FA+
Shop
441
Views
Views
4
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Designs / Miscellaneous
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 428 x 428
File Size 92.7 kB
Report this content
More from Blacktail_F-A
In case you're wondering what all the hubbub is (concerning the stuff that self-imposed FA Admin Pinkuh deleted from my account), there's a lot of stuff that I had uploaded into my FA gallery that had been shown there for over 2 years without incident.
Naturally, I can't show it to you on FA while Pinkuh calls the shots, but I CAN link you to it.
In case you can't tell by the image above this text (which was created "by me", BTW), I'm not a big fan of the Stryker 8x8 Armored Car. Why not?
Because it's TOMBSTONE TECHNOLOGY --- i.e., it's a Deathtrap. Pinkuh apparently doesn't want you to know why... but if you follow the links below, you will;
Behold the Stryker's revolutionary Mobility;
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....ility-92228039
It's superior protection measures;
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....ction-92232316
The overwhelming firepower of the Stryker;
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....power-92330644
All the capabilities it added to the US Army that were NEVER available before;
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....ility-92332160
The easy sustainability inherent to wheeled AFVs;
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....stics-93071266
Even more Mobility wonders;
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....lity2-95299640
The awesome power of the Stryker "Mobile" Gun System;
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....S-P1-104010144
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....-Pt2-104267111
The incredible stealthiness of the Stryker;
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....rise-104926419
The ease of air transportability that makes Strykers so quick to deploy;
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....orne-105012272
The tough, stringent, and ever-unwavering, pre-existing performance requirements that the Stryker met;
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....s-P1-105143963
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....s-P2-105297578
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....s-P3-105385029
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....s-P4-105446138
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....s-P5-105791524
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....s-P6-105871618
All the roominess, comfort, and superb ergonomics of the Stryker's interior;
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....mics-112030251
The amazing capabilities of the weapon stations used on Strykers;
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....-RWS-112429011
All the features that make the Stryker the ultimate Urban Warfare platform;
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....-P-1-113477542
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....-P-2-113711511
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....-P-3-114044874
See how hard the US Army works to make sure your taxes buy only the very BEST weapons?
Naturally, I can't show it to you on FA while Pinkuh calls the shots, but I CAN link you to it.
In case you can't tell by the image above this text (which was created "by me", BTW), I'm not a big fan of the Stryker 8x8 Armored Car. Why not?
Because it's TOMBSTONE TECHNOLOGY --- i.e., it's a Deathtrap. Pinkuh apparently doesn't want you to know why... but if you follow the links below, you will;
Behold the Stryker's revolutionary Mobility;
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....ility-92228039
It's superior protection measures;
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....ction-92232316
The overwhelming firepower of the Stryker;
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....power-92330644
All the capabilities it added to the US Army that were NEVER available before;
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....ility-92332160
The easy sustainability inherent to wheeled AFVs;
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....stics-93071266
Even more Mobility wonders;
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....lity2-95299640
The awesome power of the Stryker "Mobile" Gun System;
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....S-P1-104010144
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....-Pt2-104267111
The incredible stealthiness of the Stryker;
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....rise-104926419
The ease of air transportability that makes Strykers so quick to deploy;
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....orne-105012272
The tough, stringent, and ever-unwavering, pre-existing performance requirements that the Stryker met;
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....s-P1-105143963
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....s-P2-105297578
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....s-P3-105385029
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....s-P4-105446138
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....s-P5-105791524
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....s-P6-105871618
All the roominess, comfort, and superb ergonomics of the Stryker's interior;
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....mics-112030251
The amazing capabilities of the weapon stations used on Strykers;
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....-RWS-112429011
All the features that make the Stryker the ultimate Urban Warfare platform;
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....-P-1-113477542
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....-P-2-113711511
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....-P-3-114044874
See how hard the US Army works to make sure your taxes buy only the very BEST weapons?
Category Designs / Miscellaneous
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 428 x 428px
File Size 92.7 kB
Yes, the Stryker is a modified LAV III.
Notable changes include a Central Tire Inflation system (pointless for a vehicle this heavy, and adds 1 ton of weight), an RWS (instead of a turret with a stabilized autocannon), tons of computers (at least 1000lbs of them), a kneeling supension (adds weight and complexity, yet serves no funtion because the Stryker is too heavy for the C-130 this feature was designed to allow the Stryker to fit inside), only 2 run-flat tire-capable axles (to save weight, instead of all 4 axles being run-flat-capable, as in the LAV III), and a new engine (which was designed for a 10-ton, 3-axle truck --- not a 20-ton, 4-axle Armored Car).
So yeah, it's a mess.
A later chapter will explain how the LAV III devolved into the Stryker... and why.
Notable changes include a Central Tire Inflation system (pointless for a vehicle this heavy, and adds 1 ton of weight), an RWS (instead of a turret with a stabilized autocannon), tons of computers (at least 1000lbs of them), a kneeling supension (adds weight and complexity, yet serves no funtion because the Stryker is too heavy for the C-130 this feature was designed to allow the Stryker to fit inside), only 2 run-flat tire-capable axles (to save weight, instead of all 4 axles being run-flat-capable, as in the LAV III), and a new engine (which was designed for a 10-ton, 3-axle truck --- not a 20-ton, 4-axle Armored Car).
So yeah, it's a mess.
A later chapter will explain how the LAV III devolved into the Stryker... and why.
The NZLAV is practically identical to the regular LAV III.
BTW: The Saudi Arabian National Guard is the only other LAV III user besides Canada and New Zealand (and the US, if you count the Stryker) --- all of Europe, South America, and Africa rejected the "new and improved" LAV III in favor of other Light Armor, mostly the original Piranha FOV that the LAVs were derived from (they all rejected US offers for the Stryker as well).
