Strykers Airmobile

[Delta228]

I was reading on Wikipedia that several Stryker variants were tested for being deployed in Airmobile operations. So, feasibly, could it be used in such a way in the scope of CMSF?

Also, how would this be achieved? Would the Stryker Infantry be dropped inside their vehicles, and dismount upon landing, or would the infantry be choppered or paradroped into the LZ and then meet up with their rides?

[flamingknives]

The Stryker would be delivered in transport aircraft to a secured airstrip while the infantry would arrive in another aircraft, as far as my understanding of it goes. Furthermore, the Stryker would turn up without much of its armour, especially the slat cage, unless it is delivered by C17 or C5.

I seriously doubt that this would fall into a CM:SF scale battle.

[SgtMuhammed]

Well outside the scope of CMSF. The Stryker is strategically air moble, meaning that you can get it into theater by air in numbers that can actually be operationally significant. Oppose this to the M1, for instance, which can be flown in aircraft like the C5 or C17 but not in significant numbers. In any case they would not be tactically mobile, like Airborne or Air assault infantry, meaning that you can't insert them onto the front line by air.

[MikeyD]

Stryker is airmobile in the same way a city schoolbus is airmobile. Stryker's suspension would most likely be deflated (that was designed into the vehicle), everything above the commander's hatch would be removed or swung out of the way. You would not see an Iraq-style Stryker with slat armor and added IED protection rollng off the ramp, that's for sure. Like the toys you once got for Christmas - "Some assembly required".

[SgtMuhammed]

I always wanted to see if we could do a LAPES drop with a crewed hummer. Just throw that sucker in neutral and roll off the back ramp onto the runway. Rapid Deployment baby!

[Falconander]

I remember reading about an airshow where they were trying to do the fast deployment with an M1 coming out the back of a C130 or the like. Tank rolled back, chute deployed, something went very wrong and the tank did not deploy correctly bringing the whole 9 yards crashing down on the runway tank and plane included.

Not the crowd pleaser you would want to have seen....

[c3k]

I used to airdrop the old M551 Sheridan. It barely cleared the door in the back of the aircraft when it was loaded and it always exceeded the allowed gross weight. When that little tank went out, it usually took chunks of the airplane with it. Sometimes they were important pieces! Those were fun.

[tc237]

It depends on how much airlift capacity you are willing or able to use.

I don't think M1A1's and M2's require that much more then Strykers would. (1 M1 per C-17, 2 M2-Stryker per)

How many C-17 sorties would it take to fly in something similiar to the Heavy Reaction Company Team that was flown in to northern Iraq in 2003?

IIRC, it was something like 25 sorties for 1 M1A1 plt + 1 M2 plt + 1 M113 plt and HQ, ~15 total vehicles + personnel.

Here is another example: C/2-70 AR, was flown out west to help the 75th Rangers (and this is from a captured airfield to another captured airfield)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/onpoint/ch-5.htm

Arriving at Tallil early on 2 April, the company linked up with SOF personnel and transported 10 M1A1 tanks, three M113 armored personnel carriers, a FST-V fire-support vehicle, two fuel trucks, three cargo trucks, and an HMMWV by C-17 aircraft to H-1 Airfield in western Iraq. Air Force transports moved Celeen's company in 15 sorties over three days.

It is probably the same or very close for a Stryker unit.

I remember reading about an airshow where they were trying to do the fast deployment with an M1 coming out the back of a C130 or the like. Tank rolled back, chute deployed, something went very wrong and the tank did not deploy correctly bringing the whole 9 yards crashing down on the runway tank and plane included.

Not the crowd pleaser you would want to have seen....

I highly doubt that ever happened, in fact I would probably bet a large amount of money that it never did.

And that's not counting the supposed use of a C-130, which is too small physically to even load an M1A1.

Even for a C-17 or C-5, no one is that stupid, the Army and Airforce know exactly the number and type of vehicles each aircraft can lift or if it can be unloaded in the manner described.

And an M1A1 is not one of the vehicles....

[SgtMuhammed]

It happened, they had to slingload an M88 from an OH58 to clean it up.

Like TC said. You can airmoble pretty much anything, it just depends on how much you are willing to dedicate to it. Moving a company of M1s into western Iraq presented a significant force in that area. Against a 1st rate power, not so much.

[Battlefront.com]

RAND did a study for the US Air Force way back when the Army was in the process of putting together its first Stryker Battalion (2002). It's about 125 pages and goes into more detail about air and sea deployment than most people would ever want to know

One has to remember that this is not as simple as counting how many vehicles x aircraft can transport. Distance is VERY important because Strykers can be deployed, with their crew/passengers, in C-130s. They can also land C-130s on very short and rough landing strips, whereas the C-5 and C-17 need huge paved facilities.

