Skip to comments.
Study finds new Army vehicle too vulnerable.
THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^
| 26Aug03
| By Rowan Scarborough
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 ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 2id; 3rdbde; army; bang; btr80; kliverturret; miltech; sbct; stryker; transformation; wheeledarmor; wheelies
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260, 261-277 next last
To: Cannoneer No. 4
I'm holding out for a Blower Could happen, once the power plant gets developed. But watch out for Joachim Steuben's White Mice....
241
posted on
08/29/2003 2:30:25 PM PDT
by
archy
(Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
To: archy
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 can't believe you wrote that. Just who do you think you are to be speaking such common sense about the procurement programs of our military? The guys with dark suits and sunglasses will be at your door soon to take you away. (/sarcasm)
To: Darksheare
If I remember rightly, the original design for the Stryker was supposed to have beefier armor and tracks. Shinseki pointed to one or two instances of tanks getting stuck in wadis in Iraq during Desert Storm and said, "Tires are better."
Nope. The original design competition was between United Defense and General Dynamics. UD had a very well designed tracked vehicle with a wide range of bolt-on components and armor...it could function as a light transport, heavy armored vehicle, missile launcher, light tank, etc. General Dynamics proposed to do the same thing with this vehicle, only with 30% additional weight.
The Pentagon selected the GD design because they're run by a group of shortsighted fools. I was working on the UD team at the time (designing a prototype enterprise scale vehicle maintenance tracking system for their proposal), and we were actually told that they PASSED on the UD design simply because it had tracks. The Pentagon told UD in late 2000, when the contract was awarded to GD, that they didn't forsee any future wars in areas without roadways, so they would not be purchasing any new tracked vehicles. They bluntly admitted that they were equipping the military for a world where "combat is limited to small scale police actions and humanitarian interventions". When it was pointed out that the General Dynamics proposal (the new Stryker) would fail miserably in major combat operations or against an off-road enemy, we were simply told that "The Pentagon does not forsee that situation arising". Talk about short sighted...
I think I've still got some of the specs, photo's, and artist renderings of the tracked vehicles around here somewhere. They're not classified anymore (that was dumped after the Pentagon selected GD and UD shut down our program), so I'll post a few of the pics up here if I can.
Oh, one more thing. Unless the design has been changed, the GD Strykers were supposed to have an onboard GPS, battlefield communication, and system/environmental monitoring computer that ran on WINDOWS 98! That's all our soldiers need...blue screens in the middle of a firefight!
To: Joe Brower
Hey, that thing would be perfect for tooling around Gold Gate. It may even be just big enough to haul all my junk around! $;-) Joe, I'd have thought you'd have been more inclined toward something both suitable for transport and doing some serious shooting. Those dinos getting loose from Jurrasic Park a problem in your neighborhood again?
244
posted on
08/29/2003 2:50:05 PM PDT
by
archy
(Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
To: Tailback
The guys with dark suits and sunglasses will be at your door soon to take you away. (/sarcasm) That's the *White Mice* referred to in post #241. but if I make it to Chechnya, I should be safe there. Their sort never comes around a combat zone.
-archy-/-
245
posted on
08/29/2003 2:54:01 PM PDT
by
archy
(Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
To: Proud Legions
Admittedly, I have serious doubts about the MGS...I actually don't think it will ever happen using a Stryker chasis. Alternate possibility [intirm]:
Chassis from this:
![](http://www.army-technology.com/contractor_images/gm_defense/stryker.jpg)
With the turret from one of these [which CAN be airdropped, unlike the Bradley turret with IGS] on top. Instant [more or less] 152mm-armed fire support vehicle, antitank capable, and also replacing the role of the CEV for MOUT direct fire requirements.
Of course, if the Stryker chassis won't support it, M113A3 hulls could be used instead, the way the Australians and Singapore used their versions with British Saladin or Fox turrets.
246
posted on
08/29/2003 3:06:07 PM PDT
by
archy
(Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
To: Arthalion
Or, maybe not. I just discovered that most of what I have is schematics that can't be posted here (for both copyright and security reasons). Suffice it to say, the UD proposal was a variant of the M8 armored gun platform. Less weight, half the cost, and better armor (can stop shells of up to 30mm with T3 armor affixed), and yet the Pentagon chose the Stryker because they wanted "wheels".
