Posted on 08/26/2003 6:13:43 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:07:10 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Air-Mech Strike to deploy the speed bumps.
Theater Support Vessels to bring the cavalry to the rescue.
How 'bout an Armored Expeditionary Force of reinforced Armored Cavalry Regiment size home stationed in Western Australia (NTC West with kangaroos, call it Camp Kidman) with dedicated Fast Sealift Ships in Perth?
So the AF came up with a C-17. But wait, it has trouble landing at most of the airstrips the ground forces need to go to, so it too can not handle the required mission.
Well, no. It's time and combat proven and tested, and pretty much a known quantity, though there are always idiots who will try to stretch it's capabilities way beyond those known limits. As an aircraft for airdropping circa 95 paratroopers it's superb; it has no particular problems associated with shortfield lansdings of supplies or LAPES deliveries onto unimproved airfields, and can get to them following repeat aerial refueling as required, a feature devoleped in later models not to be found on the original A and B models. But if a C-130 can take off with the load stuffed aboard, it can land with it, or get it delivered another way [though not a Stryker, which, like the Bradley, can't be airdropped]
Hmmm...and somehow you then say the Army guys are stupid and are developing the wrong equipment. What is wrong with this picture?
Well, you'd think they might have wanted a vehicle that's amphibious, so they don't have to come to a halt when they come to a river, since like the HUMVEE [and unlike the M113A3], the Stryker can't swim. And it's too heavy to be airlifted across rivers via CH47 $h!thook helo, the most common army cargo helo. Likewise the army screwed the pooch with the HUMVEE's inability to be carried inside a CH47, the reason the Army Ranger battalions are equipped with British-built Land Rovers.
Not that I am against the AF...I actually think they are a great service. But again, if neither the C130 nor the C-17 (nor the C-5) can handle the required missions for this nation in the coming decades, does anyone else see a problem with the logic being expoused here. Is the only solution to go with even lighter armored vehicles? Most on this thread have already stated emphatically they think the Stryker is too light to start with. Where do we go from here? Again, no insults on my part intended, evryone is bringing up great arguments; I am just expressing some of the frustration those of us working around the program have felt.
Again, it's not *just* the aircraft load requirement limitations, though they certainly play a part, though one supposed reason for the cancellation of the Army's proposed Crusader artillery system was the fact that only two could be moved aboard a C-17...the same number of Strykers that could be carried aboard one. Neither can the fault be said to lie solely with the USAF or their aircraft suppliers when the army's rotary wing aircraft often exhibit similar inadequacies and shortfalls.
But maybe if we're going to redisign our army to be transported primarily aboard Air Force *trash hauler* aircraft, some thought out to at least be given to coordinating the design of future Army AND Air Force equipment for compatability, even in the design stages.
I think the whole concept of the Stryker as an intirm wheelie for the air-delivered force is flawed; if they really wanted something that could be reasonably delivered via C130, they should have started with a six-wheel M35A2 truck chassis, start adding armor plate to protect the most vulnerable components and passengers, and we might have come up with an air-transportable vehicle that could carry 9 dismounts, [3 on either side facing outwards, plus one in the ashtray] would fit in the Hercules, and could swim. It probably wouldn't be .50 cal or 14.5mm gunfire resistant, no more than a Stryker or HUMVEE is, but the fromt armor could have been, and there are ways to defeat incoming RPG-7 shaped charges too; I used them in 1969 and '70 and they worked then. Give a half-dozen ordnance and Special Forces NCOs the requirement, materials and a reasonably well-equipped maintenance shop, and you'd have a more usable vehicle than the Stryker within a month.
It wouldn't be a *replacement* for the tank or even for the old tracked M113, and either an antitank weapon or mine could kill it as easily as they can a tank- you CAN'T get past that vulnerability factor, so you HAVE to develop operational tactics that minimize that very real vulnerability. But it might have been a lifesaver for the Rangers in Somalia who died aboard unarmored trucks and HUMVEEs [Stryker wouldn't have sufficed- the ambulance version only carries 2 nonwalking patients, same as the circa-1965 jeep-based FLA F/ront L/ine A/mbulance.]
