Comments on: Stryker update, straight from Iraq

By: pfcem

pfcem — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 04:35:27 +0000

Cole,
You are missing the point. I already said TWICE that for smaller units FCS do have a notable advantage BUT that is not what I commented about back on May 25th…It also helps to put what I said into proper context by reading what it was in response to.
But since you obviously did not do that & I have no reason to suspect that you will now…Roy Smith is living is some kind of alternate reality where helicoptering AFVs around Afghanistan is the way to fight that particular conflict & that in order to do that we NEED to bring back the Skycrane & introduce lighter AFVs that it can carry around.
His flawed thinking of helicoptering light AFVs around Afghanistan is the same kind of flawed thinking that has dupped so many into thinking that equipping 15 US Army BRIGADES will transform that ~1/5th of the Army into realistic Air Mech Units (which IS the idea behind FCS). But when you actually LOOK at what is needed to deploy a full FCS BRIGADE & when you then compare that to what is needed to deploy a full Heavy BRIGADE (which are NOT intended to be used as Air Mech) you SHOULD see the folly in that thinking.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:23:51 +0000

Cole,
YOU are the one grasping at straws!
NO FCS units that optimize C-17 payload/cube ARE NOT saddled with avg. payload figures close to HMMWV-based “cube-out” units like airborne/air assault brigades? Heavy units average 60 tons. Light (aka Infantry) units average 50 tons or less. It is NOT beyong the realm or reality to believe that “medium” FCS units would average less than heavy units but more than “light units”. Note that this is the AVERAGE weight of each load, NOT the max…Also note that each unit “type” (heavy, medium, light) does not require the same NUMBEr of loads.
You are STILL missing the point. It takes 420 C-17 sorties to deploy a Modular Heavy Combat Brigade. It takes 340–370 sorties to deploy a Modular FCS Combat Brigade. Deploying a FULL combat Brigade (not Battalion — which I have already said FCS has an advantage) quicker than a heavy Brigade is THE #1 REASON for the FCS yet it “saves” only 10–12%!
I especially love how you try to put forth the notion that Heavy units are somehow INTENDED for 1st day air deployment to austere airfields…LOL
Like I said from the beginning, the FCS will NOT greatly reduce deployment time for Brigade-or-larger units for the simple fact that the combat vehicles only make up a portion of an entire unit & with the exception of the M1 Abrams MBT, the FCS vehicles are not THAT much smaller/lighter than their equivalent Heavy unit vehicles.

By: Cole

Cole — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:29:07 +0000

pfcem grasping for straws:
“heavy” unit average 60 tons
FCS unit average 50–55 tons
“light” units average 50 tons OR LESS
================================
Come on. You think FCS units that optimize C-17 payload/cube should be saddled with avg. payload figures close to HMMWV-based “cube-out” units like airborne/air assault brigades?
Here is the reality.
During early deployment with effective load planning you might expect to land 30 C-17s the first day at one austere airfield and 30 more at another airfield (noncontiguous ops), The result could be TWO of the following FCS task forces landed at two separate airfields:
22 medium tanks
32 infantry carriers (30mm and more infantry)
10 reconnaissance/surveillance vehicles (30mm)
6 NLOS-Cannons (155mm)
10 NLOS-Mortars (120mm)
6 armored C2 vehicles
2 armored ambulances
1 armored treatment vehicles
1 maintenance recovery vehicle
——————————
In contrast, the heavy modular brigade would use the same 30 C-17s at each airfield to land:
15 M1 tanks
14 M2 Infantry Bradleys (25mm and less infantry)
6 M109A6 Paladin SP 155mm howitzers
4 M3 Cavalry Bradleys
8 M113 Ambulances and C2 vehicles
1 M88 Recovery vehicle
————————-
Essentially, 60 C-17s would deploy most combat elements of two full combined arms battalion task forces in one day to two airfields.
The modular heavy unit would transport half a combined arms battalion task force to each airfield using the same 60 C-17 sorties.
So you can continue to believe there is little deployment difference between the FCS and modular heavy BCT…but those who do the math know the difference. I thought you were good in math.;)
Those who think logistics would quickly calculate that the 15 M1 tanks would require upwards of 7500 gallons of JP8 every FEW HOURS in the initial airhead defense…constantly running turbine engines to run sensors/radios. The 22 medium tanks would use only about 4400 gallons of JP8…every FEW DAYS in the initial defense…hybrid electric drive and lighter weight has its advantages.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:48:00 +0000

