Re: The new US Army APC the "Stinger"

>
>
>
>Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 20:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
>From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
>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?
>
CNN is giving what the Army tells it in this case they quoted 2 million 
per copy
with a procurement of 2100 and total cost of 4 billion. I know the math 
doesn't
work but I just repeated the numbers as quoted. I assume you trust the 
Army's
estimates.

By the whey showed the vehicle and quoted a top speed of over 60 miles
per
hour.

>
>>the US
>>Army was pushing called the Stinger. It costs about
>>
>
>Stryker, actually.  Gives some indication of the
>validity of your source.  
>
Since at the time I wasn't taking notes and I thank you for the
correction .
I do think CNN gave the correct name and I associated it with a set of
SciFi
game rules (Striker) that I had. When I wrote it down I  gave the name
of a SciFi APC that I also had.

>
>>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. 
>
So I guess there will not be any reduced cost due to economy of scale.

One of the biggest problems with the Bradley was that due to the cost
and that it could only carry half of a squad (require 2 Bradleys per
M113
replaced) it never completely replace the M113. This was why the US
Army needed to reduce the size of  the US Inf. company (the big debate
was squads of about 6 men or full squads with 2 platoon companies).

I assume that this vehicle will carry a full squad and may result in 
restoring
the US Inf. Company to its previous strength.

>
>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.
>>
Actually the Abrams was to have cost $1.5 million apiece when the
program
started. They ended up costing	$3 million with the first model 
acquired. It was
later that the cost went up to $4.3 million as the production program 
was dragged
out over the years and changes were made that had to be retrofitted.

>
>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 haven'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.
>
Actually I stopped following the development programs of the Army after 
I got
out (of the Army) in 1981. I was involved with the Tacfire program that 
had started
in 1965 and was just competing tests in 1979. At that time it was using
a
64K computer that was about 8 years obsolete (in 1979). It was a
replacement
system for the FADAC system which was a standalone system created to
fire
Atomic Annie (of the 1950's). FADAC had been phased in to the Army the
early
1970's.

By the way,  since you seem to know, where is the US Army's LAV?  Since
it
seems as if you are an expert on the Stryker perhaps you could give us 
some of
the details on the program like when it started and what are the vehicle

specifications.

>
>>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.
>
Actually we did need the LAV but fortunately the Iraq's waited for us to
catch up. The Bradley at 25 tons is a very poor candidate for airlift
while
the LAV25 at 14.5 tons can be carried by any of the air force transport
aircraft (C130?). If Iraq hadn't stopped and waited, the Airborne and
Light Divisions would have had no effective APC to fight with in a
mobile
war.

The basic question I still have is what are advantages that the this APC
at $2 million per copy compared to a LAV25 which is now 15 years
old and a fraction of the cost. If 200 are lost in combat is there
enough
in reserve to replace them or do we strip the units to the rear.

 The only thing that can be assumed in a modern war is that with the
short
duration of the was (direct combat as opposed to gorilla war) what you
start
the war with is what you will end it with.

>