[Sith]

The US does realize that urban warfare is a big part of tactical operations moving forward. However, the US has to be careful which lessons it takes from the IMI.

The IMI does not necessarily face the future of modern warfare; they face a tactical scenario that the US will find a lot of commonality with in the future (urban environment). The difference is, from a ground force perspective, the Israelis do not require a lot of strategic mobility. Hence, the IMI is heavy armor centric. This will produce an experience that will be fundamentally different from what the US will face. Because the US needs a high degree of strategic mobility, most of the BCTs will be Infantry and Stryker of which the tactics will differ greatly.

If the US buys the AGS, it will simply be the current product with a digital package. The Army is in no mood to spend money developing hybrid engines. The AGS right now is cheap, it gives the early entry force a good punch, it’s ready to go, and it keeps the Bradley production line up and running. Additionally, the AGS is conducive to the US’s strategic shift to the Pacific. Something that the Army likes because they are taking a big budget hit because of it (any reason to get a bigger piece of the pie).

I hope this makes sense because I’m really tired right now.