Posted on 08/14/2004 6:18:50 AM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4
“Stryker Boondoggle”??
So it won’t load on a C130. Use the C17.
Stryker is doing a great job. Should it be dumped for just this one thing?
There's gotta be something that can be done about it's greyhound bus turning radius and it's offroud instabilty.
That's a suspension change fix more than likely.
With the added weight, the suspension likely should be beefed up.
On a good note, at least it's fast in straight line runs.
Makes a good showing at the AFV drag races. LOL
No, not dumped.
Modified.
Give it offroad stability and a tighter turning radius.
Whoever set the spec at 'greyhound bus' needs to be launched from a torpedo tube.
Other than that, it does seem to be doing better than thought based off the suspect criteria of it's inception.
*chuckle*
Yeah.
Wonder what it'd take suspension and steering wise to give it offroad stability without tipping and shorten it's turning radius?
(I'm sure that if weight were no longer a concern, modders would salivate to get a chance to put computer controlled suspension stability systems on it and make it able to squeal tires.)
bump
There's an article today from the GAO that states that at current 38,000# combat weight they CAN'T be deployed by our C-130's as they where originally intended.
A C-130 J-30 has a maximum allowable payload of 44,000 pounds. How far can it fly with aerial refueling? http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=92
But to call the Stryker a “boondoggle”?
Well, when compared to what Shinseki tried to sell it off as, yes.
When compared to what it is being used for, no.
Shinseki tried to push it as a one on one tank replacement, getting rid of all tracked vehicles.
In that light, it is a boondoggle.
But for what it is being used for, it's not a boondoggle.
Largely depends on how it is used.
Again, I think some of you are missing my point here, the C-130 can go where none of our other transports can. THAT's the problem. The Stryker cannot be inserted into 'hot' combat areas and that's why the thing was developed.
Now I could go on about all the other numerous problems with the Stryker, but suffice to say it has nowhere near the capabilities as originally intended.
It's kind of like that old saying, "The Camel is a horse designed by committee." The Stryker is the military version.
and it can't be transported 'combat ready' on the plane it was supposed to be delivered on…
"Well.. when the cost is $4.7 million each"
It costs $4.7 million each ? It should be less expensive.
In the end, the B-36 turned out to be a place holder for the B-52 Stratofortress. The Stryker is an interim vehicle holding a place for Future Combat Systems that haven't been invented yet.
Bump
The C5 the new combat cargo plane can carry the Strykers. It can take off in the same space as a C130.
The C5 has performed so well as it is smaller than the c141 but can handle the cargo load. If it can handle an Abrahms it can handle a Styker.
GAO Calls Stryker Too Heavy To Transport
And this:
Controversy Surrounds Army's Stryker
When the Army "learned that General Dynamics could not lighten the 'Stryker' and make it meet its contracted weight, instead of leaning on the contractor to perform up to standard in the contract, Army liaison personnel approached all Congressional points of contact and convinced them that they never 'really, actually meant' flying the Stryker in Air Force C-130s was required," he said. "There is a reason that Congress mandated the Strykers use C-130s. If a Stryker brigade is to be deployed anywhere in 96 hours, as promised by Shinseki, the Air force would have to use all of its 500 c-130s to transport the 308 Stryker variants in a brigade.," Shoultz writes. "The Air Force only has a little less than 120 C-17s. They cannot allot all of them to the Army’s Strykers …" Initially, the Army called for its Stryker to be deployable by C-130 transport aircraft, and be ready to fight as soon as it was unloaded. But, Shoultz says in a lengthy analysis for MilitaryCorruption.com, a Web site that monitors defense-related issues, that requirement was changed in "mid-stream."
In addition; This 'new' weight problem isn't the ONLY problem with the Stryker. Problems have plagued the Stryker from it's inception - but that ^&%$* Gen Shinseki was determined to build the dam thing.
And FYI, I've been reading about these 'design problems' and 'design changes' for a good four-five years and basically, this 'thing' NEVER should have proceeded. Some of the issues were things like:
If it wasn't so expensive it'd be funny -- almost.
And please, don't take my word, Google 'Stryker'. Then get ready to pray for our guys in them.
Forgive me for pointing something out, but isn't this "survivablitliy" due to the anti-rpg cages that were welded on after all the criticism? It seems to me that anything, even a truck is going to be able to survive RPG's with this rig. If it works, that's great, but it also negates the rapid deployability that was supposed to be one of the Strykers big selling points.
Any word on manueverability restrictions these cages might impose on the vehicles operating in the city?
Strykers were wide without slat armor. They are wider with it.
A lot of trucks have been armored; none that I have seen got slat armor.
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.