“The Pentagon Wars” has long been a comedic look at how a military acquistion program can go sideways. Ultimately, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle turned put to be critical to our Army’s success but it was initially intended as an upgraded M-113.
Thanks Lawrence for remonding me.
Do you have any successes?
That is classified.
I love how Cary Elwes’ character was a USAF officer.
In real life it was an AF Officer’s who did this and saw his career go down in flames for being honest.
He was far from being honest. He wanted and got tests for Bradley’s to be shot by main gun tank rounds and then condemned the vehicle for failing. That’s like shooting a SAPI plate with a .50 cal AP rounds and saying the SAPI isn’t doing its job.
The Bradley was never meant to take on tanks yet portraying that as its major threat was dishonest. Maybe if it was a bomber and we pitted it against a fighter in dog-fighting the Air Force officer may have been in his element.
So where does the Marine Corps LAV play into this? Is it a product of the same BS, or is it legit?
The LAV-25 was more or less a COTS purchase.
Yup, pretty much COTS and it fulfills a different role in the Marine Corps than the Bradley does in the Army. The LAV is not used as an APC by the Corps, it’s a reconnaissance vehicle and the troops in the back are the scouts, sort of like the Bradley in the scout role. Also, unlike the Bradley the Corps has taken the basic LAV hull and produced several variants based on it, to include an AD variant, a command, vehicle, and a logistics vehicle, to name a few.
Oh god, those sheep test scenes, and that Office of Ruminant Procurement that sprang up overnight.
Thanks for reminding me about this movie.
Sheep specs!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f2XbOY9kcg
The same people also made another very timely movie. The Second Civil War. Could be ripped from tomorrow’s headlines.
Does anyone know when the sequel “Pentagon Wars II” comes out where an Army Officer explains why the F-35 sucks?
Perhaps they could do a movie on the endless RFP contests to find a replacement for the 5.56 caliber and associated weapon platform .
Comedy aside, there has always been a friction between “incrementalists” and “innovationists” in the development of new weapons systems. And I don’t mean either term as a pejorative.
Some always want to just make what we are already familiar with a little better. The M4 would be a small example of a system that has been almost continually improved over time. That is the safer course of action.
Others want that leap ahead that is perceived to be markedly better than what we already have. There are plenty of examples where those gambles paid off – and plenty where the investment didn’t live up to expectations. That is why this is the riskiest course of action.
We need both. As SSD points out, the Bradley was a shining example of a program where the requirements and vision for the M113 replacement got more convoluted than it should have. But in the end, the Bradley is a significant improvement over the M113.
Younger folks may not remember that the M1 Tank was also lambasted as a boondoggle, loaded with “untested” technology that would put our tankers at greater risk. The Blackhawk helicopter was called the “crashhawk” after several fatal incidents shortly after if was fielded.
Both of those systems matured and think it is fair to say have proved their worth. Now it is the Osprey or the Stryker. Tomorrow it will be something else. Change never satisfies everybody no matter whether we go forward incrementally or take bigger leaps.
But it is still ok to laugh at the process.
TLB
Well said.
After watching the full movie on youtube I found this, being bored i started watching it too. The real gem is at 29:40
That didnt work, anyways, documentary about the pentagon, talking about a ”Revolutionnary new system, slated to be operationnal by 2003, called the LAND WARRIOR” *Cue M16 with huge ass thermal on top and half blind soldier*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd3tN4H0NjY
Gem #2 1:13:15 *Marine beach landing exercise, guns blazing* ”This is not combat, it’s just North Carolina”
To go along with Burtons book, check out “BOYD, The Fighter Pilot that Changed The Art of War”. It is an awesome book and touches upon Burtons time as one of Boyd’s ‘acolytes and all the crap that group started by challenging programs like the B-1, pushing for AC that weren’t “Swiss army knives,” and Sprey’s (another acolyte) development of the A-10.
Can’t +1 this enough.
