Stryker: Army's Multimillion-Dollar 'Lemon,' or 'Excellent' Lemonade?

NewsMax ^ | 3 March, 2004 | Jon E. Dougherty

[Vetvoice]

"The Army's new car is a lemon."

That's how former U.S. Treasury fraud investigator and Special Forces trooper Lonnie Shoultz describes the U.S. Army's newest armored vehicle, the Stryker.

Worse, he says, it is becoming an expensive lemon.

Shoultz, a Vietnam combat veteran with the 101st Airborne Division and former Green Beret, as well as an experienced government fraud investigator, has long been vocal in his criticism of the Stryker, as well as the process the Army used to procure it.

He's not alone in his assessment. Other military analysts and experts have also come out against the implementation of the Stryker, though so far their criticism has fallen on deaf ears inside the Department of Defense; the U.S. Army wants more than 2,100 of the vehicles, in varying versions.

"We've had concerns" about the Stryker, Eric Miller, senior defense investigator for the Project on Government Oversight, told NewsMax.

Shoultz, who has a master's degree in history and is working toward his doctorate, believes the Army "defied the Congress of the United States by allowing a congressionally approved contract to go unmet by the contractor and not having the contractor, General Dynamics, stop work until it brought the Stryker into the parameters set out for it by Congress."

Big Dog

One of the most common complaints is the Stryker is too heavy to meet its original requirement of being able to be transported aboard C-130 aircraft ready to fight when it hits the ground. Because the Army has had to increase the amount of armor on the vehicle, to improve its survivability, it has surpassed the original weight limit.

"The entire purpose of these light brigades is to deploy in 96 hours to any trouble spot and follow-on with a brigade in four days," says Shoultz. "The only way to do that … is to utilize the Air Force's 600 C-130s. If the Strykers will not fly 1,000 miles on a C-130, they are of no use to us."

Also, says Miller, a new "cage" the Army has fashioned to the Strykers, in an effort to better protect them against RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) and other explosives, may work well but only add to the vehicle's transport weight. Also, he says, the vehicles may be less agile and, ultimately, better targets. "When you add all that weight, for example, a 5,000-pound cage, what does that do to the aerodynamics of it?"

And overall, he said he has some doubts about the vehicle's ability to perform.

"We've got mixed emotions about this vehicle, as I'm sure a lot of people do," Miller said. "I understand the argument that it's better to have a Stryker than a Humvee, but the question we have is, does the Stryker do what it's supposed to?"

'Excellent'

The Army says the vehicle is performing well in Iraq, where they have been for weeks.

Maj. Gary Tallman, a Pentagon spokesman, told NewsMax in January 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 its survivability – based on what it's encountered so far – has been high."

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 RPGs, which added an additional 5,000 pounds to their overall weight.

But damage and casualties have been light so far, Tallman said. He added at the time he was not aware of any RPG strikes on any Strykers.

The Army also backs its new combat vehicle. The Pentagon says its first new armored vehicle in 20 years 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, then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric 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, expressed confidence it could survive 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 their more vulnerable rear. "The idea is to avoid taking a hit in the first place," he added, noting the Stryker's increased maneuverability.

But Miller said his organization had been told maintenance had been soaring for the Strykers. "We're being told vehicles are going through a tire per day, for example," he said.

Pork-Barrel Project?

Besides worrying about its added weight, maneuverability and transportability, critics suggest cost is becoming another concern.

A host of factors – inflation, unexpected production costs, and others – often occur with items bought by the government, especially by the Department of Defense. But costs for the Stryker vehicles have risen about 50 percent since the vehicles were first budgeted by the Defense Department.

According to published reports, the Army first budgeted $4 billion to buy 2,131 Strykers, enough to outfit six new brigades. In rough terms, that translates into about $2 million a vehicle. Now, however, the Defense Department's latest figures show Strykers costing more than $3.3 million each.

"The cost is getting way up there," Miller told NewsMax. "The acquisition cost is [getting] really high."

[Vetvoice]

Since occupying the 101st command billet in Mosul the Stryker Brigade has been protecting their vehicles and not prosecuting the war. It's a shame that the Army is afraid to lose any of these combat vehicles. If they are that afraid of letting them leave the camp - why did they buy them?

[Fenris6]

Bring on the LAVs (hand-me downs from the Army to Marines).

