via Defense One.
First, direct the Army to scale back its plans for more “light” vehicles: Joint Light Tactical Vehicles, Strykers, and Ultra-Light Combat Vehicles. One military analyst summed up the problem: “Wheeled armored vehicles can’t outrun what they can’t outgun, and they can’t outgun what they can’t outrun.” This truth has been proven, most recently, by the Israeli Defense Force’s operational experience in Gaza.Here.
Second, tell the Army to look at — and report back to the SASCon — the Puma, a 43-ton, 1,003-horsepower German infantry fighting vehicle, or IFV. In 2013, the Congressional Budget Office took the rare step of identifying the Puma as the best available option for the Army’s GCV program. After evaluating four vehicles, the CBO analysts concluded that the GermanIFV was the least expensive, the most capable, and — because it is already in production — at the least risk of missing its budgetary or capability goals.
Consider me shocked.
I always considered MacGregor to be the bandleader for the transformation crowd...and moving toward wheels/ultra light vehicles is a natural part of that scheme.
To hear him come out against it is telling.
More important is what I'm reading between the lines here. "Wheeled armored vehicles can't outrun what they can't outgun, and they can't outgun what they can't outrun"! WOW! Is he telling us that the Stryker is an utter failure? Is he telling us that armored cars (the old designation for wheeled vehicles) are as they have always been...unsuited for conventional warfare?
It does make you wonder about the Amphibious Combat Vehicle for the Marines doesn't it. What makes me pause though is his endorsement of the Puma. Why? Is it that much better than the Bradley that its worth pursuing now? Are there issues that we don't know about that makes the Bradley ill suited for frontline combat? I need to chew on this one a bit. This one will make the circles though...keep your ears open.