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
  #1  
Old September 16th 03, 07:20 PM
robert arndt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stryker/C-130 Pics

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

Rob
Ads
  #2  
Old September 18th 03, 07:55 AM
Tony Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(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?

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/
  #3  
Old September 18th 03, 11:44 AM
Paul Austin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old September 18th 03, 01:43 PM
Nick Pedley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old September 18th 03, 02:54 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old September 18th 03, 04:48 PM
Tony Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old September 18th 03, 05:22 PM
JT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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-----
  #10  
Old September 19th 03, 12:04 AM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(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-----

 




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 10:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.