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

[JonS]

[ August 07, 2007, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Blackhorse]

[ August 06, 2007, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: Blackhorse ]

[JonS]

.

[ August 07, 2007, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Blackhorse]

[ August 06, 2007, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: Blackhorse ]

[JonS]

You agree that the Stryker is different to the LAVIII in significant ways. That's great. Really it is.

Now, the question from James was:

So LAVIII vs Stryker: Can one of you experts fill us in on why USA choose to reinvent the wheel?

[ August 07, 2007, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Blackhorse]

??????

Jon,

The LAVIII was what won the test back in '00 and became the STRYKER. How are you not making that connection?

The answer is "yes," UDLP spokesman Doug Coffey told National Defense. "The Army has between 14,000 and 17,000 M-113s in use right now. It’s a vehicle that the Army knows a lot about."

The M-113, introduced in 1960, comprises 46 percent of the U.S. combat vehicle fleet, Coffey said. The latest version–the M-113A3, with an improved transmission and engine–was fielded between 1987 and 1992, he noted. It is a 27,200-pound vehicle that can carry 11 infantry personnel, plus a crew of two.

In fact, a variant of the M-113–known as the Mobile Tactical Vehicle Light, or MTVL–is one of the four finalists under consideration for the IAV. The MTVL is more powerful than even the latest version of the M-113, with 400 hp engine, compared to 275 hp for the M113A3, Coffey explained. The higher horsepower enables the MTVL to handle heavier payloads and more armor protection, he said.

Both the M-113 and the MTVL are tracked vehicles, capable of sustained speeds of 41 mph on level roads. Another of the finalists, the Bionix Infantry Carrier–developed by VT Kinetics Inc., a Huntsville, Ala.-based subsidiary of Singapore Technologies Engineering–is also tracked. It has a maximum speed of 46 mph.

The other two vehicles under consideration are wheeled, with maximum speeds of 62 mph. They are:

The Light Armored Vehicle, Generation III (LAV III), offered by General Motors Defense of London, Ontario, and GDLS.

The Pandur, produced by Steyr-Daimler-Puch, of Austria, and a GDLS subsidiary, AV Technology, of Shelby Township, Mich.

The higher speed of the wheeled vehicles is attractive to Army planners, because of the emphasis that the new brigades are placing on increased mobility. In fact, the new units at Fort Lewis are training with LAV IIIs borrowed from the Canadian army.

taken from:

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2000/Dec/Armys_New.htm

The vehicle likely to be chosen, in the view of many industry analysts, is the LAV III, which already is being used to train the new brigades at Fort Lewis. Also, industry insiders noted, the Marine Corps has been using a version of the LAV for almost 15 years.

"We'd like to believe that we have the inside track," said Jim Flynn, marketing and sales manager for General Motors Defense. "But it all boils down to performance. We think that we're competitive."

The Army is scheduled to choose a platform by the end of this month. Because the vehicles under consideration are already in production, the purchase is considered "off-the-shelf," officials said, and they plan to move quickly. Deployment of the new vehicles is scheduled to begin by March 31, 2001.

Initially, the Army expects to order more than 1,900 vehicles, said Eric Emmerton, a TACOM spokesman.

from: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2000/Sep/Army_Approaches.htm

[ August 06, 2007, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Blackhorse ]

[Blackhorse]

- U.S. ARMY AWARDS GENERAL MOTORS, GENERAL DYNAMICS

$4 BILLION CONTRACT TO SUPPLY NEW ARMORED VECHICLES -

The U.S. Army has awarded GM GDLS Defense Group, a joint venture between General Motors and General Dynamics Land Systems, a six-year requirements contract with an estimated total value of $4 billion to equip its new Brigade Combat Teams with the General Motors LAV III eight-wheeled armored vehicle.

"We are truly honored to have been selected by the U.S. Army to equip our nation’s brigades with the General Motors LAV III armored vehicle, said Harry J. Pearce, Vice Chairman, General Motors Corporation. "On behalf of General Motors and our defense unit, I’d like to commend General Shinseki, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, for his vision to transform the army for the 21st century into a more agile force through the use of wheeled vehicles. GM is proud to have partnered with General Dynamics and we share the army’s confidence in our products and people."

"This is a strategically important award for General Dynamics," said Arthur J. Veitch, General Dynamics Senior Vice President. "It is the result of a decision we made a few years ago to change our product offering to match the requirements of our customer rather than to continue to focus only on the products that we historically produced. As a result, we entered into a teaming agreement with General Motors which optimized the strengths of both companies to meet the Army’s transformation requirements. The success of that strategy can be seen with this contract award."

