Air Force Secretary Eyed For Top Army Job

InsideDefense.com ^ | 1 May 03 | Christopher J. Castelli, Daniel G. Dupont and Amy Butler

[Tin-Legions]

I can only comment from second hand sources, as I have had nothing to do with the program on-going up in Ft. Lewis, WA. The Army Times recently did a report that stated the IBCT finished it's first field trials with flying colors at NTC. I think the IBCT will be around for a while, maybe just not entire divisions of them. The program is bought and paid for.

However, from my own experience, and the experience of many European nations-the light skinned vehicles cannot protect and withstand the duties of high intensity combat against any foe. The Russian BTR series of vehicles prove this: they carry alot, but not heavy armor (defeating the ability to load a Stryker on a C-130, which barely fits to begin with-only stripped to the bone as is!). They are also less mobile in harsh terrain (proven for the last 60 years, the German light wheeled fighting vehicle fleet in WWII suffered this). The only good is that they are less fuel consuming, and usually require less maintenance overall. IMO, Stryker is not an improvement, just a step back with old technology, nothing to see here folks, move along.

There are cheaper ways to test the FCS than fielding an entire set of brigades with less than combat worthy gear. Lots of computer stuff has been imbedded into the brigades, and that is the real tech advantage. However, this same equipment can, and has been loaded into regular heavy divisions with outstanding results: see Iraqi Freedom, 3rd ID.

In sum: The Stryker is not as deployable as they make it seem (too heavy, arrives in theater unarmed, unarmoured-now it takes two C-130's to bring the equipment for just one vehicle to be combat-ready). We don't have the lift capability to deploy an IBCT in the first place. The computer tech edge has already been applied and used by heavy units with superior results. The IBCT, in it's current form, gives the US no military advantage it did not already have in the Marines.

[CasearianDaoist]

I'm a little confused here. The ICBT program is not FCS. My sources tell me that ICBT is a total bust up and the the Pentagon just wants to find a way to phase it out without a lawsuit from the contractors or having the press get wind of how stupid the whole thing was. I imagine that they will end up in some sort of "military-police" role attached to some other division(s) in the future.

FCS is a whole other kettle of fish, and one that has much larger implications.

[Tin-Legions]

True, but Stryker, the bedrock platform for the IBCT (IFV, mortar carrier, cav scout vehicle, FIST-V, ambulance, engineer vehicle and so on), and what makes the IBCT different, is the first generation Future Combat System. But it is'nt. It is a throwback to World War II vehicles that are useful, but not battle winners. The vehicle breaks no new ground in it's basics. All that has been done is to throw in some nifty computers and vision gear. Look up the Stryker web page for all it's variants. Neat stuff, but nothing new. If this is what the Army of the future is supposed to be equipped with, be prepared for massive casualties because these vehicles cannot withstand combat. Period. The Army is just replicating what the Marines already have.

The FCS is supposed to be a survivable combat platform that can be fielded in many variants, and be highly deployable. Again, Stryker, first generation FCS, is neither survivable (only protected from small arms, armor pack add ons only provide protection in the .50 cal range, not against RPG) nor easily deployable (one per C-130, fully stripped, it takes a second c-130 to carry its armor packs and ammo load).

FCS has a long way to go. take care