Re: Future Combat Systems ---- USA
Too expensive, too techy, too light. All you would need is one infantry man with a decent enough RPG and some guts and those vehicles are history, heat seaking smart shells or not.
Right now units are going into the combat zone under equipped in certain cases. This is no doubt due to cost cutting, either that or the logistics guys screwing up is a regular occurence. I can't help but wonder just how under equipped this show piece unit is going to be.
Going back to costs and things, I assume this stuff costs more than what is available at present (even though its all modular), right?
The USA foresees what kinds of engagements precisely?
That ,,Tank" (for want of a better word) of theirs seems designed for engagements at long ranges. I assume they are skrimping on armour to make the things lighter and more deployable, right?
How do they plan on fighting in an urban area with limited visibility, IEDs and Jihadis (or whatever) around every corner in vehicles that are so clearly designed for warfare on the flyß (That ,,tank", its a shoot and scoot afair, right?)
Or are they foreseeing a rapid deployment to Poland, the Ukraine or Baltic Republics to stop Vlad and his fleet of T-80s and T-72s from invading the EU?
Lighter mortars, although I assume they are heavier than the M113 etc variants available at present, makes sense. Heavier ambulances, that makes sense. More manoueverable and lighter Arty (as secondary support), again, quite clever. But scrimping on APCs and AFVs. Oh dear!
__________________
"Wir Deutschen sollten die Wahrheit auch dann ertragen lernen, wenn sie für uns günstig ist."
|