Re: The new US Army APC the "Stinger"

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

> 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.

Actually, my corrections are direct from the US Army's
own briefing slides from this press release.  URL
already provided and repeated below.

Since they do not provide the same numbers, I'm
presuming that the CNN journalist is incapable of
taking notes, since I'm confident in the ability of
the Pentagon's PAO to read.

He is a field-grade officer with an
at-government-expense college education.  I'm fairly
sure that he can read a powerpoint slide.  Officers
aren't good for much, but they are all masters at the
.ppt
 
> >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.

Initial procurement.  Right now, it's still a big
question as to how many IBCTs are really needed.
 
> 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).

Now resolved:  2x9+5=Platoon.  Although this is
modified by actual manning level and local unit SOP.
 
> I assume that this vehicle will carry a full squad
> and may result in 
> restoring
> the US Inf. Company to its previous strength.

9 Dismounts.  It would be better to be 11, but 9 ain't
bad.

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

Like I said, this is the Army's briefing slide for
this press release.  Read the whole presentation. 
Might actually know what you're talking about.

> >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. 

In that case, do some research before you criticize. 
Try looking up the IBCT concept in the first place.

> By the way,  since you seem to know, where is the US
> Army's LAV?  

I've never seen one.  I believe the program was
cancelled completely.

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.

Read the briefing slides I already cited.

> 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.

Airborne Divisions are not intended to fight in a
mobile war.  We didn't send any of our "Light" (10th,
25th, 7th) Divisions.  Sent 101st, but they have
Blackhawks (You may not have heard of them, I'm not
sure if they were in inventory by '81.	Replaced
UH-1s).  Since the LAV can't be pushed out the back of
a C-130 with a parachute, the 82nd wouldn't have had
'em.  They aren't anywhere on the list to recieve
these Strykers.  3/2, 3/25th are the first two
brigades to convert.  They announced the next two,
2ACR is one of them but I don't recall the other.
 
> 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.

Uh, first we aren't planning to loose 200 (A brigade's
worth) of them.  If we do, we won't have the troops to
man the rebuilt brigade without stripping the units in
the rear.

Second, a LAV-25 carrys fewer than 9 troops and has
less armor than the specification calls for.  You were
whining about the Bradley's troop carrying capacity,
the LAV-25 has the same capacity.

I mentioned this before.
 
>  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.

Which doesn't leave much time to be rebuilding
destroyed brigades.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free