Strykers...and Why I thank god I am not Stryker Infantry

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Feltan:

I wonder if some of our Vietnam vets can comment here. I have heard tons of stories of guys in deuce-and-a-halfs with sandbagged floors and sides tooling around the Vietnamese countryside when M113's were not available, authorized or practicle in a given terrain.

I'm not a vietnam vet, but during our Iraq deployment we did have to jury rig our own armor and add sandbags galore to the trucks and humvees because we didn't have any uparmored humvees. The poor things barely even ran they were so loaded with sandbags.\

Bradley Dick,

In addition to bitching about everything under the sun, there is also the favorite past time of re-quoting every funny movie line over... and over... and over... and over again.

[Blackhorse]

Everything you ever wanted to know about the Operational Requirements Document and Key Performance Paramaters for the STRYKER. They probably changed as time went on, but this gives you an idea where they stood in late '99.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/bct/index.html

[Battlefront.com]

Sergei,

Actually I was trying to say that in military 99% of time is mandatorily spent on whining, moaning, grunting, grumbling, complaining, griping, muttering and growling about everything. Soldiers saying they can manage with the piece of equipment they have therefore means that it's the best thing ever invented.

Well, that's what you get for being Finnish! I partially agree with you here. Despite the constant complaining about their gear, soldiers to tend to (eventually) fall in love with certain bits of it despite obvious flaws. I'm reminded of a guy with his entire back taken up by a M60 machinegun tattoo. Big guy, Vietnam Vet. Seeing as he had a couple M60s on the range that day, I think it was a bad time to tell him that the M60 was an over weight, over complicated, overly fussy POS MG. I'm going to guess that wouldn't have turned out so well for the person saying it. Just a guess!

I have a great book called the "Deadly Brotherhood", which is an oral history of a ton of WWII veterans. When asked what they thought about the 60mm mortar you got a range of opinions from "I'm surprised we all didn't die because of those wretched things" to "if I could only have one weapon for our company it would be the 60mm mortar". Kinda hard to assess because you have no context of why they are saying what they are saying. This is important when trying to get a better picture of what the weapon was like in combat. The benefit of having someone like StrykerPSG here is he can interact with us and answer those sorts of questions. I think he has already done that enough already.

Jon,

To be fair, as I understand it, Jason's issue with the Stryker would be more reasonably described as:

* rejecting the method by which it was chosen

* rejecting the compromises necessary to get it in place.

If that is all it was I don't think there would have been so much fuss. I don't think anybody who knows anything about the origins of the Stryker vehicle would argue against these points as you presented them. I certainly wouldn't. I would, however, point out that just about everything the US military produces can be seen in the same way. The development history of the Bradley, for example, is one of the worst examples Army funded R&D and procurement in modern history.

No, the real meat of his point is:

* rejecting the doctrinal assumptions by which it was deemed necessary

He rejected the doctrine and therefore slammed the product of it. Even if we strip out JasonC's rather, uhm, interesting debating style, I don't see him having much of a case to make. The US military needs more flexibility to get more places quicker and with greater numbers of boots on the ground and a shorter logistics tail than a Heavy force could ever have, yet more organic firepower, mobility, and protection than a Light force has. The US Army, therefore, could have done one of the following:

1. Made the Light force into a Medium force, thereby sacrificing the benefits of a Light force.

2. Made the Heavy force into a Medium force, thereby sacrificing the benefits of a Heavy force.

3. Creating a new Medium force, in proportion to the other two types, thereby introducing a new capability without upsetting the existing two.

The Army wisely chose Option #3. One can debate how effectively it achieved its goals based on theoretical benchmarks, but one should not dismiss the facts surrounding the actual units in combat as meaningless (or not even know of them, as it would appear JasonC suffers from).

If the US Army had simply taken the LAV25 the USMC uses, or used the LAV-III, bolted on a bit more commo kit and a few more sensors, then doctrinally slotted it in mid-way between the foot/HMMWV crowd and the Bradleys he'd have been happy. Well, happy-ish.

No, because he rejects the concept itself. At least that is what I managed to pick out of his long and heated posts.

Instead the US Army invented a fantasy scenario in which a neutered - but very expensive - LAV would be the bees knees. There is a definte role for medium forces, but the reasoning that came up with the SBCT isn't it.

That's not true at all. The airlift capability does exist, though it is practically compromised into being impractical. So the argument against heavier weaponry because of the airlift requirements does have merit. However, there are all sorts of other factors to consider. Those were discussed already, so I'll not repeat them. Other things, such as the ability to cary a FULL Squad (not a half squad like the LAV-25), improved defenses, and communications gear is what really boosted the pricetag of the Stryker. These same technologies are now being retrofitted into Abrams, Bradleys, and even Humvees to some extent. Meaning, even if they did stick to an otherwise off-the-shelf LAV III they still would have stuck all the gizmos on it because the gizmos are a separate element that is greater than that one vehicle.

