Army Future combat system get's funded

[reds4ever]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Army Future combat system get's funded

Originally posted by Lonestar


Yeah, I'm sure everyday American Calvery guys wake up and say "Hey, let's open fire on our allies!"


Ass.

Still happened though, did n't it? Idiots like that should be given less firepower, not more.

Arse.

[Dinner]

As I recall a few of those friendly fire incidents had something to do with nonfunctioning "friendly identifier becons" in the vehicles which got fried. Not all but certainly a few.

[Panag]

hi ,

a while ago the joint chiefs mentioned something about not being able to put so many troops there and there , .....

they can only put a brig in 96 hours somewhere on the world , those numbers where to low , .....

light tanks means more of them and faster transport , .....

but still , the good old heavy tanks shall be needed in some case , .......

have a nice day

[Panag]

The Stryker Light Armored Vehicle III [LAV III] is at the center of the Army’s Interim Brigade Combat Teams. The IBCTs will be lighter and more mobile, yet offer firepower no enemy can hope to match. Strykers are being deployed to units at Fort Lewis, WA. In all, six brigades will receive the vehicles. Each brigade will have more than 300 Strykers apiece.

In February 2002 the Army named its new interim armored vehicle after two soldiers who received the Medal of Honor. The Stryker is named in honor of Spc. 4 Robert F. Stryker, who received the Medal of Honor for his actions during the Vietnam War, and Pfc. Stuart S. Stryker, who received the award for his actions during World War II. Both men were killed in action. They were not related. This is only the second Army vehicle named after enlisted personnel. In the early 1980s, the service named the Division Air Defense gun for World War I hero Sgt. Alvin York. The system was plagued with problems before then- Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger cancelled it.

The Army’s LAV is being produced in two major variants: the Infantry Carrier Vehicle and the Mobile Gun System. The Mobile Gun System will have a 105mm cannon, the same gun tube as the one on the original M-1 Abrams tank. This is not a tank replacement, but it gives a direct fire capability to support the infantry elements. Before the Mobile Gun System is fielded, units will get the Anti-tank Guided Missile Vehicle which will have a TOW system capable of blasting through reinforced concrete bunkers.

All of the LAVs will be deployable by C-130 and larger aircraft. As of September 2002 the Army was flying Stryker in C-130s under a temporary waiver issued by the Air Force. The waiver was necessary because the vehicle is too wide to accommodate the 14-inch safety aisle around all sides that is required by the Air Force for the loadmaster. Additionally, only a portion of its crew may fly in the same aircraft. Yet, the Army disputes claims that Stryker -- the centerpiece of its new Brigade Combat Teams -- is not transportable via C-130. During the Millennium Challenge exercise the Infantry Carrier Vehicle variant required multiple alterations to fit into a C-130: The crew removed two smoke grenade launchers, all antennas, a left rear bracket that blocked egress over the top of the vehicle, the Remote Weapons System and the third-row wheel's bump-stop. Reassembly upon landing took as long as 17 minutes.

They will have a maximum speed of 60 miles per hour and a range of 300 miles on a tank of fuel. The vehicle will be swift, easily maintainable and include features designed for the safety of soldiers. The LAV’s armor protection will stop 50-caliber bullets and protect against 152 mm airburst shells. The LAV’s tires can be inflated or deflated from inside the vehicle to adapt to surfaces ranging from deep mud to hardtop, and it has run-flat tires, a built-in fire-suppression system and self-recovery winch. The vehicles also run quieter than the current armored personnel carriers, increasing their “stealth,” and they will reduce logistics costs, making the IBCTs an affordable alternative to today’s heavy brigades.

One of the Army’s transformation goals is to be able to deploy brigade combat teams anywhere in the world within 96 hours, a division in 120 hours and five divisions within 30 days, according to Army Chief of Staff GEN Eric K. Shinseki. The LAV III is considered an “interim armored vehicle” because it is not the final vehicle that will equip the transformation “objective force” of the future. This is not an experimental force, rather it represents a force capable of meeting the needs of regional commanders in chief, while concurrently assisting the Army in developing doctrine to meet 21st-century threats.

In November 2000 the Army took another step into its Transformation Initiative when it announced that GM GDLS Defense Group had been awarded the contract to supply the Army with the Interim Armored Vehicle. GM GDLS in a joint venture between General Motors, Electro-Motive Divison, and General Dynamics Land Systems Division and is based in Sterling Heights, Mich. The majority of the work on the project will be done in the United States and Canada.

Army officials signed a $4 billion contract to produce 2,131 LAVs over six years. The contract's first iteration calls for enough LAVs to equip the first IBCT at Fort Lewis. Each brigade will have more than 300 LAVs, and the six option years of the contract should produce enough LAVs for the first six Brigade Combat Teams.

