The U.S. Army is trying to design a replacement for its M-2 Bradley IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle). The new vehicle is the GCV (Ground Combat Vehicle), and it's getting a cool reception from Congress. The politicians smell another boondoggle, that will take forever, promise too much, cost more than anyone can afford and ultimately be cancelled. The army is setting the bar high. They want a vehicle with reater firepower than the M-2, the mobility of the Stryker and the protection of an MRAP. This is seen as unreasonable, and a bad sign.
Why wouldn't Congress react this way? And to put this resistance in perspective, Congress believes a lot of loopy things--yet they still don't buy this vision.
As I wrote about the program with its multiple goals that cannot be reached:
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?
Even if Congress is willing to fund the wonder IFV, it just can't be built.
