Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Stryker: Bargain or Boondoggle?
Old Grunt    4/1/2005 10:54:55 AM
Washington Post March 31, 2005 Pg. 1 Army Vehicle Called Faulty Transport Deployed in Iraq Puts Troops at Risk, Study Says By R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post Staff Writer 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. The Army has been ebullient about the vehicle's success there, with Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, telling the House Armed Services Committee last month that "we're absolutely enthusiastic about what the Stryker has done." But the Army's Dec. 21 report, drawn from confidential interviews with operators of the vehicle in Iraq in the last quarter of 2004, lists a catalog of complaints about the vehicle, including design flaws, inoperable gear and maintenance problems that are "getting worse not better." Although many soldiers in the field say they like the vehicle, the Army document, titled "Initial Impressions Report -- Operations in Mosul, Iraq," makes clear that the vehicle's military performance has fallen short. The internal criticism of the vehicle appears likely to fuel new controversy over the Pentagon's decision in 2003 to deploy the Stryker brigade in Iraq just a few months after the end of major combat operations, before the vehicle had been rigorously tested for use across a full spectrum of combat. The report states, for example, that an armoring shield installed on Stryker vehicles to protect against unanticipated attacks by Iraqi insurgents using low-tech weapons works against half the grenades used to assault it. The shield, installed at a base in Kuwait, is so heavy that tire pressure must be checked three times daily. Nine tires a day are changed after failing, the report says; the Army told The Post the current figure is "11 tire and wheel assemblies daily." "The additional weight significantly impacts the handling and performance during the rainy season," says the report, which was prepared for the Center for Army Lessons Learned in Fort Leavenworth, Kan. "Mud appeared to cause strain on the engine, the drive shaft and the differentials," none of which was designed to carry the added armor. Commanders' displays aboard the vehicles are poorly designed and do not work; none of the 100 display units in Iraq are being used because of "design and functionality shortfalls," the report states. The vehicle's computers are too slow and overheat in desert temperatures or freeze up at critical moments, such as "when large units are moving at high speeds simultaneously" and overwhelm its sensors. The main weapon system, a $157,000 grenade launcher, fails to hit targets when the vehicle is moving, contrary to its design, the report states. Its laser designator, zoom, sensors, stabilizer and rotating speed all need redesign; it does not work at night; and its console display is in black and white although "a typical warning is to watch for a certain color automobile," the report says. Some crews removed part of the launchers because they can swivel dangerously toward the squad leader's position. The vehicle's seat belts cannot be readily latched when troops are in their armored gear, a circumstance that contributed to the deaths of three soldiers in rollover accidents, according to the report. On the vehicle's outside, some crews have put sand-filled tin cans around a gunner's hatch that the report says is ill-protected. Eric Miller, senior defense investigator at the independent Project on Government Oversight, which obtained a copy of the internal Army report several weeks ago, said the critique shows that "the Pentagon hasn't yet learned that using the battlefield as a testing ground costs lives, not just spiraling dollars." Asked about the report, Army officials who direct the Stryker program said they are working to fix some flaws; they also said they were unaware of some of the defects identified in the critique. "We're very proud of the Stryker team," said Lt. Col. Frederick J. Gellert, chief of the Army's Stryker Brigade Combat Team Integration Branch in Washington, but "it hasn't been something that's problem-divorced." According to the latest Army figures, 17 soldiers in the Stryker combat brigade have died in Iraq in 157 bomb explosions, but no delineation is made for those who perished inside the vehicle and those who were standing outside it; an additional five soldiers have died in two rollovers. No current figure was provided for those who perished in grenade attacks, although one officer said he thought it was less than a handful. Neither the lessons-learned report nor more rece