All projects that go through the US Army come out more expensive than they should, so that must be kept in mind. There is no reason to suspect that another vehicle choice would have been much cheaper. In fact, some are surprised that it didn't come out more expensive. As I mentioned above, the Bradley program was one of the worst fiscal disasters to hit the US Army ever, but people do not say that the vehicle itself is a poor choice because of it.

That the SBCTs have ended up being useful anyway is somewhat beside the point.

For you, perhaps. However, it speaks to the basis of JasonC's primary argument. And that is the concept, no matter what vehicle is stuck into the mix, is the problem.

As I said earlier, it surprises me not a jot that the SBCTs have been doing well in Iraq and in training, but that is for reasons completely unrelated to to why the Stryker (ie, an ultra expensive LAV with an HMG for MA, as opposed to some other LAV variant, or some other vehicle) was chosen and fielded.

A valid point. As I said above, there isn't anything that the US Army does that is on the straight and narrow, be it the Stryker or anything else. Look at the Abrams. They removed the remote weapons station from the M1A1 when they did the M1A2. Well, guess what's going back on the M1A2 as part of the TUSK upgrade? A remote weapons station. So why was it dropped in the first place?

Soldiers will make the kit they have work, or literally die trying. It's what they do. But would different reasoning and more honest decision making in the late 90's have provided them with a vehicle for the medium role that was both better and cheaper, albeit at the cost of the fantasy elements?

Again, the biggest single reason for the cost of the Stryker is the digital communications equipment and integrated electronics. The upgrade costs of existing vehicles is even more expensive because they have to be retrofitted. So it must be kept in mind when questioning the price of the Stryker since even a stock LAV-III would have had that added to it.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

In addition to bitching about everything under the sun, there is also the favorite past time of re-quoting every funny movie line over... and over... and over... and over again.

God, yes. We almost drove a poor school teacher to drink with constant quotes from Napoleon Dynamite. He hadn't seen the movie, but was tired of his students quoting it all the time. So those of us in his reserve unit happily added to his oncoming dementia by doing the same during our 10-day weapons display at the Stampede.

"Idiots!"

"GOSH!"

"What the heck do you THINK I'm doing?"

"FINE! Maybe I WILL!"

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If the US Army had simply taken the LAV25 the USMC uses, or used the LAV-III, bolted on a bit more commo kit and a few more sensors, then doctrinally slotted it in mid-way between the foot/HMMWV crowd and the Bradleys he'd have been happy. Well, happy-ish.

No, because he rejects the concept [of a medium force] itself. At least that is what I managed to pick out of his long and heated posts.</font>

[PSY]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Again, the biggest single reason for the cost of the Stryker is the digital communications equipment and integrated electronics. The upgrade costs of existing vehicles is even more expensive because they have to be retrofitted. So it must be kept in mind when questioning the price of the Stryker since even a stock LAV-III would have had that added to it.

How is the Stryker's battlefield electronics package doing? I vaguely recall hearing about teething pains early on (might have been predeployment or I might be confusing it with another non-Stryker related system), but haven't heard anything about it one way or the other since. Is the FBCB2 generally considered a success?

[Blackhorse]

Originally posted by JonS:

Erm, 7 dismounts that is. Plus a veh crew of 3, making 10 which is a full section, but I can't recall right now whether this week the crew - and veh - are organisationally part of the crew or 'just' taxi drivers who'll carry anyone. They keep flip flopping on that one.

Jon,

Since sadly I don't know anything about the organization of the NZ LAVIII infantry (sorry), would you do a quick side by side comparison with the US STRYKER infantry comparing the numbers of dismounted infantry at plt, company, and Bn levels?

I'm curious how it falls out with the 7 man limitation.

Also, do your 7 Man dismounted elements eaach have their own JAvelin missiles with reloads?

TiA

BH

[StrykerPSG]

PSY,

Our FBCB2 suite is almost a weapon system by itself. It is fantastically easy to use, especially in an age of multi-computer households and therefore the familiarity with windows and menus. If there were a downfall, it is schooling the older commo guys in using the newer stuff. When we first got our Strykers, it was an information overload. But, as time progressed, we continued to use and refine the systems that comprise the FBCB2 suite, making them user friendly. Again, this was a by product of working hand in hand with the manufacturer, providing direct input into it's design.

