the impact to the troops inside.
That was a key reason, Gates said, in his decision to recommend canceling the Army's new vehicle program.
The Army's reasons for not worrying about armor are amazing in light of the experience over the last several years in Iraq:
The Army's premise that less weight, greater fuel efficiency and more technology to detect threats would compensate for less armor was seriously flawed, Gates said recently during a speech at the Army War College.
I've long been skeptical of the Army's assumptions about the FCS. I've written about that a lot, including in print. But lets's not let the Marines off the hook:
The amphibious vehicle's flat bottom is fine for skimming the sea at high speed, Wood said, but it lacks the characteristics necessary for survival on the ground.
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway said Wednesday the EFV wouldn't be used "in an IED environment." Armor can be added to it once it reached shore, he said.
The Marines won't use the vehicle where IEDs can be used? Doh! Why didn't we think of that solution about four years ago? Lucky the enemy didn't use too many mines or IEDs during the march up in March and April 2003.
I've long been skeptical about the EFV, especially given the Iraq War experience of the Marines using their AAVs as armored personnel carriers for the march north and during the COIN fight. I'm not sure why the Marines need one vehicle for both landing and fighting mounted.
And overall, I've been consistent in arguing for armor rather than exotic solutions that probably won't work against fairly simple measures any time in the next several decades.
Our ground forces need survivable armored vehicles to replace their aging weapons. Sadly, we haven't designed anything that they need.
