A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stryker/C-130 Pics



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old September 23rd 03, 01:30 AM
Paul Austin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Kevin Brooks" wrote
"Paul Austin" wrote


You've waived away logistics loads in using SBCTs far from

litterals.
Can you support that?


No, I have not. But, unlike you, I realize that the SBCT is not the
*only* force structure design that requires log support. In order

for
the current LI force to acheive the same mobility on/over the ground
that Stryker offers, you have to either send in a boatload of soft,
less useful trucks to haul them around in, or helos--care to guess

how
much POL those helos will burn? The difference between the two

forces,
if you force both to acheive significant ground mobility, will be
insignificant in terms of log requirements. The *only* way the

current
force wins in this regard is if you send them in with *no* transport
capability--in which case congrats, you just forced us back to the
same rate of movement that we enjoyed during the Civil War (if that
much, since those poor grunts are going to be carrying about five
times the load that their 1860's counterparts were burdened with).

Now, one more time--given that urban combat scenario that you

snipped,
do you want to go in as a naked grunt, or with light armor support?
You *really* don't want to answer that question, do you???


I agree that light infantry needs heavier support. My dislike of the
Stryker concept comes from the concept's origins: Clintonian notions
that the primary use for US arms in the future would be constabulary
operations and peace keeping. The only force that combines strategic
manueverability and enough weight to operate against enemy mech
formations right now is the Marines and if you get too far from the
water's edge, they have to leave a lot of equipment on the boat. We
need strategic airlift that can insert and support forces with
something like the tonnage of a MEU a thousand miles for water and we
have no count them none under development to do that. The SBCT is in
fact better than nothing but does not serve our needs. We need
something heavier than SFOR. We_know_what happens when you use forces
too light for the mission. Just look at (former) Yugoslavia.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
---California International Air Show Pics Posted!!!! Tyson Rininger Aerobatics 0 February 23rd 04 11:51 AM
TRUCKEE,CA DONNER LAKE 12-03 PICS. @ webshots TRUCKEE_DONNER_LAKE Instrument Flight Rules 3 December 19th 03 04:48 PM
Aviation Pics Tyson Rininger Aviation Marketplace 0 November 7th 03 01:04 AM
b-17C interior pics site old hoodoo Military Aviation 0 September 15th 03 03:42 AM
Nam era F-4 pilot pics? davidG35 Military Aviation 2 August 4th 03 03:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.