via Defense News.
For support brigade combat teams, McMaster said the Army needs to provide additional lethality to vehicles. "We have a Stryker mounted with a World War II weapon," he said. This means the Army would want half of its Stryker armored personnel carriers to have a 30mm cannon and a machine gun and the other half to be equipped with Javelin anti-tank missiles and a machine gun.Wow. So the cat is out of the bag and that armor vehicle race that I've been harping on is actually being acknowledged by Army leadership. Awesome. The problem? They're still behind the power curve.
But wait. It gets worse. Check this out...
And "what we really need to do is try to hopefully get some additional funding so we can develop the Future Fighting Vehicle" to replace M2 Bradleys "which are really obsolete," McMaster said.This is interesting.
Everyone is talking about the supposed vulnerability of the M1 Abrams in Yemen, but no one is discussing the performance of the Bradley. From all indications the US Army is more than satisfied with the Abrams and seem confident that it can handle any upcoming threat (Armata). But this is the first I've heard it publicly acknowledged that the Bradley is obsolete.
Seems like many of my readers that have said the same were right...it also appears that the idea of simply upgrading the Bradley to bring it inline with the CV90, Puma and Namer was just wishful thinking.
Consider this. If the US Army Bradley is obsolete, then what about the USMC's AAV?