Not Problem-Divorced: Army (and language) take another hit

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette ^ | April 7, 2005 | Editorial

[quidnunc]

The U.S. Army’s new high-speed, low-drag combat vehicle — called, dum-da-dum-dum! the Stryker! — is carrying troops all over Iraq. These government-issue vehicles are dodging improvised bombs. They’re taking the battle to the enemy. As a general named Patton once said, they’re making the other poor bastard die for his country. (Or at least making him die for that really, really rich guy shivering in a cave somewhere on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.)

The only problem is the Stryker! — dum-da-dum-dum! — doesn’t work. Not very well, anyway.

More than 300 of the lightweight vehicles are seeing duty in Iraq. At least when they’re not up on blocks.

A classified Army report dug up by the Washington Post says a shield bolted to the vehicle for this specific conflict is so heavy that troops have to change tires and wheel assemblies several times a day. The vehicle was meant to be light, but the shield adds so much weight that the Stryker’s parts wear out on the double.

Oh, and that shield that’s causing all the trouble? It only protects troops from about half the grenades and bombs the enemy is using.

And, by the way, a few other small problems have been noted:

Displays inside the vehicles are poorly designed and most don’t work. And when the displays are working, they’re working in black and white. Which doesn’t help when somebody sends word to look out for a certain color car … . The computers inside the Strykers are too slow. That’s when they’re working. A lot of times, they either freeze up or they die from the heat. … The main weapon, a grenade launcher, won’t hit targets … . But when that grenade launcher isn’t hitting those targets, it’s still dangerous. To the squad leader. The weapon can swing dangerously in his direction … . And when troops are in full body armor, which they ought to be out on patrol, the seat belts don’t work. Which has led to deaths when the things roll over.

Oy. Doesn’t the Pentagon test these things?

Why, ahem, yes. Yes we do, say the brass. And we’re working to fix the problems.

"We’re very proud of the Stryker team," said a lieutenant colonel whose title is so long that he really should be a full bird colonel, or maybe a general. But "it hasn’t been something that’s problem-divorced."

Problem-divorced? Is that a new military way to say something ain’t perfect? Why in the name of Webster’s can’t educators, mayors, and American military officers speak English? Can’t the Army find a straight-talking sergeant somewhere who can speak plain? (Well, maybe not too plain.)

Americans who send their sons and daughters to war don’t expect perfect — excuse us, problem-divorced — vehicles. They do expect those vehicles to be the best America can provide. And the Stryker! — dum-da-dum-dum! — isn’t the best. Not yet. Not when 17 soldiers in one particular Stryker brigade have been killed in action, and another five have died in rollovers. Not when just about every day Americans have to read about another four or five or six American soldiers killed by a roadside bomb. Not when the soldiers driving those vehicles tell Army investigators that the problems are only getting worse. Not when America can do better.

As George S. Patton must have said many a time, let’s send in the (expletive) tanks. But not before we dump the (expletive) engineers/designers/whoever was responsible for producing these (expletive) trucks. Maybe we could start by changing their (expletive) name.

[Spktyr]

From your link:

"In 1984 a decision was made to incorporate the RISE package, improved driver controls, spall liners, external fuel tanks and provisions for installation of an external armor kit on an M113 chassis. Additionally, a bolt-on armor kit providing 14.5 mm ballistic protection was developed and tested. Except for the mounting provisions the external armor appliquÈ was not incorporated for production."

Sounds like I'm right - they never made the applique armor. It's still vulnerable to the .51 (Soviet equivalent of our .50).

"Crew survivability is increased by the addition of spall suppression liners and locating the fuel tanks externally, on the rear of the vehicle."

Want to bet they forgot to armor the tanks again? Fireball, anyone?

The M113 still throws tracks like an SOB, it still has no undercarriage armor of any significance, and it is significantly more vulnerable than a Stryker. The only advantage it has is that it's lighter and cheaper, that's all.

