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.

[Little Ray]

Sorry. The folks who wrote the specs are out of their minds. It is pretty silly to think that an 18 ton APC is going to stand up to something designed to kill 60 ton MBTs.

[American in Israel]

The IDF takes old outdated tank hulls, pulls the turrents, and strip down the interiors , converting them to personnel carriers. Most have a belt fed 50 mounted up top.

[theFIRMbss]

>All of this has proved good for the morale of the troops in the Stryker brigades...

Just a few days back,
military police needed
help from Iraqis

when their vehicle
got wedged sideways on a road...
Good thing they found friends...
---------------------------------------------------------
Iraqis Assist Soldiers with disabled vehicle near Fallujah

"Soldiers from the 411th Military Police Company looked helplessly at one of their Armored Security Vehicles (ASV) as it sat in a roadside ditch dangerously close to flipping over. They had no vehicle powerful enough to lift the 29,850-pound ASV back onto the road. Platoon leader First Lt. Shannon Newell and her soldiers were in a potentially hostile area and she had to quickly decide what to do.It was late morning and the heat was becoming unbearable. Soon a crowd of people from the nearby village of As-Saqlawiyah, about 20 miles west of Baghdad, began gathering around them. The children chatted and laughed with the soldiers, while the adults looked curiously at the ASV. Then an elderly man dressed in a white robe approached Newell. Through a translator, he told Newell he was the leader of the village and owned a crane in Al-Fallujah, a city about 5 miles to the south...."

[jriemer]

Side note: I've read in Wired that the Marines have been working to upgrade their AAAV's to the Internet age loading some with high speed networks and servers in adition to souping up their water-borne speeds.

The 38-Ton Think Tank

[RussianConservative]

I thinks US new technology in danger of T-34 and plenty countries still use T-34/85s.

[SauronOfMordor]

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.

A Styker costs considerably more than a hummer. The article states "The Army plans to buy 2,100 vehicles, enough to put about 300 in each brigade. Mr. O'Reilly says it will cost between $12 billion and $15 billion to equip six brigades". This translates into between $6 MILLION to $7 MILLION PER STRYKER

In a time of finite budgets, which would you rather have for your $6 million: ONE Stryker, or a DOZEN Hummers ( @ $100K each), fully equipped with TOW missiles and 20mm cannon, controlling a few Hellfire-equipped Predator drones?

[Darksheare]

I was in artillery, and saw enough bad officers to last me a LOOONG time.
Especially those who would willingly put others in harm's way by unrealistically inflating capabilities of a piece of hardware.
The best path is to speak plainly without the Bravo Sierra that usually accompanies the usual speaches about a system.
But... there's always the unspoken threat of being black listed on the promotuion list if one knocks someone's pet project too much.
I saw that too often in uniform as well, the vindictiveness of those with the power towards those who were right.
Shinseki, no matter his awards or time in service, is a politicrap idiot who is not deserving of his rank.
He made the Beret decision and expected morale to go up due to a transparent attempt to look elite like France's army.
(The berets look good in a latte cafe..)

So I have quite alot of animosity towards Shinseki and his politics.
For more than one reason, I will not go into them here unless I need to.

Back to the Stryker:

External fuel tanks by rear exit door.
Bad idea, the Russians learned from it in Afghanistan.

Was supposed to be C-130 transportable, but isn't.
It truly IS overweight for that task.
Just like the Crusader ended up overweight.
Isn't even truly 'finished' considering they have to add on armor to give it even moderate protection.

Like the Beret lunacy, it is a bad idea.
It has been pandered off as a one on one tank replacement, which it isn't and can never be.

Wheels still burn.
And Fort Drum sand will still get it stuck up to it's axles.

It was a politically motivated and pushed vehicle that is being touted to be the best vehicle for jobs it cannot do.
If they REALLY want to continue with the vehicle, delay deploying it and continue developing the concept.
Getting rid of external fuel tanks by exit doors would be a first.

