Israel Looks to New of Army Vehicles

The Associated Press via the Kansas City Star ^ | Wed, Aug. 13, 2003 | GAVIN RABINOWITZ/AP

[archy]

Israel Looks to New of Army Vehicles

Don't you have to pass the 6th grade in order to become a headline writer anymore?

Not if the English language is not your mother tongue. Check out the inside cover page featrure of the Columbia Journalism Review entitled The Lower Case for many other examples of headlines and story slugs that should have been strangled at birth.

The Indiana-based newspaper chain for which I wrote a syndicated column and a few lead news stories even contributed a few of 'em.

-archy-/-

[archy]

That's two additional countries that want Stryker. Maybe they can improve it some or at least avoid being politically pressured into buying w/o modification.

New Zealand's third-generation LAV III is also very similar, though they've opted to both retain the amphibious capability and mount a 25mm gun turret, so it's not quite a Stryker endorsement. But they expect to replace their M113 fleet with their new vehicles if they work out, though they're retaining them until the new ones are proven capable and effective, reasonably hedging their bet.

The Kiwi version is pretty similar to the Canadian LAV-III's now in use by IFOR/KFOR/SFOR in the former Yugoslavia. But they've got some specialized variants planned worth watching as well.

[.cnI redruM]

They may not be pure Stryker, but they're enough like Stryker to be worthy of study and in some cases, probably emulation. We are about to deploy a system that is not totally squared away.

The T&E community got trashed by the pols on this one and was not allowed to do its job properly. We can make up for that stupidity by watching how other nations repair stryker's deficiencies and doing likewise.

[archy]

Israel should wait until they see how our Strykers do in Iraq beginning in October. Our's are deploying without the Mobile Gun System (MGS) promised by General Dynamics the first time in 1980. That one still has not arrived so I don't understand why anyone would be surprised that they have not performed this time. Armaments seem to be a problem at General Dynamics.

The Isralies are paying $1.5 million of our money for each vehicle and we're paying $2.8 million for each vehicle with our money. I don't get that unless they got a discount for buying sight unseen. That's sort of like buying a pig-in-a-poke.

I expect the Israelis are NOT going with the troublesome Norwegian-developed .50 caliber remote gun system, since the Israeli Urmann firm makes some swell accessory turrets and commander's cupolas for other Israeli vehicles, including the M113 and Merchavim. I bet too that the Israelis mount something a heckuva lot more impressive than a .50 aboard. I have my own suspicion about what the Israelis will be doing with their Strykers, but I'll wait for confirmation from some of my Israeli pals before saying anything.

The good news is that it's most unlikely that the MGS version will be needed by US forces for response to any little surprises by Iraqi Republican Guard tank forces, a particular concern just a few months ago. And rightfully so, since even the Iraqi forces with older T55 tanks faced by Marines at Kijafi during Operation Desert Shield in 1991 stopped the Marines wheeled LAV's cold. Even with TOW aboard, a wheeled Marine LAV unit was no match for an enemy tank battalion, and the Marines knew it.

But of even more use for what we're now facing would be a self-propelled 155mm gun, as has been fitted on a stretched M113 MTLV chassis. With the cancellation of the Crusader 155 SP, which wouldn't have been particularly maneuverable in city streets anyway, and with the withdrawal of the CEV and its 185mm demolition gun from the castlebuilders, a direct-fire artillery piece of large caliber is needed for making new entrances archetects never planned on, leveling strongpoints and providing REALLY effective countersniper fire. Even the 120mm gun of the Abrams, meant for antitank penetration and long-range accuracy rather than massive HE blast effect isn't suitable, and the shortened 105mm round to be used in the MGS is almost certainly no better. And early tests of the MGS showed that if they tried to fire it to the left or right flank, the recoil tipped the high center-of-gravity wheeled chassis over to the other side. Oops.

Patton's Third Army found the 155 SP gun to be the single most effective weapon available when European cities couldn't be bypassed, and the lessons they learned the hard way shouldn't be forgotten. Missiles can do some of the job, but that's an awfully expensive way to do it, as we learned with the M551 Sheridan and M60A3 tanks.

But a Sheridan turret with 152mm gun-launcher on a Stryker chassis would certainly be interesting. And if the Stryker couldn't handle it, a stretched M113 MTLV could....