[Battlefront.com]

PSY,

There were some cooling problems when it was first deployed, partly because the first Strykers deployed lacked air conditioners. Of course, give a Grunt a problem, some idle time, and some ducttape, and they'll find a solution There are still some issues with the processor speed, I think, but it might have been upgraded since I last checked. Other quibbles too, but overall it seems to be working very well. Perhaps not as well as the sell sheet says it should, but far better than anything that has ever existed before.

Steve

[JonS]

Originally posted by Blackhorse:

Jon,

... would you do a quick side by side comparison with the US STRYKER infantry comparing the numbers of dismounted infantry at pn, coy, and bn levels?

I'm curious how it falls out with the 7 man limitation.

Also, do your 7 Man dismounted elements each have their own Javelin missiles with reloads?

LOL - I'd love to, but I know way more about a late 1944 UK Infantry Bn than I do about a 2007 NZLAV Bn I'll see what I can find though.

I'm also not 100% of the org of a Stryker bn, so I'm probably not the best person to do the comparisons.

As a partial answer, I'm pretty sure that the Javelins are all grouped into a Bn AT Pn.

[Battlefront.com]

Jon,

Fair enough, but he has been quite complimentary about the USMCs medium force based on the LAV25. From that - and other points - I took it that he wasn't opposed to the idea of a medium force, but he was opposed to the compromised medium force as created. (Compromised because it is based on flawed doctrine which in turn is based on the flawed idea of maneauverist blah blah blah)

Yeah, that's just the point. If he were to design a medium force to fit his concept of doctrine it would really be a heavy force by another name. Though perhaps I missed some finer point he was trying to make because he was so busy throwing out half truths, factually incorrect data, and ignoring the reality of the Stryker forces engaged in an actual hostile environment instead of a fictional one. Nothing screws up a great theory like reality

Except that turretted, 25mm armed, LAVs can be airlifted.

C-130 airlifted? I'm surprised to hear that. Anyway, the 25mm experiments with the Stryker have involved remote weapons systems, not a turret. As someone (Blackhorse?) pointed out, you can't have the turret of the LAV-25 and a full squad of infantry. It's an either or.

Our mech guys in LAV-IIIs have gone to a 7 man section for that reason.

Based on the US Army's experience they have found such sections (squads) do not have enough staying power. The Germans found this in WWII as well. So one has to wonder if the reorg of your sections is to suit the vehicle or sound doctrine. I'm not knocking what NZ is trying out, I'm just curious since 9 has been seen as the optimal section (squad) size for quite some time. Well, at least in the American experience.

Anyway, yes; more dismounts is good, and keeping sections together in one ride is good too. I've often thought that the US military seems to place too much emphasis on gadgets, and not enough on people. Especially in low-to-med-intensity stuff and COIN ops.

With the billions being spent on useless projects such as SDI and FCS, I think just about every grunt in Iraq would agree completely there.

Grunt - "We have too much weight, we need to be lighter"

Procurement - "Not a problem, we're on it. We have this vision that by 2015 you're gear will be 50% lighter."

Grunt - "That doesn't help me. What can you do for me now?"

Procurement - "We don't have any money budgeted for now. However, we don't want to be seen as doing nothing. So here is a bunch more gear and another 10 pounds to lug around. Don't worry about that either, we've got that scheduled for the 2025 program that will follow the 2015 program".

The military shaved $1 BILLION out of FCS this year. It's a start, but only that. I wish the taxpayers could get a refund on the Land Warrior fiasco. $500,000,000 to use COTS technology and then fail to figure out how to make it practical, so the program got killed off. I know guys in their garage workshops that could have done that for $5,000

Yeah, I accept that, though presumably new-build LAVs for the US Army - even with the new comms kit and other electronics - would have been cheaper than retrofitting an old vehicle with a new fitout, and cheaper than redesigning the LAV wholesale to create the Stryker.

I'm sure it would, though I don't know by how much. It also wouldn't be the vehicle that they wanted due to the squad size issue. So it is comparing apples to oranges. Or to use some JasonC logic here (shudder), going with the off-the-shelf LAV simply because it was cheaper would jeopardize the doctrine and would therefore make the concept of a SBCT based on shopping decisions and not on sound tactical needs.

Steve

[Pinetree]

C-130 airlifted? I'm surprised to hear that

It's a tight squeeze and the tyres have to be flattened, if I recall correctly.

[SSgt Viljuri]

A quite interesting thread, with a couple of even more interesting by-plots.

[Battlefront.com]

PInetree,

The tyres have to be flattened if I recall correctly.

The Stryker's have to be deflated too, though I am not sure to what degree.

Anyhoo... I just noticed this thread is 12 posts over the 300 magic number. We're not sure if there is still instability of the forum caused by going beyond 300, but we'd rather not figure it out the hard way. I'm locking this one up. Someone can start another thread if they like. But let's try to keep it to one thread please.

Steve