Replies

Ha! I assure you I have no connection with Shinseki, nor any with General Dynamics. If the Stryker is canned, I will lose no sleep. The advantage I seem to have in this argument is I really do not have a hidden agenda. I started like most armor officers believing this was the worst idea I had ever heard of, but over time have realized it has lots of merit, though the Sryker vehicle itself may or may not pan out.

As to flying: How many miles does it need to fly in a C-130 is a better question. When I left the Transformation job 2 months ago I had not seen the latest figures on how far the C-130 could transport a Stryker (based on the actually flight tests, not the projections, which I had seen but did not trust). Do you know the answer? Sadly, the Army did not initially address that question. Our requirements only said it must be able to be flown in a C-130, what it should have said was how far we anticipate it would need to be transported on a C-130.

I was the one who stood up at the last major Joint Conference on Transformation and asked everyone (including the AF and the DA Staff) why we are letting the Air Force make us design our future combat systems within the constraints of a C-130---in other words why our vehicle of the 21st century must be designed with the major requirement that it fit into the AF vehicle of the mid 20th century. Does not seem very transformational to me. We should design the perfect vehicle to meet the capability requirements of the future and then tell the AF to design their new transport aircraft to match that capability.

The 120 mm mortar issue is one of the varients that is still a work in progress. If it does not work, it does not work. But it also hasn't been flushed out yet. See my earlier comments on the M1 and Bradleys.

The varient I am most worried about in the short term is the MGS. It is wrought with problems right now. Can they be fixed? I surely do not know enough to answer that one. Again though, we are testing a new concept...try and make all the different types of vehicles from one common chassis for all the obvious reasons. So far they are 75% of the way there. Will the last couple also eventually work? Maybe or maybe not.

I know one set of track costs a lot more than hundreds of tires? That doesn't mean I support wheeled vehicles over tracked vehicles, just food for thought.

Can't answer the rollover question. What is the point there? Are you claiming wheeled vehicles in general are too dangerous? Or just the Stryker? I know no on was seriously injured in the 2 testing deployments I was involved in (NTC and JRTC), but maybe I missed something.

You can shoot at me, but only after I get to shoot .50 cal rounds at you first while you are sitting in a Hummer. For the truth is we are not replacing tanks with Strykers, we are replacing Hummer-equiped combat units with Strykers. Therefore the question is not are you better protected in an M1 or an M2/M3 than in a Stryker, but are you better protected in an Stryker than in a Hummer or a truck. No one has programmed the 2ACR to get tanks. They are in Hummers. Should they stay in them or should they change to Strykers? Are should we just wait until we have a better vehicle (the FCS) to transform them? I am actually not rying to be cute, just realistic. And the answer may be we shouldn't buy any more until we find a better vehicle.

Again, ask yourself why you hate the Stryker so much. I do not, though I also do not love it...I am just trying to objectively look at it and see if it is the best thing we have at this time. If it is, good. If not, scrap it. But seeing as we have aleady spent billions of dollars of taxpayer money, and more importantly many soldiers lives are at stake, we should look at it with as clear of heads as possible and keep the emotion out of it, other than that emotion that says we will do the right thing and take care of troops. I assure you, that overrides any feelings I have one way or the other about this vehicle.

You can shoot at me, but only after I get to shoot .50 cal rounds at you first while you are sitting in a Hummer. For the truth is we are not replacing tanks with Strykers, we are replacing Hummer-equiped combat units with Strykers. Therefore the question is not are you better protected in an M1 or an M2/M3 than in a Stryker, but are you better protected in an Stryker than in a Hummer or a truck.

A Styker costs considerably more than a hummer. The article states "The Army plans to buy 2,100 vehicles, enough to put about 300 in each brigade. Mr. O'Reilly says it will cost between $12 billion and $15 billion to equip six brigades". This translates into between $6 MILLION to $7 MILLION PER STRYKER

In a time of finite budgets, which would you rather have for your $6 million: ONE Stryker, or a DOZEN Hummers ( @ $100K each), fully equipped with TOW missiles and 20mm cannon, controlling a few Hellfire-equipped Predator drones?

>>I was the one who stood up at the last major Joint Conference on Transformation and asked everyone (including the AF and the DA Staff) why we are letting the Air Force make us design our future combat systems within the constraints of a C-130---in other words why our vehicle of the 21st century must be designed with the major requirement that it fit into the AF vehicle of the mid 20th century. . .<<

I hope the answer was becasue the C-130 is the aircraft we have the most of right now, and for many years into the future.

>>We should design the perfect vehicle to meet the capability requirements of the future and then tell the AF to design their new transport aircraft to match that capability.<<

Perfect world, that would be nice. Real world, limited budgets, long-lead times for aircraft design and deployment (10-plus years), lots of on-again, off-again programs (Sgt York), and you can quickly see the problem with designing an aircraft to perform a specific role, in support of a yet-to-be-fielded single specific piece of equipment.

You can shoot at me, but only after I get to shoot .50 cal rounds at you first while you are sitting in a Hummer.

You particularly mind if I do so with a HUMVEE-mounted Ground-launched Hellfire with circa 10-KM range or a Russian AT-15 Khrizantema with a 6-8 KM operating range and choice of 9M123-2 tandem HEAT charge or 9M123-F2 HE warhead? Or would you prefer a Javelin?

There are getting to be so many interesting such possibilities, many of which can be operated from either a wheeled HUMVEE or commercial pickup truck, all the way up to an obsolete T55 or T72 tank chassis with the original turret removed, and one with a much lower silhouette mounting an autocannon replacing it, offering a swell improvement in power-weight ratio, speed and range as well.