Go Wolfpack!

[historian1944]

They are? And what data do you have that supports that statement?

[historian1944]

But damage and casualties have been light so far, Tallman said. He added at the time he was not aware of any RPG strikes on any Strykers.

He's not fully informed. There have been 2 attacks on Strykers with RPGs. Slight injuries on the first one (scratches to face on one of the guys nametag defilade in one of the hatches,) the second attack was on the side of one of the vehicles, I think it was a convoy that Wolfowitz was in.

But Miller said his organization had been told maintenance had been soaring for the Strykers. "We're being told vehicles are going through a tire per day, for example," he said.

So is he saying that they're going through 300 tires a day? (around 1 per vehicle?) The number is significantly less, somewhere under 5 tires a day for the whole fleet.

The Army isn't afraid to lose one, they already did lose an RV, to and IED that caught the tires and the whole vehicle on fire, with no loss of life. Occupants of a HMMWV would have been killed by the blast. They've put over 500000 miles fleetwide on Strykers thus far.

[Steel Wolf]

The Strykers rolling around Mosul look like they have a decent level of survivability, especially with the cages. In the event of an IED or RPG hit, I think I'd rather be in one of them than an unarmored Humvee. The few up-armored Humvees we have are pretty sturdy, but most of our Humvees are only 'halfway up' armored, with sandbags on the floor and steel plates on the doors. Some of the these rigs look like extras from the Mad Max motor pool. Anyway, time will tell just how much safer the Stryker guys are.

[Lion Den Dan]

These tin cans do not come off of aircraft with cages. I maintain that STRYKER is not a suitable combat vehicle as it is exceedingly vulnerable to many types of projectiles. The argument that it is better than a HUMVEE won't wash. A tank is better than a HUMVEE if you need heavy armor but is not as agile. With STRYKER, we got took.

[meenie]

The main advantage to the Stryker is the cost. More cost, more of a margin of profit. This is important in the age of the miitary industrial partnership. Retrofitting the Stryker with more armor provides a new element of cost.

Now a new element of cost should include a larger version of the C-130 to carry the heavier Stryker. A good example of the thinking in the Pentagon was exhibited when the unarmored Jeep was replaced by the unarmored Hum-vee. The Jeep was more economical, more maneuverable, burned far less fuel, and did not have the huge profile the Hum-vee did, but was retired for economic reasons.

[Prodigal Son]

LOL. Once an 11M Staff Sergeant showed me a 25 mike-mike round. Held it up in the air like it was some rare specimen. He said the way the Bradley Fighting Vehicle came about was that an Army General took a 25mm round to Industry and told them- "We need something that will shoot that round downrange".

[SLB]

Do you like sweet lemonade? I would rather have half a lemon with a little salt on it.

[archy]

Do you like sweet lemonade? I would rather have half a lemon with a little salt on it.

Stonewall Jackson is said to have preferred his straight. And so do I.

Also, says Miller, a new "cage" the Army has fashioned to the Strykers, in an effort to better protect them against RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) and other explosives, may work well but only add to the vehicle's transport weight. Also, he says, the vehicles may be less agile and, ultimately, better targets. "When you add all that weight, for example, a 5,000-pound cage, what does that do to the aerodynamics of it?"

I'm not partularly concerned about the aerodynamics or looks of the Stryker unless they intend to put wings on them since they can't be flown inside transport aircraft. But in terms of fording streams or rivers, since the Stryker isn't amphibious like the Marine LAV III, I wonder how well they'll ford with an extra three tons of weight on board when they hit the muddy bottoms. Or are we supposed to forget the guys who drowned in their Strykers.

[archy]

Now a new element of cost should include a larger version of the C-130 to carry the heavier Stryker. A good example of the thinking in the Pentagon was exhibited when the unarmored Jeep was replaced by the unarmored Hum-vee. The Jeep was more economical, more maneuverable, burned far less fuel, and did not have the huge profile the Hum-vee did, but was retired for economic reasons.

