"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.

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.

Brooks