A number of subcontractors will be used to produce the different LAV configurations and equipment. The prime contractor - GM General Dynamics Land Systems Defense Group LLC -- will conduct work in four primary locations. Structure, fabrication and final assembly of the LAVs will take place in both Anniston, Ala., and London, Ontario in Canada. Engineering will take place in Sterling Heights, Mich., and upper hull structures will be produced at a plant in Lima, Ohio.

The contract will provide the Interim Brigade Combat Team with two vehicle variants that are deployable anywhere in the world in combat-ready configurations. The two variations of the LAV III that will be produced for the Interim Armored Vehicle program are the Infantry Carrier Vehicle and the Mobile Gun System. The IAV will have eight configurations besides the basic infantry carrier model — mortar carrier, reconnaissance vehicle, anti-tank guided missile vehicle, fire-support vehicle, engineer support vehicle, command-and-control vehicle, medical-evacuation vehicle and the NBC reconnaissance vehicle. The IAVs are not a replacement for the M1 Abrams tank or the M3 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle. The IAVs will be used in places, such as urban areas, where the heavy armored vehicles are not suitable for the mission.

The Infantry Carrier Vehicle is swift, easily maintainable and most importantly includes features designed for the safety of soldiers. The LAV has armor protection all around, even on top. The armor will stop 50-caliber bullets and protect against 152mm airburst shells, and the armor is twice as thick as original contract specifications called for. The tires of the LAV can be inflated or deflated from inside the vehicle to make it safer for different surfaces ranging from deep mud to hardtop, and the vehicle has run-flat tires. The LAV has a built-in fire suppression system and self-recovery winch.

The LAVs will run quieter than the current armored personnel carriers, increasing their "stealth." They will also give the new brigades a reduced logistics footprint, and make the units cheaper to operate than today's heavy brigades. The Interim Brigade Combat Team should be about 25 percent cheaper to operate than today's heavy brigades.

The LAV engine is a Caterpillar engine, which is common to the Army's family of medium tactical vehicles. That means some of the same repair parts can be used. Commonality of equipment reduces the brigade's logistical footprint and support costs and makes the entire vehicle fleet easier to maintain. This will allow the use of the same support structure for all of a unit’s vehicles, including mechanics and parts.

Beginning in October 2001 the Stryker underwent coupon testing, which is taking small squares of armor and firing at it with various caliber weapons and munitions at varying distances. After the tests, officials discovered that the initial armor proposed by the contractor was not suitable and changes in the armor were ordered in early 2002. When modifications are made to the armor, the vehicle will be able to stop 7.62mm and 14.5mm armor piercing ammunitions. GM Defense delivered a new, denser ceramic-skin armor for Stryker in May 2002.

Stryker’s half-inch-thick steel body and ceramic-skin armor shields the vehicle from 14.5mm and 7.62mm armor-piercing bullets. United Defense Industries, Arlington, Va., received a $7.9 million contract from GM Defense 04 November 2002 to develop and test add-on applique armor that will stop RPG-7 rounds. The contract requires United Defense to develop and test the applique armor by February 2004. If it passes, the company could build 1,600 add-on armor kits by 2006.

Reducing its weight is another modification the Stryker will undergo before the vehicles arrive in May at 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division and 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, both located at Fort Lewis, Wash. The Stryker was reported to be 4,000 pounds more than the 38,000-pound requirement. However, officials expect that the vehicles will meet weight limits, which will allow them to be loaded and transported on a C-130 cargo plane.

In September 2002 the Army Test and Evaluation Command started the 16-day field-testing portion of a formal comparison between the new Stryker Armored Vehicle and the M113A3 Armored Personnel Carrier at Fort Lewis, Wash. Formally dubbed the Medium Armored Vehicle Comparison Evaluation, the test was required by the 2001 National Defense Authorization Act. The comparison started with a 50-mile road march, and the first two mission vignettes are schedule to begin Sept. 13. A wide variety of data was be collected from a platoon of four M113A3s rebuilt by Anniston Army Depot, Ala., and a platoon of four new Strykers delivered to Fort Lewis.

The first interim brigade combat team will contain three substitute vehicles, because the mobile gun system and support systems for the nuclear, biological and chemical reconnaissance vehicle, and the fire support vehicle, will not be ready by May 2003. The Army will not field an interim brigade combat team supported by all configurations of the Stryker IAV until 2005.

