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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Stryker/C-130 Pics
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"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) 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. Nick |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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. You surprise me. Somewhere I have an article providing detailed comparisons between the C-130J, A400M and C-17, and IIRC the A400 is about midway between the other two in both the dimensions and weights of the loads which could be carried; in other words, substantially better than the C130. Tony Williams Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk Military gun and ammunition discussion forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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. -----JT----- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Hennessy wrote in message . ..
On 18 Sep 2003 08:48:53 -0700, (Tony Williams) wrote: You surprise me. Somewhere I have an article providing detailed comparisons between the C-130J, A400M and C-17, and IIRC the A400 is about midway between the other two in both the dimensions and weights of the loads which could be carried; in other words, substantially better than the C130. The AN-70 is substantially better than the A400 and a lot cheaper. 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. Brooks greg |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |