I have been off on the many other things this program entails and now setting down some thoughts today. As the design and concept evolution side of things advance, it is still pretty obvious that design isn’t the largest challenge to the Jake Platform program or others that may be in the works like it. The biggest challenge is taking new concepts up against the strong headwinds of existing thought.

I was reminded of this today by the Reuters article, “Army, Pentagon at Odds Over New Vehicle Program”. See: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61G5NT20100217?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a49:g43:r1:c1.000000:b30807910:z0

While I note the momentum at work to pour money into heavier and heavier ground systems, I should take comfort in the fact that the Pentagon is at least questioning wisdom in the varied angles of this area of defense development — though much of the questioning is relative to the mechanics of the bureaucracy of acquisition process as compared to the mechanics of the force developments themselves.

Defense Tech puts this subject on a more open field for discussion with “Army Pitches 70 Ton GCV, Maybe” See: http://defensetech.org/2010/02/22/army-pitches-70-ton-gcv-maybe/#more-5849

This article does pull forward the question of how we are even thinking of 70 tons as an infantry fighting vehicle, since these have to be delivered to the battle somehow (as compared to Israel just driving them down a paved road to the fight). The Reuters article related to this also notes the cost issues of a projected $6 billion for fielding of 300 such new GCV (ground combat vehicles), and Defense Tech calls out these units’ vulnerability when against a sophisticated enemy, or even unsophisticated, noting: “One of the problems, as Thompson sees it, is the proliferation of precision, heavy anti-​​tank guided missiles of the Kornet and TOW variety.”

A little math, and you see an average $20 million cost per unit (not counting early development costs and acquisition competitions), which I guess is fair, given that today’s A1 Abrams is said to cost $13 million and this is close to 70 tons also. But, all this armor that adds up to all this weight — that we can not deploy rapidly or in dispersed and sustainable manner — is piled on to protect the troops inside, bringing us back to their vulnerability today no matter how much armor they put on.

Does no one notice this groups “rich targets” for an enemy (and more “richer” stuff that has to deliver and sustain them)?

Step back and look at the pride of tactics within our own early Revolutionary War. Did we win by marching down the street in formation like the British? No. Our troops were innovative and split up our forces. Their leaders made them more independent and made them as tough a target to get to as possible? …. So why are we fixated on giving our enemy increasingly large, relatively grouped, targets now?

Leaving the defense theory to the experts, I just pose the question again on why we aren’t investing a significant portion of our development dollars on highly agile, compact dispersed units of force? The Jake platform is an example, though it will likely continue to evolve. Here, even at $500,000 apiece (with sensors, communications, robotics, systems and weapons), this still allows 40 smaller 1.5 ton units (manned or unmanned, or combination) for price of one of the GCVs. And if it is understandable that a GCV could be knocked out by a precision strike and we lose 4-5 warfighters, or up to 13, why wouldn’t we open up our thinking on allowing these warfighters dispersed and independent actions where it would take 12 or more TOW or IED hits to lose the same number of warfighters? And if an enemy did take out 12 units, through very heavy war action, we are still only at $6 million loss with a much lower cost operation in place for reaction, retrieval, sustainment and reconfiguring the fight.

Now, think of the advantage of the 40 smaller units delivering 40 dispersed firing positions with each having GCV-equal force of their own. And, if required, for the price of 10 GCV’s in a conflict maneuver, there could be 400 Jake units configured to deliver a diverse set of capabilities.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has asked throughout 2008 and 2009; where is the “outside the box” thinking that addresses the new wars we are in? I see this new thinking in meetings with the Jake, and these demos and discussions are with significant people. But, I see much of the commitment to new ideas evaporating once outside the meeting and facing the headwinds of existing thought.

America has the design, engineering and manufacturing capabilities. What I see is that we just need more true American Guts.

Remember, our young warfighters are out there on the line for us — and they are video gamer kids that can make those who have gone before them proud. We just need to be getting them more power and agility to move. They will invent the tactics side of things.

Let’s Power ‘Em Up!

Russ