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
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Austin" wrote in message . ..
"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). Calling the LVTP 7 "heavy armor" is quite a stretch if you are considering the survivability/protection issue. Fact is that the LAV affords Army early entry forces with a level of protection and ground mobility, not to mention firepower, that they do not now enjoy; therefore its use on an interim basis is of benefit to those forces. 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. Kind of hard to target mobile fire support assets. How easy would it be for an enemy lacking even air parity to target HIMARS? But the real question is, how would those same games have played out if it was our *current* early entry force (i.e, light infantry only) that had to deal with that same threat? Much worse, that's how. And you never answered the question--do you want those air deployable LAV's in this scenario, or do you want depend upon bootleather and a few HMMWV's? How about during the urban fight in general--do you want to be solely dependent upon helos and unarmored vehicles, or do you want that added capability that the moderate protection afforded by the LAV gives your assaulting infantry force? These appear to be no-brainers to me. 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 No, they don't *have* to come by boat, especially in the early stages, which is after all when the SBCT's are going to be most valuable. The Marines deployed LAV's into Afghanistan--how many boat docks in Afghan land? Just how would you have sent those heavy mech units into that country? Roll through Pakistan first? I don't think so... And even when port facilities can be seized, there is no assurance that they will be usable in the short term--witness the time required to open that Iraqi port to friendly shipping? The SBCT fills a niche; no, it can't do everything, but by golly it is better than having to depend upon the poor bloody light infantry for *everything* during the early entry phase, too. The Stryker is an interim vehicle, to be fielded to no more than what, three to five brigades in the total force? Sounds like it has a lot to offer to the current mix of available forces, which are either too heavy for rapid deployment, or too light to survive in higher intensity scenarios. Brooks |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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." |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"John Keeney" wrote in message ...
"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." Tolls? Brooks |
#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) 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/ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#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
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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? isn't ready yet, never mind "electric armor" And this? 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. -- A: top posting Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet? |
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 |