US Army cancels current Bradley replacement program...

[Slater]

Heck, just buy the German Puma or British Ajax off-the-shelf. At least they seem to know how to run a reasonably successful program:

“Today the U.S. Army will cancel the current solicitation for the Section 804 Middle Tier acquisition rapid prototyping phase of the [optionally manned fighting vehicle]. Based on feedback and proposals received from industry, we have determined it is necessary to revisit the requirements, acquisition strategy and schedule moving forward,” said Bruce Jette, the Army’s acquisition chief."

https://www.defensenews.com/land/202...typing-effort/

[mack7.62]

Hell have SIG build them one they are winning everything else.

[Grand58742]

Seems like even more money wasted by the Pentagon when viable alternatives are right there.

[BoringGuy45]

Seems like even more money wasted by the Pentagon when viable alternatives are right there.

I think that's the point. I'm pretty sure that most of these "competitions" are nothing more than getting rid of surplus to avoid budget cuts.

[Slater]

"Some major failed programs in the past, Jette noted, were canceled after spending large amounts of money and still moving along even though problems were identified as the service proceeded. Crusader cost about $2 billion, Comanche about $6.9 billion and Future Combat Systems about $19 billion, Jette said."

The Army's certainly not alone in the "failed programs" category, but it's procurement history hasn't been encouraging. Even multiple attempts to replace the OH-58 Kiowa have flopped. I'm far from an aviation expert, but I would think that a scout helicopter wouldn't be stretching the boundaries of technology to any great extent.

[Grand58742]

"Some major failed programs in the past, Jette noted, were canceled after spending large amounts of money and still moving along even though problems were identified as the service proceeded. Crusader cost about $2 billion, Comanche about $6.9 billion and Future Combat Systems about $19 billion, Jette said."

The Army's certainly not alone in the "failed programs" category, but it's procurement history hasn't been encouraging. Even multiple attempts to replace the OH-58 Kiowa have flopped. I'm far from an aviation expert, but I would think that a scout helicopter wouldn't be stretching the boundaries of technology to any great extent.

I wasn't limiting that to the Army, FYI. All services are guilty of wasting a metric butt-ton of money on projects that don't go anywhere.

However, when it comes to stupidity and utter waste, I think the ACU still stands head and shoulders above everything since it was so public a failure.

[Averageman]

I seem to remember that originally this thing was supposed to ford water and the scout version had firing ports.
Both which caused casualties early in fielding.

[Averageman]

One of the biggest issues regardless of design or manufacturer is that young men are not as mechanically inclined as they were in decades past.
Things as simple as changing tires, checking oil levels and basic operation of mechanical systems are alien to this generation of both civilian and military members.
If you want an OR rate, if you want crew survivability, you not only need a very basic, simple system of operation and maintenance, you really need to learn a totally new way to teach it.
When lug nuts, oil levels and checking fuel levels are a mystery to young and inexperienced operators, you've got some systems design and training challenges ahead.

[Slater]

It does seem that other NATO countries are having a bit more success with their designs than we are. I would also include countries such as Israel and Singapore in that conversation.