Cole,
It would be nice if what you posted actually HELPED your case but it doesn’t.
Footnote 11 DOES NOT say that FCS unis were saddled with average payload figures of an airborne, air assault, or light infantry unit! It simply explains why heavy units have a higher average weight.
“heavy” unit average 60 tons
FCS unit average 50–55 tons
“light” units average 50 tons OR LESS
How the hell do you get from “the number of daily sorties constrained by the capacity of the airfield in East Africa, based on average airlift payloads per brigade of 60 tons for modular heavy units and 50 tons to 55 tons for units equipped with Future Combat Systems” that the airfield limited the average sortie weight? Note the significance of the COMMA…
The Djibouti example IS NOT a “worst case” but a “realistic case” the FCS is/was based on the “need” for. We can air or sea deply Division or Corps sized Heavy units to areas with the proper infrastucture (limited by the air or seas transport capacity/availability), the FCS Bridage is/was intended for SUPPOSEDLY quicker deployment into areas WITHOUT the proper infrastructure. Note that FCS units WERE intended to be deployed via C-130…
The problem with the false belief that FCS units offer a MAJOR deployability advantage over heavy units is all the other “stuff” besides the combat vehicles that make up a unit. MOST of which is about the same (if not THE same) reguardless of whether it is a heavy unit or a FCS unit. A FCS unit still would/will require 4.0–4.5/5.0 (340–370 C-17 sorties vs 420) the thransport capacity of a heavy unit. So if you can deploy a Heavy unit somewhere in say 15 days, a FCS unit would take 12–14 — NOT a huge difference.

By: Cole

Cole — Fri, 30 May 2008 06:18:35 +0000

pfcem said: “I never said that FCS won’t have their roles to play but don’t fool yourself into thinking that FCS combat vehicles provide THAT much of a deployability advantage over current “heavy force” vehicles. Not at the Brigade-sized unit & up anyway, possibly for a Company-sized or at the VERY most Batalion-sized units & smaller though. ;)“
=================================
Who says the entire brigade must air deploy. A task force suited to the situation is likely which will leave a lot of stuff behind.
===================================
pfcem continues: “Note that the 50–60 tons used in the GAO reports is an AVERAGE weight. Many loads will be less than 40 tons. AND with the exception of the M1 Abrams MBT, there is NOT that much of a difference in weight between all of the vehicles/troops/equipment of a current “heavy force” unit & a FCS unit…
====================================
Actually, they used the load bearing of an austere east African airfield to limit payload to 60 tons…but it was wrong not to give the FCS unit at least an identical 60 ton figure. Doing that alone reduces sorties to 310…about 25% less than the 420 sortie heavy BCT.
Recall that the August 2008 CBO study sealift difference was 50% more combat power, or 3 FCS BCTs vs 2 heavy BCTs for 6 fast sealift ships. Sounds significant to me…and the FCS airlift figure grows more significant with judicious load planning at joint staff level to get closer to the 80+ ton figure.
====================================
pfcem continues:“Also note that FCS had a LOT more “clout” IF (& some of us knew all along if couldn’t/wouldn’t) it were C-130 transportable & even then only for small (Company, perhaps Battalion) size units (it takes 340–370 C-17 sorties to transport a full Brigade).“
=====================================
Could never envision 900 C-130s being a superior solution to 300 C-17s. Recall that only the armored vehicles cannot travel by C-130. Many logistics trucks and joint light tactical vehicles could still travel by C-130…coming later once substantial combat power is on the ground to protect/expand the airhead/port.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Fri, 30 May 2008 05:14:23 +0000