The Army requirements-based contract is to equip up to six Brigade Combat Teams, 2,131 vehicles, through a series of delivery orders starting this year. The initial delivery order will be for $61.7 million in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation; the second order for 366 production vehicles is worth $578.4 million.

The LAV III is a full-time four-wheel drive, selective eight-wheel drive, armored vehicle weighing approximately 19 tons. It can attain speeds of 62 mph on the highway and has a maximum range of 312 miles. The basic infantry carrier vehicle (ICV) has armor that protects the two-man crew and nine on-board soldiers from machine gun bullets, mortar and artillery fragments. The LAV III ICV variant includes configurations such as the reconnaissance, anti-tank guided missile, and medical evacuation vehiclesand anti-tank guided missile vehicles, as well as carriers for mortars, engineer squads, unit commandercommand groupss, reconnaissance and fire support teams. The Mobile Gun System variant consists of a General Dynamics Land Systems 105mm cannon mounted in a low-profile turret integrated on the General Motors LAV III chassis.

General Motors and General Dynamics will share fabrication and final assembly of the vehicles among plants at Anniston, Alabama; Lima, Ohio; and London, Ontario.

GM Defense is a group of GM-owned business units engaged in the design and production of Light Armored Vehicles and supporting turret systems for military use around the world. The group comprises research, design, and manufacturing facilities in London, Ontario; Goleta, California; DetroitTroy, Michigan; and Kreuzlingen, Switzerland; and Adelaide, Australia. Operations within GM Defense have more than 50 years of experience in the design, manufacture, and delivery of a unique family of light armored vehicles. Those vehicles are in service with the United States Marine Corps, the United States Army National Guard, and with other military forces around the globe.

General Dynamics Land Systems is a wholly owned subsidiary of General Dynamics (NYSE:GD). General Dynamics, headquartered in Falls Church, Virginia, employs approximately 43,000 people worldwide and has annualized sales of approximately $10 billion. The company has leading market positions in business aviation, information systems, shipbuilding and marine systems, and land and amphibious combat systems. More information about General Dynamics can be found on the Internet at http://www.generaldynamics.com.

More information about General Dynamics Land Systems can be found on the Internet at http://www.gdls.com/.

Editorial note:

Photographs of the LAV III ICV and MGS and the LAV Specification sheet (PDF format) are available by selecting the links below

[SgtMuhammed]

This is starting to get silly.

[JonS]

I'll step through it again.

You and Jason had an argument about Stryker vs Bradley.

I pointed out that ...

... it seems that some people - at least - class the LAVIII as a different fish than the Stryker. For example JasonC has, in this thread and others, spoken approvingly of the USMC LAV25 etc. I guess it's the additional firepower that makes the difference.

James responded that I ...

... might have hit the nail on the head with that question. Why didn't we just use the LAVIII design?

LAV designs have clear advantages over the HMMWV, which, even with all the bells and whistle, is not really a combat platform. LAV designs also have a clear advantage over tracked heavier platforms by reducing the logistical footprint w/o losing lethality or survivability against a light enemy.

And he then asked ...

So LAVIII vs Stryker: Can one of you experts fill us in on why USA choose to reinvent the wheel?

At which point you decided to show some uberness by condescendingly telling us something everyone already knows, while simultaneously glossing over the question.

Thanks. We all know the LAV-I / LAV-II / LAV-III / Pirahna / LAV25 / Stryker / etc are all based on the same hull.

The question, though, is not why - or even if - the US Army chose something from the LAV family.

The question is why they then also chose to discard the lethality/firepower of the family. That's the whole 'reinventing the wheel' bit. A bn based on LAV-III or LAV-25 has a whole bunch of 25mm auto cannons to call on at any time, any where. A bn based on Stryker has a whole bunch of, uh, 50-cals.

Why did they do that?

[ August 07, 2007, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Blackhorse]

tell me about it. Sorry for contributing to the sillyness.

[JasonC]

The original LAVs as used by the Marines were well armed with 25mm and 2 30 cals each, turreted, plus TOW versions with 16 missile each, and mortar ones with 99 81mm mortar rounds each, fully amphibious with 6 mph speed in the water, 4 tons lighter, truly liftable in a C-130 in combat configuration and for that matter airliftable by a C-53 helicopter for runs up to 50 nautical miles, we already had more than 500 of them (different types) and they cost less than $1 million a piece. Even taking a vehicle mix and using 3/2 as many to get more dismounts, less costly than the Brad and a quarter the to date experienced cost of Stryker.

