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.

[Orwellian]

I was talking about the marine lav hit by an RPG close to the start of the war. Took out most of the squad. Opened the lav up like an onion. Rear section hit. It was hit on a road not a bridge.

[Tailback]

The vehicle can withstand 12.7 and 50 cal rounds

I volunteer you to test this while I fire at it using .50 cal API ammo.

It does transport just fine on a C-130, and in combat mode.

How many miles can the C-130 fly carrying this Stryker?

Why can't the Stryker carry the 120mm mortar and fire it without dismounts? Why was the M8 AGS canceled when the Stryker MGS cannot make it past the drawing board? How many tires needed to be replaced on the Strykers during their NTC rotation? How many rollover incidents have the Stryker vehicles had during testing? Why do Army officers continue to support this boondoggle? Last but not least, who signs your OER and what connection does he have with Shinseki?

[Orwellian]

I reread my post and it sounds alittle too confrontational. My intention was to debate the merits of the stryker. Not for a crunchie to insult a treadhead. Under most conditions I have learned thats a bad idea.
It was my understanding that most tank crews didnt like the stryker. The ones assigned to our unit felt the stryker was to vulnerable.

[Valin]

Q: Mr. Secretary?

Rumsfeld: Yes, sir?

Q: Danny Davis from the Army Operations Center. I have a question in regards to your vision for -- specifically Army transformation, speaking about that. In the first Persian Gulf War, I fought with the 2nd Armored Cav. Regiment, and before we went into battle for the first time, one of the things our leaders told us that gave us the most amount of confidence was, he said, "Fellows, the safest place to be on the battlefield is in an M1 Tank driving straight toward the gun tube of any enemy armored vehicle." And that just gave us the ability and the confidence to attack with reckless abandon because we knew we were going to crush anything we faced. (Laughter.) And in fact we did.

It's been widely reported that as far as this transformation to take care of the obvious necessity for more deployability and lighter armored vehicles to be able to deploy by air, that they're going to sacrifice in the armor protection. And especially for some of my brethren in the armored community, we're a little concerned about that because we want to maintain that ability to continue to attack with the confidence that we know we can still go with fire power and protection, as well as maneuverability to attack the future enemies.

And we just wonder what your vision was to be able to, I guess, have that balance to have more deployable vehicles, but still have the protection for the crew members.




Rumsfeld: Well, thank you. I think you answered your own question when you used the word "balance." The United States is going to have to have the ability to fight armies and navies and air forces of considerable magnitude for sure, and armor is critically important. However, the United States also has to be able to do things other than fight armies, navies and air forces because there we find that the -- most of the armies and navies and air forces of the world recognize the overwhelming capability of the United States and our allies, and as a result, they are dealing with us or addressing us with asymmetric threats that are not heavy tank forces coming across the north German plain, and they're not the kinds of major sea battles that we've seen in prior wars, and they're not the major air battles. Indeed, they're going for points of weakness. They're going to school on how we do things, and they will be attacking us in a variety of different ways, and we have to have the capabilities across that spectrum. And as a result, I begin as I ended (sic): the word "balance" is exactly right.

And the new chief of staff of the Army and the new secretary of the Army, who will be confirmed this fall, Jim Roche and Pete Schoomaker, will have on their desk the issues that have been so important and which General Shinseki and his predecessors have worked on, namely, the future combat system and the question of what the Army should look like in the period ahead. And they've got a lot of fine people working very hard to figure that out.

Q: Thank you.

Rumsfeld: But there will certainly be a role for armor. (Laughter.)


Secretary Rumsfeld Pentagon Town Hall Meeting
Dept of Defense ^ | 8/14/03 | Rumsfeld, Meyers
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/964314/posts

[Valin]

See reply 144.

[Valin]

Because the SBCT can move via C-130 (which M1s and Bradleys cannot),

And this is a major problem with the M1 and Bradleys, it takes forever to get them where we need them and online.
If the Stryker is the answer to a maidens prayer or ends up like the sheridan only time will tell.

One way or another "transformation" is taking place. It has to as we are no longer facing the soviets on the plains of northern Germany

[SnuffaBolshevik]

Thrilled that I won't be crewing one: Sorry someone else has to.

[Proud Legions]

Good points. I clearly overstated my faith in the Stryker. What I should have said is I believe the Stryker has the possibility of being one of the finest vehicles ever. In fact, I am still open to the possibility that in the end we decide it is not all it was cracked up to be, and should get dumped. I have no stock in General Dynamics, and would not shed a tear.

