DoD and Army Fight Over Tank Purchases

Basically, the Army wants to shift $1 billion from M-1 Abrams procurement to the FCS program, and the DoD is rather unimpressed at the concept.

As has been made clear here by me many times, I'm on the side of the DoD.

I think that the FCS Manned Ground Vehicles are not well suited to currently foreseeable conflicts.

To pay for this, the Army would drop plans to upgrade hundreds of Abrams tanks and scrap a last planned purchase of at least 30 new tanks, saving a total of $1 billion through 2013. As well, it would slash planned purchases of Strykers, saving $1.3 billion, and reduce purchases and upgrades of Bradley Fighting Vehicles, saving $417 million.

The DoD comptroller's office is especially opposed to cutting Abrams funds, a senior Pentagon official said.

Of course, the army is arguing that the FCS, weighing just 25-30t to the Abrams' 70 t, is more survivable:

"The MGVs will provide the soldier with an array of crew protection, to include advanced lightweight armor composites, crew mine blast protection, active protection systems, thermal management and radar. Most important, the FCS network provides better situational awareness, allowing soldiers to engage targets at greater distances," said FCS communications manager Paul Mehney.

But this is crap.

In a counterinsurgency campaign, the insurgents always have better intel. They choose where and when to attack, and at that point, the network is not a substitute for armor.

Besides, the network can be retrofitted into existing vehicles for less cost.