They had lighter armor than Brads in return for their faster deployability, had similar firepower as a deployed group (though ATGMs on separate vehicles etc) but were also under 1/3rd the cost, and less than 1/6 the cost the Stryker has shown in practice. With high mobility MLRS added and the usual Marine practice of very close support from attack helos and air, they are a perfectly respectable medium force, between light infantry and heavy armor.

The Stryker won in the competition with them because it had not yet been uparmored and therefore had not yet reached its final weight, and looked like in might actually meet the C-130 deployment criteria. In practice, that went (in combat config) and so did amphib, and so did low cost (in spades). But hey, the Army can say it has the newest thing and they aren't playing "wannabe" Marine, so that's all good.

[Blackhorse]

Jon,

I believe the rationale for not having 25mm turrets on the LAVIII (for testing) was that the requirement was to have an ICV not an IFV. There were most likely also weight issues involved with regards to the turret and 25mm gun, as well as space issues inside the vehicle.

[James Bailey]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bigduke6:

James Baily,

Try to spell his name right, and then worship the man whose idea you are keeping alive.

http://www.cmmc2.org/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=614

All the best

Andreas </font>

[JonS]

Originally posted by Blackhorse:

I believe the rationale for not having 25mm turrets on the LAVIII (for testing) was that the requirement was to have an ICV not an IFV. There were most likely also weight issues involved with regards to the turret and 25mm gun, as well as space issues inside the vehicle.

And here - assuming you're correct - is the nub of it.

* Was the requirement was to have an ICV not an IFV valid, given the cost in unit-level lethality?

* Were the presumed weight issues with the turret valid, given the Marines already had a helo-deployable version with it? (Also, since the Army later ditched the weight requirement anyway ...)

* Are the space issues valid, given that the Canadians, Kiwis, Marines, and others all manage to make it work? Also, since the US Army makes it work with the Bradley?

It seems that the US Army chose to neuter the LAV to get the Stryker for no particularly valid reason.

I have no doubt that units which have Stryker are 'making them work', both in training and on operations. But that, too, is not the question: at the unit level soldiers don't have much choice about what kit they have to make work, be it LPCs, HMMWVs, Strykers, or Bradleys.

The question is whether another tool would work better in the role that Stryker is nominally filling.

[ August 06, 2007, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Blackhorse]

[ August 06, 2007, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Blackhorse ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

* Are the space issues valid, given that the Canadians, Kiwis, Marines, and others all manage to make it work? Also, since the US Army makes it work with the Bradley?

It seems that the US Army chose to neuter the LAV to get the Stryker for no particularly valid reason.

God forbid anyone should take a lesson or two from the Canadians...of course, I am still wondering if we make JasonC's list of "reliable Allies" from a page or two ago, also.

[average]

Everyone seems to be focussing on the 25mm variants of the LAVIII.

Remember the LAV-25 isn't replacing the AAV7 for a reason, and that reason is its a armoured reece wagon, not a bus.

TheICV/IMV variants are normally armed with HMGs, or MMGs in service. The 25mm turrets take up a lot of hull space, that severally limits the space in the back.

Whereas you can fit all the kit, packs, spare batteries, water, ammo and spank books in the back of an ASLAV-PC for instance.

Actually, now I think of it, the ALSAV-PC is close to a Sytrker ICV as your going to get, minus the FCB2.

The reason the US Army didn't buy off the shelf I suspect is probably a political question.

It seems that the networked transformation chaps had a role in coming up with the specification, and ultimately FCB sucked up a lot of the funds, as did slightly modifying the LAVIII hull.

Finally, I think the Australian model of a mixture of ASLAV-R's and ASLAV PC's (also used by the Canadians if I understand it right) in the same squadron and troop would be worth looking into. Mount your grunts in the PC versions, your Plt Commander in the R variant, and if you really want additional AT or SFMG assets drop a second R in, to give you 2 ASLAVRs, 3 ASLAV PCs per plt, and call it mech infantry.

[ August 06, 2007, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: average ]

[JasonC]

The requirement to be air transportable in a C-130 specifically was included in the test to prevent a Bradley from winning. When the Stryker could not simultaneously meet the armor survivability requirements, this was sacrificed.

The maintenance cost requirements were meant to prevent any tracked vehicle from winning. In fact the Stryker won on that score only because its figures were fudged and low by a factor of 5. (It would still be cheaper than a Brad per mile, but not the cheapest in the test at its true cost).

The older LAV would have won on both scores. So they also said they wanted to carry more men per vehicle.

Unfortunately, these combined made the lighter but roomier M113 look better. The real problem with the M113 was and is that it was underarmed. Instead the Stryker was said to beat it on operating costs, wheels vs. tracked - but this is not borne out by the actual figures.

