Posted on 03/31/2005 3:59:35 AM PST by Flavius
The Army has deployed a new troop transport vehicle in Iraq with many defects, putting troops there at unexpected risk from rocket-propelled grenades and raising questions about the vehicle's development and $11 billion cost, according to a detailed critique in a classified Army study obtained by The Washington Post. The vehicle is known as the Stryker, and 311 of the lightly armored, wheeled vehicles have been ferrying U.S. soldiers around northern Iraq since October 2003.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
freken reporters, plus if its an internal report its not ment to be external... wtf
We heard the same BS about both the M-1 and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. I don't know how good or bad the Stryker is, but I do know that the Left's agenda-driven journalism isn't to be trusted.
Ping.
That's good. They are getting feedback from actual users in real life applications, and no doubt will update the vehicle accordingly. Isn't that normal?
I heard it is a hunk of junk. Who made it?
Tied up in a meeting today, will provide critique later - nothing new here.
I doubt that any military has fielded a vehicle or aircraft that didn't show that changes needed to be made after it was used in combat. look at the changes made in the venerable B-17 from the time it (B-17C) was first flown by the Brits to the models being flown in the spring of 1945 (B-17G).
The M-1 Abrams became the M1A1 and then the M1A2. I remember the venerable M-60 series that went through multiple improvements from when it was first produced in the early 1960s to the final variants (M-60A3, Rise, Passive) that were used by the 3rd Armored Division in Germany in the mid-1980s before the first M-1s were fielded.
The Stryker is very vulnerable to RPG attack, IEDs etc.
That just means it should not be used in areas where a high number of these kind of attacks are expected to occur.
To be honest, there are really only two vehicles on the planet that are not vulnerable to modern RPGs, the Abrams and the Bradley. Everthing else goes ka-boom when hit by one or more RPGs.
But let's not discuss the M60A2 :^P with it's craptacular 152mm short barrel gun which was shared with the equally craptacular Sheridan. Sarcasm aside, yes, you are correct ;^)
US ARMY PURSUES STRIKER IMPROVEMENTS
The US ARMY has concluded a report that has identified several ways to make the Striker an even better and more effective combat vehicle. Based on the feedback of soldiers using the Striker in Iraq,...
And so on.
I wounder how Israel will think about these reports of criticism against Stryker. Israel has bought several Strykers for testing while planning to buy some in the future.
A partnership between GM Canada and General Dynamics Land Systems produced the Stryker.
I have worked in and around Strykers since the first two Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (3/2, 1/25) were first stood up at Fort Lewis.
It is NOT a TANK. It is an Armored Personnel Carrier. It is a LIGHTLY ARMORED APC. It is basically an aluminum hull hull with bolt on ballistic armor plates. Much better than an up-armored humvee, but not near as good protection as a Bradley. It is vulnerable to RPGs.
The Strykers that deployed to Iraq got "slat armor" upgrades that were supposed to help against RPG's The troops call it "brush kit" armor, because it basically a steel frame "fence" a foot out all around the perimeter of the vehicle. The idea is that the RPG shaped charge would hit the fence first and prematurely detonate, thwarting penetration. I think it is safe to say the jury is stil out on the effectiveness of this approach.
There are several variants of the Stryker - the most common one being the Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV). It is armed only with a single cupola-mounter M2 .50 Cal MG, but it can be controlled remotely from inside the vehicle using the "Remote Weapon Station", which includes a thermal sight/camera. It is nice as you can put rounds nicely into a window from a klick away rather easily and consistently. In the camp I was at, soldiers were getting in trouble for using the thermal sight to 'track' female soldiers (If you've ever used an advanced thermal sight - you know what imean). The M2 is replaced by a Mk19 on some variants. There are also AT, mortar carrier, ambulance, and command vehicle variants. They all have the "digital" FBCB2 applique. There is also a planned direct fire AT variant (Mobile Gun System), but it hasn;t made it out of test yet. (the gun 's recoil would tear it out of the vehicles chassis mount).
