It is envisioned to have greater lethality and ballistic protection than a Bradley, greater IED and mine protection than an MRAP, and the cross country mobility of an Abrams tank. The GCV will be highly survivable, mobile and versatile, but the Army has not set specific requirements such as weight, instead allowing industry to propose the best solution to meet the requirements.
Is that all? Why not ask for magical weapons that don't need ammunition and the fuel efficiency of a Smart car? I mean, as long as we're wishing really hard.
On the bright side, at least the miltiary didn't insist on an upper weight limit designed to make it seem like it is air transportable on C-130s. So we've learned something from the Future Combat System experience.
I said before that we couldn't build the wonder tank to replace the M-1 Abrams, and I'll go out on a limb and say we can't build the wonder infantry fighting vehicle. Can't we just focus on building something better than the Bradley?
And why must we insist on a single vehicle capable of handling all threats? Is it really necessary to have a single vehicle able to fight heavy armor and insurgents? But then, I don't understand why the Marines can't have a system to get them ashore where they board other combat vehicles that take them inland to fight. No, we have to have the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle to do it all and any price. And a new GCV that can face all threats rather than different vehicles for different threats.
What could go wrong?
UPDATE: I keep forgetting that the stand-alone PDF of my article in the May-June 2002 Military Review (cited in the wonder tank post linked above) is dead. You have to go to the archives for the whole issue, which takes a while to download. See here for that issue. "Equipping the Objective Force" is on page 28, if you are interested.