If you want to fight and don't much care about the C-130 deployability, a Brad is far superior. But it is definitely a heavier vehicle, 30 tons vs. 18 tons, and that carries with it larger POL requirements etc.

If you want to maximize deployability and operating costs, you need not surrender anything in the way of firepower, if you use the LAVs the way the Marines already use them. Of course you would still want to improve their comms etc and would be willing to pay some to do so. The existing LAV was so cheap, that could readily have been done for far less than the Stryker.

If you want deployability and as many dismounts as possible, the M113 is superior. It is 13 tons vs. 18 tons, carries 2 extra dismounts, fits in a C-130, is 3 meters shorter and turns in place, etc.

Personally it is clear to me the LAV approach was the right one to the extent one needs deployable medium weight units at all, and the heavy approach was and is superior for major warfighting. I say this because I have a strong sense of the value of flexible combat power, and firepower in particular.

But at the time, there was a definite attempt going on to relegate the entire 20th century heavy army to the dustbins and start over, in the faster lighter deployable vein. There was also a definite tendency to downplay firepower. The peacekeeping contingency use of army forces was on everyone's minds (Bosnia, Kosovo).

A bit later, the army was incensed that the Marines were first into Afghanistan, a landlocked country. Deployability became a branch prestige and CNN face time for generals, matter. Which was and is completely silly, of course. It was not appreciated at the time how silly, because it was sincerely believed future wars might literally be over within a month, always. Yes Virginia, the men who made the present force structure really thought that way.

There was also a quite erroneous impression that dismount infantry was key to urban warfare. In the event, heavy has outperformed light in urban fighting whenever there is serious fighting. The Israelis already told us this, before any of the recent lessons from Iraq.

In protracted irregular warfare, I'd rather be in a modern Stryker than an ordinary LAV. Marginally. But I'd rather be behind Brads with robust rules of engagement than either.

You should be able to see this easily in CMSF. Ask yourself how often you find yourself clearing buildings by firepower, and how often by sending bodies before HE.

I don't deny that there is a strong role of dismounts in counterinsurgency. But particularly so when it isn't really a matter of fighting, but of intel and local relations. And this is quite distinct from the urban warfare claim. In fact, intel is maximized by use of irregulars and expert teams, with a distinctly secondary role for both dismounts and the escalation chain.

We'd be in much better shape if people had actually spent the last 15 years fighting about matters of doctrine that concrete and directed at where we were actually headed. Instead we did a detour through a Lindean fantasy of rapid decision through razzle dazzle speed (for which wheels and 55 mph were thought crucial), which has utterly evaporated, in reality.

[ August 06, 2007, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[seel38]

Stryker is a POS, can't load it on a C-130, has the silhouette of a school bus, gets stuck in narrow city streets (Austin Powers like) not amphibious, can be taken out of action by a flat tire or broken tie rod, burns to the ground if the tires catch on fire, gets stuck in lose sand and fits less soldiers than a 113. It is a step backwards and not forward. The 113 should have just been improved as it is twice the vehicle of the Stryker. A complete waste of taxpayer money. Anyhoo......

[StrykerPSG]

Wow! What a thread! I had intended to come on here, fully supporting my alumni and have learned there are some very well versed personnel out there. I had only wanted to blast away at 11B for his initial ridiculous comment opening this thread, but instead figure I'll step aside and let the purported professionals blast away at the Stryker BDE and it's doctrinal concepts. It is amazing how many critics we have in this thread, but alas not a one is a Stryker Soldier. Not a single pundit has served on or even fought the vehicle, but yet we come fully armed with a plethora of articles and claims both pro and con, again, from experts that usually have not fought the vehicle.

I have had the blessing of spending 5 of my last 17 years at Lewis, fielding the initial interim vehicles, writing/formulating doctrine for the SBCT, fighting a platoon of Strykers and now as a first sergeant for the latest SBCT 5-2ID. My background was, for 12 years, 82nd, 101st, 25th (light/airborne for the NG guy)and AC/RC evaluating the NG. To say I was a vehicle hater was a gross understatement. I didn't trust them. To me, they were death traps on wheels, so I gave them a chance.

From the begininning, we were never intended to replace HBCT's (as discussed earlier) or even light vehicles. We were intended to be a quick armored package, with credible staying power, but more importantly manueverabiltiy, situational awareness, ala FBCB2 and a smaller logistical footprint. This would provide a bigger delaying action until the HBCT's could be strategically brought into theater via sealift. We were even designed to be airlfted tactically via C130, which we can do, though it sucks! But what made the vehicle choice better then a tracked vehicle are multiple things:

1. Run flat tires-read as abiltity to survive IED/ambush and still get back home under own power. BTW, change tires in 15 minutes!

