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

Did I hear ABC correctly?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #10  
Old January 3rd 04, 11:59 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mark and Kim Smith" wrote in message
...


Supposedly this Stryker Force is supposed to be anywhere in the world in 96

hours ( I think that was the time quoted ) and that the Air Force wasn't up
to that.

I don't know what the hell a "Stryker Force" is, but if you are referring to
the Stryker Brigade Combat Team, the goal is 96 hours. As to whether or not
the USAF can manage that, it would largely depend upon the level of
committment it has to other requirements--if DoD says getting the SBCT into
the theater is the top priority, airframes will be made available one way or
another.

The complaints were that their troop transports are too heavy.


Ambiguous. The Stryker combat vehicle pushes (but does not exceed) the
capability of the C-130, but it does not tax that of the larger strategic
airlifters like the C-5 and C-17.

Not to mention they had to add 2 tons of anti RPG protection to each

machine causing their weight problems to increase.

Again, ambiguous. IIRC that is extra applique armor you are referring to--it
could be airlifted in after the initial closure on the aerial port of
debarkation (APOD) if required. But if the method of transport is the C-5 or
C-17, it can travel with it already installed.


All the high tech stuff this Stryker Force has ain't gonna do much good if

you can't get them there. Maybe the Army forgot to talk to the Air Force??

This stuff has been flung back and forth for a couple of years now. Simple
answer is that the SBCT is a hell of a lot lighter (and easier) to transport
than the next heavier asset (a heavy brigade combat team with its M1A2's,
M2A2's, M109A6's, etc.), while it packs substantially more ground maneuver
capability and protection than its next lighter component (the light
infantry brigade combat team). It is a good tool to have in the grand
toolbox of military operations for the US military--they were not quite
ready when the balloon went up for OIF (the first SBCT just became fully
operational this past year), so the Army had to try and get a heavy force
into Northern Iraq by air, resulting in IIRC about the equivalent of one
battalion task force (minus, again IIRC) (which is only one-third of a heavy
BCT) making it into that area by the time the units in the south made the
link up. Had they had a SBCT ready to go we would have seen the entire
brigade in the AO instead.

Brooks


 




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
I -didn't- hear that Harry K Home Built 2 August 18th 04 07:27 PM
Ever hear of a Rodman nibbler? Ed Wischmeyer Home Built 4 August 16th 04 02:04 PM
Let's Hear It From Homebuilders Who Make Your Own Sunshields and Panel Glareshields jls Home Built 10 June 15th 04 06:07 AM
Glad to hear the initial reports were wrong about accidents, as they usually are. Tedstriker Home Built 0 April 19th 04 02:52 AM
Things you don't want to hear on a taxi test. Dave Hyde Home Built 18 December 11th 03 08:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.