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.

[1stFreedom]

>>Thanks. . .as a former A-10 guy,

OMG. You lucky guy. I love the A10. Time and time again the "bastard" child of an airplane saves itself through it's performance.

Ugly. Deadly. Tough. Perfect combination!

My only complaint with the A10 has to do with it's armour. I think it needs to be upgraded to keep up with current technology. It's IR signature needs to be lowered to prevent AA missiles from taking it down. Probably modify the exhaust ports to mix supercooled air with exhaust to reduce IR signature.

Finally, I'd add an IR AA missle, like the latest sidewinder where you can shoot a target off to the side if you are looking at it (Like the maverick?)

What is your opinion on the Maverick? IMO, there isn't a vehicle in the world which can withstand it's letal Force. I think it could take out an Abrams M1A2 with relative ease. Thick metal just can't withstand the awesome forces employed by the Maverick. In the long run, there aren't too many defenses against energy weapons (explosion, kinetic, laser, etc.) Metal armour is just our best effort to protect against it.

I wish I could have flown an A10.





and firing the 30mm, I really didn't care about reactive armor much as the 30mm roundS hitting the target would take care of reactive armor (and could punch through unprotected armor too). Besides, the Maverick missile didn't care about reactive armor much either.
;-)

Just didn't know about RPG's and such.

[joesnuffy]

The acronym SNAFU n FUBAR were born of bean counters makin decisions for grunts

[buwaya]

From what I have seen -

The rationale for the Stryker is for a lightweight vehicle capable of carrying a full infantry squad.

This is supposed to be better than the Bradley in that it would weigh less and carry twice the troops.

What about just stripping turrets off the Bradleys ? They should then be able to take at least two more passengers; it should be cheaper and they can still use the apparently very effective composite armor system.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Thanks for the ping, wouldn't have found this thread without it.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Here are the Advantages of the LAV-25 over the Stryker ITC (Infantry Troop Carrier):

1) LAV-25 is amphibious, Stryker is not.

2) LAV-25 is more nimble and cross country maneuverable due to 10,000+ lbs less weight. LAV-25 is around 14 tons and the Stryker is around 19 tons.

3) LAV-25 can be sling loaded by CH-53, Stryker cannot.

4) LAV-25 has 25mm bushmaster and turret. Stryker has remote mounted .50 cal OR Mk19.

5) LAV-25 is truely C-130 transportable, Most of the 10 Stryker varients are not.

6) LAV-25 costs 1/3 the price of a Stryker

[historian1944]

We lost I believe 2 Abrams due to RPG-7 fire in the recent war. One hit I think the APU and burned the tank to nothing.

The "Slat" armor is our copy of a Russian design. Basically it looks like a Stryker wrapped in a kennel cage, with only horizontal bars. The RPG rounds get stuck in the spaces between the rods and only burn the paint off of the side.

[historian1944]

LAV-25 is a 20+ year old platform, and one of the more important requirements in the ORD (Operational Requirements Document) was that it had to carry a full 9 man infantry squad. Initially there was an amphib requirement, but that was dropped, being considered unworkable, given all the extra trash that the Army was requiring these things to carry and do.

[historian1944]

If you look at the production contract, the price per vehicle is in the 2.5 million range, or around 6 billion for vehicle production.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

This is my Stryker Brigade Combat Team bump list. Freepmail me if you want on it.

If you have already seen this post, disregard, as you were.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Is the Motorized Infantryman a Stryker crewman, or a passenger? Is the Stryker a new Infantry Fighting Vehicle or a battle taxi? Are those guys going to live in that pig and dismount only when forced to or are they just going to ride in it until they get wherever they are going and go break things and kill people afoot?

[Old Sarge]

Thanx for the ping and bump! I'm watching to see how the deployment of the Stryker BCT falls out. NTC is not a gauge on a combat unit - only combat is.

I just returned from a rotation out to Irwin in June - I ran with the OPFOR for a month. Based on my observations, NTC is still good environment training, but as far as comabt readiness? Jury's out.

I concur with others that Stryker is undergunned, fat, and under-armored. Has anyone heard of maintenance issues? That would be my final coffin nail. Can't maintain it without one DS shop per platoon? Kick it to the curb.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Stryker is not air droppable. The parachutes and pallets needed to air drop a Stryker do not exist. Weighs too much.

[Tailback]

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

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. It's too heavy so it has to be stripped down to where it's not combat ready upon arrival. That means that to move a stryker brigade by air it takes multiple sorties to bring the crews gear, ammunition, fuel, and the add-on armor that the Army wants to bolt on to make it (sort of) RPG proof. It also severely limits the range of the C-130 it's in. Stryker is a lemon.

[1stFreedom]

Check out this link which claims the Bradley fighting vehicle actually disabled the M1A1s.

Abrams destroyed by friendly, not Iraqi, fire,By Sean D. Naylor Times staff writer

Janes has another story confirming the Bradley disabling an M1:
Left and right side non-ballistic skirts were repeatedly penetrated by anti-armour RPG fire, according to the report, but only cosmetic damage was caused when they were struck by anti-personnel RPG rounds. There were no reported hits on ballistic skirts and no reported instance of US tanks hitting an anti-tank mine. Turret ammunition blast doors worked as designed. In one documented instance where a turret-ready ammunition rack compartment was hit and main gun rounds ignited, the blast doors contained the explosion and crew survived unharmed except for fume inhalation.

It would seem that in only one instance an RPG destroyed an M1 -- but it merely set it on fire rather then destroying it outright. (Metal does indeed burn). Janes further says

There were "no catastrophic losses due to Iraqi direct or indirect fire weapons," but several tanks were destroyed due to secondary effects attributed to Iraqi weapon systems

Seems the secondary effects did the trick. (Blew up engine making tank useless, RPG started fire but didn't directly destroy tank as planned, etc..)

