REPORT: ARMY's NEW STRYKERS = SITTING DUCKS

alm4rr

Diamond Member
Dec 21, 2000
4,390
0
0
"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," according to the Washington Times. (article posted below)

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.

But a report prepared for Rep. James H. Saxton, New Jersey Republican, says the vehicle is ill-suited for such warfare.

"Poorly armored and entirely vulnerable to RPGs," states the report, prepared July 18 by consultant Victor O'Reilly.


Stryker has had a long history of controversy -- even before its first deployment. During the Millennium Challenge 2002 war game, for example, soldiers complained that the Stryker was susceptible to flat tires, couldn't hit targets on the run, and would get unbearably hot inside -- 120 degrees and higher.

(From Defensetech.com)

# # #

Study Finds new Army vehicle too vulnerable
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

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.
But a report prepared for Rep. James H. Saxton, New Jersey Republican, says the vehicle is ill-suited for such warfare.

"Poorly armored and entirely vulnerable to RPGs," states the glossy, 108-page report prepared July 18 by consultant Victor O'Reilly.

An Army spokesman, however, said the Strykers are being fitted with added armor. This will "drastically increase their protection against kinetic energy weapons and increase RPG protection," said Lt. Col. Stephen Barger, spokesman for 1st Corps at Fort Lewis, Wash., where the brigade is being developed.
As part of an accelerated development, the Army did not require Strykers to immediately feature anti-RPG armor. The brigade going to Iraq is now being fitted with slat armor. It works like a big catcher's mask, stopping a grenade before it reaches the Stryker's main body, thus keeping the explosion at a distance. Eventually, the Strykers will be fitted with more permanent armor now being tested.

The Stryker has successfully passed live-fire tests against rifle and machine-gun fire. The slat armor system has also shown in tests that it protects against grenade blasts.

Mr. O'Reilly, who said he did the report at his own expense, says even with the added armor the Stryker's top and wheel wells are susceptible to RPGs that could kill all 13 soldiers inside the Stryker's infantry carrier version.

The Pentagon this year signed off on a plan to procure enough Stryker vehicles to equip the first four of six brigades, which would become the vanguard of a lighter, quicker deploying Army. Despite Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's program approval, a number of Stryker skeptics remain within the active Army, and among former soldiers and members of Congress.

None is more vocal than Mr. Saxton, a House Armed Services Committee member. He succeeded during debate on next year's defense budget to "fence" $300 million in procurement funds until the Army answers operational questions.

Mr. Saxton fears the Stryker is not only vulnerable to RPG fire, but is also overweight and cannot easily fit into a C-130 transport plane ? a feat that is supposed to be one of its best selling points. The Stryker is actually a family of 10 vehicles that gets around on wheels, not the traditional rolling tracks. They include the infantry carrier vehicle, the mobile gun system, the anti-tank guided missile, the mortar carrier and the reconnaissance vehicle.

After the Army took weeks to deploy a relatively small Apache helicopter unit on the Kosovo border in 1999, Gen. Eric Shinseki, then the chief of staff, moved to lighten the force. One of his answers was to develop a family of light, wheeled vehicles that eventually became the Stryker family. Mr. O'Reilly's report, "Stryker Brigades Versus the Reality of War," is being circulated on Capitol Hill and among the active force and retirement community. Among his conclusions on the eight-wheel, 20-ton infantry carrier version:

?"Poorly armored and entirely vulnerable to RPGs."
?"Wheels & wells extremely vulnerable to small arms."
?"Bought to be C-130 deployable but too heavy."


Mr. O'Reilly is an author and counterterrorism authority who has written about military affairs. He said much of his information on Stryker comes from within the Army itself. "I have a passion for the Army, and when I see it going in the wrong direction, I get upset," he said. He said the Stryker is fine for light peacekeeping duty and policing, but he contends it is too vulnerable for land combat.

Col. Barger, the Army spokesman, rebutted these criticisms. He ticked off a list of Stryker tests and exercises. These included loading the system on the C-130 and C-17 transport planes, as well as on ships and trains. The vehicle also has cleared readiness training at Fort Irwin, Calif., and Fort Polk, La. "For the past three weeks, in California's barren Mojave Desert, the Stryker Brigade Combat Team proved its speed, versatility and lethality against a world-class opposing force at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin," an Army press release said earlier this month.

Built by General Dynamics, the Stryker is designed as a medium-weight armored system to fill the gap between light infantry units such as the 82nd Airborne Division and heavy armored units that can take weeks to get to battle.