The Stryker is EXTREMELY quiet compared to the M1/Bradley. I had one pass me while driving cross country in the Kuwaiti desert, and I had no clue it was there until I was eating dust. It scares the beejeebus out of the AIF's, as they never hear them coming.
The vehicles themselves are made by a joint venture between General Dynamics and GM. The ones used by the 3/2 and 1/25 were actually destined for the Canadian Army. The Army cut a deal to take the CA production early in exchange for cash.
The Strykers are the brainchild of former Army CoS Shinseki. The concept for the Strykers was born when the Russians took the strategic Pristina airport ahead of the U.S. when Serbia threw in the towel. The Russians put together a fast moving force consisting of BTR-50/60 wheeled APC's and got there far ahead of U.S. forces. Although many attribute this failing to the ineptitude of Wes Clarke, the idea was planted that we needed a 'Medium' force that could deploy quickly.
Under this 'medium' force concept, the Strykers don't need to be heavily armored, as their 'digital' capabilites will allow them to find, maneuver and engage the enemy before they know they are there. The SBCT Brigades have little 'tail', being designed to go into combat quickly. At Lewis, vehicle maintenence was performed by contractors, and they have very little heavy trucks. They only carry enough log to fight 48-96 hours, after which it is expected that they would be relieved by a 'heavy' unit. Of course, that is not how they are being used in Iraq. When I was in country with 3/2 (1SBCT), they had been augmented with a whole CSB+, plus a Cav Bn from 10th Mtn. I haven't been out with 1/25, but I have heard that they have been similarly reinforced.
Shinseki's (and perhaps Rumsfelds cabal) vision was that the Strykers were the future of the Army. While I think the Stryker itself has a role, I think that it is safe to say that the 'heavy force' is safe for the forseeable future.
Yup that's the MGS. Not one fielded yet after 4 years.
-R
RWS Link, from Vinghog (Norwegian company):
http://www.vinghog.com/N_Products/Mounts/Softmounts/Softmount_RWS/Softmount_RWS.html
wow- you get the informed poster of the day award!! thank you for all that data -well presented with the right amount of news and opinion.
Just doing my part.
I haven't seen this report yet. It appears to me that the reporter attempted to do due dilegence , but was much too ignorant to understand what he was reading (except for the misleading headline and paragraph, which is probably the editor's fault)
For example, checking tire pressure is part of EVERY wheeled vehicles Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services (PMCS). I'm sure that the report just stated that, with the brush kit armor, it was important that these required checks performed.
The 'commander's display' comment is rather incomprehensible. There is the RWS display (Flat Panel TV slaved to the IR sight) and the FBCB2 display (FBCB2 is a computer application in each vehicle that displays the positions of friendly units and reports of enemy units). If they are talking about FBCB2, the problem is probably related to the fact that Stryker units are spread out over an area 16 times larger than what a normal fighting brigade would normally cover. The data radio links that the FBCB2 uses to transmit that information have problems closing the dat links over those distances. But that has nothing to do with the design of the display hardware / software. Indeed the FBCB2 application was widely applauded in it's performance in the combat phase of the war.
The Mk 19 issue is wrong too. There aren't many ICV that have the Mk 19 (it's like 4-1 M2 to Mk19 on ICV's), therefore the assertion that it's 'main weapon' of the Stryker is bogus. Also, contrary to the article, the RWS is not stabilized to fire on the move. The Mk19 is not stabilized on ANY combat platform that I know of. Firing it on the move accurately is tough because the muzzle velocity and rate of fire is slow compared to an M2. No tracers either.
Color on the RWS in daylight mode would be nice. Doesn't help with thermal mode of course, but the C average journalism major author sitting in a plush seat in DC wouldn't know that.
I actually never used the seatbelts, so I can't comment on them.
I am currently at Camp Endurance outside of Mosul and I assure you our Strykers are not a hunk of junk. They are respected outside the gates and provide us plenty of confidence. I don't mean to sound rude, but I do know exactly what I am talking about.
True, it is better than an armored Hummer but not as good as the M113 which is being pulled out of storage and introduced into operations.