IMO, I don't think the RPG-7 or Kornet are strong enough to destroy an M1. I think that they can disable it and can blow out it's engines. But outright destruction hasn't happened. However, RPG technology is catching up to this tank. It wouldn't surprise me if in 5 years the standard RPG could inflict heavier damage.

[Gunrunner2]

Thanks for your clarification, as your original statement that it is ONLY a strat asset isn't exactly true (so your point doesn't stand, sorry).

Application is another matter. Having taught strategic air comapaign planning, and being one of only a handful of RAF qualified "QAB"--Qualified Air Battle Planner--and actually participated in such, I know the missions and I know what is planned, and before a C-17 is sent to an FOB, the Pathfinders/Combat Controller/SOF, whatever, will make sure operations will allow--no hot LZ's.

The allegation that some general somewhere will be pickinghis stars out of a trashcan if he sent a C-17 into a FOB is not entirely true, as ANY risky operation must be weighed, and that, my friend, is a tactical, operational and strategic decision. And if the C-17 is cut to the JFACC (through the JFC), and not remaining a strat asset (like the KC-10 always does), then the ATO would task the jet and the JFACC would be signing off on its use. So, with one JFACC running the air campaign this "threat" is conjecture and not relevant at this time.

Besides, the Army always thinks the Air Force would never risk anything for them. . .C-130, A-10, B-52 and even the Base BX, so relying on Army thoughts as a determinant as to the probable use of an Air Force asset is risky at best.

Cheers.

[SJSAMPLE]

The LAV's a great tool, because it meets (mostly) its stated objectives and fits in with the USMC force structure and mission posture.

Many of the features of the Stryker were taken from the LAV and enhanced (engine, armor, electronics). However, many of the additions (weight, size) have placed it outside its stated deployment envelope. In addition, its enhancements move it too close towards the realm of heavy armor. As soon as they begin to mount the (undecided) main gun on the thing, it will, in effect, become a de-facto tank. Albiet, with too little gun and too little armor.

[SJSAMPLE]

Eight LAVs on a C-17?
I'd want that too, but wanting and getting are two different things. ;)

[Redleg Duke]

As I understand it, it isn't a fighting vehicle, but an armored transport. No firing slits. I have always thought that the firing slits were not the greatest idea.

[Proud Legions]

I am a former armor battalion commmander and spent last year working with the Stryker Brigades as the senior armor officer on the ground. Though I went to this project with many doubts in my mind about this vehicle I have to admit it is actually very good...and most of the criticisms I have seen on this post are actually factually incorrect.

It does transport just fine on a C-130, and in combat mode. We had hoped to have it roll out the back of the C-130 firing away, but the truth is the best we can do is have it ready for combat in a very few minutes...the best time a crew did was about 2 minutes, the average time was somewhat longer. When we reviewed its most probably missions, that actually is not a problem, as it is intended to be an "early entry" vehicle and not a "forced entry" vehicle (meaning the airfield would already be secured anyway, just not the area around the airfield). The weight is a little close for comfort for a C-130 flying in bad weather, and so we continue to look for ways to scale back a few more pounds. Because I left the project a couple of months ago for a new assignment, I do not know how that effort is coming along.

A C-17 can handle 3 of these vehicles, and would be used to transport them around in an operational theater, as could a C-5 (it can transport 4 Strykers at once, as to realistically 1 M1 tank). A C-130 is the transport of choice in most tactical situations because of its ability to land on unimproved runways.

The wheels are in fact the type that can keep rolling even when shot up with high caliber small arms.

The vehicle can withstand 12.7 and 50 cal rounds.

RPGs are still an issue...no one in the world has a vehicle that can withstand RPGs at close range. The closest there is is the M1 tank, but even it had turret ring and road wheel/track problems in Iraq earlier this year. A reality of life is there is not 20 tons of any armor we use that can completely stop every RPG shot from every angle. The add-on armor should do the trick, but unfortunately we all know we will not know for sure until it is tested in combat.

As for its mission, it is not just an infantry transport vehicle...it is intended to go into urban areas and be used in the streets in concert with the troops who have dismounted from the back. This of course is a very hairy tactical mission and requires lots of training, because as you know every vehicle is vulnerable from the top and from enemy throwing charges underneath or shooting RPGs from very close range. The dismounts have to help protect the vehicle and the vehicle helps provide an intel platform and a weapons platform for the dismounts.

Bottom line: It is not the perfect vehicle, but is much better than anything else I have ever seen except for the M1 tank-yet it is much more maneuverable within city streets, much quieter, much lighter, and requires many times less logistics support. I am sure we will continue to find problems with it---and should keep improving it until we come up with the future combat system/vehicle. It may not prove to be the answer for an interim vehicle, but don't write it off yet just because you don't like Shinseki.

Keep in mind, the first M1s were actually terrible (I was the batttalion maintainence officer of a tank battalion that received some of the first ones). Its generators broke in even mildly cold weather, sand of any sort destroyed its engines, the first thermal sights were second rate at best, etc. But within a short time it became what may go down in history as the finest fighting vehicle of the 20th century.

[.cnI redruM]

Loverly...not only can they not bring it in in operational configuration, they also have to secure an airfield before it ever gets there.

THis completely voids the IBCT doctrine as I understand it. They are suppossed to hit the ground fighting. Not hit the ground, prepare a new airstrip, pull a 2 hour motor stable, piss away a couple of more hours uploading ammo and BII and then drive a considerable distance to engage the enemy.