|
I used to be in the 2ACR back in the early days of the light cav concept. We were told that the light cav concept was General Sulivan's baby and it was extremley unpopular in the armor community (naturaly) and we were told to expect that after he retired we would either be transfered back to heavy cav or outright disbanded. Back then everything was about C130s and in fact our primary mission was supposed to be airland after an airfield siezure and expand the lodgement. Just after I left there in '95 they deployed to Haiti and apparently some people higher up were impressed with how much cheaper, easier and faster it was to deploy couple of Squadrons of HMMWVs vs. a squadron of tanks and bradlys this saving the light cav concept, or so I have been told. My point is that even back then they were searching for a replacement for the HMMWV that would have greater crew protection but still maintain the HMMWVs rapid deployability. The thing about the HMMWV is that we could role right off the bird and straight into the fight. I believe that that was the capability that the infanty community was hoping to to give to the light infantry units when they started the Stryker program. If that is the goal then they have missed the mark. Yes, the Styker provides better crew protection than the HMMWV but that was not the point. How long does it take from when it hits the ground until it is ready to go into the fight? What type of equipment, facilities and personnel are needed to get it ready? There is no question that the Stryker has performed well in Iraq but I wonder how well it would perform in its designated role as an RDF into an area where there is not time, personnel or facilties to get it ready.
I'll get off my box now.
SFC W
|