To: Arthalion
M8
drawings and info *here.* It likely would not have done all things well, but would have been very successful in a couple of roles.
248
posted on
08/29/2003 3:58:54 PM PDT
by
archy
(Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
To: archy
I personally believe that it would have done well. The photo you posted of of an older variant of the M8 (the original armored gun configuration) with the heavy turrett loaded. The UD proposal that lost to the Stryker took that design, removed the turrett, and lowered the vehicles profile (the raised stowage area at the rear was removed). They also improved the mileage, range, and top speed with a better engine.
All in all, it was a good platform that deserved a closer look by the Pentagon, and both Iraq and Afghanistan are daily reminders that we CANNOT take roads for granted on a battlefield. Too late to do much about it now though :\
To: archy
Can't argue too much with your comments. Actually, sounds like some folks like you would be great to have on the design team for the FCS! These teams are made up with too few folks who have had experience with the numerous vehicles that have aleady been developed all over the world.
I worry that we are pushing hard for a Future Combat Vehicle that is based, as far as I have been able to tell, on a concept that in the next half a dozen years or so we will develop a composite material that has incredible strength yet is very lightweight. I do not mean like the material we have now, some of which is very good, I mean material many times stronger and many times lighter.
The other concept I hear often is that we will develop in the next few years the ability to use electronics to ensure projectiles (chemical or kinetic) shot at the FCS will "miss" their target.
While both of these are admirable goals, and someday may be possible, I just don't think we will get there nearly as fast as many believe.
In the meantime, we need folks brainstorming a bit like you have been doing in order to fill the heavy/light gap and urban operations requirements we will continue to face from now on.
Have enjoyed the discussion!
To: Proud Legions
Most of the FCS defense discussions I've seen revolve around this:
1. Direct-fire engagements by manned vehicles are the last resort.
2. RPVs are preferred for reconnaisance and direct-fire engagement tasks. The smaller, the better.
3. Given that hiding a full-up MBT is kind of hard, and that most engagements will be in urban areas (Ralph Peters: "In the future, 'urban combat' will be a redundancy"), the main threat that the FCS manned vehicles will face is the RPG and mines.
4. The preferred defensive schema of the manned FCS flows from this, in order: avoid detection by enemy heavy forces (first line of defense), deflect/kill RPG rounds via active defenses, detect/avoid/neutralize mines, have enough armor to prevent significant penetration by an RPG round or REASONABLE mine, be able to take SOME (not a lot) of penetration by an RPG without killing the crew or the vehicle.
251
posted on
08/29/2003 6:28:22 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
(Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.)
To: archy
I'll bet the first commander of the anti-grav unit armor is going to be COL Alois HAMMER and he'll nickname the killing machine.....HAMMER'S SLAMMERS!!!
252
posted on
08/29/2003 7:22:02 PM PDT
by
ExSoldier
(Oderint dum metuant: "Let them hate so long as they fear")
To: Paul Ross
The clincher in the case against this design. Time to shit-can this little toy made for someone's career advancement.
//////////////
Career advancement? You are blowing smoke: Shinseki husbanded this project to fruition as he was about to ride off into the sunset. He has already hung up his uniform.
(He will very probably soon reappear as a Democratic senator from Hawaii, however.)
253
posted on
08/29/2003 7:38:32 PM PDT
by
BenR2
((John 3:16: Still True Today.))
To: BenR2
Career advancement? You are blowing smoke: Shinseki husbanded this project to fruition as he was about to ride off into the sunset. He has already hung up his uniform. (He will very probably soon reappear as a Democratic senator from Hawaii, however.)So how does this contradict my point? This guy is still an ambitious Xlinton-appointee, who hopes to vault into a still-more important position to (a) line his pockets and (b) do still more damage to the Army.
254
posted on
08/29/2003 9:34:28 PM PDT
by
Paul Ross
(A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!-A. Hamilton)
To: ExSoldier
I'll bet the first commander of the anti-grav unit armor is going to be COL Alois HAMMER and he'll nickname the killing machine.....HAMMER'S SLAMMERS!!!
My guess is that no matter WHAT the commander's name is, they'll pick up the *Hammer's Slammers* tag. Unless by fortuitous circumstance his name happens to be Jean Rasczak...
