"Paul Austin" wrote in message . ..
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...
"Paul Austin" wrote in message
. ..
"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)

Maybe because it was named for a fellow (MoH winner IIRC) named
Stryker?

sacrifices too much for C-130
compatibility, particularly in the area of protection.

How can you support that? The amount of protection required is
dependent upon a number of factors, including specific threat,
operational terrain, etc. And applique/bolt-on armor is an option if
required. Not to mention that *some* deployable protection is a bit
better than what we have now, which is pretty much limited to the
kevlar vest and helmet mounted on the crunchies.

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.

Huh? Why is this required to make it "viable"? The USMC has found
their LAV's to be very much "viable" in places like Panama,
Afghanistan, and Iraq--ISTR that the Army folks were quite jealous
of
the LAV in Panama.

And the Marines augmented their LAVs with what? As an adjunct to a
heavy armor core, LAVs have great mobility and reliability (a lot more
than the LVTP7s which had serious electronics reliability problems for
lack of water cooling on the hull).

Calling the LVTP 7 "heavy armor" is quite a stretch if you are
considering the survivability/protection issue. Fact is that the LAV
affords Army early entry forces with a level of protection and ground
mobility, not to mention firepower, that they do not now enjoy;
therefore its use on an interim basis is of benefit to those forces.



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.

That would presumably be "A400" which you are referring to. I
believe
you are ignoring the fact that we currently have *no* airborne armor
deployment capability to speak of, and the Stryker will provide
additional versatility to an Army that is currently capable of
either
light or heavy operations, but lacks the ability to deploy *more*
survivable, and lethal, assets into an AO by air to fill that large
void that exists between "light" and "heavy". Not to mention that
the
ever improved ISR and attendant targeting capabilities make the
LAV-based force more lethal than you give them credit for.

Take a simple scenario where an early entry ground force is tasked
to
provide an urban cordon/containment/evac element to support a SOF
raid
(sounds a bit like Mogadishu, huh?). What method would you
prefer--travel by HMMWV or foot, or travel and support from
Strykers?
Kind of a no-brainer.

The Army and the Marines have gamed light and medium forces augmented
by sophisticated communications and fire support significantly in
advance of the Stryker brigades fought conventional mech opponents.
What got found was that if _everything_went right, the US forces did
OK. If_anything_went wrong, the US forces lacked the resilience to
recover and prevail. In particular, the Marine games found that if the
opponents targeted communications and fire support nodes that
defeating the US forces was pretty easy.

Kind of hard to target mobile fire support assets. How easy would it
be for an enemy lacking even air parity to target HIMARS? But the real
question is, how would those same games have played out if it was our
*current* early entry force (i.e, light infantry only) that had to
deal with that same threat? Much worse, that's how.

And you never answered the question--do you want those air deployable
LAV's in this scenario, or do you want depend upon bootleather and a
few HMMWV's? How about during the urban fight in general--do you want
to be solely dependent upon helos and unarmored vehicles, or do you
want that added capability that the moderate protection afforded by
the LAV gives your assaulting infantry force? These appear to be
no-brainers to me.



As far as deployability is concerned, as usual people forget
logistics. The Stryker brigades have a smaller logistics footprint
than a heavy mech brigade because of reduced POL requirements but the
remaining beans and bullets have to come by boat. If that's the case,
then send the heavy mech units the same way

No, they don't *have* to come by boat, especially in the early stages,
which is after all when the SBCT's are going to be most valuable. The
Marines deployed LAV's into Afghanistan--how many boat docks in Afghan
land? Just how would you have sent those heavy mech units into that
country? Roll through Pakistan first? I don't think so... And even
when port facilities can be seized, there is no assurance that they
will be usable in the short term--witness the time required to open
that Iraqi port to friendly shipping? The SBCT fills a niche; no, it
can't do everything, but by golly it is better than having to depend
upon the poor bloody light infantry for *everything* during the early
entry phase, too. The Stryker is an interim vehicle, to be fielded to
no more than what, three to five brigades in the total force? Sounds
like it has a lot to offer to the current mix of available forces,
which are either too heavy for rapid deployment, or too light to
survive in higher intensity scenarios.

Brooks