Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Army without 'vital vehicles'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Actually the rumours Pre -Iraq, was that the Future combat system under development to replace the Abrams and Bradley by United defence and GDLS, will be wheeled and around 30 tonnes. The reason the many in the Us army hate the stryker (which is an interim vehicle) is that the fear that it heralds the end of MBT and armour as we know it.
    Last edited by paul g; 7 August 2003, 19:51.

    Comment


    • #47
      Does this mean there is a general antipathy to the Rumsfeld "doctrine"?
      "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

      Comment


      • #48
        I thought the FCS was being prototyped as both a tracked and wheeled vehicle?

        Comment


        • #49
          What is the defence forces budget these days? more or less than a billion euro's? I don't think its even 1% of GDP and yet we spend over 50% of GDP on a health service that doesen't work and whenever we get a contract to build anything from a road to a big metal rod we usually end up going way over budget and usually overtime as well (how this can happen if you have normal contracts with the builders I don't know, but thats what we're talking about here...) and politions who have been known to take their unfair share from the national funds...perhaps then if we cut out all this bulls**t and worked like most normal countries we'd save a couple of million, if not billion euro's which could be invested into other areas including buying us some vital equipment...just a thought...

          (of course the funny thing is the easiest way to do so would be through a military coup, but unfortunatly we wouldn't have the resources to carry one out :D )

          Comment


          • #50
            Correct Aidan, that why i said rumour, tho it came from a friend in UD who knows things. As for FCS intresting concept, would be nice if the Piranha III in Irish service was interim as well. A lot will depend on how stryker performs in iraq. The arguement is that while tracks proved themselves in Iraq during the inital phase, that only lasts a few days weeks, what will prove itself in the longer term, and the sort of war that is in the process of in Iraq will be wheels. Given technological advances, the arguement goes, that wheeled vehicles have evolved so much since 1980, possibly it would make more sense to get rid of tracks althogether, and invest in wheels which have greater strategic mobility. If a LAV gets a puncture or hits a mine, it can still drive on, if an Abrams track hits a mine, its stuck. Range is another consideration.

            Personally I think the Stryker decision points in a major shift in US army policy, going back to your point about Irish policy in buying armoured vehicles, don't forget that the Stryker order was the US army's first major decision in AFV since the 1970's, and given that the M-113A3/m-8 GS appears to have been a viable and far cheeper alternative, and other tracks were trialed, suggests that longer term changes are afoot.
            Last edited by paul g; 8 August 2003, 22:50.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Herr Klutz
              What is the defence forces budget these days? more or less than a billion euro's?
              I think Last years budget (2002) was €890 million, with about 50-60% going on pay alone. :confused:
              I think that works out at about 0.7-0.8% of GDP.
              If the government ever got serious about Defence they would have to spend at least double that amount.

              Comment


              • #52
                well if we got serious about defence it'd be the EU or NATO paying for it so its all good...

                And they spend (nay, waste) how much of GDP per year?

                Comment

                Working...
                X