"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. Yes, it's true that it is fast, mobile, survivable, deployable and lethal. It meets all the expectations of the young soldiers that are required to use it in battle." Gen. John Keane, the Army vice chief of staff, told reporters last month that the Iraq-bound Stryker brigade faced "the toughest opponent our forces have ever faced" at combat training centers. "We've put them through their paces and they're ready to go," he said.

The Army plans to buy 2,100 vehicles, enough to put about 300 in each brigade. Mr. O'Reilly says it will cost between $12 billion and $15 billion to equip six brigades. The Pentagon has funded the first three and made a down payment on the fourth. The Stryker is a pathway to the Army's ultimate transformation goal: a family of high-tech vehicles and aircraft called the Future Combat System. The objective is to get a Stryker brigade any place in the world in four days. But a June General Accounting Office report said that benchmark is not being met.

The GAO credited the Army with reducing the logistics load, as compared with a 68-ton M-1A1 tank. "However, meeting the 4-day worldwide deployment goal of a brigade-size force would require more airlift than may be possible to allocate to these brigades; at present, it would take from 5 to 14 days, depending on destination."

The Army announced last month it was sending the first Stryker unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, from Fort Lewis to Iraq. The Stryker unit will join the 3rd Cavalry Regiment in October. The regiment will leave Iraq in April and May, leaving the Stryker Brigade in Iraq until October 2004. Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely said he has been following development of the Stryker for several years.

"It's been a very controversial issue," said the Fox News military analyst in an interview. "This report really calls in to question whether this is the combat vehicle for the Army in the future." Gen. Vallely said the Stryker seems designed more for peacekeeping operations than for combat. He noted that the Army still has not decided what size gun to deploy on the Mobile Gun System variant. "The other thing is that it does not appear to be as efficient and effective as a tracked vehicle in combat operations," said Gen. Vallely, an infantryman. "It is also very vulnerable to [rocket-propelled grenades] and sniper fire at its wheels."

Gen. Vallely said retired Gen. Shinseki initially wanted the 19-ton Stryker to be lighter and more mobile than current combat vehicles.

"But it's a heavier vehicle and harder to move than what is required for very speedy mobility and transportability to areas of combat operations," he said.

?Bill Gertz contributed to this report.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Given the option of riding in a m1-a1 or a stryker, I am sure most would take the M1.

But given the option of a stryker or a humvee... Most would probably take the stryker...
 

alm4rr

Diamond Member
Dec 21, 2000
4,390
0
0
Unfortunately, the Stryker will be used more often in places to compliment tanks, not humvees

 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Stryker is theoretically a good idea, but I believe the design and concept assumes that you will be fighting an incompetant enemy equipped only with small arms.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,315
36,459
136
Anyone else remember hearing about the Brits and their anti-RPG technology a year or two ago?
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: kage69
Anyone else remember hearing about the Brits and their anti-RPG technology a year or two ago?

To add that sort of things to Stryker you would need to add significant weight which would seriously hurt the original purpose of the stryker.
 

dpm

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2002
1,513
0
0
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Stryker is theoretically a good idea, but I believe the design and concept assumes that you will be fighting an incompetant enemy equipped only with small arms.

Not sure if I'm remembering this one correctly, but wasn't the stryker the one that was supposed to save money and come in on budget by adapting an existing platform - the canadian LAV? Also, I thought that the plan was to bring it quickly to service, in light of the increased need for light armoured and highly mobile vehicles at the moment, and then upgrade it as time went on?

If I'm not muddled in my recollection of this, then some compromise is inevitable. Still, it sounds like a step up from the humvee, from the point of view of the soldiers in iraq. It isn't going to stop a really determined ambush, but since the Palestinians showed by ambushing one of those isreali monster tanks, not much is.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Stryker is theoretically a good idea, but I believe the design and concept assumes that you will be fighting an incompetant enemy equipped only with small arms.

a LAV raises the bar on what is required for an attack. Humvees fixed with kevlar still have problems with light arms.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: alm4rr
Originally posted by: alm4rr
Unfortunately, the Stryker will be used more often in places to compliment tanks, not humvees

I think you meant to say in place of tanks.

More vehicles, deployed faster, with less/smaller airlift (C-130), and a lower logistical footprint.

All good in theory, but we will see if the first Stryker Brigade is actually deployed in Iraq. Thier biggest advantage will be reduced vulnearbility to mines and IED's....but again that will all be in theory. They are also too big and use too much fuel to be used as patrol vehicles as we are using Humvees in Iraq. They don't lend themselves to police work. particularly as the guys inside can't really see all that well, not good in built up areas.

