Stryker/C-130 Pics

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
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

What's this? Is it related to the "battlefield Internet" I've head
about?

FCS if the ultimate MagicTech, consisting of ground and airborne recon
platforms, data networks, robotic fire and logistics vehicles and
incidentally, replacements for the current generation mechanized
vehicles for troop carriers, fire support, C&C and direct fire combat.

In the interim, "digital battlefield" electronics, wide distribution
of ubiquitous and persistent recon imagery and analysis and precision
fires from airborne and ground systems help a lot. The USMC completed
a wargame about 6 months ago using all of this stuff and a light
Marine Blue Force did very well against a conventional mech OPFOR.
They also discovered that the Red Force could compensate for the
advantages these technologies give US forces by targeting
communications and fire support elements. If they can be degraded,
then light forces lose the means to stand up to enemy mechanized
forces and are often defeated.

As usual with military affairs, there's no panacea and the guy you're
trying to kill has powerful incentives to circumvent your advantages.


isn't ready yet, never mind
"electric armor"

And this?

Britain has done development on large capacitor banks that pass very
large currents through shaped charge jets hitting an armored vehicle,
melting the jet before it can hit the inner armo(u)r. They say that
scaled up versions might be able to do the same to long-rod
penetrators.


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

ITYM A400M.

Yup. The A300M is obviously the two-engined version intented to
replace the G.222

"Paul Austin" wrote in message .. .
"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
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

What's this? Is it related to the "battlefield Internet" I've head
about?

FCS if the ultimate MagicTech, consisting of ground and airborne recon
platforms, data networks, robotic fire and logistics vehicles and
incidentally, replacements for the current generation mechanized
vehicles for troop carriers, fire support, C&C and direct fire combat.

Where does this term "MagicTech" come from? First I have ever heard of
it...


In the interim, "digital battlefield" electronics, wide distribution
of ubiquitous and persistent recon imagery and analysis and precision
fires from airborne and ground systems help a lot. The USMC completed
a wargame about 6 months ago using all of this stuff and a light
Marine Blue Force did very well against a conventional mech OPFOR.
They also discovered that the Red Force could compensate for the
advantages these technologies give US forces by targeting
communications and fire support elements. If they can be degraded,
then light forces lose the means to stand up to enemy mechanized
forces and are often defeated.

No, the "digital battlefield electronics", as you call it, is NOT an
interim solution awaiting the fielding of FCS. Instead, FCS is merely
a concept of an entire family of new equipment that will more
completely integrate the evolving digital, ISR, targeting, and C3
developments that we have already instituted. And be careful of citing
these battle simulations as "evidence"; as we saw last year during
that JFC simulation, these exercises are designed and managed to
acheive very specific goals, and even then are subject to anomalies;
having seen a mechanized engineer battalion (minus) (one still mounted
in the M113 battle taxis to boot) destroy the better part of an OPFOR
mechanized brigade during a combined division/corps WFX (and this
occured while the engineer unit was fleeing an overrun situation, for
gosh sakes), I can tell you that trying to draw finite tactical
conclusions is risky at best. Add in the fact that the usual process
is to weight things a bit towards the OPFOR, since the objective is
usually to stress the Bluefor, and you can see where this is anything
but a clean and neat process.


As usual with military affairs, there's no panacea and the guy you're
trying to kill has powerful incentives to circumvent your advantages.

And just as usual, the accuracy of computer simulations of tactical
ground fights is strongly suspect.



isn't ready yet, never mind
"electric armor"

And this?

Britain has done development on large capacitor banks that pass very
large currents through shaped charge jets hitting an armored vehicle,
melting the jet before it can hit the inner armo(u)r. They say that
scaled up versions might be able to do the same to long-rod
penetrators.

"Melt the jet"? OFCS, that jet is already at extremely high
temperature, courtesy of its being shoved inside out and pushed into a
"jet" moving at thousands of meters per second. "Melting" it does
nothing to change its mass, and it is the combination of that mass and
attendant velocity that makes a shaped charge (read up on the Munroe
Effect) work.



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

ITYM A400M.

Yup. The A300M is obviously the two-engined version intented to
replace the G.222

Mehopes that was offered tongue in cheek, as the G.222 is being
replaced by the C-27J, and IIRC the A300 was a commercial design
development...

