A defense industry blogger known only as "Armchair Generalist" is one of the few insiders who hates the new blastproof trucks that SecDef Robert Gates has called his number one weapons priority. The military aims to rush as many as 17,000 of the tougher rides to Iraq to protect against IEDs, but A.G. says that's just putting a bandaid on a brain injury:
The guys in the field always want more gear to execute the mission. In the words of Col John Boyd, the military needs to invest in people, ideas, and equipment -- in that order. It's our tendancy to flip that into reverse, not because it's correct but because it's easier. Maybe we ought to be smarter and develop better concepts before defaulting to overly expensive technological solution.
For more, see:
Gates Wants More MRAPs Yesterday
Updating Humvee
Danger Room: Marines 300, Bombers 0
--David Axe
Hey I resemble those remarks... you can call me Jason or J., no need to be formal. As long as we're using medical analogies, I actually think the MRAP is more like applying a tourniquet to a head wound. We know that it's a serious injury (need), but using an $18 billion solution could potentially kill off so many other vital acquisition, training, and leadership initiatives it won't be funny.
Is an armored car a sound military requirement? Yes, we should have done it years ago when the Military Police wanted on and the 18th ABN Corps wanted a replacement for the Sheridan tanks. Is an armored car a good replacement for all the HMMWVs in theater and the model for future light tactical vehicles? Hell no. But why should we allow for time to thoughtfully work out this huge challenge when we can emotionally think with our gut and just run out and do it. It's just $18 billion - for now.
Posted by: J. | May 24, 2007 at 01:00 PM
D:
I think Colonel is right on; without people, obviously, all the greatest whiz-bang gear and mind-boggling machinery becomes quite useless.
However, I also believe warfighters want to know the Pentagon has taken measures to keep them relatively safe once they step onto the field of battle. After investing in the personal and professional development of today's soldiers, I don't think it's asking too much to protect them.
I second the AG's opinion about the mainstream belief of "technology will save us." Unfortunately, we can't very well back out of the computer age, so I think that mindset, dangerous as it may be, is here to stay.
Mike Harbour
Freelance writer
Posted by: Mike Harbour | May 24, 2007 at 01:00 PM
I thought I would post
"Blast-Resistant Vehicles For Beginners: Distinguishing 'Armoured' From 'Mine-' and 'Blast-Resistant' Vehicles"
by CASR (Canadian American Strategic Review) A must read to understand what a MRAP vehicle is.
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-blast-resistant-vehicles.htm
Posted by: Peter | May 24, 2007 at 01:06 PM