Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US)

JaM · #1 July 11th, 2005, 12:27 PM

Nice, so they want rapid deployment forces without adequate air transporter.So if they dont develop "magical" armor with low weight to have vehicles under 30t, they will fight(and die) in light armor vehicles and heavy stuff will stuck in depots...

Backis · #2 July 11th, 2005, 12:43 PM

Initially FCS was supposed to weigh 20 tons...

They rather sensibly dropped that requirement, at least for now...

PlasmaKrab · #3 July 11th, 2005, 12:43 PM

There was a "magical armour" project around, in British industry IIRC, something about high voltage electric fields doing strange things to any shaped-charge penetrator.

Just saying that on the top of my head, haven't heard of this for quite a while. Has someone more recent info about that?

Anyway, the USAF has C-17s for less hairy landings, and IF you have stronger opposition on an airfield than units in a C-130J flight can take out, a huge air preparation (US style) is sure to do the trick.

kevin · #4 July 11th, 2005, 01:02 PM

Oh, good one Plasma. Yeah I forgot about airpower. Aviators are such prima donnas (they get all depressed if you forget to tell them how great they are each morning), that I forgot how useful they really can be.

kevin · #5 July 11th, 2005, 12:59 PM

Ours is not to reason why, just to do and die..... I guess. I know what we thought of that phrase when I was in the Marines. It involves language the moderators deemed inappropriate for this forum.

The FCS is actually incorporating some "magical armor." Research into new advanced composite materials has always been a big priority in the US, both public and private. I believe that Rumsfeld has a good reason for everything he does. I wonder if the C-130J wasn't working as well as advertised?

The biggest plus for the FCS is suppossed to be the C4I concentric network anyways. Rumsfeld, and President Bush, are more businessmen than they are politicians. I'm a business graduate student and I can see were they are coming from. The bottom line is synergy effects (also called the 2 + 2 = 5 principle) In business this means company A and company B can do more together, operating at 100% than they could seperately, even with both running at 100%. In military terms, artillery becomes much better when arty spotters can more accurately call in fire. The APC on your left is more useful when it sees what you can see.

As far as the Stryker Brigades, the recon Stryker controls mini-UAV's that broadcast data to everyone. Dismounted Squad Leaders can see around corners without having to look themselves. The Stryker can run from an armored force, while calling in airstrikes (as oppossed to staying put to provide accurate BDA.) Gaps in enemy lines are easier to see and exploit.

I bring this up because I get the feeling that the true power and advantage of this kind of networked system is not fully understood. It means little in SP terms because we already have that "God's eye" view of the battlefield that networked warfare is trying to create for real. As both a military and businessman, it has me pretty excited.