Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US)

[Backis]

kevin said:
whoa, whoa, whoa, whoaaaaaaaa, whoa

This whole damn thing has been about a typo??? versatile for universal???

LMAO

Well, I think around 0.1% of the posted material were somewhat interesting and worth the read.

Someone mentioned that hundreds (thousands?) of M113 were deployed in Kuwait, but not being used for political reasons.

Not really, that was a rhetorical question if whether the reason that those available weren't used was political or if there perhaps was some other reason.

If suitable for escort duty they would have been crossattached to logistics units, but they weren't.

IMO it was most likely felt that the added protection for the escorting units was not worth the increase in convoy vulnerabilty induced by forcing unprotected trucks to stay longer on the roads in "injun country".

[kevin]

Thanks guys.

Just some FYI's:
A comprehensive study was done to determine the C-130 replacement. It was decided to replace the C-130 with the C-130J. It looks like the original design, but was completely redesigned from the inside out. Better materials, Glass cockpit MFDs, etc. They saved thousands of pounds of weight by replacing cables with fiber optics (In fact, the cockpit is so light now, that the titanium armor cover is a standard option on all models, military and civilian. Otherwise there would be no way to trim the airplane.) The bottom line is that the C-130 is a proven design (some 50 countries use it) and has unsurpased rough-strip landing capability (IMO the A400 will need to prove it has the endurance to take repeated rough-strip landings.)

Source: "Airborne, A Guided Tour of an Airborne Task Force" Tom Clancy

Of course, Donald Rumsfeld put the C-130J program on hold, along with M1A2 SEP and a whole host of other legacy programs. I havn't been able to determine if they have reopenned the Medium Tactical Transport research program or what? Does anyone know?

The Bradley was looked at as an Interim solution but they determined it has too big a logistic tail, (tread spares and horrible gas mileage) and too heavy for what they wanted.

Source: I don't know the date, It's something I remember watching on C-SPAN, General Shinsheki testifying before Congress.

The USA's procurement process is at least partially broken!!
How dare you characterize the US like that. What gives you the right to make such an unsubstantiated claim? Where is your source? As an American I'll have you know that the USA's procurement process is an absolute perfect













completely broken huge mess.
My favorite example of the system is the abuse it has taken from Senator Trent Lott. The Navy had to buy 2 warships ($1.2 Billion) it didn't want because the Shipbuilding Yard is in Lott's home state. It was good of Lott not to let some fly-by-night, mickey mouse operation like the US Navy ACTUALLY DETERMINE WHAT KIND OF SHIPS IT NEEDS!!!!! *sigh*

[JaM]

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]

Initially FCS was supposed to weigh 20 tons...

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

[PlasmaKrab]

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]

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.

[kevin]

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.

[Backis]

kevin said:
Thanks guys.

Just some FYI's:
A comprehensive study was done to determine the C-130 replacement. It was decided to replace the C-130 with the C-130J. It looks like the original design, but was completely redesigned from the inside out. Better materials, Glass cockpit MFDs, etc. They saved thousands of pounds of weight by replacing cables with fiber optics (In fact, the cockpit is so light now, that the titanium armor cover is a standard option on all models, military and civilian. Otherwise there would be no way to trim the airplane.)

I think that the bottom line might also have something to do with that transports aren't sexy and no one really wants to invest in it.

Apart from the USMC pet project tilt-rotor that is...

The end result is that the end user (the medium brigades) will get squeezed in capability and the possibilities of their airmobile doctrine hampered.

What probably will happen is that when needed the carrier will be very much more expensive C-17 anyway...

kevin said:The bottom line is that the C-130 is a proven design (some 50 countries use it) and has unsurpased rough-strip landing capability (IMO the A400 will need to prove it has the endurance to take repeated rough-strip landings.)

They are really proven here in Sweden. I think we're still using A models.

Source: "Airborne, A Guided Tour of an Airborne Task Force" Tom Clancy

Not that I'd say anything bad about Clancy, but are you comfortable using him as source?

Of course, Donald Rumsfeld put the C-130J program on hold, along with M1A2 SEP and a whole host of other legacy programs. I havn't been able to determine if they have reopenned the Medium Tactical Transport research program or what? Does anyone know?

haven't heard anything else either.

The Bradley was looked at as an Interim solution but they determined it has too big a logistic tail, (tread spares and horrible gas mileage) and too heavy for what they wanted.

Perhaps they should have bought some CV90.

Seriously though MICV do use up loads of stuff, although you get actual combat power out of it. But if supply also is to be brought in by air (one of the doctrinal requirements) even the Stryker is in trouble if engaged in combat operations.

I'm still pretty sure that the Brad was to big for the Herk played its part.

Funny how the maker in an advertisement showed an artists depiction of Brad dropped by chute from the rear of a Herc during the '80s (a Defense Review Weekly from 1988, dont remember actual issue)...

The USA's procurement process is at least partially broken!!
How dare you characterize the US like that

[kevin]

About Clancy....

Yeah I'm comfortable. He has written a series of nonfiction books, of which Airborne is one. He and his researcher have been embedded with military units before that term came into use. (The non-fiction books were all written in the 90's)

In regards to bias.... Clancy has called the Pentagon one of the most useless job programs in history. In the Airborne book he called the Army and Pentagon top brass idiotic for cancelling the XM8 light Tank and then called the decision to retire the Sheridan lunacy. I trust him to be honest and tell things how they are.

[PlasmaKrab]

I think that the bottom line might also have something to do with that transports aren't sexy and no one really wants to invest in it.

Have you seen the A-400 M program? Maybe the USAF don't want to invest in more transports because they know no one can do better than the Herc airframe for the same price, and the C-17 has already slipped on the "more costs, less reliability" side, but they're not alone in the world, though they may think so!

Besides, they still have all those back-payments for the bright 'n shiny F-22 and F-35 development to pay for! Oh, those pretty diamond-tipped stealthy commie-killers!

In regards to bias.... Clancy has called the Pentagon one of the most useless job programs in history.

Concerning said bias, it sounds like the "tracks rule" logic most of the anti-strykers on the web put their backs upon. Quite the one that has been developped here.

I bet Clancy can find good info, but he is indeed biased on the pro-american side, if only by collecting biased info from biased people. And run the Pentagon and the Army administration down is not what I would call anti-patriotic, particularly in the early 90s (Shinseki era!).

I won't accuse him of wishful thinking, since he seems able to separate his non-fiction from fiction works, the latest being sometimes monuments of geopolitical paranoia and wishful thinking indeed, but the man is far from alone in this branch!

Now to sit back and wait for energic replies...