Engineer Memoirs _____________________________________________________________________
engineer vehicle [CEV] in our divisions, which satisfies most of the EForce requirement for
a vehicle, but it is not the counterobstacle vehicle or the full-width breacher we talk about.
So, we need a breacher, but we could reorganize today's force with the modernization
improvements in the stream--things like Volcano, the M9 ACE, the small emplacement
excavator. They aren't here but are in production, are in the program and coming. We can get
EForce for the heavy force right now. The one thing we'd like to add to that is that heavy
breacher. We can separate that out and say that is the Army's countermine problem; we need
to solve that problem. That is the strategy by which we're attacking that issue.
Q:
Do you see that countermine breacher as an attachment, like a plow, or a new vehicle
altogether?
A:
Well, our counterobstacle vehicle is a prototype right now. It has a full-width plow on it, but
it is a full vehicle. The fact is that we've tried plows, and we're developing plows for our M
1 tank, but we're developing track-width plows. Track-width plows have great problems.
First of all, they protect really only the tank they're on because of the width of the plow blade
and the tracks and the difference in the tracks of following systems, like the Bradleys and M
113s. What happens is that you strip engineers and infantry in that forward maneuver element
out of your team--only the tanks can proceed. So, although we're getting track-width rollers
and track-width plows, they really are only a 25 percent solution. We need a full-width plow.
To do the full-width plow, you need a powerful machine, more powerful than the tank. Not
only that, you put that blade up there with the M1 and with the operator in the reclining
position like he is, he can't see. You then have problems with tube depression. You have to
turn the tube to the rear while you're plowing, even with the track width. So, what the Army
really needs is a dedicated breaching vehicle that can do other things too. That's why our
counterobstacle vehicle has a couple of digging arms, and it can dig with that blade as well,
but it is a dedicated vehicle. We see that as a replacement for today's combat engineer
vehicle, which has a blade but it is a blade that can't plow away mines. We need something
that can go down to a full-width, 12-inch-deep mine removal.
Q:
You'd take that whole lane out of there?
A:
Take the whole lane out, that's right. That's what the counterobstacle vehicle does. We've
got a prototype right now. We developed it with the Israelis. During the GrammRudman
cuts it was taken out of the Army program. So, to get that back in, we now have to find the
bucks in some other program. That's a materiel modernization need and we think that need is
there and we think that's the Army's "most broke" arena. We can do EForce with the CEV
and have a better organization than we have now; it'd be better yet if we could get the
breachers.
Q:
Your maneuver commanders generally support this kind of thing.
A:
The maneuver commanders all support EForce. I have not briefed a maneuver commander
yet who didn't say, "Long overdue. Got to have it."
338
Previous Page