I expect the best and I give the best. Here's the beer!
Here's the entertainment! Now have fun! That's an order!
Figuring things out for yourself is the only freedom anyone really has.
Use that freedom.
This is for you new people. I only have one rule: everyone fights, no one quits.
If you don't do your job, I'll shoot you. Do you get me?
- Lt. Jean Jean Rasczak
255
posted on
08/30/2003 7:30:33 AM PDT
by
archy
(Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
To: Poohbah
3. Given that hiding a full-up MBT is kind of hard, and that most engagements will be in urban areas (Ralph Peters: "In the future, 'urban combat' will be a redundancy"), the main threat that the FCS manned vehicles will face is the RPG and mines. 4. The preferred defensive schema of the manned FCS flows from this, in order: avoid detection by enemy heavy forces (first line of defense), deflect/kill RPG rounds via active defenses, detect/avoid/neutralize mines, have enough armor to prevent significant penetration by an RPG round or REASONABLE mine, be able to take SOME (not a lot) of penetration by an RPG without killing the crew or the vehicle.
Two other vehicle killers you'd better factor in: advances in *fire and forget* and SACLOS AT guided missiles like AT14/9M133 Kornet, AT15 Khrizantema, Javelin, Ground-launched Hellfire [MBT kills from 10KM!] and LOSAT. Granred, the payback is much more cost-effective if they can be used for a tank kill, but if they're used to wipe out a 9-man Stryker squad and its crew, that'll do...and imagine such an event in the light of today's one-or-two a day casualty lists from Iraq.
The other consideration is mines, not the conventional ones you very reasonably are concerned with, but a much smaller, command detonated shaped charge warhead, implanted in the ground and fired by remote control into the vehicle's thinnest belly armour, either by wire, radio or laser designated command. Think of it as a Claymore mine for vehicles...and an improvised version would require nothing more than a PG-7 HEAT grenade warhead, a golfball-sized lump of C4 or Semtex, a doughnut roll of commo wire and a claymore firing clacker....
And if the much-vaunted *metalstorm* roman candle charge technology comes to pass, consider the possibility of a DIPCM mortar version, activated by sensor and raining a preset number of semismart projectiles down on and armored vehicles, light or heavy, that come within the tactical area of responsibility if its basic sensors, or additional data fed to it by anything from a recon team to a JSTARS data link. That too, can make life hard for crews, whether wheeled or tracked. [Though tracked crews can do more to avoid the road juctions that are likely preregistered targets for artillery FOs, minefields, and future developments that capitalize of the control of such chokepoints.
And we're probably overlooking one or two other developments that'll help ruin the day for some of those future troopies. But those listed are bad enough news.
-archy-/-
256
posted on
08/30/2003 7:54:36 AM PDT
by
archy
(Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
To: SAMWolf
IMHO the Stryker is the same kind of boondoggle as the Sgt. York. Funny thing: the 40mm gun from the Sgt York [the vehicle was such a flop that Sgt York's family petitioned their congressman to initiate a namechange as demeaning to their ancestor] might not make too bad a weapon for use as Stryker or M113A3+ armament, similar to the 30mm gun and 7.62mm PK machinegun *Kliver turret* with 4 AT-14 Komet antitank missiles found on the Russian BTR-80 Kliver turret.
It'd do nicely as a light armor or unarmored vehicle killer with het or DU HVAP projectiles, would work nicely against troops in the open [particularly if a canister round for close-up work was fielded] and might even fulfill some of the roll DIVADS/Sgt York was meant to.
Of course they never got around to the further development of the alternate to the Sgt York/twin 40mm gun design that had been brainstormed as an alternate plan in case the twin 40, awfully similar to the old M42A1 *Dusters* of Vietnam, turned out to be the flop that it proved to be. That backup plan was a GAU-8 30mm of the A10 warthog mounted in a purpose-built turret on an M48A3 chassis... which also has possibilities; there's now an even more pressing need for a DIVADS weapon, but it has to be one that works.
I do know of one military museum where a Sgt York prototype is being kept in storage. Under canvas, lest anyone see or photograph it....