The old M151A1 Mutt jeep went through three major production phases of attempts to cure its tendency of overturning on curves, reselting in literally hundreds of soldier deaths and thousands of injuries. I had that unhappy experience twice, once on the West German border, helpfully protected by the pintle-mounted M60 machinegun and $60,000 worth of radios that were crushed instead of me, a bargain IMHO. Hanging a trailer on behind helped, not for any improvement in handling, but in that it slowed some drivers down a bit, though I've seen M151A1s with trailers upside-down too. This is a particularly nasty treat for the patients being carried aboart the M170 ambulance jeeps, with two stretchers piggybacked lengthwise across what would usually be the passenger's seat.

The gasoline engined M151 went up in a fireball when its gasoline tank ruptured, a situation considerably improved with the Diesel Humvee. And the Humvee comes with an automatic transmission, which means that the vehicle spends less time having clutches replaced after mistreatment in an age when most young drivers are more used to automatic transmissions, though a auto transmission retrofit for the M151 could easily be arranged.

Really, the Humvee family is really a much better replacement for the old Dodge ¾-ton weapons carrier and *crackerbox* 4-patient ambulances. And the variety of commercial pickup trucks, some gasoline engined [M715; M880 Dodge] and some Diesel [CUCVEE Chevy Blazers] that have come and gone [and a pending buy of Ford commercial trucks to replace unarmored HUMVEES has been reported] The old Dodges first made their M37 appearance around 1952, a 24-volt electrical system of the old half-ton WC Weapons Carrier of WWII. The Humvee is a reasonable replacement for a vehicle whose antecedents go back to 1942....

But what's really needed as a replacement for the jeep is a vehicle that's amphibious. As it stands now, when an American infantry company comes to a river, it either heads for a bridge, too likely to be preregistered for artillery fire, a ford, or waits for helicopters for an airlift, IF the air assets are available. It'd be nice to be able to at least be able to move scouting elements and platoon support weapons across a river, but whether that job is better handled by a jeep that swims or an amphibious version of the John Deere *Gator* or the old *mechanical mule* or some other form of ATV remains to be seen.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

I like Hard Lemonade.

I have pretty much quit bitching about the vehicle. It is a done deal. We are getting 6 brigades of them whether we want them or not. I read the good news and the bad news and try to read between the lines to figure out the truth.

This is not the first time soldiers have been given problematical war machines and told to go forth and conquer with them. Constant negativity doesn't help the Stryker riders and worries their wives and mothers.

I would like to see those of us with experience doing difficult things with imperfect systems share what worked back then and maybe give these guys some ideas they might not otherwise have thought of. FreeRepublic is online in Mosul

[Cannoneer No. 4]

February 25, 2004: The M-Gator, the Army’s off-the-shelf, off-road golf cart, has proven successful and popular with light infantry forces and support troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Originally purchased with unit funds, the Army has begun the formal process of procuring what they call the “Light Utility Mobility Enhancement System,” or LUMES. Thus the LUMES designation formalizes the requirement that the M-Gator is already filling with the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, hauling cargo around base facilities and in confined spaces where the Hummvee is impractical. LUMES will also incorporate some requests from troops who have used the M-Gator, such as trailer towing ability and the ability to evacuate casualties. Rollover fears had led the Army to discourage this with the M-Gator.

What's most interesting about the M-Gator, however, is the vehicle's remarkable similarity to the World War II jeep. The M-Gator has a 79 inch wheelbase and 48 inch tread versus the Willys 80 inches and 48 inches respectively. Gross vehicle weight is about 2500-lbs for both. The biggest difference is the engine. The M-Gator's three cylinder diesel is good for only 18-horsepower and 29 kilometers an hour compared to 60-hp (gross) (about 45 net hp) and 88 kilometers an hour for the Willys' "Go-Devil" engine. The LUMES vehicle would likely be even more “jeep-like.”

Although the Hummvee is widely considered the "new jeep," it actually replaced a number of heavier vehicles, such as the M561 Gama Goat, and struggled with lighter missions previously assigned to the last true jeep, the rollover-prone M151. Some units, especially special forces, use Chenowth dune buggies known as Fast Attack Vehicles, but these have proved impractical for most non-special ops roles, probably due to the lack of cargo capacity. Recent experience with the M-Gator shows that when it comes down to it, the more things change, the more they stay the same. --AJ Wagner

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Military Units Experiment With Ultralight Vehicles

[Cannoneer No. 4]

ping

[archy]

February 25, 2004: The M-Gator, the Army’s off-the-shelf, off-road golf cart, has proven successful and popular with light infantry forces and support troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Originally purchased with unit funds, the Army has begun the formal process of procuring what they call the “Light Utility Mobility Enhancement System,” or LUMES. Thus the LUMES designation formalizes the requirement that the M-Gator is already filling with the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, hauling cargo around base facilities and in confined spaces where the Hummvee is impractical. LUMES will also incorporate some requests from troops who have used the M-Gator, such as trailer towing ability and the ability to evacuate casualties. Rollover fears had led the Army to discourage this with the M-Gator.