Oh so true – I remember sitting in the back of a Bradley for the 1st time as a PVT – looked up at the troop hatch where it was stamped ALCOA….said out loud GREAT! We are riding in a fu#*ing recycled Coke/Pepsi can….the PSG gave me a stern talking too 😉 and then told shut the f#*k up PVT.
Over my 22+ years I will attest the Army procurement benefited only the state politicians and jobs they provided in their state…I grew up in FL where GE provided the gunner and commander hand control stations (GE went under just before I joined the military and all those lost jobs in Daytona Beach).
It provided millions of dollars is lucrative IDIQ and other contracts to contractors and large MIC companies – yes they benefited – the soldier, the end user always got the equipment and vehicles produced of low quality and sub standard build- the soldier always the short end of the stick while others made a fortune – I will never forget the 1st Gulf War and how I watched in horror as men died trapped in a Bradley consumed by flames due to the ALCOA blend of 2 two different aluminum alloys: a 7xxx series and 5xxx series – death trap. But hey – it was light and fast
The Bradley destroyed more enemy vehicles in Desert Storm than any other vehicle to include the M1 tank. It has performed superbly in the role it was designed for as Desert Storm and the early invasion of Iraq demonstrated.
The Bradley’s biggest shortcoming is that it doesn’t carry a nine man squad and arguably didn’t need to be equipped with a TOW.
As for death traps all vehicles are death traps. Bradleys and HMMWV’s are the most current examples but before that the M113 which the Bradley replaced had an even worse rep. It’s why troops would ride on top exposed to enemy fire in Vietnam vs. inside.
I’d contest your 22yrs perspective on procurement. There is some really good stuff out there (along with the bad). Body armor, optics and better ammo come to mind.
The movie “Pentagon Wars” is great entertainment but those that rely on a film to inform themselves about Army procurement or the Bradley specifically make the same error many civilians do when they watch Stripes, Gomer Pyle or McHale’s Navy and think that’s a realistic rendition of the services portrayed.
The Bradley has some shortcomings. The biggest being it doesn’t carry a nine man squad and arguably didn’t need to be equipped with a TOW adding unnecessary complexity and cost. On the other hand the movie and (the book) portray some of the testing as obstructed or an effort to hide something. At best that’s ignorant at worst it’s a conscious effort to create a controversy where there isn’t one.
The USAF procurement officer wanted and got tests of a Bradley’s being shot by main gun tank rounds and then condemned the vehicle for failing. That’s like shooting a SAPI plate with a .50 cal AP rounds and saying the SAPI isn’t doing its job. It’s pretty predictable that an Air Force officer might not be the best project officer for an Army armored vehicle. That’s a lesson the picture never addressed.
The Bradley has served admirably with warts and all. It inflicted more vehicle kills than any other vehicle in Desert Storm and for its time through today is one of the few vehicles capable of keeping up with the M1 tank. Being there to provide infantry and more than adequate supporting and suppresive fires for the Infantry.
It’s procurement tale yields many lessons learned but one of them isn’t that the Bradley was a poor solution to an Army need.
I’ve always had an issue with the criticism of an APC/IFV not being able to withstand fire from anti-tank rounds and missiles. People fail to understand that there’s a reason that things like Bradleys, Strykers, LAVs, Amtracs, etc. can’t take hits from anti-tank weaponry and that’s because they’re not tanks and there’s a lot of tanks out there that can’t survive a hit from anti-tank weaponry. If any light armored vehicle is trying to go toe to toe against a tank and/or infantry with anti-tank weaponry then they’re doing something wrong.
I may be misremembering, but I think it was SSD that first highlighted this film to me a little while back.
The only real issue with the film for me is that it’s funny because it’s true, but also really hard to watch and not at all funny because it’s all true.
Not all true.
We have a year long Army course that develops technical staff officers and NCOs to work in acquisitions. This movie is used as an example of requirements creep.
I realize its not 100% true but when you look at it as an example of ‘homer car’ syndrome l, it’s not bad.
Sorry, in Canada.