Brooks

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 14:06:30 -0400, Paul Austin wrote:

FCS

Ah, "Future Combat System".

if the ultimate MagicTech, consisting of ground and airborne recon
platforms, data networks, robotic fire and logistics vehicles and
incidentally, replacements for the current generation mechanized
vehicles for troop carriers, fire support, C&C and direct fire combat.

So what data rate will FCS run at? Consider a unit such as a Brigade
- will the data links be radio, or something else (laser beams?
fiber optic? ethernet?) or a mixture?

If the data links are radio, how will routing within the brigade
happen? Will every vehicle be presumed to be in radio contact with
every other, or will the system work as a smart swarm and
automatically reconfigure routing between nodes by itself, or will
routing be manually configured?

In the interim, "digital battlefield" electronics, wide distribution
of ubiquitous and persistent recon imagery and analysis and precision
fires from airborne and ground systems help a lot.

My understanding is 4th Infantry Division use the interim system -
is this correct?

How will FCS be better than the interim system - my understanding is
the interim system's bandwidth is quite low, about 4.5 kbit/s.

BTW, is there a good introductory document about VMF (Variable
Message Format) messages?

The USMC completed
a wargame about 6 months ago using all of this stuff and a light
Marine Blue Force did very well against a conventional mech OPFOR.
They also discovered that the Red Force could compensate for the
advantages these technologies give US forces by targeting
communications and fire support elements.

Comms equipment is giving out radio signals; if these can be
pinpointed and targeted, the unit is ****ed. Imagine a swarm of
cheap cruise missiles[1] homing in on radio signals from the nodes
on the tactical internet.

[1]: http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/

If they can be degraded,
then light forces lose the means to stand up to enemy mechanized
forces and are often defeated.

If your comms are degraded badly enough, you'll lose whether you
have light forces or tanks; even the best MBTs don't have perfect
protection against ATGMs, etc.

As usual with military affairs, there's no panacea and the guy you're
trying to kill has powerful incentives to circumvent your advantages.

Indeed.

isn't ready yet, never mind
"electric armor"

And this?

Britain has done development on large capacitor banks that pass very
large currents through shaped charge jets hitting an armored vehicle,
melting the jet before it can hit the inner armo(u)r. They say that
scaled up versions might be able to do the same to long-rod
penetrators.

Does this work? It sounds nice, but I'm not sure if it's practical.
What if the capacitors short out? That would release large amounts
of enery, if it's enough to melt a solid piece of metal.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

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

Al Minyard

"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.

"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

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 14:09:00 -0400, "Paul Austin"
wrote:


"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.

I thought you were discussing initial assault, sorry. I whole
heartedly agree that, at least for the foreseeable future, an all
aircraft logistics train for a large conventional force is not
practicable.

Al Minyard

"Tony Williams" wrote in message
m...
(robert arndt) wrote in message
. com...

http://www.lewis.army.mil/arrowheadl...ryker_C130.htm

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?

IIRC they were talking about smaller tyres and remote controlled turrets (to
get it under the height requirement).

"L'acrobat" wrote in message ...
"Tony Williams" wrote in message
m...
(robert arndt) wrote in message
. com...

http://www.lewis.army.mil/arrowheadl...ryker_C130.htm

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?

SNIP:
Here is where Rumsfeld (not that I have much faith or praise for him)
needs to take the opportunity to can the guys responsible for not
integrating the "Stryker" (sic) with the C130 from the get-go. Makes
one wonder if the master plan was to buy lots of Strykers and then say
"oh, by the way, the 103's too small; now we need a lot more (fill in
the blank) to replace those old obsolete C130s." What an opportunity
to fumigate the Pentagon, brass and civvy alike.
Walt BJ

On 20 Sep 2003 09:15:57 -0700, (Walt BJ) wrote:

"L'acrobat" wrote in message ...
"Tony Williams" wrote in message
m...
(robert arndt) wrote in message
. com...

http://www.lewis.army.mil/arrowheadl...ryker_C130.htm

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?

SNIP:
Here is where Rumsfeld (not that I have much faith or praise for him)
needs to take the opportunity to can the guys responsible for not
integrating the "Stryker" (sic) with the C130 from the get-go. Makes
one wonder if the master plan was to buy lots of Strykers and then say
"oh, by the way, the 103's too small; now we need a lot more (fill in
the blank) to replace those old obsolete C130s." What an opportunity
to fumigate the Pentagon, brass and civvy alike.
Walt BJ

C-130Js are still in production.

Al Minyard