[Panag]

C-130s deliver Strykers at Fort Polk exercise

In-Depth Coverage
by Spc. Lorie Jewell


ALEXANDRIA, La. (Army News Service, May 21, 2003) - Air Force C-130 cargo planes labored for about nine hours May 18 to deliver a company of infantry soldiers and Stryker interim armored vehicles to Esler Air Field, La.

The airlift was part of "Arrowhead Lightning II," an operational certification exercise for the Stryker Brigade Combat Team at Fort Polk, La. The 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division from Fort Lewis, Wash., began the exercise last weekend and it runs through the end of May.

The first of 21 Strykers - an Infantry Carrier Vehicle - arrived at Ensler Air Field shortly before 8 a.m. with a team of 11 soldiers from Geronimo alternate landing strip, a dirt runway at Fort Polk's Joint Readiness Training Center.

The C-130 can land on airstrips, like Geronimo's dirt runway, that are inaccessible to larger planes, demonstrating how they can assist in moving the Stryker force to the battlefield, according to Lt. Col. Joe Piek, the Transformation Public Affairs Officer from Fort Lewis.

By 4:30 p.m., 175 soldiers from Company B, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment were on the ground with their vehicles, setting up a base of operations in a nearby wooded area. The unit is among the thousands of soldiers from Fort Lewis participating in the exercise.

The company recently flew a mission on C-17 cargo planes - which can carry three Strykers each - but this was the first time the unit moved with all of its vehicles on C-130s, which hold single Strykers.

It's a snug fit for the Stryker in the belly of the cargo plane. Of the eight Stryker variants, Co. B has six - the infantry carrier vehicle, commander's vehicle, mortar carrier, medical evacuation vehicle, fire support vehicle and the anti-tank guided missile vehicle. The unit doesn't have engineer squad or reconnaissance vehicles.

Some Strykers had to be partially disassembled - the MC, for instance - for drivers to maneuver them into the planes. After rolling off, drivers and their teams headed for the company's operations base to reconfigure their Strykers.

"We knew we could do it,'' said 1st Lt. Nathan Grotze, the company's executive officer. "But we wanted to see how well we could move the whole company at one time. In our eyes, it went very well."

The 146th Air Wing from Channel Island, Calif., and 152nd Air Wing from Reno, Nev., lent assistance with the mission by flying the C-130s. The Louisiana National Guard also played a role by facilitating the operation at its airfield.

Brig. Gen. Brod Veilon, assistant adjutant general for the Louisiana National Guard, observed the C-130 flights throughout the day, as did Brig. Gen. Jason Kamiya, commander of the Joint Readiness Training Center and Fort Polk.

"This is a unique opportunity for the various services to work together,'' said Veilon. "It's a great day for the Louisiana National Guard to help with training and validation of the Stryker."

(Spc. Lorie Jewell is a member of the 107th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment.)


hi ,

looks like its going to go the right way , ....

have a nice day

[Az]

Erm, after all said and done, why don't you guys get a decent rifle, for change?

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


This isn't Rummy's vision, it predates him. Within the procurement REMF's in the army, there are two competing factions, one a bunch of no-**** soldiers who know what they're doing, the other a bunch of post-Vietnam, minimal combat experience wunderkind who think wheeled vehicles are all the rage. (Never mind this ****'s already been tried). Both sides are invoking the West Point Protective Association, and political infighting in and out of the Pentagon, but the candy asses have more political favor, and they're using their leverage to preferentially promote their own side to key procurement and staff positions.

The reason the ****ing things are drones now is that detailed studies and simulations have shown these things are too light and too roadbound (or hard ground) to be fully protected and fully maneuverable, so they are lucky to score 1 to 1 kill ratios against heavy armor, and sometimes they get slaughtered. This despite the wunderkind's being able to run their side of the tests and run their version of tactics.

1 to 1 won't ever be acceptable kill ratios for US forces. Spoofing drones will be easier for the enemy, and preventing fratricidal incidents will be harder, so integrating these things in close coordination with regular forces will be a pain in the ass. EMP weapons and active jamming would be far cheaper to employ than these things, so you're screwed there too - any time it's easier and cheaper for an enemy to develop a counter than it is for you to deploy a prime system, you may as well just ****can it.

What has worked since GW1 is a higher evolution of doctrine with standard forces. ****ing around with this sort of gee-whiz starship troopers horse****, and rewriting doctrine from zero, is not the way to go.

Lets try to be a little more tasteful with the language now, ok.

[Sava]

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, is a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children... This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from an iron cross." --Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Sava
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, is a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children... This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from an iron cross." --Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953

....and?

I always like McArthur better. Him and Nimitz.

[Ned]

I am no expert, here, but what use is a light armored vehicle in urban combat? Don't most missions eventually involve taking enemy cities?

