Army Names First Combat Vehicle for Post-9/11 Soldier

[RF667799]

The kind of air defenses that can bring down a C-130 most definitely exist in the kinds of places contingency operations happen.

Then they would bring down a 130 carrying an M1. Or a Hmmwv.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm enjoying the different perspectives and would like to thank most of the participants for contributing to an interesting, sane discussion.

 

[Rich2018]

The kind of air defenses that can bring down a C-130 most definitely exist in the kinds of places contingency operations happen.

Really ?

"During Operation Iraqi Freedom, US Army airborne forces, primarily the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and the 173rd Airborne Brigade, conducted several airborne operations. These operations included seizing airfields, securing strategic locations, and supporting other ground forces."

Google Search

So why weren't they decimated by air defenses ?

 

[Questerr]

Really ?

"During Operation Iraqi Freedom, US Army airborne forces, primarily the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and the 173rd Airborne Brigade, conducted several airborne operations. These operations included seizing airfields, securing strategic locations, and supporting other ground forces."

Google Search

So why weren't they decimated by air defenses ?

Because there are ways to suppress air defenses. Those work regardless of where in the world you are operating.

 

[Rich2018]

Because there are ways to suppress air defenses. Those work regardless of where in the world you are operating.

First you say:

The kind of air defenses that can bring down a C-130 most definitely exist in the kinds of places contingency operations happen.

Then you say:

Because there are ways to suppress air defenses. Those work regardless of where in the world you are operating.

So which is it ?


You say air defenses exist that can bring down paratroop carrying aircraft, but that's irrelevant because they can be suppressed anyway. You have no idea do you ?

 

[Questerr]

First you say:


Then you say:


So which is it ?


You say air defenses exist that can bring down paratroop carrying aircraft, but that's irrelevant because they can be suppressed anyway. You have no idea do you ?

Because SEAD doesn’t always completely suppress defenses but they can work anywhere.

 

[Rich2018]

Because SEAD doesn’t always completely suppress defenses but they can work anywhere.

So which is it, can the US military drop paratroops in any theater they want, or can they not ?

 

[Questerr]

So which is it, can the US military drop paratroops in any theater they want, or can they not ?

When did I ever claim that they can’t drop paratroopers in any theater?

We’re talking about airlanding light tanks.

 

[Rich2018]

When did I ever claim that they can’t drop paratroopers in any theater?

We’re talking about airlanding light tanks.

When you said:

The kind of air defenses that can bring down a C-130 most definitely exist

ie: in places where the US military might want to air drop paratroops, Air defenses capable of shooting down transport aircraft, "most definitely exist", according to you.

 

[Questerr]

When you said:


ie: in places where the US military might want to air drop paratroops, Air defenses capable of shooting down transport aircraft, "most definitely exist", according to you.

The context of this entire thread is about a light tank designed to be airlanded to support paratroopers and other light forces.

Try to keep up.

 

[RF667799]

The context of this entire thread is about a light tank designed to be airlanded to support paratroopers and other light forces.

Try to keep up.

For that poster, the context will always be: Hole, Rabbit, 1 each.

 

[Rich2018]

The context of this entire thread is about a light tank designed to be airlanded to support paratroopers and other light forces.

Oh by all means deflect away

You indicated that modern AA defenses exist (to deny the sky to hostile airborne forces)

Then tie yourself in knots by saying that they can be suppressed anyway....so not much point to them existing huh ?

Try thinking what you're saying through before posting.

 

[Questerr]

Oh by all means deflect away

You indicated that modern AA defenses exist (to deny the sky to hostile airborne forces)

Then tie yourself in knots by saying that they can be suppressed anyway....so not much point to them existing huh ?

Try thinking what you're saying through before posting.

What is your purpose here exactly besides pedantic trolling?

 

[Rich2018]

What is your purpose here exactly besides pedantic trolling?

To challenge dogmatic views like yours.

 

[RF667799]

Oh by all means deflect away

You indicated that modern AA defenses exist (to deny the sky to hostile airborne forces)

Then tie yourself in knots by saying that they can be suppressed anyway....so not much point to them existing huh ?

Try thinking what you're saying through before posting.

Why do you think the two concepts are mutually exclusive? That's some "If she weighs more than a duck" logic.

 

[Questerr]

So a simple solution to the problem, and because it’s simple we know the US Army won’t do it:

There’s already a version of the M1117 Armored Security Vehicle (a modernized version of the Cadillac Gage V-150 in service with MP units) that can fit a turret mounting the 90mm Cockerill low pressure gun. The gun can handle pretty much any light vehicle out there or bunkers that light infantry units might struggle with.

It can fit in a C-130, and multiple vehicles can fit in a C-17. It can take appliqué armor or a RWS after airlanding if it needs more protection or firepower. And it has the advantage of being wheeled, so it doesn’t muddle the logistics/maintenance of light units which don’t have any tracked vehicles but loads of wheeled ones.

Too bad the Army will never adopt a weapon that already exists because they can’t funnel money to contractors and lock in cushy lobbyist jobs after retirement.

 

[Rich2018]

So a simple solution to the problem, and because it’s simple we know the US Army won’t do it:

There’s already a version of the M1117 Armored Security Vehicle (a modernized version of the Cadillac Gage V-150 in service with MP units) that can fit a turret mounting the 90mm Cockerill low pressure gun. The gun can handle pretty much any light vehicle out there or bunkers that light infantry units might struggle with.

It can fit in a C-130, and multiple vehicles can fit in a C-17. It can take appliqué armor or a RWS after airlanding if it needs more protection or firepower. And it has the advantage of being wheeled, so it doesn’t muddle the logistics/maintenance of light units which don’t have any tracked vehicles but loads of wheeled ones.

Too bad the Army will never adopt a weapon that already exists because they can’t funnel money to contractors and lock in cushy lobbyist jobs after retirement.

 

[RF667799]

Uh...I didn't see the poster suggest that as a replacement for the Hmmwv.

 

[Questerr]

…I’m not saying it should replace the Humvee.

What’s your point?

 

[Rich2018]

…I’m not saying it should replace the Humvee.

What’s your point?

An interesting video on the M-1117.

 

[Fledermaus]

An interesting video on the M-1117.

In other words... You are throwing shit against the wall.