Additionally up armoring them to protect against RPG rounds will make them too heavy for the C-130 which kind of defeats the whole purpose.

Again, this is all theory, we will have to see just how usefull they are when the deploy.

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: alm4rr
Originally posted by: alm4rr
Unfortunately, the Stryker will be used more often in places to compliment tanks, not humvees

I think you meant to say in place of tanks.

More vehicles, deployed faster, with less/smaller airlift (C-130), and a lower logistical footprint.

All good in theory, but we will see if the first Stryker Brigade is actually deployed in Iraq. Thier biggest advantage will be reduced vulnearbility to mines and IED's....but again that will all be in theory. They are also too big and use too much fuel to be used as patrol vehicles as we are using Humvees in Iraq. They don't lend themselves to police work.

They will likely be better options than what the m-1 and m-113s are being used for right now.
And yes they were designed to be deployed faster. The would likely be used to hold ground against t-72 until the m-1 arrived.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: kage69
Anyone else remember hearing about the Brits and their anti-RPG technology a year or two ago?

I know they were big into Cobham (sp?) armor for a while.

There are a couple of expedient measures crews and units can take to help insure survivability against RPGs.

First of all, there is "stand-off". Basically, you take MRE boxes, fill them with sand and attach the boxes to the outside of victor. Sandbags also work OK. Just make sure there enough tie-down straps. Then wrap the vehicle with chain-link fencing material over the boxes. This method works best with M113s and the hulls of Bradleys. Forget about wheeled victors, although lining the floors with sandbags helps.

Secondly, there is reactive armor. Reactive works to a certain degree but has drawbacks. Mounting the stuff is dangerous because of explosive threat. Additionally, reactive is heavy to transport. I can't remember, but I think some models of reactive were being discontinued.

beats those bradley fighting vehicles ala york
I was somewhat involved with the SGT York program during the mid-80s. At the time, many of us thought fire-control was outstanding for such a vehicle. But as it turned out, the system really couldn't perform within specifications.

I never worked with Stryker but doubt that it beats a BFV for survivability. For maintenance and the types of operations in Iraq requiring extended patrolling and convoy movements, the Stryker should be able to supplement the BFV, but not replace.

They will likely be better options than what the m-1 and m-113s are being used for right now.
I read we have 600 M2 BFVs on the ground over there right now. Biggest problem, aside from the attacks of course, is the distances covered during convoy escort and patrols. Read a report by the Army's logistician that they go through track pads and shoes like water. OPTEMPO milage is just crazy and taking a tremendous toll on the victors.
 

alm4rr

Diamond Member
Dec 21, 2000
4,390
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
I dont think you really know what you are talking about.



Let me try this again:

The Styker will be divied up in brigades, and they will be the *only* main vehicle in the brigade. They will be supported by humvees and supply vehicles. Humvees won't be replaced by the Stryker; Strykers are being used to compliment the tank in that in theory they have the capacity of tanks in killing power yet lighter and cheaper (which, it turns out, is all false) and will be the "heavy armor" before the tanks can arrive.

In terms of rather being behind the armor of a Stryker versus a humvee, a infanty carrying Stryker can hold 11 soldiers, ALL of which die when a RPG hits the wheel well. The humvees are quicker, and a lot smaller. The Stryker is as large as a yellow school bus that says hit me.

The only way to counter RPG fire from concealed positions is to survuve the blast and then proceed to lay waste to its source. Stryker's can't handle that, especially in an urban environment. Ever try u-turning a school bus?

Someone posted about mines, tracked vehicles can actually (depending on the weight) exert less ground pressure than wheeled vehicles (taking weight in consideration) because the weight is spread out over the length of the vehicle versus exerting pressure down on several inches to a couple feet (all tires together)

 

alm4rr

Diamond Member
Dec 21, 2000
4,390
0
0
Originally posted by: burnedout

I know they were big into Cobham (sp?) armor for a while.

There are a couple of expedient measures crews and units can take to help insure survivability against RPGs.

First of all, there is "stand-off". Basically, you take MRE boxes, fill them with sand and attach the boxes to the outside of victor. Sandbags also work OK. Just make sure there enough tie-down straps. Then wrap the vehicle with chain-link fencing material over the boxes. This method works best with M113s and the hulls of Bradleys. Forget about wheeled victors, although lining the floors with sandbags helps.

Secondly, there is reactive armor. Reactive works to a certain degree but has drawbacks. Mounting the stuff is dangerous because of explosive threat. Additionally, reactive is heavy to transport. I can't remember, but I think some models of reactive were being discontinued.