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT
ShallowThinker1    RE:Stryker: Bargain or Boondoggle?   4/1/2005 4:10:03 PM
Old Grunt, I'm not even attempting to answer this question as any sort of expert. I'm just looking at this as a taxpayer who believes that, as unfortunate as it is, we need a military and, given the sorry state of the world at the moment, they will be sent to kill and die. Therefore I feel a need to have some interest and cast a reasonbly critical eye at the tools we give them so that they can do a lot more killing than dying. First, your threat subject/title: Bargain or Boondoggle. There's a whole lot of room between "bargain" and "boondoggle". Since this is a military procurement in the Good Ol' US of A, it seems unlikely that the Stryker is a bargain and that there is at least some element of boondoggle in there somewhere. We love our boondoggles as long as they're ours. If that weren't true why would we keep re-electing... never mind, wrong forum. So what about the Stryker as described in this article: 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. It seems unreasonble to me that RPG attacks were "unexpected". More likely the specs for the Stryker were based upon a different mission than it is being used for. That, of course, doesn't matter to the troops using it but WaPo, perhaps, is using language a bit carelessly here. I have no idea if the $11B development cost was reasonable or not. Probably not. When is it ever? While we figure stuff like that out I'd also like to see some investigation of who the heck is handing classified Army studies over to the WaPo. Their motives might be relevant, good or bad. 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. The Army has been ebullient about the vehicle's success there, with Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, telling the House Armed Services Committee last month that "we're absolutely enthusiastic about what the Stryker has done." OK, we have a bunch of them in combat and the brass claims they're doing well. (BTW, if we assign the entire $11B to the 311 Strykers in Iraq that's roughly $35+M each. Just trying to get some perspective on that $11B. It includes development costs and surely there are more Strykers, but that seems like it might qualify as boondoggle territory. How many of these things do we own? Just mumbling, sorry.) But the Army's Dec. 21 report, drawn from confidential interviews with operators of the vehicle in Iraq in the last quarter of 2004, lists a catalog of complaints about the vehicle, including design flaws, inoperable gear and maintenance problems that are "getting worse not better." Although many soldiers in the field say they like the vehicle, the Army document, titled "Initial Impressions Report -- Operations in Mosul, Iraq," makes clear that the vehicle's military performance has fallen short. Still not telling us much. The Army is did a study to determine if the thing works well or not. Sounds like due dilligence to me. A catalog of complaints - we need to know more about what those are. No doubt the WaPo gets to that later. Of course, as many of us are aware, every GI who has ever served has a catalog of complaints. It seems a bit early for the WaPo to conclude that performance has "fallen short". Fallen short of what? Did anyone expect a perfect vehicle or promise it would be a rose garden on wheels? The internal criticism of the vehicle appears likely to fuel new controversy over the Pentagon's decision in 2003 to deploy the Stryker brigade in Iraq just a few months after the end of major combat operations, before the vehicle had been rigorously tested for use across a full spectrum of combat. Finally, a little meat to chew on. The Stryker was not fully tested and debugged. The Army wanted them in Iraq and sent them there. Maybe too early. That said, whether or not it was fully tested across a "full spectrum" of combat it is an Infantry Fighting Vehicle and will be used, flaws and all, across a full spectrum of combat. The report states, for example, that an armoring shield installed on Stryker vehicles to protect against unanticipated attacks by Iraqi insurgents using low-tech weapons works against half the grenades used to assault it. The shield, installed at a base in Kuwait, is so heavy that tire pressure must be checked three times daily. Nine tires a day are changed after failing, the report says; the Army told The Post the current figure is "11 tire and wheel assemblies daily." I wish the WaPo would drop the "unexpected" and "unanticipated" editorializing. I do not believe for a moment that the Army ever imagined Stryk
 
