New Army Secretary hates the Army?

[Vympel]

Course, ten years from now when FCS stars seeing combat the Bill-2 will be a couple decades old and we will have seen a whole new generation of anti armor systems. You yourself have often pointed out that the US won't always be facing third rate equipment and training.

That's true, but it won't just be new anti-armor systems- it'll be a whole new spectrum of threats, some of which can be countered by heavy armor. It just makes me extremely queasy at the thought that they're counting on not making contact with an enemy to avoid defending yourself against it. When advanced anti-armor systems proliferate enough to make them a true threat, then their countermeasures (active defense systems) will become cost effective (why the Russians are putting so much effort into it). But stripping off all of your armor and just crossing your fingers? 20 tons isn't enough to defend a vehicle against jack.

[Rubberanvil]

The premise is that lightly armored forces will be just as lethal and survivable as traditional heavy forces.

For the budget conscious(sp) wouldn't it be cheaper just to use proven Humvees and M113A3 varients for troop support, anti-tank and various other roles the FCS and Stryker suppose to fulfill?

[Vympel]

The premise is that lightly armored forces will be just as lethal and survivable as traditional heavy forces.

For the budget conscious(sp) wouldn't it be cheaper just to use proven Humvees and M113A3 varients for troop support, anti-tank and various other roles the FCS and Stryker suppose to fulfill?[/quote]

A HMMWV would never be able to perform those tasks- not enough armor. M113A3 is another thing entirely though, the United Defense proposal for fulfilling the Stryker mission was the M113A3 for all roles except gun system, which was the XM8 Buford AGS (cancelled unfortunately, even though it was fully ready for service). M113A3 would've definitely been far cheaper, considering they're already in inventory.

The Stryker Brigade Combat Team- I don't know what it's for, to be honest. Whether it's a lead-up to FCS or what, I just don't know- I certainly wouldn't send it to major combat.

[Sea Skimmer]

A HMMWV would never be able to perform those tasks- not enough armor. M113A3 is another thing entirely though, the United Defense proposal for fulfilling the Stryker mission was the M113A3 for all roles except gun system, which was the XM8 Buford AGS (cancelled unfortunately, even though it was fully ready for service). M113A3 would've definitely been far cheaper, considering they're already in inventory.

The M113 variant United Defence proposed wasn't the A3. If involved rather massive changes, including a basically all-new hull, 30mm cannon turret and a bunch of other stuff. They would have been quite costly.

[Rubberanvil]

A HMMWV would never be able to perform those tasks- not enough armor.

I know, I mentioned it because of the non-combat varients already made and in use right now.

The Stryker Brigade Combat Team- I don't know what it's for, to be honest. Whether it's a lead-up to FCS or what, I just don't know- I certainly wouldn't send it to major combat.

The HMMWVs and LAVs already do pretty much almost everything the Strykers were intended do, with the M113A3s doing everything else.

LAV-600 (105mm gun varient)
http://www.janes.com/defence/land_force ... 25-3.shtml

[Sea Skimmer]

I know, I mentioned it because of the non-combat varients already made and in use right now.

Non-comabt varients? You do know that the HMMWV has been designed and used as a weapons carrier since it was first proposed right?

The HMMWVs and LAVs already do pretty much almost everything the Strykers were intended do, with the M113A3s doing everything else.

LAV-600 (105mm gun varient)
http://www.janes.com/defence/land_force ... 25-3.shtml

The LAV-300 and now the very recent 600 series is too light for the job, and couldn't take the additional armor Stryker could. The problem with buying the M8 and M113, and just about every single other proposal was that it meant buying two different chassis. Klinton left with Army with an awful procurement situation so costs made a single universal chassis very attractive. It also reduced the logistics footprint considerably.

[Sea Skimmer]

Stupid wrong pasted information....2W4#^($*tg5! I want my edit button.

That should basically have read the LAV-300 was too light and only mounted a 90mm gun, while the new LAV-600 is too heavy and mounts a low recoil weapon.

[Rubberanvil]

Non-comabt varients? You do know that the HMMWV has been designed and used as a weapons carrier since it was first proposed right?

The HMMWV was designed to replace the M151 series jeeps in most if not all of its various roles one way or another for the US Military.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... d/m998.htm[/quote]

The problem with buying the M8 and M113, and just about every single other proposal was that it meant buying two different chassis. Klinton left with Army with an awful procurement situation so costs made a single universal chassis very attractive. It also reduced the logistics footprint considerably.

The M8 for all intents and purposes should have been manufactered instead of spending more much needed funds designing and testing yet another vehicle which itself maybe canned in the near future.