The problem with re-armoring the Stryker is that it's already too heavy as it is, so they could hang RPG armor on the top sides, but it leaves the top of the vehicle vulnerable (which are at shoulder height for those inside). All the wheel wells can't be skirted b/c the front wheels, suspension, and hydraulics need to turn leaving the whole system in jeopardy. Any additional weight also really fuggs up tire wear. The concept of the Stryker was to be at 38,000 lbs *combat ready*. Upon production, it was @ 38,000 *EMPTY* Combat readiness now makes it 42,0000 and if (ineffective) RPG armor is added, it's about 50,000 lbs.

I was somewhat involved with the SGT York program during the mid-80s. At the time, many of us thought fire-control was outstanding for such a vehicle. But as it turned out, the system really couldn't perform within specifications.

I never worked with Stryker but doubt that it beats a BFV for survivability. For maintenance and the types of operations in Iraq requiring extended patrolling and convoy movements, the Stryker should be able to supplement the BFV, but not replace.

Here in lies the problem. It COULD supplement the BFV, but it comes down opportunity cost and other available platforms. The technology can be put on any platform, but looking to abilities, the Stryker falls short, much like the York. So at 50,000 pounds with inadequate RPG protection and *NO* main gun. If we look to the sadly defunct M8 Buford, it was at 52,000 lbs had a 105mm main gun and was tracked and armored (lvl 3 variant). They are better ideas out there, at less cost and at better protecting those inside.

In terms of troop transport, the BFV are safer and more manueverable. The Stryker's claim to fame was its variants. The infantry carrier; mobile gun sytem; anti-tank guided missle; commander vehicle; mortar carrier; recon; engineer squad; medical eval; & fire support. Problem is, most don't do a good job (esp. the main gun which bumped off the production of the M8). All were supposed to roll off combar ready, for rapid response; of course, none do.

I read we have 600 M2 BFVs on the ground over there right now. Biggest problem, aside from the attacks of course, is the distances covered during convoy escort and patrols. Read a report by the Army's logistician that they go through track pads and shoes like water. OPTEMPO milage is just crazy and taking a tremendous toll on the victors.

The m113a actually beat a Stryker in a road race b/c of its turning speed, although the Stryker could hit higher speeds on straight roads. The m113a can go into waterways - the Stryker can't. At the National Training Center, the Stryker overturned six times in off road conditions. The Stryker wheels, just like in a car, get stuck in the mud, and spinning them just digs the tire down further into the mud. Oh, and it doesn't carry any spare tires, and I don't think AAA will come out to help. :) Unlike tracks, wheels don't do well in rough environmental conditions as Marines in Afghanistan found out.


Remember in terms of cost, the LAV III which the Stryker is based on, cost roughly $900,000 a piece. The Stryker was supposed to be off the shelf - beef up an existing platform with new technology to keep the price down. which is now over $3 mil a piece. And add the fact that advantages of the LAV III (ie-swimming) have been taken away.

Finally, just an interesting tidbit - the Stryker is made in Canada.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
alm4rr: Great commentary. You've done your homework. No argument from me. Just a couple of comments:

Upon production, it was @ 38,000 *EMPTY* Combat readiness now makes it 42,0000 and if (ineffective) RPG armor is added, it's about 50,000 lbs.
Talk about heavy. A fully loaded BFV isn't too much heavier.

The m113a actually beat a Stryker in a road race b/c of its turning speed, although the Stryker could hit higher speeds on straight roads. The m113a can go into waterways - the Stryker can't. At the National Training Center, the Stryker overturned six times in off road conditions.
Re: M113s. I believe it too. I loved M113s. Man, you can turn those babies on a dime! In the old days we used laterals for steering. Then came the steering gear. Even with steering gear, M113s can still outmaneuver M2s during MOUT or ops in areas of dense vegetation. Armor and firepower remain the biggest handicap though.

6 rollovers at NTC? Damn! Guess the Stryker TCs know their rollover drills fairly well then, huh? (sick joke)

No thanks, I'll stick with my Bradley. Out of 20 years, I was 11M for around 10. BFVs work and work well.

Again, good info and great job on the presentation.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: alm4rr
Originally posted by: alm4rr
Unfortunately, the Stryker will be used more often in places to compliment tanks, not humvees

I dont think you really know what you are talking about.

And I think you just want to buy some shiny new toys.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: alm4rr
Originally posted by: alm4rr
Unfortunately, the Stryker will be used more often in places to compliment tanks, not humvees

I dont think you really know what you are talking about.

And I think you just want to buy some shiny new toys.

rolleye.gif