FCS was a horrible mistake.
Today we ride around in a hodgepodge of vehicles, M88, M1, M2, M113, M109 all with different power packs, sprocket, track, etc. that’s a logistical nightmare.
A newer generation of vehicles can incorporate technology that didn’t exist when these older vehicles were developed, i.e. ERA, hard and soft kill defense systems, some of the sensors, displays, etc. Trying to bolt this on after the fact on vehicles never conceived for this doesn’t work as well (space, power supply, cabling, vehicles physical dimensions...)
Also, the threat has changed. In the Cold War we were on friendly ground, in a defense, predominantly in Europe. Mines and IEDs were a lesser threat. Temperatures were moderate. Roads and bridges could support a higher load. Much of your equipment was prepositioned because you knew where you were going to fight...
I agree that the required inter theater transport requirement was to weight restrictive, but IMHO that would have gotten worked out.
But today we nothing.
The weight requirement by Shinseki would have caused us to suffer the same fate as the Russians who also need to move their equipment around quickly and have a vehicle design concept that is very light.
The problem we have today is that we have literally a M113, M109, M2, M1, M88 and all of them use different power packs, different tracks, different sprockets... It’s a logistical mess. These vehicles also have very different off/on road drive qualities, etc.
NOTHING we have was designed with the idea of active defense (hard and soft kill) in mind.
NOTHING was designed with the idea of digital technology and being networked.
NOTHING was designed around the idea of true signature reduction, i.e. stealth.
ALL of these systems are ancient, in some cases as with the M1’s AGT1500 you have a power-pack that hasn’t even been produced for over two decades and everything is refurbished.
Meanwhile, the battle-space has entirely changed, with the Middle East, North Africa, far East Asia, being the center of gravity in what are expeditionary and often offensive campaigns. Instead of having propositioned depots with equipment to fall in on, you have to move much of the material around, you’re not on friendly ground (increased mine and IED threat), the temperatures are much higher, the roads and bridges are crap.
Also the threat technology has evolved a lot since 1956 - 1978 (the era in which all these systems were developed/designed). Today the dive and top attack munition (ATGM) is nothing novel and massive armor merely on the front turret don’t cut it, example Ukraine where Russia has pretty much destroyed most the advanced MBT’s that were sent to the front using FPV drones, quickly.
This is a serious problem/risk!
But no one is talking about it.
Analogy: We are well in the SAM and jet age in 1965, but we’re still flying P51 Mustangs and talking about the glory days where it was a bad @ss fighter sweeping the skies.