Michael Yon: Superman

michaelyon-online.com ^ | Jul 16, 2007 | Michael Yon

[MEG33]

Wonderful writing about this wonderful Stryker group..Amazing!

[zoomie81]

Michael Yon is awesome.

[MEG33]

Indeed!

[nw_arizona_granny]

Bump.

[neverdem]

Truce over, Pakistan militants kill 70

Muslim heads stuck firmly in the sand - Hassan Butt, a former jihadist, demands some fresh thinking

When 3 Really Is a Crowd

From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[NY Attitude]

Thanks for the ping.

[shield]

I loved his article on the Brits. It was right after the Iran stuff when all were peeing all over the Brits military. It was a wonderful report...and showed how brave the Brit military truly are.

[sono]

Hoo Rah.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[PGalt]

Thanks for the ping!

[TomB]

Just read this on Yon's site and was going to post it, but you beat me to it.

I wanted it posted for the benefit of all the FR military "experts" who absolutely ripped the Stryker when it was first announced. They predicted every bad thing possible for it, and it has proved them completely wrong.

Yet another reason to question the "experts".

[beachn4fun]

I love reading about our heroes!

[RDTF]

Thanks for the ping.
I couldn’t believe my ears and eyes this morning - on ABC’s Good Morning America they aired a Michael Yon Video. Chris Cuomo did the story. He gave him credit, even showed him in the video. It showed real combat scenes. I was thrilled to see him getting this coverage, but it wasn’t really a positive video - with soldiers complaining about how overworked they are. I’ll search around to see if it get’s posted on UTube or somewhere.

[SJSAMPLE]

You cannot discard every legitemate concern about the Stryker because somebody writes a great story. People who’ve worked with, driven in and lived in combat vehicles have had legitimate issues with the Stryker from the start. Not all of those concerns have been alleviated.

[Albion Wilde]

Ping!

[TomB]

You cannot discard every legitemate concern about the Stryker because somebody writes a great story.

Where did I do that? I merely pointed out that legions of so-called "experts" around here questioned things like its mobility and protection. Issues that have been proven to be completely wrong.

People who’ve worked with, driven in and lived in combat vehicles have had legitimate issues with the Stryker from the start. Not all of those concerns have been alleviated.

No, really? It isn't perfect? Go figure.

I just read a journal article on some proposed improvements to the M1. Already a pretty robust system, no? But there's always room for improvement.

Some around here predicted the worst for the Stryker, and they were proven wrong.

[SJSAMPLE]

Your original post referenced “all the experts” and many of them, through education, training and experience were, indeed, experts. Many of their concerns were valid and remain so.

The Stryker was part of a “interim” vehicle program that was supposed to be followed by the delayed/defunct FCS. Many of the target points of the Stryker were missed (specifically, air-deployability aboard C-130 aricraft). This was a significant concern because getting the Stryker to the battlefield was already a huge hurdle. As it is, it takes TWO C-130s to meet the original objective and even then it requires some wrenching to do so.

I like the Stryker because I’ve spend 16 years in the M113-based variants and it was, indeed, a huge improvement. I longed for a more reliable, more on-road maneuverable wheeled FDC vehicle to replace my M577 command track. I literally drool over the CP variant.

I, too, think that those who predicted “disaster” were mistaken. As it is, the FCS program is nowhere in sight and the Stryker will likely become much more than the “interim” vehicle proposed. With that in mind, deployability concerns become more of an issue. Of course, if the DOD would get off its ass and extend the C-17 line in California, this shortcoming would be heavily mitigated.

[Paul Ross]

I, too, think that those who predicted “disaster” were mistaken. As it is, the FCS program is nowhere in sight and the Stryker will likely become much more than the “interim” vehicle proposed.

That is the real good news of the situation. The Stryker does work. And well. But not enough for the "rogue nation" enemy which can do all its scientific work over in Iran...and then effortlessly...and without consequence... infiltrate their combat teams across the Iranian border armed with the latest weapons and tactics.

What do you think of the multiple versions of MRAP coming on line now? (Perhaps two years too late to make a real difference now in our political-support avalanche situation) They sound REALLY tough.

With that in mind, deployability concerns become more of an issue.

I suppose the MRAP will have similar issues.

Of course, if the DOD would get off its ass and extend the C-17 line in California, this shortcoming would be heavily mitigated.

Actually, that wasn't the DOD...so much as the Bush Administration refusing to keep the C-17 alive. They CHOSE to kill it. They have hinted they thought they could "outsource" the logistical need or buy some sort of commercial Airbus replacements for less. (All of which happy-horshit turned out to be rather badly mistaken).

Over and over, this supposed "business manager" has proven to be "Penny Wise, and Pound Foolish. Don't blame the Pentagon for that one.

That little collossal stupidity has "WHITE HOUSE INTERFERENCE" thumbprints all over it. Totally ARBITRARY funding limits on the DOD...IN A WAR.

And ignoring that the best equipment is needed...like the C-17.

Just like the NAVY ship complement implosion that Bush has orchestrated. Not the Pentagon's fault. Bush imposed ARBITRARY AND FOOLISH Navy budget limits...irrespective of the Xlinton legacy to our fleet. The White House refuses to budget strategically...squandering assets, nor budgeting for replacements or sustaining of the existing base of the arsenal.

This president was not kidding when he said, and I quote: "I never wanted to be a War President."

He clearly still doesn't. Even when it is thrust upon him. He is continuing to deplete our strategic forces.

[SJSAMPLE]

Yep. The MRAP vehicles are already showing problems with deployability. The suspension and undercarriage designs create a much taller vehicle and the armor adds weight the puts it outside the abilities of the C-130 to carry. I don't know if it's classified as "outsized" cargo, but they sure look like it.

The RG-31 and RG-33 are neat, but they're just another level of protection and a few have already been defeated. There's a thread somewhere about a Canadian RG-33 that was totally obliterated and the attempts to keep this under wraps. Really though, anything that will blow up an M1A2 Abrams (like three 155mm arty shells wired together) is going to slice through any MRAP we can currently think of..

The good news for the C-17 is that there's been some interest in a civilian "outsized" airlifter. That may be enough to keep a working C-17 line open until the DOD Bush gets his head together and fully funds the program.