But I do think everyone is too quick to point out its faults and say therefore it is a bad vehicle. Pointing out all its fault is a good thing...but the question is are they fixable. If not, then the vehicle is a lemon and should be scrapped. But if they can be fixed, that's a different story. I say that because I do remember the first M1s (I started out on M113s and M60 tanks). We hated them at first, and we were all convinced we would die in them. The first time the temperature went below freezing on the Fulda Gap in Germany, 50 of our 58 M1s broke down---the generator shafts snapped in 30 degree temperature. Then I returned to the States and my unit went to the NTC, and the first sand and dust ruined almost every engine. Finally, it was almost impossible to get the TTS (thermal sight) to work well. We were convinced the Army had bought a lemon...a tank that could not fight in the heat, nor in the cold, nor at night, nor in dirt and dust.

Yet within 3 years we knew it was not a lemon, but in fact a great vehicle as those problems were fixed. Once it was fielded thousands of smart guys, mostly E-5 and below, started figuring out what needed fixed, and as I said earlier, the M1A1s and M1A2s are clearly now in contention for the prime combat vehicle of all time.

When I look at the Stryker, and the issues with it, I can honestly say it is much closer to right at this stage of the game then the M1 was at the same point in time...and much, much closer to right than the original Bradley! (That is a whole different story, but it performed magnificantly in the latest Iraq War).

As to the airlift issue...when I left a couple of months ago the soldiers and contractors had solved many of the initial airlift issues, but still had more to go. You may have better info, or at least a different perspective. The question isn't if it can be flown in combat configuration, because it is not intended to fight coming out the back of the plane---the "Stryker on the Mall" demonstration was a nice commercial but not realistic. It was also the worst thing we could have done because that is now what everyone expects...a vehicle with guns blazing as it rolls off the back of a C-130. That never was intended as a requirement. I cannot in my wildest imagination think of a situation where we could ask a C-130 to land on an airstrip that the enemy still controlled. The question is therefore how quickly once it lands can it be ready to fight. I will say getting to ground truth on that question is very hard...hopefully the reports getting ready to come out will shed some light on the subject.

As to the weapons it can withstand...again, we need a dose of reality. My neighbor just returned from commanding a tank battalion in Iraq...and the RPGs did more damage than many want to admit, though by and large the M1s survived them. To expect any medium weight vehicle to be able to withstand RPGs and 30 mm without add-on armor is probably not realistic. At the same time I also say if RPGs are the prime threat (and I think they are), we better start figuring this issue out.

As to sinking into the soft ground, as I mentioned in an earlier note I also worry about that. Track vehicles actually do better because the weight is so distributed. Heavy wheel vehicles always have trouble in soft ground...I hope the number and size of the Stryker wheels keeps that from happening but I just do not know.

I am not as much a cheerleader for the vehicle itself as I am for the concept of the Stryker Brigade and the possibilities of what the unit can do. Therein lies the real beauty of the Stryker Brigades. Anyway, sorry for the long reply but I wanted to ensure you I ams not blindly supporting the Stryker, as my first comment tonight made it sound (my fault), yet I also am not going to jump on a bandwagon this quickly to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I guess we both will soon see...and as we both have freinds in those vehicles and headed to Iraq, I also pray my optimism is not ill-placed.

[SnuffaBolshevik]

You're right. Let's all agree- grunt or tanker, engineer or cook- God Speed, and we'll buy you a beer when you come home.

[jospehm20]

I remeber people talking very badly about M-1s and Bradleys before they were provern in combat also.

[CaptIsaacDavis]

The program was an absurd waste of money from the get-go. That goodness the perps have been ousted.

[Proud Legions]

Ha! I assure you I have no connection with Shinseki, nor any with General Dynamics. If the Stryker is canned, I will lose no sleep. The advantage I seem to have in this argument is I really do not have a hidden agenda. I started like most armor officers believing this was the worst idea I had ever heard of, but over time have realized it has lots of merit, though the Sryker vehicle itself may or may not pan out.

As to flying: How many miles does it need to fly in a C-130 is a better question. When I left the Transformation job 2 months ago I had not seen the latest figures on how far the C-130 could transport a Stryker (based on the actually flight tests, not the projections, which I had seen but did not trust). Do you know the answer? Sadly, the Army did not initially address that question. Our requirements only said it must be able to be flown in a C-130, what it should have said was how far we anticipate it would need to be transported on a C-130.

I was the one who stood up at the last major Joint Conference on Transformation and asked everyone (including the AF and the DA Staff) why we are letting the Air Force make us design our future combat systems within the constraints of a C-130---in other words why our vehicle of the 21st century must be designed with the major requirement that it fit into the AF vehicle of the mid 20th century. Does not seem very transformational to me. We should design the perfect vehicle to meet the capability requirements of the future and then tell the AF to design their new transport aircraft to match that capability.

The 120 mm mortar issue is one of the varients that is still a work in progress. If it does not work, it does not work. But it also hasn't been flushed out yet. See my earlier comments on the M1 and Bradleys.

