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.

[.cnI redruM]

The Stryker leaves for Iraq in months. Testers question whether it is really ready....

[Joe Brower]

"Poorly armored and entirely vulnerable to RPGs"

My God. If this is true, what madness. RPGs have been a threat for FORTY YEARS, and our "latest and greatest" technologies still do not take this into account?

Unbelieveable.

[Gabrielle Reilly]

Ping.

[OXENinFLA]

What did they do put in in the back of a C-130 just to show that it fits?

http://www.af.mil/news/Jun2002/n20020628_1039.shtml

[jriemer]

ping

[Ronin]

Bump for troopie imput.

Being an ex-squid I have no oar to put in the water here, but it would not surprise me at all if this turns into being a total abortion.

Sounds like a 7-72 would eat this sucker's lunch.

[RoughDobermann]

Why not just send in Humvees playing ice cream truck music?

[OXENinFLA]

http://www.af.mil/news/Jun2002/n20020628_1039.shtml

"The C-130 can carry up to 38,000 pounds for 1,000 nautical miles. The Stryker, which fit tightly into the aircraft compartment, pushed the C-130 to these limits at 36,240 pounds. "

---

Ok Crew, don't eat chow and make sure you s*** before you board, we gotta keep the weight down.

[.cnI redruM]

I seriously doubt they've ever taken reliance and maintainability data on a C-130 while carrying Strykers. They tend to BS that sort of thing using a computer model. Another question I would ask is "was the vehicle in reduced or combat-ready configuration?" If it's in reduced configuration, they can never land it near the FEBA.

[.cnI redruM]

Not very tactical ;)

[TheGunny]

It looks like our LAV??? Is it better or worse?

[Servant of the Nine]

As part of an accelerated development, the Army did not require Strykers to immediately feature anti-RPG armor.

Why not just send Chevy Suburbans?
The troops would apreciate the AC, Sound System, Speed and Superior Ride.
An unarmoured Armoured Car is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of.

So9

[.cnI redruM]

If the vehicle is reduced configuration already, and doesn't even have it's full contingent on board due to center mass and ballast constraints, this thing will take hours to be combat-ready once it's dropped.

[.cnI redruM]

AGREED!! The problem is that the Stryker is the official entourage vehicle for the Shinseki for Senator campaign soon to get started in Hawaii.

[SLB]

This article was already posted here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/970428/posts

[fortaydoos]

As an old ground pounder myself, I hope to God no decisions on equipment are being made for any reason other than what is best for the troops.

[TheGunny]

...and does it have the same auto air feature for the tires that the MTVR or 7 ton truck has? The 7 ton is outfitted with tires that can actually take a few 50 cal rounds and still keep going. The tires automaticaly air themselves under these circumstances, they also (with a touch of a button) will deflate or inflate for movement through sand or mud.

[Blood of Tyrants]

So what we have is a big, heavy, expensive, 8-wheeled truck. Seems like a beefed up Hummer would be a better option.

[Servant of the Nine]

"It does fit on a C-130," said Kendall Pease, vice president of communications for General Dynamics in Falls Church. "It's been on a C-130. They have deployed it on exercises in a C-130. It fits. It meets all the requirements that the Air Force has given.

Riiiight. It was suposed to be deployable from the US in the C-130. Now it is so heavy that the C-130 can't carry it and fuel for a long flight. The C-5A will have to carry it to a close airbase, and then the C-130 can carry it the last few miles. And that is with the current version. 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.

So9

[Gunrunner2]

C-17 might be a player for deployments to tactical staging areas.

Question, as I am not Army, but can RPG's knock out the M-1A tank? If fully armored tanks are vulnerable to RPG attack, then what can we do regarding light personnel carriers?

Put reactive armor on personnel carriers?

I dunno.

Any ideas?