Prev: Re: The new US Army APC the "Stinger" Next: Re: OK, you guys win. . .

[OT] The dangers of believing mass media "journalists" when they drool on themselves while pontificating on military affairs of which they are completely ignorant, was Re: The new US Army APC the "Stinger"

From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@y...>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 20:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [OT] The dangers of believing mass media "journalists" when they drool on themselves while pontificating on military affairs of which they are completely ignorant, was Re: The new US Army APC the "Stinger"


--- Scott Siebold <gamers@ameritech.net> wrote:

> I saw a broadcast on CNN about the new wheeled APC

Do you really want my opinion on CNN's level of
military expertise?

> the US
> Army was pushing called the Stinger. It costs about

Stryker, actually.  Gives some indication of the
validity of your source.  

> 2 million (US $)
> apiece and the Army plans on buying about 2100 (4
> billion dollar
> purchase). Since an Abrams tank costs about 3

Actually that's not written in stone.  Initial
requirement is 714, for 6 brigade sets eventual
procurement may be 5K plus.  The 2100 figure is for
the entire IAV family. 

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2001/010517-D-6570D-015.jpg

> million the new
> light APC costs 2/3 the price of a battle tank.

Abrams cost $3 mil?  Try $4.3 million.	And that's for
the M1A1, not the A2 or the digitized version thereof.
 Source: FAS.

I still havn't found a source for the Stryker's cost.
 
> About 22 years ago the US Army and Marines were look
> for a
> common wheeled APC. After about 5 years of games the
> US Marines

> I assume that this new APC is the completion of the
> program
> that the US Army started about 22 years ago. To sum

No, it's not.  It's a new program.  Try paying
attention to what the Army has been doing for the past
decade or so before you babble ignorantly.

> it up
> it costs too much, it arrived too late and I trust

It's not too late--we didn't need nor want it during
Desert Storm.  The Bradley did quite well, destroying
T-55s frontally with the cannon and T-72s with the
TOW.

> the US Army
> will find some way to make it not quite right so a
> couple more
> billion can be sunk into it.

So tell me, are you of the opinion that the LAV-25
meets the ICV requirements?  
Will it carry 9 men?  
14.5mm AP protection with high hard steel structure?
MOdular Expandable Armor System?
Passive RPG-defeating add-on armor?

Are you really that misinformed about the LAV-25?

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com


Prev: Re: The new US Army APC the "Stinger" Next: Re: OK, you guys win. . .