Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan
It has always seemed strange to me that the Strykers lost the LAV-25's amphibious capabilities. Can anyone provide any specific info on what caused the loss of that capability, or perhaps more relevant to Nate's post, what it would take to return amphibious capabilities to the Stryker?
I guess what I'm saying is, in your universe Nate would such a vehicle still really be a Stryker? Would it perhaps make more sense to say the vehicles being used in your universe are US-produced LAV-25s with some or all of the Stryker's features?
|
Because the people that write the specifications in the Pentagon forget that 80% of the planets surface is water.
It if I am not to far off was built with Europe, Africa, and the Middle East in mind. Confidence (over Confidence?) in Bridging, pontoon, and ferry equipment possibly.
Lost Institutional knowledge? Gen. Shinseki needed to ram it through the system before an new JCS killed the whole Transformational Army scheme.
The Stryker lest anyone forget is meant as the "Interim Vehicle" which will be tested and bring about Doctrine for the "Future Combat System".
BTW SecDef Gates killed the FCS program as costly and not producing significant gains.
Budget, design, and Branch competition probably played a part.
Budget. The accountants were screaming about costs. Adding amphibious to the design probably would have greatly increased the per unit price. Which would have killed the program regardless of how great it could be.
Design. The complexity of amphibious capability is well tested. It increases maintenance cost for a task not often called into play.
Branch. The Army probably........ well probably said "Eff U" to the Navy and the Marine Corps. Not like the other Services collaborated on the LAV. It is the Budget games played the Services, loosely moderated by the JCS, and refereed by the SecDef.