[Sea Skimmer]

The M8 for all intents and purposes should have been manufactered instead of spending more much needed funds designing and testing yet another vehicle which itself maybe canned in the near future.

What exactly suggest the US will buy less then 2000 Strykers?

The development costs of the Stryker MGS have not been all that great, and with the real cost of armored vehicles being in operating and training costs its unlikely buying the M8 would have saved a dollar, far more likely it would have ended up costing far more while increasing the BCT's logistics demands.

[Stuart Mackey]

The M8 for all intents and purposes should have been manufactered instead of spending more much needed funds designing and testing yet another vehicle which itself maybe canned in the near future.

What exactly suggest the US will buy less then 2000 Strykers?

The development costs of the Stryker MGS have not been all that great, and with the real cost of armored vehicles being in operating and training costs its unlikely buying the M8 would have saved a dollar, far more likely it would have ended up costing far more while increasing the BCT's logistics demands.

Dont forget the issue of tracked and wheeled combat vehicles operating together.

[Rubberanvil]

What exactly suggest the US will buy less then 2000 Strykers?

News to me, so they are going with it then. Still until they enter service in enough numbers, they're still subject to the threat of being cut, if it should happen or not.

The development costs of the Stryker MGS have not been all that great, and with the real cost of armored vehicles being in operating and training costs its unlikely buying the M8 would have saved a dollar, far more likely it would have ended up costing far more while increasing the BCT's logistics demands.

IRRC and you have sources saying otherwise, operating and training costs for the M8 or the Stryker wouldn't have been much different from each other.

Slightly off topic, BCT is the acronym for what exactly?

[MKSheppard]

Just fucking take that british electric armor and put it onto the M-1A2,
bingo, you've just slashed 10-20 tons of ceramic armor out of the M1A2,
while retaining all the anti-HEAT functionality!

[phongn]

Just fucking take that british electric armor and put it onto the M-1A2,
bingo, you've just slashed 10-20 tons of ceramic armor out of the M1A2,
while retaining all the anti-HEAT functionality!

That electric armor does nothing against larger HEAT rounds, just the small copper jets that earlier RPG rounds use.

[Vympel]

The M113 variant United Defence proposed wasn't the A3. If involved rather massive changes, including a basically all-new hull, 30mm cannon turret and a bunch of other stuff. They would have been quite costly.

The Army could've just asked for M113A3- the vehicles were run off against each other, after all (results ... withheld). 30mm cannon turret? Odd. They yanked the 25mm turrets from the Strykers and rearmed them with .50 peashooters, after all.

[Vympel]

I've heard persistent reports that the US Army is thinking of *halving* the Stryker procurement order- as in, enough Strykers to equip 3 BCTs instead of 6.

[MKSheppard]

That electric armor does nothing against larger HEAT rounds, just the small copper jets that earlier RPG rounds use.

Can't it be improved? We know it works on HEAT warheads...it's just
a matter of R&D

[Vympel]

Can't it be improved? We know it works on HEAT warheads...it's just
a matter of R&D

Probably ups the power consumption.

And it might fuck up the vehicle too *shrug*

[Rubberanvil]

The Army could've just asked for M113A3- the vehicles were run off against each other, after all (results ... withheld). 30mm cannon turret?

Both the U.S. Army's M113 (IFVL) and Egypt's M113 (EIFV)
http://www.uniteddefense.com/www.m113.com/eifv.html have 25mm cannons.

[Sea Skimmer]

Can't it be improved? We know it works on HEAT warheads...it's just
a matter of R&D

Probably ups the power consumption.

And it might fuck up the vehicle too *shrug*

Pretty much all shaped charges use copper. The problem with defeating a much larger charge is that the blast of the initial explosion would ripe the light panels apart. You might be able to counter that by making them thicker and stronger, much like Russia did with its heavy ERA. However that comes at a cost in weight.

[Sea Skimmer]

The Army could've just asked for M113A3- the vehicles were run off against each other, after all (results ... withheld). 30mm cannon turret? Odd. They yanked the 25mm turrets from the Strykers and rearmed them with .50 peashooters, after all.

Couple reasons, cargo space for infantry and there equipment, weight for more armor, cost. The turret on the LAV-25 is expensive as shit, and the Army's procurement budget was quite small as I've noted before. Designing the RWS saved a bunch of money, though it really could use an upgrade with stabilization and a few other improvements it seems. Though that’s once again a matter of cost.

However it can carry a Mk.19, which will fuck over anything short of a high end MICV, and even those wont do well against it. Though it would require the anti armor rounds being loaded.

[Rubberanvil]

Couple reasons, cargo space for infantry and there equipment, weight for more armor, cost.

In other words the Army wasted money designing and procuring yet another glorified APC and cargo hauler.