Stryker/C-130 Pics

"Nick Pedley" wrote

"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)

The Stryker Armoured Vehicle is named after two US Medal of Honor
recipients
(one WW2, one Vietnam), as widely reported at the time.
https://www.bctide.army.mil/newpages/medalofhonor.shtml

Nowt stupid about that spelling, I think.

Yes it is when the obvious intent is a comic book/dick extender name
for an LAV.

"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).


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.

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

In article ,
Nick Pedley wrote:
[...]

Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling)

The Stryker Armoured Vehicle is named after two US Medal of Honor recipients
(one WW2, one Vietnam), as widely reported at the time.
https://www.bctide.army.mil/newpages/medalofhonor.shtml

Nowt stupid about that spelling, I think.

Ay, mebbe so, but do they have an Ed Stryker to command 'em?
(shades of Gerry and Sylvia Anderson...)

"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.

Most common reply when asking folks working up the Stryker
their opinion: "It tolls real nice."

On 18 Sep 2003 15:59:48 -0700, (Kevin Brooks) wrote:


Yeah, it's so good the Russians are even backing out of that program
as fast as they can (if you had not heard, the Russian AF chief plans
to dump the AN-70). ISTR that it might be a decent aircraft if it had
reliable engines.


Compared to a eurozone camel designed to keep french aerospace workers in
subsidised employment at everyone elses expense, building something which
hasnt even left the drawing board yet, The an-70 is decidedly better.

It flies today, carrying a 3rd more farther and faster.



greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!

(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-----

"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).

"Jonathan Stone" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Nick Pedley wrote:
[...]

Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling)

The Stryker Armoured Vehicle is named after two US Medal of Honor
recipients
(one WW2, one Vietnam), as widely reported at the time.
https://www.bctide.army.mil/newpages/medalofhonor.shtml

Nowt stupid about that spelling, I think.

Ay, mebbe so, but do they have an Ed Stryker to command 'em?
(shades of Gerry and Sylvia Anderson...)

Thank god they didn't name it after Ted Stryker.

"You're wanted in the cockpit"

"The cockpit, what is it?"

"it's the little room up the front where the pilots sit, but thats not
important right now..."

Greg Hennessy wrote in message . ..
On 18 Sep 2003 15:59:48 -0700, (Kevin Brooks) wrote:


Yeah, it's so good the Russians are even backing out of that program
as fast as they can (if you had not heard, the Russian AF chief plans
to dump the AN-70). ISTR that it might be a decent aircraft if it had
reliable engines.


Compared to a eurozone camel designed to keep french aerospace workers in
subsidised employment at everyone elses expense, building something which
hasnt even left the drawing board yet, The an-70 is decidedly better.

It flies today, carrying a 3rd more farther and faster.

No, it *was* flying last I knew, but then again it crashed, right? Is
it again flying?

Brooks




greg

(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-----