Army acquisition woes.

• Position: READERS'FORUM - Letter to the editor

* In reference to the article, "Army's Ground Combat Vehicle Stirs Confusion in Industry," (January 2011, p.26) you think that industry is confused by the Army's Ground Combat Vehicle? The Army itself obviously has no clue as to what it wants or needs.

Your article quotes Maj. Gen. Walter L. Davis, deputy director and chief of staff of the Army capabilities integration center at the Army Training and Doctrine Command: "The Army is seeking a "capability for combined arms maneuver and area security over wide areas ... a single ground combat vehicle that incorporates protection against [improvised explosive devices], tactical mobility and operational agility."

First off, the Army should have started with an analysis of what exactly is wrong with the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the system to be replaced.

Next, they should have considered if any doctrine, training or organization fixes might resolve all or some of the issues. Had they done that and are absolutely certain that a new system is required, the same analysis should readily have figured out what they want it to do and what characteristics it needs (size, weight, range, level of protection, weapons).

Concurrently, they should have figured out the integrated logistical support package and its operational mode summary and mission profile: Will they transport it by tractor-trailer, railroad, airplane or ship? Will it be air-dropped? What restrictions are they willing to accept?

They should also know how many they need based on the current and planned unit equipment lists and the Army's force structure, which would determine how many such units to fill. Given the fact that the Army just spent a decade on these very same issues while working Future Combat Systems, I would expect that all of this should have long ago been worked out.

Yet instead, I read that the Army is simply throwing up its hands and asking industry to figure it out for them. Maybe that's not such a bad idea, after all. Only let's get it right. Start by contracting out TRADOC. Then there might finally be some progress.

Chester A. Kojro

Rolla, MO

* Having been around the Army's supply and acquisition community for many years, there is an ongoing phenomenon that I can only describe as a long slow train wreck of supply readiness. This train wreck has little to do with budget constraints, technical challenges, or even the simultaneous execution of two wars. It's a wreck of our own making.

Prior to the 1990s, the organizations...