The M-60A2 was the only version of the M-60 that I served on as a crew member (gunner & TC) for 2 years, 76-78. Company B, 1st Battalion, 32nd Armor, 3rd Brigade, 3rd Armored Divsion at Friedberg, Germany. I was the company's field artillery forward observer. It was the test period for fielding what are now known as FIST Teams.
Firing the main gun with HE always caused problems with the Shileagh missile firing system. And the weight of the A-2 turret caused the vehicle to exceed the weight rating for the tracks.
Stryker Ping
Thanks for the ping, good to see you.
There ya go then !.........Thanks !
Ya'll Stay safe !
My son is also stationed outside Mosul (FOB Sykes). He is a Stryker driver and also considers the Stryker a great vehicle. I assure the naysayers this vehicle and its slat armor has protected and saved many of our warriors (as relayed from son to father).
Haven't been on much lately. Gotta get up pretty early in the morning to get a computer around here. 0355 was early enough.
If only our only problem was the RPGs. But the Russian TM-46/ TM-57 and other similar 15-20 pound antitank landmines will usually not only blow apart the track and support wheels of any light tracked armored vehicle that encounters one, but will often roll the vehicle onto its side as well, offering the thin-skinned underbelly to small arms and RPG fire. In addition, if the mine detonates on the fuel tank side of the vehicle, the tank or fuel bladder [M113/M113A1] will generally rupture, compounding the problem.
Neither the tracked Bradleys, the M113 *Bucket*, the Soviet BMP/BMD nor the wheeled Stryker/LAV/BTR-80 wheelies are immune to such weapons and their effects, and should one such mine not be sufficient, as with a tank or tank-based APC, two mines can easily be stacked together. The convenient carrying handles on the mine make it a fairly easy matter for one to be carried in either hand for reasonable distances, and should the sapper planting them be accompanied by a security element, multiples of two can be further added as needed, requiring only a slightly deeper hole in which to emplace them.
Even the South African Casspir transport vehicle, probably the most mine-resistant vehicle in service, is certified to protect its occupants against the effects of a triple-stacked TM-57 mine blast (equivalent to 21kg of TNT) under any wheel, or a double mine (14kg of TNT) anywhere under the hull. Do not bet your life on even such a vehicle, or anything lesser, handling four.
Yeah, I keep forgetting the time difference between here and there.
Good to see you though.
Stay relatively safe.
The new kind, with the invisibility cloak, which also flies.
War stories are always welcome here, soldier! Fire for effect!
We are so far back in CONUS here we can't even see the REMFs, and we love getting it right from the horse's mouth.
Doesn't the TM 57 use a MS effect vs just blast ?
Funny you should bring up flying tanks. In the Combat Development Course I am in we had to write an abbreviated requirement to solve a perceived problem for a practical exercise. Our problem was the speed of getting ammunition resupplies to the front. Our materiel solution was a truck that would have the capability to fly for short distances. I don't know how the material developer will solve the problem, but then that is why they make the big bucks.
Well, in the case of the Bradley and, apparently, the Stryker, the criticism is justified. Over-expensive, under-armed, under-protected boondoggles that put American troops in unnecessary risk. There's nothing patriotic about blindly following Pentagon procurement policies when they weaken US national security.
So my earlier comment stand that the reports s.ck and that its better then driving around in a gm truck..
and thanks for the service
No. It has an improved shape, allowing mechanical laying as well as by hand, but is meant for use with tilt-rod fuzing that could cause the mine to detonate either under a track or the belly. Mines meant specifically for underbelly detonation are more commonly shaped charge or platter charge mines, as per the TMRP-6 often encountered in Bosnia.
