I like the new MRAP's but I suppose it doesn't have the firepower of the Stryker.
Posted on 01/29/2004 1:32:13 AM PST by Vetvoice
The U.S. Army's newest armored vehicle, the Stryker, is plagued with problems and fraught with dangers for crewmen, say military watchdogs and other organizations who have examined the wheeled vehicle's performance record.
Also, critics and analysts have questioned the Defense Department's procurement of the vehicle as well as the Pentagon's decision to build it, adding the military has ignored warnings about the Stryker's perceived vulnerability and overall survivability in combat.
According to an analysis by the Project On Government Oversight, or POGO, one of the Pentagon's own testing officials sent the defense agency a letter warning the $3 million-per-copy Stryker Interim Armored Vehicle wasn't ready for deployment in Iraq.
POGO says Tom Christie, the Pentagon's director of Operational Testing and Evaluation, recommended in a classified letter the Army refrain from sending the vehicles overseas because they could be susceptible to rocket-propelled grenade [RPG] fire or other explosions – a recommendation the Army rejected.
But, POGO analysts noted, "The Stryker has already failed to protect soldiers from one of these weapons."
"A Stryker passed over an improvised explosive device planted in a road in Iraq" on Dec. 13, POGO noted in an assessment. "The device detonated, injuring a soldier who barely managed to escape as fire engulfed the engine compartment."
Maj. Gary Tallman, a Pentagon spokesman, told NewsMax the Strykers deployed in the Iraqi theater so far had achieved a 90 percent operational readiness.
"Overall performance you can characterize as excellent," Tallman said. Regarding damage, "it has shown it's survivability – based on what it's encountered so far – has been high," he added.
Strykers from the 3rd Brigade, Second Infantry Division based in Fort Lewis, Wash., were sent to Iraq in December. The were outfitted with an extra layer of armor and a steel cage intended to offer more protection against insurgents armed with RPG's, which added another 5,000 pounds to their overall weight, making them less nimble, critics say.
In terms of damage and casualties, Tallman said those have been light so far. "There have been three known IED [improved explosive device] incidents," such as roadside bombs, involving Strykers, he said.
In the first, "the vehicle was severely damaged, but the only injury to the crew was a broken leg," Tallman said. In the second, a wheel was blown off "but the vehicle continued under it's own power, which was part of its design." In the third, "there was moderate damage sustained, but the vehicle was recovered" with minor injuries to the crew.
He said he was not aware of any RPG strikes on any Strykers, adding the vehicles had been outfitted with slat armor since being deployed to Iraq.
Good to Go?
The Army says its first new fighting vehicle in 20 years is well-suited for its task and denies it is a problem child for the military. And, the Pentagon says it is a good replacement for the tracked M-113 armored personnel carrier, which was designed around the time of the Korean War.
In announcing his decision in 1999 to procure the Stryker, Shinseki, who questioned the soldiers who had driven it, repaired it and maneuvered it through miles of pine forest at Fort Polk, in west-central Louisiana, brushed aside concerns about its survivability on the battlefield.
"It's not a question of how much armor you can put on it," Shinseki said, adding Iraqi paramilitaries had destroyed two M1 tanks in the first Gulf war by firing at its more vulnerable rear.
"The idea is to avoid taking a hit in the first place," said the four-star general, noting the Stryker's greatly increased mobility.
Jim Garamone, a reporter for the Armed Forces Press Service and a former M-113 driver, wrote approvingly of the Stryker following a test drive in October 2003 at Fort Lewis. He said "wheeled vehicles offer many advantages, and the Army is developing the Stryker to exploit them."
"The difference between a Stryker and an M-113 is like the difference between a Yugo and a Rolls Royce Silver Ghost," Garamone wrote.
He also said the Stryker handled better than the M-113, was much faster (with a top speed of 60 m.p.h.), had better armor, and could carry more troops. "My only complaints," Garamone wrote, "There's no CD player in the dashboard and no place to hang my fuzzy dice."
In comments at Fort Lewis June 6, 2002 – the 58th anniversary of D-Day, the invasion of Europe in World War II – Adm. Thomas Fargo, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, praised the Stryker as a necessary weapon for the next generation of warfighters.
