Anon

They most certainly can.

Anon

My point was that the Stryker is absolutely NOT a truly air transportable asset- well, not in C-130s anyway.
IOW, it is no more air mobile than a M-113A3(less so in fact), and not much more mobile than an M-2.

Shek

I don't have much time to do a thorough post, but here's a few thoughts.

1. The Stryker flies in a C130 in accordance with the operational requirements document (ORD) published in 2000, minus the MGS (which isn't fielded anyways ).

2. The actual loading and off loading procedures for the Styker on the C130 is easier due to track shoring required for the M113A3. However, if you equip the M113A3 with band tracks, then there is no difference. The M113A3 has an advantage in that you can carry a full ammunition basic load plus its slat armor as a pallet load.

3. "Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics." With the whole picture in mind, a M113A3 equipped IBCT would require airlift for an additional 14 HEMMT fuelers at a minimum, you can bump that up to a minimum of 24 HEMMT fuelers if you went with the M113A4. Also, you'll have to carry additional PLL and ASL due to less commonality of parts, which will increase your airlift requirements even more. Once you add these additional pieces of rolling stock, and personnel to conduct these additional missions, you add even more airlift requirements. Furthermore, these additional airlift requirements are the gift that keeps on giving, tieing up your strategic airlift assets to support the deployment and affecting your phased deployment lists (i.e. more log assets forward in the deployment list).

As far as the Bradley vs. Stryker mobility, the comparison of getting each unit out the door and then sustaining them is night and day. For example, your fuel requirement for your combat vehicles quadruples - that would be in the ballpark of a minimum of an additional 42 fuelers. Your support requirements in terms of mechanics goes through the roof. Your support requirements in terms of ammunition goes through the roof (of course, you do have bigger guns).

Here's a GAO article that provides some point of reference for comparisons.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03801.pdf

Here's an old post with some related material:

Iraqi Northern Front

The Barclay article has been moved to this site:
http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/C...03/barclay.pdf

This article states that to support a BN minus with M113A3s and a platoon of M1s required 150 x C17 sorties and 30 x C130 sorties in a single month.

and the Maddox link is also bad - it's at this site:
http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa...5maddox03c.pdf

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Wraith601

Nice job selectively quoting me.
If you'd read the entire post I said that Bradleys/LAV-25s can't clear building, it comes down to the troops inside (this is true for the Stryker, M113 or any infantry carrier for that matter). The fact that the Stryker carries more troops than either the Bradley or the LAV-25 gives it the edge here. As far as the M113 goes I'm not convinced the modest increase in capability offsets the much larger increase in logistical requirements.

__________________
"We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be, detested in France."
-Sir Arthur Wellesley

Anon

A Brad unit can clear building complexes just fine.

Been done in combat many times starting with ODS.

Anon

I understand all this shek, i just feel that the cost of getting, integrating, and training up the personnel for Stryker MORE than offsets the additional need for airlift.

As i said, again....i'd have rather had the extra 30 or so C-17s the stryker program coulda bought. 2 or 3 Fast transports woulda been even better IMO.

Shek

Snipe,
I wasn't necessarily addressing you. I'm confident that you know the whole host of variables that went into the medium brigade and Stryker decisions - I just want to make sure that others who don't have your knowledge get all the facts, especially since there is so much bad info out there about the IBCT/SBCT and the Stryker.

Back to logistics and dollars for a second - those 30 extra C-17s would be able to support only a single air deployed BCT based on the northern Iraq example of TF 1-63 AR.

As far as dollars, for a relative comparison, the Stryker program costs per year around half the cost of a single month of operations in Iraq - three months in Iraq are equal to the entire cost of the Stryker program. Its share of the defense budget (and this includes all the costs associated with the SBCT - building better urban training ranges, building "combat" trails to allowed unimpeded travel to the nearest departure airfield, simulation centers, post infrastructure upgrades, so there are many improvements that were needed anyways that are being tallied as "Stryker" costs) is around 0.5% annually.

Wraith601

I never said troops in a Bradley couln't clear a building. I said the Bradley itself couldn't clear a building, for that matter neither can a Stryker. It comes down to the troops inside and the Stryker carries more, that's just basic facts. Why is it so hard for you to follow that?

Anon

It is not hard for me to follow anything you've said. A M-2 based company is still fully capable of securing an urban objective(been done many times in actual combat), and in some ways BETTER suited because of it's own organic heavy weapons systems.

Sure, more guys makes it easier, but then, heavier weapons makes it easier too.

All a matter of compromises, just like anything else.

However, with the brad, if you suddenly need a mainforce IFV, you've got it. It can do both roles quite well.

Anon

Combat ops in Iraq are funded by a separate supplemental budget aren't they sir?