[protest1]

Ummm... wrong, a kit was developed to protect up to 14.5mm. Refusing to put it into production does not mean it cannot be done. There is just no political will.

In 1984 a decision was made to incorporate the RISE package, improved driver controls, spall liners, external fuel tanks and provisions for installation of an external armor kit on an M113 chassis. Additionally, a bolt-on armor kit providing 14.5 mm ballistic protection was developed and tested. Except for the mounting provisions the external armor appliquÈ was not incorporated for production.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m113.htm

[Spktyr]

This is the same kit that was also developed for the Stryker, which was later found to be inadequate.

[Plutarch]

The computers inside the Strykers are too slow..[and] they...freeze up...

They probably are infested with pop-up ads.

Fox Trot Alpha I have a target. Sniper in third story of building at corner. There he is...aiming...DANG, Pop Up Ad for weight loss pills!!...he's gone.

[longtermmemmory]

It seems the author has attended the Walter Cronkite school of Disinformation.

The MSM is trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[68skylark]

It seems the author has attended the Walter Cronkite school of Disinformation.

Yeah, I remember when the M-1 tank was in development. (It was called the XM-1 at the time.) The press was apoplectic -- they said it was a death trap and every single person working on the project was a military moron. The NY Times was especially adamant about this.

It turns out it's the best tank the world have ever seen -- it's still being improved and upgraded today.

So who are the real morons?

[68skylark]

I don't understand the virulent hostility to these vehicles (not necessarily by you, but by others here who aren't anti-military in general). They're good at what they do -- the troops like them from what I've read. And they are quickly getting better as a result of the real-world experience.

Most every weapon system can stand to be upgraded and improved -- especially the new ones like the Stryker. I'm glad the Stryker is getting its share of improvements.

[quidnunc]

68skylark wrote: I don't understand the virulent hostility to these vehicles (not necessarily by you, but by others here who aren't anti-military in general). They're good at what they do -- the troops like them from what I've read. And they are quickly getting better as a result of the real-world experience.

I'm not opposed to the Strykers at all, I just think they were rushed into production before they were sufficiently tested because they were a pet project of the head honcho.

They definitely have their place, but that place apparently isn't everywhere.

Apparently the next improved model of Stryker is due to begin entering service in 2007.

[El Gato]

But not before we dump the (expletive) engineers/designers/whoever was responsible for producing these (expletive) trucks. Maybe we could start by changing their (expletive) name.

Blame Clinton, his "Defense leadership" and former Army CoS Shinseki, the same guy who brought us the "Army of One" and it's black berets designed to make every soldier "elite".

[El Gato]

The Strykers were a pet project of a former Army chief of staff so they evidently were not adequately debugged prior to being introduced into combat

Oh, they were debugged alright. The outfit that conducted the tests got a citation for finding so much wrong with it. However they didn't find everything, and somethings couldn't really be fixed without throwing the whole thing out and starting over. The anti RPG bustle came from that effort.

[68skylark]

I know you weren't trying to cast a blanket condemnation on these vehicles. But I'm sorry to say that I'm still having a little trouble following your point.

The Rangers have requested some of these vehicles for Afghanistan. (The story is here.) Would you like to tell them, "No way -- we're still bebugging them"? Or would you like to meet their requests now while we also put improvements into place?

I wish we had more time to de-bug these before we went to war. But I don't think that means we should keep ourselves from using them now. If we wait until weapons are perfect, they won't get used at all.

(To me, the most compelling criticism I've heard of the Strykers is that they're perfect for peacekeeping but not tough enough for all-out combat against a stand-up adversary. If that's right, it means we're smart to use them in Iraq.)

