I saw a broadcast on CNN about the new wheeled APC the US Army was pushing
called the Stinger. It costs about 2 million (US $) apiece and the Army plans
on buying about 2100 (4 billion dollar purchase). Since an Abrams tank costs
about 3 million the new
light APC costs 2/3 the price of a battle tank.
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 got sick of the games and started
their own program. They took a Canadian Grizzly (basic model: 6 wheeled,.50
cal HMG) and had it modified so as to meet its requirements (basic model: 8
wheeled, 25mm Auto Cannon, transportable by heavy lift helicopter and it can
REALLY swim) and had about 450 of them built as the LAV25 + variants.
If you watched the news during the Golf War you probably saw them.
I assume that this new APC is the completion of the program that the US Army
started about 22 years ago. To sum it up it costs too much, it arrived too
late and I trust the US Army will find some way to make it not quite right so
a couple more billion can be sunk into it.
> At 9:18 PM -0500 6/30/02, Scott Siebold wrote:
Shooting from the hip on this, I'd say it's likely due to scope creep. The US
development programs have that because no one wants the system to bomb out, so
they put some much time in testing and development and committees redesigning
the thing that it ends up being a white elephant of a system. Look at the
Bradly. "oh no, medium caliber weapons will penetrate it, it needs to be
'fixed'. It needs more Armor!!!" Well, duh, its a lightly armored vehicle,
medium caliber weapons will go through. If you want an MBT protected APC, use
a tank as your basis.
> About 22 years ago the US Army and Marines were look for a
The basic family of vehicle that the Canadian Grizzly/Couger/Huskey
are based on is a Swiss MOWAG product. 8 Wheels is one of the standard types.
The newest ones are pretty nice from what I've read.
> modified so as to meet its requirements (basic model: 8 wheeled,
I suspect they didn't deviate much from the original design. That probably
kept R&D costs down
> If you watched the news during the Golf War you probably saw them.
Gulf War. Tiger Woods wasn't beating people over the head.
> I assume that this new APC is the completion of the program
Can't argue about that. It seems to happen with amazing regularity.
> Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 20:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
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
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 $)
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
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
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
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.
> [quoted text omitted]
> Subject: Re: The new US Army APC the "Stinger"
> I assume that this vehicle will carry a full squad and may result in
The version the US is buying as a personnel carrier will carry 11 troops, 2
crew and 9 infantry. It has a remote gun mount.
The Canadian army is buying a bunch of the same basic vehicle, but ours are
being bought with the 25mm chaingun turret. This one will have a crew of 3 and
a regular infantry capacity of 7 troops, IIRC.
> By the way, since you seem to know, where is the US Army's LAV? Since
Didn't the the US buy, a bunch of the LAV-25 type vehicles for the
National Guard, but versions without turrets?
The LAV system has been also bought by Australia and Saudi Arabia. Canada
bought a bunch also, in several versions. Australia and New Zealand are buying
the new version also.
The current vehicle is the 3rd generation of the LAV. The second version
formed the basis of the current Canadian recce vehicle (which has the 25mm
Chaingun turret, a surveilance system on an extendable mast and a dismountable
surveilance system attached to the vehicle with a long umbilical cable, etc.)
A bunch of these went to Afghanistan with the PPCLI.
The newest version is bigger and heavier, but has substantially improved
protection, better suspension, etc. It doesn't have the same
cross-country
mobility as a good tracked vehicle, but comes reasonably close, and it is a
LOT lighter...
> The basic question I still have is what are advantages that the this
better armour better electronic systems better suspension faster etc etc etc.
They've taken 20 years of experience with the original LAV system and built in
a lot of improvements.
I'm sure there mission creep problems also, but the newer vehicle is better
than the older one in a lot of ways.
"The LAV III is a full-time four-wheel drive, selective eight-wheel
drive, armored vehicle weighing approximately 19 tons. It can attain speeds of
62 mph on the highway and has a maximum range of 312 miles. The basic infantry
carrier vehicle (ICV) has armor that protects the two-man crew and nine
on-board soldiers from machine gun bullets, mortar and artillery
fragments. The LAV III ICV variant includes configurations such as the
reconnaissance,
anti-tank guided missile, and medical evacuation vehicles, as well as
carriers for mortars, engineer squads, command groups, reconnaissance and fire
support teams. The Mobile Gun System variant consists of a General
Dynamics Land Systems 105mm cannon mounted in a low-profile turret
integrated on the General Motors LAV III chassis."
If you're interested, take a look at:
http://www.gm-defense.com/products.asp?ProductID=16
***************************************
> --- Scott Siebold <gamers@ameritech.net> wrote:
> CNN is giving what the Army tells it in this case
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
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
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
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
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
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
Read the briefing slides I already cited.
> Actually we did need the LAV but fortunately the
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
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
Which doesn't leave much time to be rebuilding destroyed brigades.