Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-277 next last
The Stryker leaves for Iraq in months. Testers question whether it is really ready....
1 posted on 08/26/2003 6:13:44 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM; Squantos; harpseal; SLB; Travis McGee; AAABEST; Jeff Head
"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.

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

2 posted on 08/26/2003 6:21:27 AM PDT by Joe Brower ("Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." - H.G. Wells)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DollyCali; Ragtime Cowgirl; MEG33; TexKat; null and void; Valin; BOBTHENAILER
Ping.
3 posted on 08/26/2003 6:23:19 AM PDT by Gabrielle Reilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM

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

4 posted on 08/26/2003 6:24:01 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
ping
5 posted on 08/26/2003 6:25:10 AM PDT by jriemer (We are a Republic not a Democracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabrielle Reilly
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.
6 posted on 08/26/2003 6:25:29 AM PDT by Ronin (Qui tacet consentit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
Why not just send in Humvees playing ice cream truck music?
7 posted on 08/26/2003 6:25:40 AM PDT by RoughDobermann (Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
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.
8 posted on 08/26/2003 6:26:31 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA
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.
9 posted on 08/26/2003 6:27:39 AM PDT by .cnI redruM (Nothing Is More Vile Than A Blowhard With Halitosis! - redruM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RoughDobermann
Not very tactical ;)
10 posted on 08/26/2003 6:28:22 AM PDT by .cnI redruM (Nothing Is More Vile Than A Blowhard With Halitosis! - redruM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA
It looks like our LAV??? Is it better or worse?
11 posted on 08/26/2003 6:29:21 AM PDT by TheGunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
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

12 posted on 08/26/2003 6:29:29 AM PDT by Servant of the Nine (A Goldwater Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA
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.
13 posted on 08/26/2003 6:29:51 AM PDT by .cnI redruM (Nothing Is More Vile Than A Blowhard With Halitosis! - redruM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
AGREED!! The problem is that the Stryker is the official entourage vehicle for the Shinseki for Senator campaign soon to get started in Hawaii.
14 posted on 08/26/2003 6:30:46 AM PDT by .cnI redruM (Nothing Is More Vile Than A Blowhard With Halitosis! - redruM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM; Joe Brower
This article was already posted here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/970428/posts
15 posted on 08/26/2003 6:31:54 AM PDT by SLB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ronin
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.
16 posted on 08/26/2003 6:31:58 AM PDT by fortaydoos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA
...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.
17 posted on 08/26/2003 6:34:43 AM PDT by TheGunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA
So what we have is a big, heavy, expensive, 8-wheeled truck. Seems like a beefed up Hummer would be a better option.
18 posted on 08/26/2003 6:35:18 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
"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

19 posted on 08/26/2003 6:37:16 AM PDT by Servant of the Nine (A Goldwater Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
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?
20 posted on 08/26/2003 6:43:37 AM PDT by Gunrunner2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson