Interesting Site: Wheeled vs. Tracked AFV (US)

[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...

[Backis]

JaM said:
You catching my words Backis.Im from Slovakia, so i dont speak English so good.

Words actually mean stuff, so they are usually important in understanding each other.

I can't reply to what you mean, only to what you write.

JaM said:
When i said they are versatile, i mean universal, You can do With M113 same things as with Stryker, Stryker is just faster on the road, but propability that next war willbe fought un the highway is very low...

No, the M113 really can't do everything the Stryker can, f e it can't keep up with logistics columns as escorts.

OTOH the Stryker can't f e handle certain terrain types as well...

Both have their advantages and disadvantages, superior versatility, utility and adaptability of each type vary with the mission.

I also think you clearly underestimate terrain mobility of all terrain wheeled vehicles, they are in no way useless and completely roadbound.

Well...

Swedish patgb 203 comes close...

For the role you seem to refer the M113 as better in (a well protected vehicle to take the fight to the enemy) you you should use IFV or MICV (or even better, a tank). In the role of APC I find the Stryker superior for reasons I've stated earlier. Neither are really good fighting vehicles, they are intended as protected transports, the fighting is mainly supposed to be done by the infantry complement.

I would NOT suggest replacing the Bradley or any other IFV/MICV with a Stryker-class vehicle, that is a completely different ballgame.

JaM said:2mil$ for light wheeled vehicle is too much even it has the best C4I suit avaiable.Those money should go to upgrades to Bradley(just example),or buy some M8 AGS or Thunderbird light tanks instead of Stryker MGS.

The problem here is that the US DoD bleed and sweat money on everything they look at. The procurement process is to be honest at least partly broken, and they pay more for equipment than they need to.

I think that any modern/modernized APC variant fielded by the USA would end up very expensive, including upgraded M113 (not as offered by suppliers, but as they would end up when kitted as required by the DoD).

What is important to remember relative to the Stryker cost is however that its a testbed vehicle for FCS C4I systems as well as an APC, and therefore carry what strictly speaking is unnecassary kit for an APC, and therefore is more expensive than can be expected.

If the M113 was used in this exploratory role I expect it would also become hideously goldplated.

As for what I'd do with the money?

I'd have bought in to the A400 programme or another new tactical transport aircraft and built my "medium force" on the Bradley, preferably with an analog development of the CV90120 and CV90 AMOS based on the Brad chassi.

I'd use either straight bare-bones LAV III or IV or buy Boxers or AMV for the APC role, equip them with a decent OHWS, and then get many more M1117 for MP and rear area forces I'd use those and the wheeled APC for rear area security and escort duty. I might consider buying an off the shelf utility vehicle and/or light truck from the outset designed for IED/mine threats and replace front line humwee's with those, somewhat like the USMC now is acquiring Alvis RG-31's.

To limit the "medium force of the 21st century" by insisting it shall be transported by aircraft designed in the 1950's is putting the cart before the horse abit IMO.

[JaM]

Now we understand each other...
Teir Air lift capacity is weak, i dont understand why they dont invest money to new air transport in Ac-130 class.Instead of this they want vehicles with max weight 20t capable same things like Abrams...