What's most interesting about the M-Gator, however, is the vehicle's remarkable similarity to the World War II jeep. The M-Gator has a 79 inch wheelbase and 48 inch tread versus the Willys 80 inches and 48 inches respectively. Gross vehicle weight is about 2500-lbs for both. The biggest difference is the engine. The M-Gator's three cylinder diesel is good for only 18-horsepower and 29 kilometers an hour compared to 60-hp (gross) (about 45 net hp) and 88 kilometers an hour for the Willys' "Go-Devil" engine. The LUMES vehicle would likely be even more “jeep-like.”

That's the feller. They've airdropped a few of 'em at Ft. Campbell, and Ft. Bragg and I expect at Ft. Benning as well.

THE PARA-GATOR: AIR-DROPPABLE ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE FOR THE U.S. ARMY AIRBORNE

AIRDROP OF SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT:
RIGGING MILITARY UTILITY VEHICLE (M-GATOR)

The military is just the latest convert to be wowed by the Gator. The vehicle--in four- and six-wheel versions--is already being used by farmers, contractors, and sports teams, including the world champion Green Bay Packers, who haul around equipment and transport injured players to the locker room.

Jim Gibson of the U.S. Army's Material Command said this about the Para-Gator in SOLDIERS magazine: this medium-speed, All-Terrain Vehicle is being evaluated to determine its suitability for use by Airborne Soldiers during air-drop operations. It would be used to quickly and safely move ammunition and other equipment on the drop zone and to evacuate casualties. Gator is a more capable version of the "Mule," which served many uses on fire bases in Vietnam.

"Soldiers can de-rig the Gator from the drop platform much faster than they could a Humvee," Gibson said. It can get into tight areas where the Humvee ambulance cannot go, and it's safer to operate in the DZ environment because it has six high-floatation tires and virtually no ground pressure.

No wonder the judges saw the Gator as ''a classic case of strategic product planning,'' says juror Katherine McCoy of design firm McCoy & McCoy Associates. In designing the Gator, McCoy says, Deere and partner Henry Dreyfuss Associates ''identified some real needs that were not being met'' by existing products. She calls the result an entirely ''new product type,'' which, like Sony Corp.'s Walkman, has revolutionary potential to create new markets.

The Gator began in 1990, when Deere's design team, with partner Dreyfuss, was asked to develop an off-road utility vehicle that possessed both durability and pizzazz. To harden its durability, the prototype was subjected to 15,000 hours of off-road testing, from the broiling Arizona sands to the muck of Wisconsin marshes. The designers made it easy to operate. And for product personality, they broke with Deere tradition by giving it a name, Gator, rather than a model number, and a logo.

When the first Gators rolled out of Deere's Welland (Ont.) factory in 1993, even Deere dealers such as Richard Miller say they didn't know exactly how to market them. At first, ''I sold them mainly as toys for big boys,'' recalls Miller, whose dealership is near Nashville. But when customers ''began to realize how versatile this piece of equipment is,'' Miller adds, his sales took off. They're up 400% this year.

Now, Deere is expanding the Gator line. The new Turf Gator, which drives like a golf car and features high-flotation tires that don't mar delicate golf greens, helped it secure an exclusive contract to supply the PGA Tour's Tournament Players Clubs. The ''Med-Bed,'' a stretcher that can be quickly attached to the vehicle, helped win over the Packers. And the first Gator with a diesel engine opened up the military market. (This is the version that took the 1997 IDEA.) Deere cannibalized parts from existing products and used design-for-assembly to keep prices low, ranging from $5,800 to $9,425. This is design innovation at its best.

[Vetvoice]

The latest strategy of the Air Force is to allow the Army to build its Future Combat System (FCS) which is already over 20 tons per vehicle (too heavy for our 600 C-130s) and then hit Congress up to replace the C-130s with C-17s.