Stryker/C-130 Pics

(JT) 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) 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.

They should have cancelled the Stryker program and invest the money on
further developing the FCS. With the right mix of technology, a viable
lighweight option can be made. It will never offer the same level of
armor protection as an M1A2 but that is not it's intended purpose.
With new lightweight metals, composites and ceramics used in critical
areas, combined with speed, manuverability, stealth features and
active counter measures the FCS seems like it will be very effective
at its role.

And what do you propose to send the troops into combat in until 2010
or later (realistic estimate of widespread fielding is more in the
2012-2015 timeframe last I heard), when FCS becomes operational?
Stryker is an *interim* solution--it has always been identified as
such (even the Stryker Brigade Combat Team was initially designated
the "Interim Brigade Combat Team"). The Army needs a deployable light
armored capability *now* to carry the load until FCS becomes
available.

Brooks


-----JT-----

(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com...


They should have cancelled the Stryker program and invest the money on
further developing the FCS. With the right mix of technology, a viable
lighweight option can be made. It will never offer the same level of
armor protection as an M1A2 but that is not it's intended purpose.
With new lightweight metals, composites and ceramics used in critical
areas, combined with speed, manuverability, stealth features and
active counter measures the FCS seems like it will be very effective
at its role.

And what do you propose to send the troops into combat in until 2010
or later (realistic estimate of widespread fielding is more in the
2012-2015 timeframe last I heard), when FCS becomes operational?
Stryker is an *interim* solution--it has always been identified as
such (even the Stryker Brigade Combat Team was initially designated
the "Interim Brigade Combat Team"). The Army needs a deployable light
armored capability *now* to carry the load until FCS becomes
available.

Brooks

I understand that this is an interim force...more of a reason why we
should stop pouring all this money for equipment that will only be
used for 8-10 years at most. If more funding went to the FCS the 2010
timeline may be more realistic. I have read reports that some
technologies are still a few years away but the FCS is intended to be
modular so as soon as those technologies are developed they will be
added to the system. Anyways, a baseline FCS will probably surpass the
Stryker/Piranha III design. I know warfare is rapidly changing (the
main reason why the US is going through these major changes with all
it's branches of the armed forces) but we could probably keep the
forces we currently have for a few more years until the FCS comes out.
To make matters worse there is still controversy as to just how
portable the Stryker is inside a C-130 and the level of required
protection has so far been dissapointing.

Basically my thought is why not save resources and instead of having
the small upgrade, just hold on for a few short years and upgrade our
current forces while concentrating more on the true leap that the FCS
will provide.

-----JT-----

(JT) wrote in message . com...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com...


They should have cancelled the Stryker program and invest the money on
further developing the FCS. With the right mix of technology, a viable
lighweight option can be made. It will never offer the same level of
armor protection as an M1A2 but that is not it's intended purpose.
With new lightweight metals, composites and ceramics used in critical
areas, combined with speed, manuverability, stealth features and
active counter measures the FCS seems like it will be very effective
at its role.

And what do you propose to send the troops into combat in until 2010
or later (realistic estimate of widespread fielding is more in the
2012-2015 timeframe last I heard), when FCS becomes operational?
Stryker is an *interim* solution--it has always been identified as
such (even the Stryker Brigade Combat Team was initially designated
the "Interim Brigade Combat Team"). The Army needs a deployable light
armored capability *now* to carry the load until FCS becomes
available.

Brooks

I understand that this is an interim force...more of a reason why we
should stop pouring all this money for equipment that will only be
used for 8-10 years at most.

I doubt that. When the AC is fully fielded with FCS (what, the 2017
timeframe?), those Strykers will then more than likely still be
serving with RC units.

If more funding went to the FCS the 2010
timeline may be more realistic.

Not according to what I have read the past year or so in Defense News
and other outlets. The fact is that the Army has accelerated funding
for FCS; tossing more money at it now, while neglecting to provide a
*near term* system for the troops, would not apparently gain very much
(except to make Boeing and friends a bit more wealthy in that near
term).

I have read reports that some
technologies are still a few years away but the FCS is intended to be
modular so as soon as those technologies are developed they will be
added to the system. Anyways, a baseline FCS will probably surpass the
Stryker/Piranha III design. I know warfare is rapidly changing (the
main reason why the US is going through these major changes with all
it's branches of the armed forces) but we could probably keep the
forces we currently have for a few more years until the FCS comes out.
To make matters worse there is still controversy as to just how
portable the Stryker is inside a C-130 and the level of required
protection has so far been dissapointing.

Disappointing compared to *what*? The keval vest and helmet our
current early entry forces are generally limited to?! I doubt that.


Basically my thought is why not save resources and instead of having
the small upgrade, just hold on for a few short years and upgrade our
current forces while concentrating more on the true leap that the FCS
will provide.

Because wars don't follow the FCS delivery schedule, for one. And
second--there are a fair number of folks out there who are rather
dubious of FCS *ever* acheiving all of these capabilities you seem to
think they will have. I find it odd that you think that the engineers
who are designing Stryker (and yes, it has involved a *lot* of design
work, even though it is *based* upon LAV-3) were incapable of
developing a worthwhile system, but those that are working with FCS,
which is currently nothing more than ideas and paper, will hit a home
run.

Brooks


-----JT-----