The varient I am most worried about in the short term is the MGS. It is wrought with problems right now. Can they be fixed? I surely do not know enough to answer that one. Again though, we are testing a new concept...try and make all the different types of vehicles from one common chassis for all the obvious reasons. So far they are 75% of the way there. Will the last couple also eventually work? Maybe or maybe not.

I know one set of track costs a lot more than hundreds of tires? That doesn't mean I support wheeled vehicles over tracked vehicles, just food for thought.

Can't answer the rollover question. What is the point there? Are you claiming wheeled vehicles in general are too dangerous? Or just the Stryker? I know no on was seriously injured in the 2 testing deployments I was involved in (NTC and JRTC), but maybe I missed something.

You can shoot at me, but only after I get to shoot .50 cal rounds at you first while you are sitting in a Hummer. For the truth is we are not replacing tanks with Strykers, we are replacing Hummer-equiped combat units with Strykers. Therefore the question is not are you better protected in an M1 or an M2/M3 than in a Stryker, but are you better protected in an Stryker than in a Hummer or a truck. No one has programmed the 2ACR to get tanks. They are in Hummers. Should they stay in them or should they change to Strykers? Are should we just wait until we have a better vehicle (the FCS) to transform them? I am actually not rying to be cute, just realistic. And the answer may be we shouldn't buy any more until we find a better vehicle.

Again, ask yourself why you hate the Stryker so much. I do not, though I also do not love it...I am just trying to objectively look at it and see if it is the best thing we have at this time. If it is, good. If not, scrap it. But seeing as we have aleady spent billions of dollars of taxpayer money, and more importantly many soldiers lives are at stake, we should look at it with as clear of heads as possible and keep the emotion out of it, other than that emotion that says we will do the right thing and take care of troops. I assure you, that overrides any feelings I have one way or the other about this vehicle.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

I do remember the first M1s (I started out on M113s and M60 tanks).

I started out on M60A1 AOS (Add-On Stabilizer)and regressed to M48A5. First time I ever heard an M1 I thought it was an OH-58. Then I saw it. Watched it back into a woodline and burn down a tree.

[SLB]

I started out on M60A1 AOS (Add-On Stabilizer)and regressed to M48A5

Slow down, we will tell our ages and be considered geezers or worse. As OrdC I started on M113's, M48A3C, M114A1E1, and a host of others. I remember the first Gamma Goats and when the GOER came on board we thought it was great. Sheesh, lots of water has gone down the river in the past 33 - almost 34 - years.

[exnavy]

Very interesting, thanks for the bump. The problem with "light armored" is that is lightly armored most times. We need to develop new technology to lighten the armor and improve it's effectiveness.

[Paul Ross]

Once the armour is uprated it will be too heavy to fly at all in any but the latest model C-130 which is only a fraction of the fleet.

The clincher in the case against this design. Time to shit-can this little toy made for someone's career advancement.

[Proud Legions]

So true. We are not going to develop anytime soon (as in this decade ?) a 20-ton vehicle that offers better protection than an M1A1 or M1A2. Nope...not going to happen. So the question is "can we live with the pluses and minuses of light armor until then, or do we just wait without that capability at all, or do we expand the Marine Corps mission and so any mission requiring light armor is their fight" I think those are our only choices. Did I miss any?

[Proud Legions]

Perhaps you are right. On the other hand maybe not.

I guess I just am not sure what alternative folks want us to go for. The Stryker will likely be fielded to only 4 Brigades (I predict the 2CR and NG will never see the Stryker's, but I have NO inside information that tells me that....just a gut feeling). In three of these Brigades the soldiers were walking or riding in trucks/Hummers.

The Stryker was never meant to be the final vehicle, nor was it meant to be widely distributed, nor was it meant to replace the tank or Bradley. It is an interum vehicle with limited distribution to give us some increased capability now while we test concepts and equipment. That's all.

[LTCJ]

do you have any inside scoop on whether Stryker is really C-130 deployable?

I guess that depends on the definition of "deployable". I don't really have any additional authoratative info but my understanding is the same as yours.

However, you can bet your bottom dollar that in the general case, the airbridge for combat-ready Stryker BNs to austere LZs is a pipedream.

[Proud Legions]

Ouch. I guess we will soon find out. I hope you are wrong, though I am not the expert either on this question. I do know I saw a number of them deploy hundreds of miles on C-130s, and then off-load, and be combat ready in fairly short order. But how much of that was a staged show and how much was realistic only those in the Stryker's that did the movement would know.

I do know some of the pilots worried about winds, distances, etc when they carried the Stryker, but I also know they did it successfully.

Any C-130 pilots out there who can shed light on the subject?