The TM-57 is a circular, sheet metal bodied AT mine which is designed to damage or destroy a tank by blast effect. It is an improvement on the TM-46 and TMN-46 and has a larger charge and improved fuzing. The TM-57 was specifically designed for mechanical laying. The top of the mine has a stepped appearance with a large diameter fuze protruding from the center. The bottom of the mine is crimped to the rest of the mine body and has 7 radial strengthening ribs and 1 or 2 filler plugs. The mine has cyrilic lettering painted in black on the top and sides as well as the letters TM-57 embossed on the bottom. The TM-57 has one anti-disturbance fuze cavity located in the side and a metal carrying handle spot welded to the bottom. The mine contains 7 kg of cast TNT or Torpex and it can be fitted with either the MVZ-57 delay arming (45 seconds) pressure fuze for mechanical laying or the MVSh-57 tilt-rod fuze. It can be located visually if a tilt rod is used or with metal detectors under most field conditions. Depending on the fuze the TM-57 will be resistant to blast over pressure from explosive breaching systems like the Giant Viper and MICLIC.
The new kind, with the invisibility cloak, which also flies.
ContraGravity or antigravity flying, or maybe even an air-cushion effect, might at least alleviate some of the problems associated with land mines.
But I'm REALLY salivating at the thought of HellBore rail guns for main armament. And associated secondaries...
Hellbores fire slivers of steel-jacketed cryo-H, a few grams of hydrogen held as a slush at near-absolute zero temperatures. Magnetically accelerated to relativistic speeds by superconducting coils within the weapon's barrel, the cryo-H is compacted and heated until it reaches fusion temperatures. The devastating effect of the hellbore is the natural outcome of shooting at a target with tiny pieces of burning star traveling at near-light velocities. Damage, measured at several megatons/second, is caused both by fusion effects and by the release of considerable kinetic energy at impact.
Is that SciFi or R&D?
Hmmmmmm Okie Dokie..... which ones had the Misznay-Schardin effect that precluded the stack attack per se ....?
I'm gonna render safe one of these tonight !.......:o)
http://www.barback.com/dud/redarmy.jpg
Stay safe !
Where do you figure the guys at R&D get their best ideas? Accordingly, it's a little of both, though SF from the late Keith Laumer, for the immediate present.
You might find Sonny from the followon series of books [just as the characters and activities of Fleming's Bond and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Holmes were carried on, so too are Laumer's protagonists still with us] to be particularly sympathetic in attempting to cope with the problems technical and moral along the warrior's path; see The Road to Damascus for details. But if you set out to follow the entire series from its beginnings, and begin with you're in for quite a treat.
FOR THE HONOR OF THE REGIMENTMy forty-seven pairs of flint-steel roadwheels are in depot condition. Their tires of spun beryllium monocrystal, woven to deform rather than compress, all have 97% or better of their fabric unbroken. The immediate terrain is semi-arid. The briefing files inform me this is typical of the planet. My track links purr among themselves as they grind through scrub vegetation and the friable soil, carrying me to my assigned mission.
There is a cataclysmic fuel-air explosion to the east behind me. The glare is visible for 5.3 seconds, and the ground will shake for many minutes as shock waves echo through the planetary mantle.
Had my human superiors so chosen, I could be replacing Saratoga at the spearhead of the attack.
The rear elements of the infantry are in sight now. They look like dung beetles in their hard suits, crawling backward beneath a rain of shrapnel. I am within range of their low-power communications net. "Hold what you got, troops," orders the unit's acting commander. "Big Brother's come to help!"
I am not Big Brother. I am Maldon, a Mark XXX Bolo of the 3rd Battalion, Dinochrome Brigade. The lineage of our unit goes back to the 2nd South Wessex Dragoons. In 1944, we broke the last German resistance on the path to Falaise—though we traded our flimsy Cromwells against the Tigers at a ration of six to one to do it.The citizens do not need to know what the cost is. They need only to know that the mission has been accomplished. The battle honors welded to my turret prove that I have always accomplished my mission....
Zoom zoom in the Boom-Boom Room, comrade!
LOL.......
Hey! No fair!
Just when Muttly beginning to feel satisfied behind his BHP w/OSM....archy mentions "shooting at a target with tiny pieces of burning star traveling at near-light velocities. Damage, measured at several megatons/second..."
Muttly WANT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