"This armor vehicle helps meet one of the important priorities I see for Pacific Command - that is, promoting change and improving our Asia-Pacific defense posture for the future," Fargo said.
"Deployability, mobility, knowledge superiority – these are the kind of capabilities that make the joint force, a lethal force in the 21st century," he added. "The Stryker Brigade will bring these capabilities to Pacific Command ground forces, not just here, but eventually to ground forces in Alaska and Hawaii as well."
Stryker supporters say other armored vehicles like the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and the M1 Abrams, the U.S. military's main battle tank, still have some problems after two decades' worth of use. They say every vehicle has limitations, including tanks, and that soldiers should know these limitations. And they say despite advances in weapons and armor, soldiers and crewmen still get killed in armored vehicles.
Finally, they believe Stryker's new armor is better than the armor used in M-113s. And they like the speed advantage offered by the Stryker over the older tracked vehicle.
Not Convinced
Still, longtime weapons analysts and military pros remain unconvinced the Stryker will deliver its promised benefits once heavily engaged in battle.
Lonnie T. Shoultz, a Vietnam combat vet with the 101st Airborne Division, former Green Beret and fraud investigator for the U.S. Treasury Department, says among other problems, the Stryker fails to meet its original transport specifications. When top Defense Department brass figured that out, they simply changed the requirements, he said.
Initially, the Army called for its Stryker to be deployable by C-130 transport aircraft, and be ready to fight as soon as it was unloaded. But, Shoultz says in a lengthy analysis for MilitaryCorruption.com, a Web site that monitors defense-related issues, that requirement was changed in "mid-stream."
When the Army "learned that General Dynamics could not lighten the 'Stryker' and make it meet its contracted weight, instead of leaning on the contractor to perform up to standard in the contract, Army liaison personnel approached all Congressional points of contact and convinced them that they never 'really, actually meant' flying the Stryker in Air Force C-130s was required," he said.
"There is a reason that Congress mandated the Strykers use C-130s. If a Stryker brigade is to be deployed anywhere in 96 hours, as promised by Shinseki, the Air force would have to use all of its 500 C-130s to transport the 308 Stryker variants in a brigade.," Shoultz writes. "The Air Force only has a little less than 120 C-17s. They cannot allot all of them to the Army’s Strykers …"
Shoultz also said tracked vehicles are much more mobile in the long run than the eight-wheeled Stryker. He said during tests the latter would often become mired in thick, deep mud and sand, though the tracked M-113 could get through easily.
He also suggested the M-113s could have been re-outfitted with modern technology included in the Stryker, for a fraction of the cost, and were more easily deployed than Stryker.
Cousins in Trouble
Another early sign of trouble are problems being encountered by similar vehicles manufactured for the New Zealand army. Dubbed the LAV III, six of 15 brand-new vehicles delivered to the country's armed forces have been fraught with mechanical problems.
According to a Jan. 21 report in the New Zealand Herald, the problems include:
The breakdown of a turbo unit; A broken heater; A faulty auxiliary power unit; A broken axle; An oil leak; Transfer gear-case unserviceable.
New Zealand Defense Minister Mark Burton has defended the vehicles' reliability, saying the glitches were minor and even expected in a new vehicle.
But other officials, including lawmakers, say question its reliability, especially after learning of the defects.
New Zealand is buying 105 LAV IIIs, which are manufactured by General Dynamics Land Systems Canada, to replace the army's fleet of aging M-113s. The first batch of 15 arrived in-country in November, but a month later, the Herald said, only six of the more than $6 million-per-copy vehicles were operational.
The paper said the problem vehicles had travelled between 172 and 1,456 miles.
"I would not accept it on a Toyota Landcruiser," said New Zealand First MP and former Army officer Ron Mark. "We should not accept it on an LAV III. Given their much-vaunted performance in the Canadian theatre, I'm surprised we are having any of these problems.
"The public were told these vehicles were tried and tested around the world and we were not buying a prototype," he said.
POGO is a far-left group that opposes pretty much anything military.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.