"Paul Austin" wrote in message .. .
"Alan Minyard" wrote
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 06:44:11 -0400, "Paul Austin"
wrote:


"Tony Williams" wrote

I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight
carrying
limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the
bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?

By buying A400Ms?

Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling) sacrifices too much for
C-130
compatibility, particularly in the area of protection. The
MagicTech
remote sensing/remote fires stuff isn't ready yet, never mind
"electric armor" that's needed to make what amounts to a LAV
mounted
army viable. If the Army is to be both rapidly deployable and as
effective on the ground as it currently is, then much more capable
airlift is required. In fact, A300M is too small (only marginally
larger box or payload than a C-130). What's needed is Pelican or
LTA
kind of solutions.

It is called the C-17

Think bigger. Much bigger. The real problem with insertion of a combat
force by air is in supplying it. Logistical loads dwarf TOE loads.
Right now, the only way to meet logistical tonnage requirements is
with ships.

Bullcrap. We sustained a significant force in Afghanistan with air
only, if you had not noticed. We (and the Brits) supplied West Berling
by air. We supplied about a two-brigade equivalent force in Grenada by
air (for the most part). We supplied a two-brigade plus force in
Honduras by air in 88. Where on earth do you get this notion that the
SBCT is unsupportable, and just *how* do you think we run support now?
Did the 173rd ABN BDE and the few *heavy* assets from 1st ID(M) that
were air deployed into northern Iraq receive any sea support??

Brooks