[quidnunc]

68skylark wrote: I know you weren't trying to cast a blanket condemnation on these vehicles. But I'm sorry to say that I'm still having a little trouble following your point. The Rangers have requested some of these vehicles for Afghanistan. (The story is here.) Would you like to tell them, "No way -- we're still bebugging them"? Or would you like to meet their requests now while we also put improvements into place? I wish we had more time to de-bug these before we went to war. But I don't think that means we should keep ourselves from using them now. If we wait until weapons are perfect, they won't get used at all. (To me, the most compelling criticism I've heard of the Strykers is that they're perfect for peacekeeping but not tough enough for all-out combat against a stand-up adversary. If that's right, it means we're smart to use them in Iraq.)

I'm for giving the theatre commanders the tools they ask for insofar as that is possible.

But sometimes these weapons syatems get to be the center of empire building and are pushed without regard for their appropriatness in changed cirumstances.

The Crusader 155mm gun was a good example of this.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Soldiers Defend Faulted Stryker

[archy]

I beleive the report says they have to check tire pressure and adjust it several times a day - an annoying issue, but not even close to switching out tire and wheel assemblies.

Shouldn't be much of a chore if the Strykers' CTIS [Central Tire Inflation System] is working okay. There are concerns that the airlines to the wheel can be torn away in jungle or heavy brush, but that shouldn't be a problem in the sandbox...unless multiple flat tires requiring changeouts have resulted in the systems being unplugged. But CTIS has worked well on the Hummvee, armored and not, and has been around since the amphibious DUKW duece-and-a-half truck of WWII.

Personally, I still favor the M-113 upgrade option, but the Stryker is far from a lemon or a deathtrap. I just like tracks.

I too prefer the old M113 *bucket*. But the Stryker's remote-controlled .50 MG whose ammunition comes unlinked in the feed chutes to the gun is not a big improvement, and for shirtsleeve jihadis I expect a twin M240 would be an improvement, maybe even a twin 5.56mm M249 SAW.

The NCOs at Ft Knox I met who were offered a one-grade promotion to transfer to Stryker units weren't buying it, and I haven't either. But some of the vehicles' flaws could be cured if it was admitted they exist, and a few others by not trying to use the Stryker as a one-vehicle-does it all system.

With the RPG cages on the Stryker, only two can be carried aboard a C17. And the reason given for the cancellation of the Army Crusader 155 SP artillery piece was that only two would fit aboard a C17. THat sure makes it hard to use the Stryker as a reaction force vehicle that can be flown where needed in theater by C130....

[archy]

What other vehicles would this writer like us to be using?

I can't speak for him. But M113s, The Marine LAV, [ with a 25mm Chain Gun and co-ax MG under armor, that work] the M1117 Guardian Armored Security Vehicle [.50 AND 7,62mm MG, in a turret], Bradley Fighting Vehicles, even leftover Vietnam War/Panama M551 Sheridan *airborne recon vehicles* would be an improvement. Yeah, the 152mm gun of the Sheridan is obsolete now, but we're not worried about Iraqi tanks anymore, so stick a 25mm or .50 Gatling in its place, put it on a flatbed for convoy escorts or security details, and it'd likely do as well as it did for the 82nd Airborne in Panama.

Heck, even the ex-Soviet BTR-80 is an improvement. Its guns work, there are side doors for the crew to exit from, and firing ports so they can fight from inside.

[archy]

The 75th Ranger Regiment just requested Strykers for to use in Afghanistan -- maybe the writer would like to see that request denied.

They got 'em, 16 each. It's the rough country in which the Soviets ran their BTR-70s and -80s for a decade, so it ought to be an interesting realworld test of the vehicle's capabilities. But I suspect that the things will resemble porcupines with all the gunbarrels sticking out after the Rangers work them over.

[A. Pole]

We could just buy a bunch of BRDMs from some cash poor former soviet country

What are the BRDMs?

[xusafflyer]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/brdm-2-pics.htm

About the cheapest armored recon vehicle around. We don't need computers and all that crap to kill these guys. Simple iron sites are fine (just look at that Kentucky units engagement)

They would often be teamed up with BMPs back in the Soviet days.