The other thing to consider is how much airlift capacity the US Air Force has per type of airframe and how many of those could be allocated to a major lift operation. If the unit is predeployed within reach of a C-130, then a Stryker unit is in a much better logistical position to be moved because there are far more C-130s than there are C-5s and C-17s. The Air Force also doesn't need as many of the C-130s for their own ops as they need the other aircraft, so the competition for the larger pool of aircraft is less than the competition for the smaller pool of aircraft. Also, RAND pointed out that for longer deployments tankers, for in-air refueling, would be required. Yet these tankers are in fairly short supply.

Another HUGE consideration is the logistics tail. To keep an Abrams platoon fueled and in operating condition is no small task. Same for the Bradley, though obviously less so. Therefore, the additional lift required to move in fuel, personnel, food, tents, etc. is much smaller for a Stryker unit per fighting soldier than it is for a heavy unit.

Also, once on the ground there is the question of how far do the forces need to move before they are able to start fulfilling their mission. The further out the area of operations is from a sophisticated landing spot, the worse things are for the heavier units.

At one point I had all kinds of statistics about the logistics stuff. Its buried on my harddrive and here on this Forum. The stats were based on actual performance in Iraq. It really gave a great picture as to the greater operational flexibility the SBCTs offer.

Basically, what this demonstrates is what the Army found out during Operation Hawk. To move a very small force by air isn't a big deal no matter how heavy it is. But when deploying a significant force by air, all sorts of things start to add up. The underlying conclusion is that the more sorties you need, the heavier the aircraft required, and the further the distance traveled means the less practical air deployment becomes. To help counter balance this the lighter the force is the better.

Steve

[Falconander]

tc237,

I accept Visa, Discover, Best Buy gift cards or cash.

Several accidents have occurred during low-level military training flights. A C-130 demonstrating how a parachute can pull a tank from the cargo bay only a few feet above ground crashed at Fort Bragg, N.C., when it flew in at too steep an angle.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE0D9143BF93AA2575BC0A96E948260&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FA%2FAccidents%20and%20Safety

Most site blocked through my work but this was one that talked about the crash. This was a C-130 Hercules.

THis is an interesting link about Strykers

http://science.howstuffworks.com/stryker.htm/printable

http://www.dcma.mil/communicator/archives/spring%20summer%202003/stryker.htm

[Mikkey]

thank's for interesting links Falconander!

[Falconander]

tc237,

I'll take Visa, Discover Card, Best Buy gift cards or just cash.

Several accidents have occurred during low-level military training flights. A C-130 demonstrating how a parachute can pull a tank from the cargo bay only a few feet above ground crashed at Fort Bragg, N.C., when it flew in at too steep an angle.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE0D9143BF93AA2575BC0A96E948260&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FA%2FAccidents%20and%20Safety

July 1, 1987 : A USAF C-130E, 68-10945, c/n 4325, crashed during an open house at Fort Bragg, during a display of the low level airdrop technique known as LAPES, (Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System), in which a parachute is used to pull the cargo out the rear door while the plane makes a touch-and-go. Pilot failed to pull-up after deploying M551 Sheridan tank, hit treeline, burned, killing three on board, one soldier on the ground, and injuring two crew.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C-130_Hercules_crashes

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv28LUdzB2s

(Can't open the youtube at work)

Ok... so not an M1...

[Sergei]

Wait a minute - supposing a swarm of swallows carried it together?

[Battlefront.com]

African or European swallows?

Steve

[tc237]

Yep, it was an M551 not an M1, huge difference.

Anyway, the C-130 requirement for the Styker is a bit misleading.

The C-17 is much more capable than a C-130, it can fly out of the same small rugged airfields and can carry more weight much further then a C-130.

Plus, they are more reliable then the older Herc's.

Any Stryker is going via C17.

[jeffsmith]

African or European swallows?

Steve

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=15311

[Battlefront.com]

The point about the C-130s is that there are a ton of them, which is not the case with the C-17s. The number of sorties necessary to move an entire SBCT is massive, therefore the practical number of sorties is constrained by number of aircraft available and throughput at the airports themselves. The Army has stated that the entire SBCT is supposed to be airliftable to anywhere in the world within 96 hours. The RAND study made it clear that even if 100% of the transport airfleet was made available this would not be possible. So eliminating the C-130s from the mix is not possible when a big lift is needed.

I also forgot to mention the other big difference between an HBCT and a SBCT in terms of logistics... ammo types. The volume and weight of keeping Abrams and Bradleys supplied with ammo is massive compared to Strykers. This is one reason why 25mm guns were rejected (there were other issues as well). The concept is that one planeload of heavy ordinance goes a lot less far than a planeload of lighter stuff. If the enemy force is light and asymmetric, then sacrificing ammo quantity for ammo punch doesn't appear to be a good tradeoff.

Steve