![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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...) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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..." |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:43:45 +0100, Nick Pedley wrote:
"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. Though it is confusing that the name is similar to a British armoured vehicle, the Striker. I'd have called it the Piranha, as vthat was it's original name. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |