Stryker collection (merged thread)

[RTK]

RTK,
Whoever you are getting your information from is giving you bad information. The SBCT is not built around the RSTA or the LRAS3. Infantry rifle companies do not have LRAS3. As far as the warranties go, soldiers know how to maintain the items that are warrantied - the issue is that a contractor from the company that supplies the item must be the one working on it. For example, the engine in the Stryker is the exact same as the FMTV (minus the turbo). However, for a certain time period, we couldn't perform certain maintenance tasks on the engines in the Stryker even though the 63s were hanging parts on the FMTV engines.

Next, you don't need to ground mount your 120mm mortars anymore because the MC-B has been fielded.

Lastly, you are conflating COIN with asymmetrical threats/irregular threats or however you want to label the Fedayeen.

Never said it was built aroudn the RSTA. I said ISR systems. Surely LRAS isn't the only ISR asset in the SBCT, as the sensor platforms in the SBCT were the highly touted and much celebrated additions that, at the risk of talking about systems we shouldn't talk about, we won't. I acknowledge your point about SBCTs formed around squad sized elements. A secondary focus, if you will, is the ISR platforms, particularly EW, SBCTs have that other BDE organizations either don't have or didn't have when the SBCTs first were established.

Whether we wanted to call Fedayeen asymmetric threats or insurgents; when little dudes pop out of the woodwork wearing civilian clothes (not many adhered to the black pajama uniform) it doesn't matter what you call them. They're still a problem that needs to be addressed whose effect on the battlefield will not be negated by a piece of equipment.

[Shek]

Never said it was built aroudn the RSTA. I said ISR systems. Surely LRAS isn't the only ISR asset in the SBCT, as the sensor platforms in the SBCT were the highly touted and much celebrated additions that, at the risk of talking about systems we shouldn't talk about, we won't. I acknowledge your point about SBCTs formed around squad sized elements. A secondary focus, if you will, is the ISR platforms, particularly EW, SBCTs have that other BDE organizations either don't have or didn't have when the SBCTs first were established.

The RSTA is definitely built around ISR capabilities, with the appropriate MOS assigned to carry out the mission. Infantry companies are not built around organic ISR capabilities - it's the dissemination of the ISR "hits" via FBCB2 that increase the capability of these units.

Whether we wanted to call Fedayeen asymmetric threats or insurgents; when little dudes pop out of the woodwork wearing civilian clothes (not many adhered to the black pajama uniform) it doesn't matter what you call them. They're still a problem that needs to be addressed whose effect on the battlefield will not be negated by a piece of equipment.

Agreed that they were a threat and that we didn't focus on them properly. However, they were not an insurgent threat, but rather an irregular threat. An insurgent is a subcategory of an irregular threat. I'm not trying to slice and dice your argument, but do want to make sure that you understand that there is a difference. Also, I wasn't offering the Stryker as a panacea to COIN, but rather highlighting that a SBCT (if it had been ready and available for the march to Baghdad) would have been a great asset against the irregular threat that the Fedayeen presented.