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...

[kevin]

I thought the Clancy question about his reliability was along the lines of, "he's does his homework, but he's a fiction writer." I wanted to clarify that Clancy does write nonfiction.

As far as bias, I didn't mean to imply that Clancy was either pro or anti Stryker. Thr truth is, I don't know Clancy's position on the Stryker. All I wanted to illustrate is that Clancy is not a Pentagon tool. He's not afraid to speak his mind. And all I used his book for was factual information about the C-130J.

So there....... Plasma you trouble maker. BTW did you read my China paper?

[PlasmaKrab]

Sorry, Kevin, the content of this thread was so that I couldn't resist a bit of light trolling!

I had already tried to reason it out, for no result (of course), so to hell with it...

What I meant about Clancy is that though he is in no way a shrouded official spokesman, the mind he speaks is evidently influenced by a number of people (like everyone's, come to this), and this pro-tracks, pro-Stingray, pro-Sheridan, anti-Pentagon-machine etc. rethoric of his, though it makes several points, is disturbingly close to that of many people you hear these days bashin' some Stryker (among else), and which look far less like distanciated experts than Clancy does...
Agreedly he could very well be the one man who started a line which soon got out of control and have nothing to do with what followed, but let's just say that I wouldn't be surprised to hear him call the M-113 "Gavin". On the other hand, his absolute refusal to do such a thing wouldn't surprise me either...

Now I don't question anybody's ability to deal with facts, although it has been the very point of most of this thread , and all I wanted to point out (from the beginning) is that this issue is far too politicized for anyone to have an unbiased technical discussion without it turning into a flaming row. And obviously...

And, yes, I did start your report, although I didn't finish it yet on account of being on a near-end term too at work! I'll finish it ASAP, be sure of it!
If you don't mind it being too much publicized, I guess you could post it on this China thread we had , it would surely add to the debate!

Regards,

Plasma

[scJazz]

I might be repeating something already said but from this report

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ity_of_war.pdf

The Stryker is a overweight, useless, expensive, dangerous piece of garbage created as an ego project. After reading this report and reviewing other material I'd agree with this statement.

[halstein]

If the troops using the Stryker are to be belived, it is a wonderfull viechle. But beeing soldiers, what do they know?
Halstein.