In theory I'm good with this because it avoids stovepiping near-term developments from longer-term projects:
The Army’s new Next-Generation Combat Vehicle’s modernization arm is expanding its scope from prototyping next-generation vehicles and ground robots to also guiding more near-term programs through the procurement process.
The NGCV cross-functional team — which serves under the new Army Futures Command — is taking on the Army’s Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, which is being manufactured by BAE Systems and just finished its limited user test, as well as the Mobile Protected Firepower capability.
That will help make sure future developments can be rolled into the vehicles built in the near term, eh?
One thing I'd like to see done for the infantry carrier is the capability to use reachback for the squad in some Army missions by replacing onboard infantry with remotely controlled weapon stations on the infantry fighting vehicle.
Why not bridge the gap between near- and long-term vehicle development with an experiment with mounting remote weapon stations on the Bradley that are controlled by soldiers in the rear?
Please note that I don't want to get rid of infantry. I want to prevent them from becoming casualties while mounted before they can be used for dismounted combat. And with the greater emphasis on training and equipping our infantry, preserving those investments is even more important.
I explored that in Infantry Magazine and envisioned that in an essay that didn't make the cut for the Army Mad Scientist initiative.
