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.
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.