BTW: The Saudi Arabian National Guard is the only other LAV III user besides Canada and New Zealand (and the US, if you count the Stryker) --- all of Europe, South America, and Africa rejected the "new and improved" LAV III in favor of other Light Armor, mostly the original Piranha FOV that the LAVs were derived from (they all rejected US offers for the Stryker as well).
The Piranha won't touch the overall capability of Light Tracks, but it's one hell of a lot less hazardous than the Stryker.
In the next chapter (which the description of my next Stryker-related upload will link you to), you'll see how many countries operate Strykers, versus how many operate Piranhas. >:D
In the next chapter (which the description of my next Stryker-related upload will link you to), you'll see how many countries operate Strykers, versus how many operate Piranhas. >:D
Im in the US Army and i know that they do not but the best out there... They buy the stuff from the low bidders, Bot the higher but possibly safer bidders. Much like the M16 has been in for 30 years, and the M4 is no better, And yet they are still having trouble finding a better weapon... That will most likely fail only a little less than the M16.
It's far worse with the Stryker.
Have you ever heard of the "Size-Weight-Complexity-Cost Spiral"? It's a problem that affects the development of all machines, and just as US fighter aircraft in the 1950s and 1960s increased in... well... Size, Weight, Complexity, and Cost.
It got to the to the point where they were losing too much ultimate performance potential, and gradually became white elephants --- the Stryker is doing the same thing to present-day AFV development.
Thing is though, it's not an accident...
Have you ever heard of the "Size-Weight-Complexity-Cost Spiral"? It's a problem that affects the development of all machines, and just as US fighter aircraft in the 1950s and 1960s increased in... well... Size, Weight, Complexity, and Cost.
It got to the to the point where they were losing too much ultimate performance potential, and gradually became white elephants --- the Stryker is doing the same thing to present-day AFV development.
Thing is though, it's not an accident...
Actually, they simply don't care that Strykers are deathtraps for US troops, because the money they've made is more important --- all $26 Billion worth (for a role whose never-exceed budget was previously established at just $4 Billion, before the Stryker was even selected for the role).
Furthermore, I also know who's milking this cash-cow...
Furthermore, I also know who's milking this cash-cow...
GDLS is getting rich off us suckers, and I've only covered the expenses of the STRYKER so far --- there's also the EFV, the M1 Abrams, and the XM2001 Crusader, just to name a few.
Here's how I found out how much the Stryker costs;
Globalsecurity.org mentioned the $10 Billion Stryker Project in an article last updated in either 2003 or 2004 (look under "Deployment");
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit.....ground/iav.htm
Second, observe that in the 2008 defense budget, the Stryker is listed as costing aalmost $16 Billion, but that the "Baseline" is listed as 2004;
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/SAR.....ost%20Table%20(2).pdf
This is an tactic that Pentagon profiteers use to keep their nest-egg programs from drawing too much scrutiny. This dirty little trick is called "Rebaselining", and sweeps all previous expenditures under the rug.
So, this meany $16 Billion ws spent only since 2004, when we know for a fact that at least $10 Billion had been spent.
$10 Billion + $16 Billion = $26 Billion.
How much do you want to bet that the "$4 Billion" Stryker already costs $30 Billion now, in 2009, only 10 years after the program began?
Here's how I found out how much the Stryker costs;
Globalsecurity.org mentioned the $10 Billion Stryker Project in an article last updated in either 2003 or 2004 (look under "Deployment");
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit.....ground/iav.htm
Second, observe that in the 2008 defense budget, the Stryker is listed as costing aalmost $16 Billion, but that the "Baseline" is listed as 2004;
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/SAR.....ost%20Table%20(2).pdf
This is an tactic that Pentagon profiteers use to keep their nest-egg programs from drawing too much scrutiny. This dirty little trick is called "Rebaselining", and sweeps all previous expenditures under the rug.
So, this meany $16 Billion ws spent only since 2004, when we know for a fact that at least $10 Billion had been spent.
$10 Billion + $16 Billion = $26 Billion.
How much do you want to bet that the "$4 Billion" Stryker already costs $30 Billion now, in 2009, only 10 years after the program began?
The people who control the military's budget are Congress, and the people who control them (whether they realize it or not) are the voters, who can simply fire the incumbent in the next election.
Because of this, Congressmen who get a LOT of flak from the people in their district will fold like a lawnchair, or risk losing their jobs.
The voters are blissfully unaware of how the taxes they pay are being squandered, and thus do nothing, until they find out from people like me... and from now on, YOU as well.
Because of this, Congressmen who get a LOT of flak from the people in their district will fold like a lawnchair, or risk losing their jobs.
The voters are blissfully unaware of how the taxes they pay are being squandered, and thus do nothing, until they find out from people like me... and from now on, YOU as well.
Gime my BMP-2M and im Happy and will take out any Stryker that gets to close
http://data3.primeportal.net/apc/yu.....004_of_123.jpg
Luv dis beast <3
http://data3.primeportal.net/apc/yu.....004_of_123.jpg
Luv dis beast <3
That's not an honest analogy; a more apt analogy would by how little the Browning M2HB (carried not only by the M113 and all it's predecessors, but every subsequent US APC since) has changed since it was first introduced just after the First World War. This is because the M2HB is an oprtiml design for the heavy machine gun role.
There's no need to substantially change the design of the M113, nor to introduce a design substantially different, and this is why they're still used by some 40 nations, and even still in new-build production in several of them.
There's no need to substantially change the design of the M113, nor to introduce a design substantially different, and this is why they're still used by some 40 nations, and even still in new-build production in several of them.
Comments