-archy-/-
257
posted on
08/30/2003 8:10:02 AM PDT
by
archy
(Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
To: Arthalion
I personally believe that it would have done well. The photo you posted of of an older variant of the M8 (the original armored gun configuration) with the heavy turrett loaded. Of course, I could have posted a pic of one ot these M8s...also germaine to the discussion. Of the two, I'd prefer to go to a fight in the one without the mogas engine and the rubber wheels.
Though I worked on a project a few years back to replace the M6 gun of the M8 armored cars and M3/M5 light tanks provided to some countries under the Foreign Military Aid Program with a 20mm automatic cannon, probably more useful in their usual roles in protecting presidential palaces and airports. But the M8 armored car of WWII was better armed than today's Stryker, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was more capable off-road as well; and it's armor protection was also about 12-15mm steel armor.
![](http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Mexico/Mex-MexicanM8.jpg)
![](http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Colombia/Col-M8-Parade-1.jpg)
![](http://www.wwiivehicles.com/images/usa/m8_scout_03.jpg)
258
posted on
08/30/2003 8:51:23 AM PDT
by
archy
(Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
To: Proud Legions
Can't argue too much with your comments. Actually, sounds like some folks like you would be great to have on the design team for the FCS! These teams are made up with too few folks who have had experience with the numerous vehicles that have aleady been developed all over the world. I could probably do better directing specific individuals with a lot more experience than I have in wheelies toward such developments- I've got one pal who spent quite a bit of his time in the BAOR in British Ferrets, Saladins and Fox CRVs, and there's one cranky old reprobate in the Atlanta area who survived a tour with the Rhodesian Armoured Cars regiment and made it back here. They'd be the ones to chat up, though if I pull off my visit to Grozny, I'll let you know what Ivan has to say about his BTR80s with the Kliver turret.
I worry that we are pushing hard for a Future Combat Vehicle that is based, as far as I have been able to tell, on a concept that in the next half a dozen years or so we will develop a composite material that has incredible strength yet is very lightweight. I do not mean like the material we have now, some of which is very good, I mean material many times stronger and many times lighter.
It's possible- I've seen a transparent ceramic that puts ballistic rolex and Lexgard to shame. And even the circa-1983 USMC experimental M113 composite hulls were said to be able to withstand .50 caliber fire.
The other concept I hear often is that we will develop in the next few years the ability to use electronics to ensure projectiles (chemical or kinetic) shot at the FCS will "miss" their target.
Again, possible; as is an onboard laser that may be able to take out incoming ATGMs or aircraft-launched turret poppers, though the power requirements may require a vehicle nearer the size of a tank, if not necessarily as heavily armoured as one. And such developments would certainly offer interesting possibilities for upgrades of existing equipment to be nearly as capable as future developed systems.
While both of these are admirable goals, and someday may be possible, I just don't think we will get there nearly as fast as many believe. And even if we do, there'll never be enough of the new/best version around, and some users will have to do with earlier versions or even earlier systems. That can have benefits as well as deficits, so that too can offer tradeoffs worth some serious consideration.
In the meantime, we need folks brainstorming a bit like you have been doing in order to fill the heavy/light gap and urban operations requirements we will continue to face from now on. And to get the most *bang for the buck*, as well as avoiding some possible traps that might not occur to enginers or REMF project officers. Some things can't be fixed with green tape and the wire from a C-rat carton [oops! No more C-rat wire for fixing stuff- we're doomed!]
Have enjoyed the discussion!
Yup. I suspect more will follow in future. Kindly continue to report on anything interesting, and I'll try not to forget to duck. Again.
259
posted on
08/30/2003 9:12:29 AM PDT
by
archy
(Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
To: Paul Ross
So how does this contradict my point? This guy is still an ambitious Xlinton-appointee, who hopes to vault into a still-more important position to (a) line his pockets and (b) do still more damage to the Army.
//////////
Well. You may have a point. I hate Shinseki's Democratic leanings. However, I do believe he loved the Army and never (intentionally) did anything to hurt it.
Shinseki aside, I do hope the Stryker pans out to be a good thing for our soldiers. This is not merely an academic issue for me: My son is in the Army, and he could end up serving in a Stryker brigade at some point.
260
posted on
08/30/2003 2:23:25 PM PDT
by
BenR2
((John 3:16: Still True Today.))
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260, 261-277 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson