Study finds new Army vehicle too vulnerable.

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | 26Aug03 | By Rowan Scarborough

[.cnI redruM]

The Army's new state-of-the art infantry vehicle slated to make its combat debut in Iraq in October is vulnerable to the kind of rocket-propelled grenades now being used by Saddam Hussein's guerrillas, a consultant's report charges.

The Army, which rebuts the report's findings, plans to send 300 Stryker armored vehicles and 3,600 soldiers to Iraq. This first Stryker brigade will help put down the resistance that has killed more 60 American troopers since May 1. It will also be a preview of a lighter, more mobile Army for the 21st century.

[Gunrunner2]

Yup, A-10, the last of the cowboy jets. Luved every minute of it and, can you keep a secret, luved even better that the F-15E. The Strike Eagle is awsome and all that, but nothing beat the A-10, it's gun and firing the Maverick missile.

Maverick missile, 125lb shaped warhead charge can blow away ANY armor on the field. Cool to watch, even more cool to shoot it. . .4g pull to get 16.5 degree lookdown, 20,000 lbs of initial thrust as it powers off the rails. Wow.

The A-10 gun. . .I was an ALO (FAC) during Gulf War I, and let me tell you, after controlling a few hot runs with the A-10, I call the 30mm the "Fist of Gawd" as it came down from the heavens and flattened the beejezus outta anything it hit. . .like the fist of gawd.

Getting a woody just thinking about it.

Cheers

[Gunrunner2]

Excellent commentary and factual analysis.

Thanks for taking the time.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

For those of you new to the Stryker discussion, here is what has been said lately:

Army's Stryker vehicle a "strykeout"

How NOT to Use Light Armored Vehicles

Tranforming the Army

A platoon from a Stryker Brigade in S. Korea for training

Pioneering Army Unit to Debut in Iraq

[Rockpile]

Looks to me that one of the big deployment problems--from C 130s--is the height of the plane's cargo bay. Have to stop and mount the antennas and any other goodies that stick up too high.

Some of the older guys may recall M113s, P5 Amtracs, deuce and a halfs, etc. with chain link fence mounted on them in the exotic Orient.

Whatever this vehicle's shortcomings it has got to be more protection against mines or roadside bombs, rifle and machine gun fire than a damn hummer or truck.

[flyer182]

The stryker has gotten heavier then the LAV due to army complaint about survivablity. The platform is not supposed to be used as a mini-tank. It can be given screen and recon but not guard missions. The USMC has been using this vehicle for years with success. As long as the Air Force stops shooting them in combat they have done well as designed. The bigger issue is that they are claiming they will deploy a brigade in 4 days. Bullshit.

[SnuffaBolshevik]

The vehicle can withstand 12.7 and 50 cal rounds.

Wonderful. How about the thousands of 14.5, 23 and 30 mm. guns in circulation?

[appeal2]

This reminds me of that movie "Best Defense" with Eddie Murphy and Dudley Moore, where Moore is a bogus engineer who discovers there is a defect on the latest greatest tank and seeks to have the gov't and company fix it. The fun begins when they refuse and he must prevail over the bureaucracy.

When the tank finally sees battle everything breaks except the part Dudley Moore designed, which saves Eddie Murphy and the tank crew.

Does anyone remember the scandal surrounding the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. It couldn't survive a hit due to its aluminum frame and crews could expect to be incinerated. Somehow, the Brads worked okay in Iraq. Go figure.

[American in Israel]

"It is also very vulnerable to [rocket-propelled grenades] and sniper fire at its wheels."

Oh, then we will be safe, there are no snipers or RPG's in Iraq.

Someone run up a white flag, I gotta change a flat tire...REMF Engineering at its best.

[Proud Legions]

Oh my. No, it was never intended as a vehicle to capture a hot airstrip. If you think about that, that is an impossible task...what transport aircraft would land on a hot LZ to offload any combat vehicle? Choppers may fly in and drop infantryman, but that is about it. We just would not do that with large transports and equipment...nor would the Air Force.

The O&O we developed for the IBCT (now called the SBCT for Stryker Brigade Combat Team) is the document that lays out the Operational and Organizational Requirements. The idea is that an Army AirBorne Brigade would be dropped in to capture an enemy airfield (as the 173 Bde did in northern Iraq). Once the airfield is secure, the C-130s start flying in and off-loading the Stryker's and the rest of the SBCT personnel and equipment. Because the SBCT can move via C-130 (which M1s and Bradleys cannot), these airfields can be very rudementry/unimproved airstrips. The Strykers can then move to (1) expand the airfield lodgement, or (2) conduct other tactical missions, all within minutes of landing. The BII, ammo, and some fuel is already on the vehicle. The crew just brings the weapon system (cal 50 MG or Grenade launcher on top of the vehicle) from its stored position (so it would fit on the C-130) to its upright position (takes just a couple of minutes), top off with fuel from the aircraft wing (it takes about 20-30 gallons per vehicle to top it off because it already has half a tank of fuel, so that does not take long nor hurt the C-130s fuel supply), and then lock and load their ammo. All in all you are talking about the first unit (a company) moving out in minutes. Keep in mind that right now it would take many days to do that with a M1 or Bradley company, if we could do it at all.

Think about what we could have done with the Styker Brigade if it would have been ready this past Spring. Once the 173d Bde took that Northern Iraqi airfield, they really could not do much more than just sit there...they were not maneuverable nor did they have a lot of combat power. In this case we could have had a Stryker combat units pouring out of there the same day and the days that followed. A medium weight mechanized combat force coming down from the North, with of without Turkey's support!

Again, I am not trying to say the Stryker is perfect, nor even that it can do everything it is advertised to do...we really will not know that until it is tested in Iraq over the coming months. But lets also not dismiss it too quickly. The idea is actually a very good one. It would have totally negated the entire 4ID issue with Turkey; as we could have moved part of the SBCT via ship, and/or flown part of the SBCT by C5 or C-17 from the US to Kuwait, then used C-130s to get them the last couple hundred miles into the Northern half of Iraq to that captured airfield, and thus had our desired two front attack...without any help from Turkey. Hmmm.....

[Proud Legions]

Have to get the answer. I do know it does well against small arms. Does much better against small arms than a hummer for sure!

[Proud Legions]

Actually, the tires are very good. They can be shot up until there is hardly any tire left and still travel without damage or major impact on maneuverabilty for many miles...ceratinly enough miles to get you out of harm's way.

The biggest issue I have with the wheels actually has nothing to do with bullets or RPGs....it has to do with ground pressure. Tracks spread the pressure/weight of a vehicle out over a much greater area than wheeled vehicles do. I am waiting to see if this becomes an issue in very muddy/swamping conditions. May not, just something to watch. They have not had a problem so far with this, so we will see.

[SnuffaBolshevik]

Does much better against small arms than a hummer for sure!

No doubt in anybody's mind. But no one is proposing using a hummer as a replacement for an MBT-ala Stryker MGS. Also I'm not sure I would consider a rapid fire 30 mm. equipped BMP-3 a "small arm".

[flyer182]

Anyone who thinks that it will be possible to move or sustain this brigade by air is nuts. Ask transcom about the feasibilty. Take a gander at the proposed TPFFD. The vehicle is fine if deployed tactically for what was designed to do.

[Proud Legions]

Bingo! You are right about the cargo bay height...that is why the weapon system on top has to be transported in a stowed position, and thus the crew needs a few minutes upon off-loading before they take off for combat operations.

[American in Israel]

Thanks, great post, I feel better already! -grin-

[SLB]

I will have something to say about the Stryker in a few weeks. Right now I am prohibited from saying anything about the Stryker. I will be going back to many of these old Stryker realted threads in a few weeks and shedding some light on the subject from a very unique position.

[Proud Legions]

Didn't noticce the 30 mm at first. That is a nasty weapon, and I am sure would cause problems. Not sure of the solution though. There are many weapons that can take out anything but an M1, but we must keep one BIG thing in mind. There is not any intention of REPLACING the M1 with the Stryker.

The Stryker fills a capabilities gap between our light forces and our heavy forces...it is not meant to replace either one. We still need Airborne and Air Assault Infantry, and we still need Main Battle Tanks and Bradleys. right now the closest thing we have to an in between force are those units moving around combat zones in Hummers and Trucks!

[American in Israel]

With so many tires, the "foot print" is a lot bigger. Never make tracks, but hey.

Thanks for the input. Time will tell, but once this is in the hands of the man in the field, I am sure they will make good use of it.

The tatical considerations you bring up about quick deployment opens a whole new can of worms. If you have punched through good enough to snag an airfield, being able to keep the pressure up could spread havoc far and wide. Blitzkrieg in a whole new light. The shift in defensive doctine is profound, the front lines become everywhere!

Very interesting... as Shultz would say.

Blessings!

[Proud Legions]

Understand.

I am not under the same constraints, but nevertheless am trying to focus my remarks to what the Stryker vehicle and the Stryker Brigade are supposed to be able to do, not what they really can do.

It may or may not work out, but at least folks should understand what its intended mission is, which then would make the discussions about whether it is the correct vehicle, or the correct organization for that matter, much more enlightened.

[Kozak]

Strykers are not tanks - they are not supposed to stand up to RPGs (RPGs were orignally designed to kill tanks).

Except that the original specs on the vehicle called for one which COULD withstand an RPG. Thats what it was sold as to the Army. This reminds me of that movie "The Pentagon Wars" about the development of the Bradley, and how it took an AF officer to force the Army to fix the damn thing. It eventually cost the guy his career.