Hi all,

Just a quick link to some photos of the U.S. Army's newest AFV...the Stryker IAV/MGS
https://www.bctide.com/newpages/iavphotogallery.shtml

Thanks Bob!
I wanna see this little boy for a long time! :-)
Cheers!

Bob--great find. Well done, thanks
DJ

We have been debating the medium tank idea here a little bit. I wouldn't call this a medium tank but at least we will have something with a decent gun that a C-130 can deliver. I was snooping around that site and found more information on the vehicle that is interesting. They named it after a PFC and Specailist, first time thats been done that I know of. Anyway, here is the additional information. I didn't see how big the gun is on the site, anyone know if its 105 or 120?

https://www.bctide.com/newpages/pressrelease.shtml

On rms word is they are over weight and not transportable by C130.

SB

Salt6's is right, according to Army press releases, 8 out of 10 variants are overweight. Only the ambulance version and fire support version (guys who call for artillery fire) are the only C-130 transportable versions; however, that may change based on the combat loaded weight requirement.

Andy--when we get her, it will be a low profile 105mm gun. In my humble opinion, we should have kept the M-8 Stingray. Be that as it may, the 105mm "fleet" of IAVs consists of two vehicles. I believe the Italians have a 120mm wheeled system. Wiser minds that I can comment on that vehicle--Centauro(?).
DJ

I have to admit I like the idea of the "medium-weight' brigades, for a lot of reasons. I do find it interesting how the Pentagon has managed to goof the implementation, though. Recall the great controversy caused by the selection process and the selection of the LAV. There was a lot of pretty pointed criticism of the selection, some of which involved the weight. Now we are having problems with getting the weight of many variants under the limit, and this is just the base vehicle, not the combat loaded weights (for those who are not aware of it, there are additional unresolved problems with the dimensions of several variants). I wonder, will the development folks remember to allow about 10% weight gain for the extra junk and gear that the crews will want to take (but which the Army will leave out)?

Politics and money seem to be driving the bus, no matter how good the idea was to begin with.

Amigo--it's a lot tougher than it appears to get the blend of equipment and people together to attain an end state. The down side of the entire transformation effort is not the design, but rather aspects of the implementation. It is a sound idea to retain the legacy force of Bradleys and Abrams, design a future force and have a transition force to gap the distance between what you have and what you want. All this is well thought out and implementable. However, in a rush to get the interim force activated, the Army saw the LAV (re named by the Army the Interim Armored Vehicle-IAV) as the answer to a prayer. This is where the trouble started and I do not think it will be over anytime soon. The Army knew it wanted the LAV III, industry knew the Army wanted the LAV III, and just about any Marine you spoke to would tell you there were few other options. Well, in the acquisition world, you just can not go out and get what you want. Remember, the Board of Directors for the military consist of the 600 members of Congress. You have to address their concern. After the bashing regarding the beret fiasco, the Army was sensitive to its PR rear end. End result, a test an Fort Knox on short notice for any would be competitors. Many thought the results were bogus. Regardless, we now have the LAV III. It will not do what the Army advertised and once it goes somewhere it better do well or there will be hell to pay.
DJ

This is all interesting to me so I am going to ask another question as to what may be the problem. In the few discussions we have had on the subject, the C-130 seems to come up and the fact that everything is to heavy for it. Is it time to replace it? It has been around for a long time I know and it seems like its limitations are driving what kind of armor we design. If I was in the Army or Marines I would not be comfortable with the decision of what I go to war with being based on an aircraft instead of what works best or what I need. If we skimp on armor we will loose lives, if we update the support aircraft we loose a lot of money. Whats more important? Lives to me and I am sure everyone else.

Now, I know I am simplifying the problem greatly here. There is a lot more to the issue but I would like to know what others think of this part of it.

A replacement for the C-130? Not in our lifetime. The C-17 takes the place of the C-141 and C-5 over time. But, the venerable C-130 stay and continues to be upgarded for a long time. Enhanced avionic packages, however, and improved engines can not increase your cubic dimensions. It also does little to effect the load weight which stands at 64,000 lbs. Of course the weight carried is dependent on so many factors that the 64,000 is more ideal than most other numbers. This is a theater aircraft not a startegic lift.
DJ

DJ, I recommend the Hunnicutt Sheridan book, it details the AGS M-8 Stringray, and still talks about it like it will be fielded (probably written before the program was cancelled). Good reference book.

Rob--agree. My Son is going to the Advanced Course at Knox once he PCS's back from Italy this May. Usually I can get the Hunnicut books for a lower price at the Book Store. Too bad someone did not make a model of that one. I have several shots I took at the Armor Conference years ago and I am still impressed by what might have been.
DJ