[archy]

They may not be pure Stryker, but they're enough like Stryker to be worthy of study and in some cases, probably emulation. We are about to deploy a system that is not totally squared away.

The T&E community got trashed by the pols on this one and was not allowed to do its job properly. We can make up for that stupidity by watching how other nations repair stryker's deficiencies and doing likewise.

That's the real sadness regarding the Stryker debacle; consider the 120mm mortar version as an example: We now have a mortar transport vehicle less capable than the WW2 M3 halftrack. It couldn't swim, but neither can a Stryker. It had limited off-road capability since it was half-tracked to make use of then available truck automotive components in production, just like Strykers limitations due to its use of off-the-shelf components. But unlike Stryker, the mortar could be fored from aboard the vehicle; with Stryker, the gun tube has to be set up outside, then taken apart and restowed on the vehicle before relocating. That's not a pretty picture, particularly if radar directed counterbattery fire is on the way....

Granted, the WWII standard mortar was the 4.2-inch/107mm and our present one is a NATO-standard 120mm, but I'm pretty sure the 120 could be set up in the back of the old halftracks with no problem. After all, the M16A1 halftrack mounted a quad .50, more usually found in Vietnam filling the back of a 5-ton truck.

And even the old WWII M20 *Grayhound* armored car, another nonswimmer, one with 6 wheels and a gasoline engine, was fitted with the 81mm mortar; the only reason the 4.2" mortar wasn't fitted was because of limited capability for carrying ammunition, not any problems with fitting the tube and base themselves. And either the M8 or the Stryker could pull an ammo trailer, with trucks or armored ammo resupply vehicles hauling in additional ammo and swapping empty trailers for full ones as the mortars move with the troops they accompany- hopefully forward.

But just imagine what might have been, had a Stryker mortar version been really thought out: an autoloading 81mm version with a six or eight round capacity like the Russian 122mm tracked versions; maybe even capable of dual-use as a direct fire infantry support weapon, too. And with the digital coms gear and GPS gear aboard, it might even have been possible to not only have a weapon that could have been fired from the vehicle, but with stabalization and a ballistic computer equal to an M1 tank's, capable of being fired- and hitting- while on the move....

Instead, we get crews setting up their guns on a baseplate alongside their vehicles, just as they did in 1939 from half-ton wheeled Dodge *weapons carrier* trucks. And when the Infantry comes to a river, they'll either have to come to a screeching halt or leave their supporting mortar vehicles behind... At least the Marines can use their mortars from their LAVs... and theirs at least have some amphibious capability.

The Stryker could have really been something, and a valuable addition in limited numbers and for particular uses. Instead it became a boondoggle and the guest of honor of a political pork program, for which a barbecue begins to look more and more likely.

[.cnI redruM]

Rumsfeld will eventually learn that the acquisition cycle cannot be shortchanged w/o poor results. Political Generals in the Army will never learn that the Acquisition Corps is not a platform to boost their careers and possible their stock portfolios.

[Valin]

Israel may be the proper country to use them. Since they don't have to fly them anywhere the heavy weight of the Stryker would not be a problem. Also, without the requirement to deploy by C-130s,

I thought the whole idea behind the Stryker is that they are lighter weight than say a Bradley.

[SLB]

Central Tire Inflation System

The CTIS has nothing to do with the height management system. Two toatally different systems. I may not be a Stryker fan, but we need to have the facts straight.

[Phil V.]

Just be happy that Israel is the one country in the Middle East your son will not have to risk his blood to fight Jihadists.

Cheap at twice the price, seeing how it costs us more that that A DAY to support the Iraq conflict.

---

Your second sentence contradicts your first . . . unless of course you believe that there is no dividend for Israeli security at stake in the outcome of our investments of treasure and blood in Iraq.

[American in Israel]

What you cannot understand plain english? There are no American troops in Israel fighting the hottest spot of the Jihadists. We only send money to help. If you would prefer to send your son, why I guess they have a spot for him in the IDF.

Your choice, fight, support or bend over.

[Phil V.]

What you cannot understand plain english? There are no American troops in Israel fighting the hottest spot of the Jihadists.

Nor are there any dams in the valley protecting the valleys from floods.