2. steath:suprise=survivability. Earned the moniker of Ghost Soldiers by locals.

3. Rapid mobility:Our BDE traversed the entire length and width of Iraq many times, being called upon by HBCT's as a QRF, due to said mobility and boots on the ground capability.

4. Speed=survival. We outperformed even the MP's and their convoy escort mission because we were the only armored vehicle that could do 65-70mph with the convoys. We then brought 2 full squads to bear onto the enemy so the bad guys could be killed rather then suppressed to fight another day.

The SBCTwas never intended as an initial entry force for medium-high intensity conflicts. What it was designed to be is a unique light infantry trained hybrid, where everyone trains in CQM, shoot house drills and road marching, immaterial of MOS. Afterall, we wouldn't want another Jessica Lynch fiasco. It is designed to give the light fighter, on the ground, supreme situational awareness via the FBCB2 and Land warrior, offering a first look, first shoot capability. It is also interesting to note, that various other organizations (non-SBCT)do not grudginly accept the Stryker. They love it and it's unique capabilities and characteristics.

Ultimately I think there are quite a few excellent replies as food for thought and I have to say I would probably give Black Horse more credibility then Jason, though the grey (no longer green) suits certainly have their challenged individuals too.

11B, as a side note, I think you made a very brash statement that not only was uneducated, but as claiming to be a fellow 11B made us look rather foolish collectively.

Finally, to all deployed service members deployed in support of OIF/OEF, God speed and safe return.

[JonS]

Originally posted by StrykerPSG:

Not a single pundit has served on or even fought the vehicle

That is an heroic assumption. Furthermore, I assume you flatter yourself with the ability to tell the difference between a good and bad movie, meal, car, etc, despite being neither a director, chef, designer, etc?

You know, everything you said can be true, and yet not contradict a single thing JasonC - for example - has said.

[ August 06, 2007, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Guardsman11b]

Originally posted by StrykerPSG:

11B, as a side note, I think you made a very brash statement that not only was uneducated, but as claiming to be a fellow 11B made us look rather foolish collectively.

I don't see how it is a "brash statement" and "uneducated". It is my opinion of the Stryker. I do not like it, and I prefer the Uparmored Humvee, or the Bradley Fighting Vehicle over the Stryker. As I stated before, it is an easy target, and I don't think anyone likes taking fire...

I apologize if my opinion made you, or any other Infantryman look "foolish". I have a year and half left on my contract, and from my experiences, I will side with the uparmored Humvee and Bradley over the Stryker any day.

But what do I know... I'm just an "uneducated" National Guardsman.

[StrykerPSG]

What I see contained within this thread are some excellent researchers, bar none. However, there is no ultimate vehicle that can accomplish all. What truly turned me into this thread from the beginning is 11B's opening comments. But, aside from the obvious he know's not what he is talking about based on his inexperience, there are some great arguements contained within. Was there some political wrangling involved in the vehicle decision purchase, certainly. But name any weapon system not purchased with political influence or promise.

For the record, I find the BFV an outstanding vehicle, with an outstanding weapon/sensor suite. However, it lacks a smaller squad footprint because of the amount of fuel and ammo needed to support that weapons suite. The HMMMV, also excellent as a scoutting vehicle, but again, poorly suited for anything beyond that because of inability to put substantial boots on the ground. The M113 has some good carrying capability but lacks stealth, speed and survivability.

I am not stating that the Stryker is the ultimate vehicle. It can get stuck in the mud, but has an ability to self or buddy extract. It cannot load on a C130 as easily as either the HMMV or M113, but it's doable and again, not an end all decision maker. As for getting stuck because of a flat tire or tie rod...false again. It has 8 run flats capable of 35mph, if flat, for up to many miles. If a tie rod breaks, again, non-issue in theater, because you have the ability to isolate the particular axle. As for the narrow street challenge, it negotiates the theater streets as well as any Brad or M1, jsut can't pivot steer. And finally, the soft sand issue has been adressed in an improved slat armor and central tire inflation system.

Back to your final comment about being neither chef, designer or director, you must have missed the part where I clearly explained I aided in development of not only doctrine, but TTP's (tactics, techniques and procedures) and vehicle design. What did you do for the history books of your country today or even yesterday? Me, just made a risky venture a more capable killing machine.

[StrykerPSG]

Well 11B, I suppose you could use your newly found Montgomery GI Bill and make better statements for all.

[JonS]

Originally posted by StrykerPSG:

What did you do for the history books of your country today or even yesterday?

Heh. Funny.

[ August 07, 2007, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]