|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
 
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 9/7/2005 7:22 PM
Posts: 6,666,
Visits: 289
|
|
A persistent reporter and critic of the Stryker fiasco is Don Loughlin. Don is a retired ordnance engineer and is also a former Marine tanker. His detailed and blunt criticisms have not been publicly refuted by any Department of the Army, DARPA or DOD official. He used the Army's own data and sources to critique the Army leadership's false justifications for the Stryker program. He cites his most important documents in his report:
http://www.combatreform.com/gg021006a.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 9/7/2005 7:22 PM
Posts: 6,666,
Visits: 289
|
|
Jack Kelly
Khaki Throat
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | Khaki Throat was pumping iron in the POAC (Pentagon Officers' Athletic Club) when he met a sergeant in the Military Police who had been involved in field testing of the LAV (light armored vehicle) III, the Army's preference for an Interim Armored Vehicle, at Fort Knox in Kentucky.
There was a glitch.
The Canadian-built LAV III is an eight-wheeled armored car that would be used chiefly to transport troops. Its principal armament would either be a 12.7 mm (.50 caliber) heavy machinegun, or a Mark 19 40 mm grenade launcher. The problem, the MP sergeant said, was that once the Mark 19's 48-round magazine had been emptied, the whole weapon had to be taken off the LAV in order to reload it.
The thought of having to expose himself to hostile fire in order to attach and detach the 72.5 lb Mark 19 in the middle of a battle did not thrill him or other evaluators from the division MP company, the MP sergeant told Khaki Throat, so they gave the LAV III indifferent marks.
Rather than accept a less than a glowing evaluation, the Army brass "quarantined" the data from the platform tests.
Reports like this are why many soldiers were discouraged to read in the March 3 issue of Defense News that "the U.S. Army is trying to sidestep a congressionally mandated side-by-side test between its new Interim Armored Vehicles (IAV) and existing M113 armored personnel carriers."
Col. David Ogg, program manager for the IAV for the Army's Tank Automotive and Armaments Command, told Defense News a side by side test would provide little or no new information.
An analyst for a think tank funded chiefly by defense industries agreed.
"The Army conducted a broad set of tests on options for the interim force between March and November of 2000," said Dan Goure of the Lexington Institute. "To do it again would be a waste of time, money and effort." But some of the soldiers who took part in those tests say they were "dumbed down" to make deficiencies of wheeled vehicles less apparent.
Since the beginning of mechanized warfare, engineers have recognized that tracked vehicles have advantages over wheeled vehicles of comparable weight, especially in cross-country mobility. This is why almost every tank in every army since the tank made its appearance in World War I has been on tracks, not wheels.
The importance of this was reiterated last year in peacekeeping missions in East Timor. Australia has both M113A1 armored personnel carriers and LAV IIs. It sent both to East Timor. The M113 did fine. But the LAV IIs had to be sent home, because they kept getting stuck.
The United States has some 17,000 M113A3s on hand. For very little money, they could be upgraded to fulfill the IAV role. The LAV III will cost more than $2 million each.
The huge additional expense could be justified if we were buying increased capability. But - on paper at least - it's the M113 that seems superior in most categories.
I've addressed tactical mobility. Now consider strategic mobility. The chief reason for having light armored vehicles is to be able to move them rapidly to the theater of war. This means we have to be able to lift them on our tactical airlifters, the C-17 (of which the Air Force has 64) and the C-130 (of which the Air Force has 510).
The M113 weighs a little less than 24,000 lbs. empty. The LAV III will weigh 38,000 lbs in its lightest variant. We know the M113 can be carried on a C-130, air-dropped from a C-130, and lifted by a Chinook, because this has been done a bunch of times.
A spokeswoman for the Canadian Forces said an LAV III can be squeezed onto a C-130 if you let the air out of the tires. But the LAV III is at the extreme weight limit for a C-130, so under certain weather conditions, it couldn't take off with one aboard. Airdrop is out of the question, as is helicopter lift.
It would cost no more to conduct a fair test of the M113A3 vs. the LAV III than the Army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki, spent to provide black berets for all his soldiers. But it could be money better spent.
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 9/7/2005 7:22 PM
Posts: 6,666,
Visits: 289
|
|
excerpt from:
http://www.combatreform.com/lavdanger.htm
A senior USAF officer writes:
"Some senior airlift officers had some interesting comments about Stryker. There's 3/4 of an INCH on either side of the Stryker when it gets loaded into a C-130. You cannot carry anything else onboard when it's loaded in its stripped configuration, which means the crew, extra armor, ammo, etc. have to go in another plane.
Here's the real kicker--they couldn't fly the Stryker up to Andrews AFB (the big 'demo' that was supposed to convince the doubters) from Pope AFB in North Carolina because when you put one Stryker into a C-130 it limits the range to under 200 miles! You have to offload so much fuel to get the plane into a safe flying configuration that it can't fly very far at all--certainly not operationally significant distances. But never mind the details--we have some transformation to do!
Our airlifters just roll their eyes at all the Army's antics, but they play along because they know the Army is the only agency who wants more airlift. They don't care how stupid the concept might be (IBCT in 96 hours? A howler! They can't get an IBCT from Ft Lewis to McChord in 96 hours!), they're just happy to have someone generating more airlift squadrons and wings for them. So it goes."
|
|
|
|
|
Trooper
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 8/24/2008 6:13 PM
Posts: 576,
Visits: 356
|
|
Delta6
You are right on the money with all the problems the Stryker is having. IMO they need to design a new light tracked vehicle and use the A3 as an interim system. There is technology that can provide a light tracked vehicle that would fill the bill, getting it into production is going to be the problem. As you know a lot of the problems with getting needed systems to the troops is congressional pork. Most of the congress types want high dollar items built in their districts. I would bet if you went back and checked some of the current systems in the inventory you would find additional items were added that the military didn't want just to get the votes for the system, and it was pure pork. The Stryker as you have pointed out was a worthless system that was made even worse by being the brainchild of a political COS and sold to congress by the pork it brought home.
|
|
|
|
|
Regular Joe
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 6/8/2008 1:49 PM
Posts: 270,
Visits: 47
|
|
I met the COL who designed the "Trident" looking transformation doo-hickey today. Well actually I met him almost a year ago and he 'confessed' today!
   <rgr>
|
|
|
|
|
Regular Joe
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 6/8/2008 1:49 PM
Posts: 270,
Visits: 47
|
|
No cherry. Tell ME about speed bumps in the desert!
<rgr>
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 9/7/2005 7:22 PM
Posts: 6,666,
Visits: 289
|
|
quote:
And the Stryker is NOT a replacement for the tanks and Brads - they are a replacement for NOTHING - the shoe leather that the light guys usually have once on the ground. Anyone remember "Speed Bumps" in 91?
That's right cherry leg. Tell me about speedbumps in the desert. I was THERE in August of '90 with 3/505 PIR along with the 3/73rd Armor with 65 M551 Sheridans with 152mm main guns. So bump this.
The simple fact of the matter is that the Stryker is a bad joke. It is less formidable than a much lighter Marine LAV25 and is not as deployable or anymore lethal than an M113A3. Looks like someone needs to do his homework.
quote:
As to tracks v wheeled - the logistical footprint that goes along with the tracks was too large and defeats the entire rationale behind the interim force - quick deployability.
Only true about heavy tracks such as M1. Not true about light tracks such as M113A3, M8 AGS, or M551.
|
|
|
|
| | |