1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

Stryker wheeled vehicle

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by (un)l33t_1, Jul 7, 2005.

  1. geogob

    geogob Koohii o nomimasu ka?

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2000
    Messages:
    4,148
    Likes Received:
    0
    Problem is that very often, the flexible solutions I speak of are thrown out and never selected. Why? Well politicians do not care whether it’s going to cost more or less or be more or less effective in 20 years or 10 years. Heck! Not even in 5 years. They only care on how much and how effective it's going to be until the next election. It's sad, but true.

    Often engineers and project leaders have solutions in their book that are very well adapted for the current needs (like for the war on terror or conflict in the Middle East) and that are often cheaper or have much more flexible solutions, generally more expensive. With a standard platform, often less effective for current needs but that can be adapted for many different situations, the system will often become much more effective in a specific theater than one designed for a generic type of environment.

    But then you’ll have people saying that “they are too expensive” or that “they don’t even do the job” or that “they are not adapted for them”. These people often forget (or do not realize) that a system more expensive now can cost much less maintenance later on or be much more effective later on in other type of operations. In the long haul, considering the 15 or 30 or what ever life time of a system, the overall acquisition, operating and maintenance cost can much less than the one for a cheaper initial solution… but politicians get elected within the next 5 years, not 15 or 30, so a lot of pressure is coming from then and they often have the last word in these kind of “large” investments.

    There is a very good example I can think of… Take the F15 and F18. The F15 uses Pratt & Whitney engines and the F18 uses General Electric engines. Now, GE jet engines are rather seldom in aviation (military and civilian altogether), although most builders give you the choice between GE, P&W and Rolls Royce engines for the same aircraft (I know Airbus Industries does that). Why do you see GE engines on so few aircrafts (even though buyers can choose to have them), but you see a lot of RR or P&W? Cost. Cost. Cost. The GE engines are so expensive.

    But the design of the GE engines is amazing. If the compressor gets damaged on the PW engines, like those of the F15, you take the engine out and put a new one in. If the damage is reasonable, you might be able to refit the engine and make it air-worthy again. This will ground your aircraft at least a good day if not more… and it will cost you a new engine.

    If the GE Engine gets damage to its compressor stage (like on the F18), you pull the engine rack out, open it up, change the compressor, put the engine back it. 30 minutes.

    The day you’ll start getting rocks and sand in your engines and having to change and engine every two weeks, grounding half your fleet because of lack of man power to do all the work, you’ll start to regret the GE engines. But you saved some money... maybe.

    --

    Now take the LAV to put things into perspective. If you have a good design (I have no idea if it is really), when they saw that the RPG-7 was a specific threat and they had a solution against them, it was probably quite easy to modify them or fit them with the device to protect them. On the other hand, they might be design in a way where doing such changes is very difficult, takes a lot of resources and costs a lot.

    So seeing that changes have been made to them is, as I see it again, a good thing. At least it shows that you can adapt them to your specific needs. Whether this is easy or not is another question.

    --

    Just with anything, it’s a mater of choice and compromise. Just like with the choice you have between tracked vehicles or wheeled vehicles.


    Ok I think I'm in a writy mood today. I need to stop that :\
     
  2. Psychomorph

    Psychomorph  

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,267
    Likes Received:
    2
    Why not: Stryder leged... ermm thing?
     
  3. geogob

    geogob Koohii o nomimasu ka?

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2000
    Messages:
    4,148
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. chuckus

    chuckus Can't stop the bum rush.

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2001
    Messages:
    771
    Likes Received:
    0
    Edit: I got confused by geo's post, I think we're agreeing on the same thing lol. I made this a rebuttel but actually methinks we're on the same page.... (Damn Chef Boyardee making me bad trip again.)

    Yes, specially engineered equipment will outperform cheaper more generic equipment.
    The problem is, a handful of companies own the rights to the spares and replacement parts for such equipment. And when you control the supply of something, you get gouged. Also, with corporate mergers and takeovers, some of the companies that design CF equipment wind up bought out by someone who kills the product line. Suddenly, you can't get a specific nut or washer for a hydraulic unit and now the whole damn machine doesn't work. So you go to substitutes or equivalents that kill performance. That's the problem with the CF these days.

    They have to cannibalize all their equipment because companies are updating their products so fast that spares are no longer available for the kit we have. Yes, our military armament is outdated to begin with but the problem is even worse since corporations keep obsoleting their parts in order to make countries buy newer units or sub assemblies. (just like they do to you and me). Problem is Canada doesn't have the budget to buy new toys every 5 years so instead, they decided to opt for more commercial standard vehicles and equipment slightly retro fitted to military spec. (Also they're heavily reverse engineering equipment so they're no longer slaves to their suppliers. Now joe shmoe with a machine shop can make pieces of a LAV. Bad for Defence industry, good for taxpayers :D)

    It may not be as good in terms of performance but Canada is just trying to get functioning again. What's the point in having 100 leopards if only 10 work and there are no spares for that model?
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2005
  5. Psychomorph

    Psychomorph  

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,267
    Likes Received:
    2
    Played HL2? The thing with the 3 legs called 'Stryder'...
     