But the point of the exercise hasn't been to develop and operate the most mission-capable vehicle for the Army; it's the opportunity for Shinseki's retired deputy to siphon off as mich of the 3 million dollars each of the development and procurement costs of the Stryker into his retirement fund and to create a few more such cozy positions for other soon-to-be-retired Friends of Eric who now get a reward for their Monica-like services during the Clinton years.
-archy-/-
So the AF came up with a C-17. But wait, it has trouble landing at most of the airstrips the ground forces need to go to, so it too can not handle the required mission.
Well, no. It's time and combat proven and tested, and pretty much a known quantity, though there are always idiots who will try to stretch it's capabilities way beyond those known limits. As an aircraft for airdropping circa 95 paratroopers it's superb; it has no particular problems associated with shortfield lansdings of supplies or LAPES deliveries onto unimproved airfields, and can get to them following repeat aerial refueling as required, a feature devoleped in later models not to be found on the original A and B models. But if a C-130 can take off with the load stuffed aboard, it can land with it, or get it delivered another way [though not a Stryker, which, like the Bradley, can't be airdropped]
Hmmm...and somehow you then say the Army guys are stupid and are developing the wrong equipment. What is wrong with this picture?
Well, you'd think they might have wanted a vehicle that's amphibious, so they don't have to come to a halt when they come to a river, since like the HUMVEE [and unlike the M113A3], the Stryker can't swim. And it's too heavy to be airlifted across rivers via CH47 $h!thook helo, the most common army cargo helo. Likewise the army screwed the pooch with the HUMVEE's inability to be carried inside a CH47, the reason the Army Ranger battalions are equipped with British-built Land Rovers.
Not that I am against the AF...I actually think they are a great service. But again, if neither the C130 nor the C-17 (nor the C-5) can handle the required missions for this nation in the coming decades, does anyone else see a problem with the logic being expoused here. Is the only solution to go with even lighter armored vehicles? Most on this thread have already stated emphatically they think the Stryker is too light to start with. Where do we go from here? Again, no insults on my part intended, evryone is bringing up great arguments; I am just expressing some of the frustration those of us working around the program have felt.
Again, it's not *just* the aircraft load requirement limitations, though they certainly play a part, though one supposed reason for the cancellation of the Army's proposed Crusader artillery system was the fact that only two could be moved aboard a C-17...the same number of Strykers that could be carried aboard one. Neither can the fault be said to lie solely with the USAF or their aircraft suppliers when the army's rotary wing aircraft often exhibit similar inadequacies and shortfalls.
But maybe if we're going to redisign our army to be transported primarily aboard Air Force *trash hauler* aircraft, some thought out to at least be given to coordinating the design of future Army AND Air Force equipment for compatability, even in the design stages.
I think the whole concept of the Stryker as an intirm wheelie for the air-delivered force is flawed; if they really wanted something that could be reasonably delivered via C130, they should have started with a six-wheel M35A2 truck chassis, start adding armor plate to protect the most vulnerable components and passengers, and we might have come up with an air-transportable vehicle that could carry 9 dismounts, [3 on either side facing outwards, plus one in the ashtray] would fit in the Hercules, and could swim. It probably wouldn't be .50 cal or 14.5mm gunfire resistant, no more than a Stryker or HUMVEE is, but the fromt armor could have been, and there are ways to defeat incoming RPG-7 shaped charges too; I used them in 1969 and '70 and they worked then. Give a half-dozen ordnance and Special Forces NCOs the requirement, materials and a reasonably well-equipped maintenance shop, and you'd have a more usable vehicle than the Stryker within a month.
It wouldn't be a *replacement* for the tank or even for the old tracked M113, and either an antitank weapon or mine could kill it as easily as they can a tank- you CAN'T get past that vulnerability factor, so you HAVE to develop operational tactics that minimize that very real vulnerability. But it might have been a lifesaver for the Rangers in Somalia who died aboard unarmored trucks and HUMVEEs [Stryker wouldn't have sufficed- the ambulance version only carries 2 nonwalking patients, same as the circa-1965 jeep-based FLA F/ront L/ine A/mbulance.]