I know, MtG, that you and I had this debate on Baghdad. You said that tanks would be sitting ducks in Baghdad and that we had to wait for the infrantry. I argued for a charge downtown with our armor.

I think what actually happened in Baghdad shows just how effective heavy armor can be in urban combat. Our tanks were practically invincible against anything the Iraqi's threw at them. I doubt we could have been as effective with dismounted infrantry or with LAV's.

Based solely on our experience in Iraqi, I think we should place maximum effort on the defensive aspects of tanks so that tanks can effectively invade cities. Until such tanks actually reaches a city in any future war, the airforce and choppers can handled the over-the-horizon kills of enemy tanks. Turning a tank into a light armored vehicle that relies on over-the-horizon kills seems to me to be going in the wrong direction. Certainly such vehicles would be hard-pressed if enemy armor closed in for a melee.

If we need to get troops there faster by plane, I suggest we increase our heavy lift capacity instead.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Azazel
Erm, after all said and done, why don't you guys get a decent rifle, for change?

Why bother, when we can just steal M16s off the US quartermasters?

It's a big bone of contention, with the procurement people at MOD saying it's the finest weapon in the world, and everyone else saying we'd be better off going back to longbows.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Ned
I am no expert, here, but what use is a light armored vehicle in urban combat? Don't most missions eventually involve taking enemy cities?

All armoured vehicles are problematic in urban conflict. A tanker just isn't comfortable being within close range of an unseen enemy. An enemy that has already lost 90% of its AFVs is a different story.

Originally posted by Ned
I know, MtG, that you and I had this debate on Baghdad. You said that tanks would be sitting ducks in Baghdad and that we had to wait for the infrantry. I argued for a charge downtown with our armor.

It depends what the opposition fields. If enemy has dug in AT weapons which aren't air spotted, even an M1 is in trouble when it turns the wrong corner.

Originally posted by Ned
I think what actually happened in Baghdad shows just
how effective heavy armor can be in urban combat. Our tanks were practically invincible against anything the Iraqi's threw at them. I doubt we could have been as effective with dismounted infrantry or with LAV's.

Like I said, it depends what the opposition has in the way of AT. Don't think of the M1 (a mighty fine tank, I must say) as invincible. You lost a few in Gulf War 1 to enemy fire as well as friendly. Had there been extensive use of AT mines or other effective AT munitions in Baghdad it could have been very, very different.

Originally posted by Ned
Based solely on our experience in Iraqi, I think we should place maximum effort on the defensive aspects of tanks so that tanks can effectively invade cities. Until such tanks actually reaches a city in any future war, the airforce and choppers can handled the over-the-horizon kills of enemy tanks.

That's assuming the weather permits it. The smart military never puts all its eggs in one basket. The AFV is a mix of mobility, protection, firepower. Get the mix wrong and you lose flexibility.

Originally posted by Ned
Turning a tank into a light armored vehicle that relies on over-the-horizon kills seems to me to be going in the wrong direction. Certainly such vehicles would be hard-pressed if enemy armor closed in for a melee.

Indirect fire is a holy grail to many tankers. The ability to kill without even being in direct line of sight is one hell of a morale boost. The idea of using this sort of system is that the opposition doesn't get close, ie not hugely outnumbered.

Originally posted by Ned
If we need to get troops there faster by plane, I suggest we increase our heavy lift capacity instead.

Ah, but the C-130 can land at smaller airstrips than either the C5 or C17. You would be limited to using the largest airbases to run through.

This light brigade at least gives you the option of using smaller airbases. I agree it wouldn't be any use against a regular armoured or even mechanized force - but it's just the thing against poorly equipped irregulars for winning a few political points at the polls.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Cruddy


Why bother, when we can just steal M16s off the US quartermasters?

It's a big bone of contention, with the procurement people at MOD saying it's the finest weapon in the world, and everyone else saying we'd be better off going back to longbows.

hi ,

but relax , around 2008 the army shall field its new infantry weapon , ....

so it should work around 2014 or so , ....

have a nice day

[Tingkai]

Lonestar:

I've heard that about 30 per cent of US highway bridges are classified as deficient. Some of them are literally falling apart. The US federal government has spent money repairing them so spending $15 billion on new weapons means less money available for basic infrastructure.

George W. has cut:
-$39 million in federal spending on libraries.
- $700 million for repairs to public housing
- $200 million from workplace training programs.
- $15.7 million from programs dealing with child abuse

Conservatives might agree with these cuts, but one would think they would oppose a $15 billion increase in government spending.

Where will this money come from?

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


Lets try to be a little more tasteful with the language now, ok.

Haha.