2010年10月29日星期五

陸軍的新戰車合約'逼近'

陸軍的新戰車合約'逼近'
Army’s New Combat Vehicle Contract Is ‘Imminent’

By Spencer Ackerman
October 27, 2010
Translation by Autumnson Blog
For the better part of a decade, the Army has tried to come up with a new infantry vehicle. They’re going to have to wait just a bit longer. A new request for proposals for the Ground Combat Vehicle is “imminent,” says program spokesman Paul Mehney. Ask him about it any which way; try to parse the meaning of the term with him — it doesn’t matter. “Imminent” is the answer he’s sticking with.
為十年來更好的一部分,軍隊已試圖想出一種新的步兵車輛,他們將要衹是等長些。一項新的地面作戰車輛建議請求在“迫近”,項目發言人保羅 Mehney說。問他關於它以任何方式;嘗試分析他用詞的含義 - 它並不重要, “迫近”是他堅持使用的答案。
On August 25, the Army abruptly yanked its original solicitation for the next-generation infantry vehicle — a replacement for the aging Bradley Fighting Vehicle — after a review determined that the original specs relied on too much unproven technology to “ensure an achievable, affordable and timely” new vehicle. The Ground Combat Vehicle is supposed to carry a nine-man infantry squad (which the Bradley can’t); be resistant to roadside bombs; and use lightweight armor that hasn’t really been developed yet.
在8月25日,美國陸軍突然猛拉它的原來懇切要求為下一代的步兵車 - 一項更換老化的布雷德利戰車 - 在審查確定後,原來的規格過於依賴未經證實的技術,以“確保一可實現的,可負担的和及時的"新車。地面戰車應該是要攜帶一個九人步兵班(那布拉德利是不能的);能抗禦路邊炸彈;和使用輕型裝甲仍未有真正被開發的。

But now the announced 60-day delay period — in which the Army revamps what it wants the Ground Combat Vehicle to be in a more realistic way — is at an end. That prompted the Army’s leaders, Secretary John McHugh and chief of staff General George Casey, to say on Monday that a new solicitation is almost-but-not-quite on hand, citing what Casey called an “abundance of caution.” The Army wants the new vehicle to be in the field seven years after the contract is awarded. It really doesn’t want failure or cost-overruns on a high-priority vehicle, especially after both plagued its last big weapons/vehicle priority, the now-defunct Future Combat Systems.

So what to expect from Ground Combat Vehicle Plan B? Mehney demurs on specifics, but rattles off a few general basic ideas. It doesn’t have to be too heavily armored, but the soldiers inside have to survive even if an attack disables the vehicle. (Or, as Mehney puts it, “Force protection, vice vehicle protection.”) The demonstration phase for its technology is going to shrink to “months” rather than years, but the engineering, manufacturing and development phase is going to expand so as to get better prototypes. It’s got to be affordable (whatever that means). And it’s got to be delivered in seven years.

Generic enough for you? More specifics are, well, “imminent.”

Photo: U.S. Army

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/armys-new-combat-vehicle-contract-is-imminent/

沒有留言: