Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Army without 'vital vehicles'

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

  • Herr Klutz
    Guest replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Shrike21
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • paul g
    replied
    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, 21:50.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Herr Klutz
    Guest replied
    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 )

    Leave a comment:

  • Aidan
    Closed Account

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

    Leave a comment:

  • Come-quickly
    Commandant

  • Come-quickly
    replied
    Does this mean there is a general antipathy to the Rumsfeld "doctrine"?

    Leave a comment:


  • paul g
    replied
    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, 18:51.

    Leave a comment:

  • California Tanker
    My tank is bigger...

  • California Tanker
    replied
    That Sparky again?

    An astute piece of marketing, mind.. Calling the thing after an airborne general in an attempt to garner support for the vehicle amongst the airmobile community.

    I'm starting to see it referred to as 'Gavin' on occasion on some other boards by paratroopers, but it's a long way from being an accepted name.

    NTM

    Leave a comment:

  • yellowjacket
    Potential Liability

  • yellowjacket
    replied
    Seemingly any article where the M113 is called the "Gavin" stems from this fella, as that name is not used by the US military, officially or unofficially.

    Leave a comment:

  • FMolloy
    King Monkey

  • FMolloy
    replied
    That guy has an obsessive hatred for the LAV & wheeled vehicles in general, I don't think we can rely on him for objective assessment.

    He hates the USMC with a passion too.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Bud Fox
    Guest replied
    Not everbody in the US is happy about the Stykers

    From http://www.combatreform.com/lavdanger.htm



    The issue is NOT whether Senator Stevens should have a new Army Brigade Combat Team or not, its that the BCT must be on TRACKS in order to be cross-country mobile over the snows of Alaska, Korea and the hot, humid regions of the Pacific--the overweight 19-21 ton lav3stryker wheeled armored car the Army has selected to waste several billions of tax dollars will be restricted to roads and trails and be useless to the Army's 172nd Brigade.

    The same kind of situation exists today with the current Army Chief of Staff, General Shinseki refusing to field a mechanized M113A3 Gavin-based brigade combat team with parachute forced-entry and cross-country fire & maneuver capabilities instead stubbornly insisting road-bound rubber-tired lav3 stryker armored cars that CAN'T FIGHT and CAN'T FLY by C-130 be used.

    This is despite the fact that the M113A3 Gavins out-performed the lav3strykers at the recent Fort Lewis Congressionally-mandated comparison evaluation tests. The absurdity of such a heavy lav3 stryker armored car which makes the C-130 sacrifice so much fuel that you can drive it farther than you can fly it--has not been lost on Rumsfled's DoD. The DOD are trying to work around" the flimsy lav3stryker brigades by surrounding them with mechanized (tracked) M113A3/M2/M1 forces and forward deploying them so the heavy wheeled armored cars will not have to be flown by any USAF aircraft. You could surround a brigade's worth of 300 x ice cream trucks with tracked AFVs and call the force "full operational capability"; the tracks will be used to do the heavy fighting and off-road dirty tasks while the wheels frolic along paved roads and trails as far back in the rear as possible.

    Leave a comment:

  • Aidan
    Closed Account

  • Aidan
    replied
    "In fairness, the US is not 'moving towards wheeled vehicles' "

    So they've bought over a thousand Stykers for the laugh?



    Perhaps I should have been more clear. The US Army is moving towards wheeled vehicles for rapid deployment for certain operations. Just like a large number of other nations. So the operational context, internationally, is towards a certain type of vehicle for these type of missions. Our purchase of the Mowags merely reflects this, rather then any inherant bias against tracks.

    Leave a comment:

  • California Tanker
    My tank is bigger...

  • California Tanker
    replied
    In fairness, the US is not 'moving towards wheeled vehicles'

    It's just filling in a gap in capability. The Army retains the policy that the absolute best equipment is tracked, just not necessarily as mobile. The USAR can afford to buy wheeled to fill in a speciality role because they have plenty of tracked available for when they need it.

    NTM

    Leave a comment:

  • Aidan
    Closed Account

  • Aidan
    replied
    Doubt if we have any formal policy on purchasing AFVs. Its not like its something the country does very often. After the Scorpions, what was the next major AFV purchase? As far as I can figure, there were the two Sisus and then the Mowags. Not exactly a precedent.

    Still, it is highly likely that theres a 'wheels only' bias on the grounds of cost and commonality. Any deployed force is probably going to be wheeled, and since the army is in the game of purchasing gear for deployment, thats the way things are going to go. Specially since the US is moving that way with the IBCT and the Stryker and other EU countries also have similar forces. The difference being, of course, that they have 'heavy' elements they can bring to bear. We don't.

    The CVRTs were purchased in the 70s, supposedly at least in part as training vehicles for MBTs. And they were supposed to be augmented with Alvis Stormers, according to the 'bible'. Totally different context to what the army is looking at now. Doesn't necessarily mean they can't/won't be deployed if they get that upgrade though.
    Aidan
    Closed Account
    Last edited by Aidan; 5 August 2003, 13:58.

    Leave a comment:

  • Come-quickly
    Commandant

  • Come-quickly
    replied
    I find it difficult to believe that in this era our policy could be that stupid, that'd be the stupidest policy since the thing with British and American fighters during the emergency

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X