But the point of the exercise hasn't been to develop and operate the most mission-capable vehicle for the Army; it's the opportunity for Shinseki's retired deputy to siphon off as mich of the 3 million dollars each of the development and procurement costs of the Stryker into his retirement fund and to create a few more such cozy positions for other soon-to-be-retired Friends of Eric who now get a reward for their Monica-like services during the Clinton years.
-archy-/-
Check out this interesting M113 variant, and give me your opinion from the redleg's point of view. And there was an earlier version that used that British 105 light gun, as per the Brit's Abbott 105 SP gun.
Air transportable and amphibious, with a seven-man crew. Too practical. Instead we field a heavier 8-wheel armoured car with a 120mm mortar that can't be fired from inside the vehicle, but has to be set up outside, then broken down [or abandoned in place, if in a real hurry, like when it starts raining counterbattery fire] before relocating to a new position. Brilliant.
-archy-/-
When recently asked by a congressional aide who was buying my dinner if I saw no potential use for the Stryker, I helpfully suggested they might be given to the Air Force for airfield defense, or could be used by concentration camp guards presumably operating against *internees* without access to RPG-7s.
A usable mortar fire support version can probably be developed, though it may have to use an 81 or 82mm or even a 60mm rather than the 120, but it's at least a possibility. And a twin-gun or combination 20mm Gatling and multiple Stinger AA missile launcher is certainly very possible; there's already a HUMMVEE version of just that.
But when further armtwisted as to a possible eventual role for the leftover 2000 *intirm* vehicles after something better hopefully comes along, I suggested that only if a secret development of a Star Treck-style materiel transporter with a mass/weight limitation of around 25 tons is under development does the Stryker make any sense. The problems associated with Stryker's air transport are as much a matter of size as weight, and until new aircraft come along, it's not particularly compastable with what we have.
-archy-/-
Not if a bridge underneath me gives way that day.
-archy-/-
External fuel tanks by rear exit door.
Bad idea, the Russians learned from it in Afghanistan.
Also fitted with sidesaddle tanks now, inside the wheel well, between the third and rear non-steering tires. The good news is they're not in the crew compartment in the event of rupture and fuel fire; the bad news is they're 7.62mm vulnerable and either a RPG or 40mm M203 HEDP or Russian GP30 round can rupture and ignite them, burning the tires off that side for a mobility kill. Neither are the racks for four 5-gallon plastic jerrycans of additional fuel on either side a great help in this regard.
So long as our potential enemies are sporting gentlemen who wouldn't shoot at a sitting duck target, no problem for the crew.
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.
*Remote .50 M2 gun system has to be reloaded from outside, not under armor. Last actual firing test ended when gun wouldn't operate beyond 45 rounds.
*120mm mortar version won't permit use of gun tube from within vehicle; has to be set up outside, as per truck-mounted *motorized infantry* mortar crews in 3/4-tom weapons carriers of WWII- even the White Half-track mortar carrier with 4.2 inch mortar and ammo supply aboard was an improvement.
*Not amphibious like a M113.
*½-inch side armor, said to be 14.5mm MG resistant, has been penetrated by 7.62 Russian PK MG fire and 7.62mm NATO in tests. 7.62x39 M43 from SovBloc RPK SAWs with 24 inch barrel will perobably manage to penetrate Stryker side and top armor as well. And it's brittle enough that it develops cracks, particularly bad news if ever faced with fire from weapons using British HESH or US-type HEP ammunition, or improvised equivalents.
Oh PUH-lease. By that time, the "Maurauder Fighting Suit" of Starship Troopers might be a reality and tracked armored warfare but a memory and the stuff of museums. I care about the here and now...maybe the "here and a couple of years out;" but not seventeen years.
That's about one acquisition cycle. You'd BETTER care about it now, or we'll still be driving M1A2s in 2020.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.