Modified Stryker Could Serve as Main Platform for FCS Vehicles

NetDefense | 26 August 2004

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

HTML has a Base command with an operand that sometimes helps if all the pictures are resident on the same server.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

a modified version of the U.S. Army's Stryker vehicle could end up serving as the primary platform for the service's manned ground vehicle portion of FCS.

Hope is not a plan. I think they are going to spend the FCS money on fighting the war.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The services are planning the next generation of artillery to fit inside the C-130, officials explained. In part, this is because the C-130—unlike other transports—can land on rough, dirt fields as short as 1,400 feet. The C -17 requires 3,000 feet, and the C-5 needs 4,900 feet.

The Air Force has far more C-130s than of the other two transports. At last count, the service had 126 C-5s and 113 C-17s. It plans to increase its number of C-17s to 180 by 2008. By comparison, the Air Force has more than 500 C-130s. With those numbers, Kraak said, “we’ll continue to tap the C-130s.”

That explains a lot!

Thanks!

[SauronOfMordor]

"The main point I have about it is that while the ground FCS vehicle is being pushed back, [the Army] has yet to be set on any concrete design," Lockwood said. "It hasn't decided if the [FCS vehicle] will be tracks or wheels. As soon as Stryker became combat proven, you see Congress giving more money to the Stryker program. To me, that is a sort of ominous sign for the 'mythical' FCS vehicle."

It would be nice if the electronics, sensors and optics were standardized and modularized to the point where they could be installed on whatever current/future platform

We need to move away from designs that marry a particular subsystem to a particular slot on a particular chassis

[Cannoneer No. 4]

ping

[Cannoneer No. 4]

C-130's are expendable. C-17's are not.

[Darksheare]

*wincing*
Egads.

[SAMWolf]

The faster you can shoot and scoot the better.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

C-130's are expendable. C-17's are not.

You mean they have served their time?

How old are those guys, maybe we need more of them, Gunships are always handy, that's for sure!

[Redleg Duke]

In the July-August 2004 edition of Field Artillery, the Chief of Artillery states that they have decided on the 155mm varient with a 38 caliber rather than 39 caliber tube. It is C-130-transportable with a 25% basic load of ammo. The 105mm has been down-checked because the 155mm is 58% more effective against personnel and 82% more effective against materiel targets.

LockMart tried valiently to sell an improved 105mm constructed like the old 40mm grenade, claiming it was more effective against personnel. I guess some annoying details like a couple of laws of physics got in the way of the sales pitch.

[Thunder 6]

Thanks for the heads-up. I've been off the net for a while. Will get a chance to see the Stryker up close in a few weeks when we get over there. Should be an interesting year!
regards,