Cole,
Still misrepresenting what I have said. I never said that FCS won’t have their roles to play but don’t fool yourself into thinking that FCS combat vehicles provide THAT much of a deployability advantage over current “heavy force” vehicles. Not at the Brigade-sized unit & up anyway, possibly for a Company-sized or at the VERY most Batalion-sized units & smaller though. ;)
Note that the 50–60 tons used in the GAO reports is an AVERAGE weight. Many loads will be less than 40 tons. AND with the exception of the M1 Abrams MBT, there is NOT that much of a difference in weight between all of the vehicles/troops/equipment of a current “heavy force” unit & a FCS unit…
Also note that FCS had a LOT more “clout” IF (& some of us knew all along if couldn’t/wouldn’t) it were C-130 transportable & even then only for small (Company, perhaps Battalion) size units (it takes 340–370 C-17 sorties to transport a full Brigade).

By: pfcem

pfcem — Thu, 29 May 2008 21:19:22 +0000

Cole,
Thanks for missing the ENTIRE POINT. That is that the combat vehicles that make up a Brigade or Division are only PART of total valume/weight of the unit AND that the number C-17 sorties required to air transport an entire Brigade-sized unit both too large to be practical & not that much less with FCS vs current vehicles.
Yas a C-17 can carry 81+ tons but if can not carry it very far…

By: pfcem

pfcem — Thu, 29 May 2008 17:40:36 +0000

Once again Cole demonstrates he lives in some alternate reality (&/or has a poor grasp on this one). AND completely misrepresents the TRUTH posted by others (such as myself).
NO I DO NOT believe the supply of oil is unlimited and the lives/livelihoods of logisticians should be tied up in resupplying behemoths. I NEVER said anything even remotely close.
My position has ALWAYS been that we SHOULD have 240 C-17 in addition to 100+ C-5M.
I am fully aware that we are modernizing the M1 tank & that some peeple have the wet dream that we can/should keep them in service until 2050.
And since Cole STILL either doesn’t know the truth or is purposely ignoring it since it “crashes” his alternate reality…
I have already give this previously concerning the supposed mobility benefits of “lighter” FCS brigades/divisions vs “current” Abrams/Bradley brigades/divisions & of air transport vs seas transport but shall post it here again. From http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=7122.
C-17 Sorties to Deploy Brigade-Sized Unit
Current Vehicles = 410
FCS = 340 to 380
Sealift Ships Needed
Current Vehicles = 2 Fast sealift ships
FCS = 2 Fast sealift ships
Days to Deploy Brigade-Sized Unit
Current Vehicles = 23 Airlift or 23 Sealift
FCS = 19–20 Airlift or 23 Sealift
Days to Deploy Division-Sized Unit
Current Vehicles = 135 Airlift or 27 Sealift
FCS = 115–130 Airlift or 23 Sealift
So now that the FACTS have been made clear ONCE AGAIN it should be clear to EVERYONE that the “lighter” FCS DO NOT provide a major deployability benefic over current “heavy” forces AND that airlift also DOES NOT provide a major deployability benefic over sealift.

By: WR

WR — Wed, 28 May 2008 19:55:58 +0000

Byron,
TINSTA ALLONS! TINSTA ALLONS!
SDAF,
WR

By: Wembley

Wembley — Tue, 27 May 2008 12:39:03 +0000

“Won’t stop the crys of ‘fail’ from our leftist friends“
Perhaps they would be right — you can’t win a war by bodycount. You might count the Vietnam war as a success by those sort of benchmarks, but not everyone agrees.
You can clear 25,000 miles of road every year without getting any close to the end.