  6. Hadmar

    Hadmar Queen Bitch of the Universe

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    5,465
    Likes Received:
    29
  7. geogob

    geogob Koohii o nomimasu ka?

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2000
    Messages:
    4,148
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I know what a Stryder is :p

    I think the design used buy thoe grey guys in War of the Worlds is even better.
     
  8. Harrm

    Harrm I am watching porns.

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2001
    Messages:
    801
    Likes Received:
    0
    Honestly, I think the Kalashnikov principle has been pushed to the side a little too much in favor of huge spending in my country, but that's just my opinon.

    Also, one should note that the US doesn't really need more heavy armor, since out and out combat with tanks and the like is pretty much a thing of the past. I mean, why send a tank in when you can peg it with a missile for half the cost and twice the effectiveness? We've been doing this in Iraq since the start of the war.

    Geo is very right, too. The US is looking for situation-specific weapons. I'm actually pretty suprised the Stryker LAV/APC hasn't been completely abandoned for the command and control Stryker variant. And all that crap about Stryker Brigades is the dumbest thing I've heard today. I hope to god they abandon that idea. Info (old): (http://www.army.mil/features/strykeroe/).

    Lastly, as someone entering the army, when I think of getting shot at by rockets, a big dumb armored twinkee in the middle of the street is not where I want to be. I'd take a HUM-V moving 80mph any day of the week.

    --Harrm
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2005
  9. yurch

    yurch Swinging the clue-by-four

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    5,781
    Likes Received:
    0
    You mean extremely high-profile missile magnets. Much of modern combat today is hide-and-seek, and such a critter/vehicle would have a hard time hiding from and seeking it's enemies. Such a design would work only under the (extremely cocky) assumption that there aren't common ground weapons capable of damaging it.
     
  10. geogob

    geogob Koohii o nomimasu ka?

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2000
    Messages:
    4,148
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's where the problem is with military investment... you never know what will happen in the future and in what kind of engagement you'll be sending your troops and equipement in. This is especially true with participation in international task forces like those you see with the UN and NATO. You basically need to be ready for anything and you never know what might happen in the future. Iraq is a very good terrain for long distance engaments using precision guide ordinance. It's a freakin desert. Try this is an environnement with dense vegetation/tropical forest... you might be out of luck with your precision long range missiles.

    Effectiveness... ok. Cost? With all the guide ordinance dropped over Iraq, I bet you would have saved a lot of money destroy the Iraqi armored assets using artillery and good armored tactics and vehicles. Of course you would have much more losses... So yes in that case it's much more effective, but it sure did cost a lot. Those missiles and guided bombs are expensive pieces of junk.

    See? this is exactly my point. Yes it worked well in Iraq, but it doesn't mean it will always be the case. You want to be ready for that eventuallity... stay flexible. Sure it can be appealing to say "hey it worked well in Iraq... I guess we can drop the M1 and save money"... carefull.


    ---


    On the stryder question. I do agree with Yurch that it would be too effective. What would be very cool would be an APC similar to the LAV with a turret mounted GAU-8 or better :D
     
  11. Bushwack

    Bushwack Avenged Sevenfold...

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    564
    Likes Received:
    0
    Stryder= pwned by a high tensile steel cable, dont you guys remember the AT-ATs in Star Wars? :p
     
  12. chuckus

    chuckus Can't stop the bum rush.

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2001
    Messages:
    771
    Likes Received:
    0
    An entire military designed by clones. What did you expect?

    Can you say thinking inside the box?
     
  13. Harrm

    Harrm I am watching porns.

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2001
    Messages:
    801
    Likes Received:
    0
    Guided missile: $500,000
    M1A1: 1.2$ mil + ammo/gas costs
    M1A2: 2.4$ mil + ammo/gas costs

    --Harrm
     
  14. chuckus

    chuckus Can't stop the bum rush.

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2001
    Messages:
    771
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey if canada is using it. YOU KNOW it's a bargain... that's all we can afford :(
     
  15. geogob

    geogob Koohii o nomimasu ka?

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2000
    Messages:
    4,148
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course, we all know that you shoot once with the M1 and then throw it away... even if you miss your target.
     
  16. Harrm

    Harrm I am watching porns.

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2001
    Messages:
    801
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, but in the damage one guided missile can deal is worth at least an entire load in either tank.

    --Harrm
     
  17. geogob

    geogob Koohii o nomimasu ka?

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2000
    Messages:
    4,148
    Likes Received:
    0
    mmm no.

    The average tomahawk missle, just to use this one as an example (where used a lot, at least in GWI)' cost 1.4 M$... about the same as a M1A1. And operating the platforms to launch them is VERY expensive.

    All things considered I still think that MBT are more cost effective, but not very safe for the people operating them.
     
  18. L_S

    L_S .

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 1999
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well this whole deal with the stryker brigade thing is more about reorganization than the actual vehicle. I like the idea that units will be more modular and self reliant and all your assets will be organic. It's also about better flow of information (better commo, blue force tracking). They all sound like good ideas.

    As far as the actual vehicle...I've crossed paths with a dozen or so stryker guys and they all had positive things to say in general. The f*cker is huge and I don't think it is quite as "c130 transportable" as they originally intended though. The word is that they have pretty good survivability and that counts for a lot hehe.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2005

Share This Page