It looks like they killed the Crusader and pushed the Stryker through on political grounds, considering the Crusader was the 'more needed' system.

[Darksheare]

That would be a blessing!
If they had to bulk up rather than cut, maybe sanity will then prevail?
(I won't hold my breath, I know that military planners have a habit of snatching stupidity out of common sense somehow.)

[Gunrunner2]

>>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. . .<<

I hope the answer was becasue the C-130 is the aircraft we have the most of right now, and for many years into the future.

>>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.<<

Perfect world, that would be nice. Real world, limited budgets, long-lead times for aircraft design and deployment (10-plus years), lots of on-again, off-again programs (Sgt York), and you can quickly see the problem with designing an aircraft to perform a specific role, in support of a yet-to-be-fielded single specific piece of equipment.

[Gunrunner2]

And besides. . .what happens if the aircraft design and production gets cancelled for whatever reason. . .then you would really be stuck.

Tough nut to crack.

[colorado tanker]

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

Before Iraq II what Rummy would have meant by that is Stryker and the Future Combat Vehicle. His braniacs thought the M-1 was a dinosaur and that the future was opeations other than war (peacekeeping or what I would call colonial wars).

Iraq II demonstrated with clarity that we continue to need the current tip of the spear, the Abrams and Bradley armored force. It is my hope that Rummy and his brain trust are rethinking the concept of throwing away the best armored force in the world for a much less survivable light force. True, there will always be Liberias and Kosovos out there, but we must be prepared to fight the Syrias, Irans and North Koreas, the countries that truly threaten our allies and us.

[colorado tanker]

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.

That's my understanding too. I'm just another DAT, but I can't figure out why all those incredibly bright people in the Pentagon have decided to "transform" the Army to fit an "airbridge" that does not really exist, and in the process to throw away the most powerful armored force in the world.

Does anyone have an example of a battle we've lost because we didn't ship our armor fast enough to the theater???

[colorado tanker]

LOL!

[Darksheare]

That's what happened to the Crusader SP Howitzer.
That, and it wasn't anyone's political flag boy project.

[1stFreedom]

I'd rather be in a Stryker instead of a Hummer ANY day of the week.

[Gunrunner2]

Indeed.

[Darksheare]

Having been artillery myself, that was a sad day.
The M109 series is getting dated despite numerous updates and being basically re-engineered.
The Crusader was supposed to be the hier to the Paladin/M109 series.
Unfortunately, the Dem controlled congress of previous years killed everything that could have carried it in transport.
And modern military planners are overlooking the utility of artillery.
So the Crusader, being artillery, was viewed with general disfavor and canceled pretty much right after the R&*D payed off with a working first of type unit.
All that was needed before it went ionto production was to improve it accuracy (relatively simple for the artillery wizards at Picatinney Arsenal to do.) and tweak it here and there.
(Basically)
Instead, we got the Stryker, which isn't even finished in all honesty.
As evidenced by the 'oops, we need to add armor to it' shuffle.

This argues against shoving things through production without adequate shakedown and testing.
But, that makes too much sense.

[upchuck]

IMHO, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of Islamo-wackos in Iraq right now salivating to be the first one to take out a Stryker. There could even be betting pools.

[flyer182]

I was unable to find any reference to any LAV killed by an RPG. Doesn't mean it didn't happen though. In Gulf 1 I couldn't find any either. They did fight well at night against tanks one time in defense of the 1st Mar Div CP with some help from a cobra or 2. The only RPG kills I could find were on M1a1, hummers, M113, and trucks. As a person who has rode around extensively in AAV's it is kind of funny to think what the general reaction around here would be if the rest of the military had to try one on for size. Largest profile in any military in the world, m2 amd Mk 19 not stabilized, no fire suppresion, just a big old tuna boat that beats walking.

[.cnI redruM]

It doesn't sound hard. I think the M113A3 would have a much better chance. A shorter vehicle is harder to get a good sight picture of.