The WP has a big takeout today documenting a bagful of problems with the Army's new armored vehicle, the Stryker. Its strap-on armor is too heavy, and only marginally effective. Its gun doesn't work on the fly. Its computers tend to freeze. Etc. etc.
As it happens, I was once looking into the Stryker myself last year, and in the process talked with the Pentagon's former chief tester. As he explained, the Stryker was rushed into production--and then combat--without proper testing. Hence the problems above that the Post details.
But he also explained the larger context, and one that the Post misses: The Stryker is indicative of what's wrong with the military "transformation" plans that Rumsfeld is so excited about.
The general philosophy of the Army's transformation plan is "lighter, smarter, faster." Basically, the idea is that vehicles won't have to be heavily armored since they'll be networked and filled with top notch sensors meaning they'll have so much information about the battlefield there won't be any need for head-on fighting.
The problem with that approach when it comes to Iraq is pretty obvious: The Pentium Power and Wi-Fi networks will probably help you spot enemy tanks, but it probably won't be the deciding factor against the guys in the neighborhood hanging around with RPGs. For that, the best intel isn't tech-based but, it's from the guys' neighbors. And the belief that the high-tech stuff will provide solid enough intel so as to avoid major combat--and thus the need for heavy armor--seems just dunder-headed.
But don't believe me. According to the industry newsletter Inside the Pentagon, Rumsfeld (to his credit) recently recirculated a RAND paper offering lessons learned on Iraq. Among them:
"Be cautious with respect to Army transformation plans that move to lightly armored vehicles and heavy reliance on networked information systems, given the difficulty in translating good sensor coverage of the battlefield into good situational awareness."
Again, to translate that into English: Just because you have a good computer doesn't mean you know what the hell is going on.
(Let's see if Rumsfeld really follows up.)
