Arms Fiascoes Lead to Alarm Inside Pentagon

NY Times ^ | June 8, 2005 | TIM WEINER

[archy]

Here's the pic, which looks like the back of a M113 fitted with the RPG screens used on the Stryker. I would appreciate any comments about the vehicle.

That's an M113A3, with several significant improvements over the old gasoline-engined M113 and Diesel M113A1 of the Vietnam war period, notably the extensions to the sides of the crew door and ramp at the vehicle's rear nicely visible in the photo. Those are the external fuel tanks, a happier arrangement than the plastic bag that hung betweem the outside armor and internal crew compartment liner behind the driver. The white star on the outside of M113 *buckets* made a perfect aiming point for gunners hoping to make things real unpleasant for those inside; by the time upgunned A-CAV M113s with multiple gunners had come into use, we'd pretty well learned to smear over the star with paint or mud, at least.

The 2Cav crew in the black-and-white pic gets it. The 5th Infantry guys in the stateside photo beneath haven't found out yet.

More on the M113A3 improvements *here*.

[neverdem]

Good to hear from you, and thank you for the confirmation as well as the pics from Quang Tri, and the 1st Bde, 5th ID (Mech) and link.

[ACDSWIZ]

We will have to discuss this next week. I do not know what caused the crash but I do know what did not. Get back to you. Almost quitting time and I am outa here. If you have not read Nelson DeMilles' Night Fall get it. Great 800 story. One of those books that is so good you almost wish you could wipe it out in your head and read it again.

[Red6]

They also used chain link fence to construct this on M113s in Vietnam. The Russians were seen doing this extensively on their equipment in Chechnya. Bird-cage armor is neither new nor that effective, that was my point.

Today we have stuff out there that far exceeds what this armor can provide. We have newer generations of ERA that actually give protection against KE type penetrators besides HEAT even with tandem warheads. There are new Defensive Aid Suites (ie Trophy) that bring sooooo much more with them in what they can protect you from and to what degree. Bird-cage armor is better than nothing, but it’s far from ideal.

Red6

[archy]

They also used chain link fence to construct this on M113s in Vietnam.

Yep. See pics in #39, above.

The Russians were seen doing this extensively on their equipment in Chechnya. Their real concern was the PG-7 fired from RPGs. Accordingly, external *pipe* water tanks and external jerrycan racks [with WATER filled cans, not fuel] were more common, not to increase the standoff from a HEAT warhead, but to dissipate the Monroe effect.

Bird-cage armor is neither new nor that effective, that was my point.

Today we have stuff out there that far exceeds what this armor can provide. We have newer generations of ERA that actually give protection against KE type penetrators besides HEAT even with tandem warheads.

Exactly the reasons top-attack weapons like the Javelin and Swedish Bill have been developed, as well as terminally guided HEAT mortar rounds. And there are even a couple of bottom attack *smart mines* in the works....

There are new Defensive Aid Suites (ie Trophy) that bring sooooo much more with them in what they can protect you from and to what degree. Bird-cage armor is better than nothing, but it’s far from ideal.

As well as the Russian and Ukranian Arena, Shatjor and Drozd Active Protection defensive systems. But they're hard on unprotected troops outside or atop the vehicles. [Neat demonstration video *here*]

[Red6]

The Russians had the first active hard kill protection system with Drozd. :)

We also had systems like Shitora years ago. (ie. the MCD)

The future of armor will be defined by these systems. Instead of an "after thought" these systems will be the centerpiece of the design in an armored vehicle.

The reality of cheap guidance and electronics, fire and forget, top attack & side attack in the same system (i.e. Javelin-switchable), tandem warheads, very reliable electronics, greater performance in HEAT warheads, shoulder fired weapons with ranges in excess of 2,500 meters-and and and make a system like the M1 obsolete in 10-20 years. That’s why we need a FCS!

"But they're hard on unprotected troops outside or atop the vehicles. [Neat demonstration video *here*]" You said

Well, a lot of the "soft kill" measures, laser scattering smoke, laser detection and gun auto lay, jammers, false target generators etc do not threaten people outside the vehicle. Even a hard kill mechanism like that on Trophy is not as bad as one might think. Not all systems are the same even in their "hard kill" aspect.

Red6

[Red6]

Crap!

You're right #39 showed pics of what I mentioned later.

Thanks.

red6

[rdcorso]

When they develop new weapons a lot of the cost goes to trial and error.I would rather see $200 billion spent on developing new weapons than $50 billion for the medical bills of illegal aliens.I'm sure the Times could find a number of instances of government overspending in other departments that have nothing to do with the military.

[neverdem]

When they develop new weapons a lot of the cost goes to trial and error.I would rather see $200 billion spent on developing new weapons than $50 billion for the medical bills of illegal aliens.I'm sure the Times could find a number of instances of government overspending in other departments that have nothing to do with the military.

"The military gets only a fraction of the bang for the buck it once did, the Air Force chief of staff, Gen. John P. Jumper, said. "We have got to do something about it," General Jumper said in an interview, calling for "a national debate" on the costs of weapons. The Navy's top admiral, Vern Clark, echoes that view.

Check the graphic in comment# 33. With these kind of cost projections for new weapon systems, you can't buy enough of them to have significant numbers.

Regardless of waste in domestic spending, don't hold your breath until the Senate has 60 conservatives that want to decrease domestic spending.