Quote    Reply

Eagle601    RE:Stryker: Bargain or Boondoggle?   4/1/2005 6:25:53 PM
There will be 6 brigades with about 2,100 Strykers when the program is complete. The program cost is $6 billion unless its changed drastically in the last few months. That figure buys the vehicles, spares, simulators, and upgrades for the brigades base facilities. The per unit cost is more accurately around $1.5-$2 million. Most of the problems are being fixed, SP has an article on upgrades for the RWS, computers are pretty easy to update, engines and trannys aren't that ahrd to beef up either. As for the grenade launcher, it's basically an improved Mk. 19, apparently it has some problems, the solution is simply to field other weapons in its place untill it's ready for combat. I'm sure the armor can be remedied as well with some work. I don't put much stock in 'secret' interviews with SBCT soldiers, all the ones I've spoken too or heard talk about Strykers were impressed, they had complaints of course but none thought they were riding in deathtraps.
 
Quote    Reply

fitz    RE:Stryker: Bargain or Boondoggle?   4/1/2005 8:29:21 PM
Stryker is pretty new and went into a combat zone almost immediately after the first brigade re-equipped with it. In the last week there was also a report regarding the large number of M-1 MBT casualties in Iraq. I don't see anyone calling the Abrams a "boondoggle".
 
Quote    Reply

Eagle601    RE:Stryker: Bargain or Boondoggle?   4/1/2005 8:33:41 PM
I don't neccesarily agree with the decision to deploy the vehicles so soon, I also have issue with allegations that the current driver training program is flawed which is a possible cause of some of the accidents that have causes casualties among Stryker crews. Fortunately, most of the problems shouldn't require too much time or effort to fix.
 
Quote    Reply

shek    RE:Stryker: Bargain or Boondoggle?   4/1/2005 9:58:32 PM
I have a pretty indepth analysis of the article on worldaffairsboard.com, so I won't just cut and paste, but I will make a few points. 1. Shallow Thinker is on target that the Washington Post article is poorly written and shows a bias. I don't know the exact method of data collection, but knowing how the Army collects data, I'm pretty confident that these weren't hush, hush, confidential interviews. They were either small group on individual interviews or feedback passed up through the chain of command. I've seen the report, and while the article lifts many points out of the report, they have lost their context or are so poorly explained by the article, besides showing the author's lack of knowledge on the Stryker, it makes it seem as if they are talking about a different piece of equipment than what the comment is really about. 2. The commander's displays that don't work actually work. They are heads up displays that were purchased by the unit, but the issue of improved goggles prevent the existing bracket from wearing comfortably. This is a simple and inexpensive fix, one that I didn't pursue while over there because it wasn't a critical piece of equipment. 3. The MK-19 works. The RWS works (although it can and should be improved in a few areas). They both work together. They were never designed to shoot accurately on the move as the article claims. Anyone who knows a little about weapons systems knows that if a system doesn't have stabilizers, you won't be accurate on the move. 4. The "slow" display is known as the squad leader's display, and not the large group in the article known as the commander's display. It is slow and doesn't have the capabilities that it was intended too, yet. However, this is an extra display in the Stryker, works great for the non-FBCB2 functions (showing the gunner's screen, the driver's screen), and the slower-FBCB2 functions are not a big deal if you use your SL and FBCB2 displays the right way in my experience. 5. Driver's training. Having soldiers show up with a Stryker's driver license would be nice and make things easier, but is not a necessity. The BDE was stop-lossed, so you didn't have experienced drivers leaving a vehicle unless the chain of command decided to make that switch. I looked at the driver and vehicle commander as having the lives of an infantry squad in their hand, so I made sure my company understood that, and we manned our vehicles with good soldiers, not soldiers who couldn't cut it as infantryman and so they were made to be a driver. 6. Costs. I don't know what the overall costs are of the Stryker program, but you can see figures that include only the cost of the vehicles themselves (about $1.4M a copy), all the C4ISR equipment that goes in the vehicles and TOCs, and including all the infastructure projects that are associated with SBCT posts (urban training facilities, combat vehicle trails, barracks, simulation centers), and costs of the contractors that help on the upper end maintenance requirements. 7. Training. I executed as much training in the 16 months prior to deployment to OIF (starting with the fielding of the vehicles) as I did in my three years as a LT at a prior duty station. I conducted quarterly weapons densities, company external evaluations, battalion external evaluations, a NTC rotation, a JRTC rotation, a BDE FTX, and numerous other live fires and urban operations training. 8. Slat armor. The article creates the impression that the slat armor was expected to be effective 100% of the time, which was never the case. There is no doubt that the slat armor saved lives, defeated many RPGs, and lessened the effects of RPGs that were not totally defeated (by the way, this is another area where the author demonstrates his lack of knowledge - a grenade is much different than a rocket propelled grenade). As an interesting side note, the slat armor has worked well enough to be part of the TUSK upgrade for our M1A2 Abrams in Iraq (as well as having the RWS as part of the upgrade as well). FYI, the long term solution, add on armor kits, were finally approved after some initial development issues and ordered two weeks ago, with delivery of the first BDE set in 18 months. 9. Seatbelts. The two point seatbelts that were adapted from the Bradley I believe weren't cutting it as the article pointed out. I don't know the timeline of fielding, but 4 point harnesses like the Blackhawk were going to be retrofitted, and I'd be surprised if this isn't well underway. That's enough points. Like I said, you can catch a more point by point analysis on worldaffairsboard.com. The Stryker isn't perfect, but it served me very well during my time in Iraq. As opposed to the attempt by the Washington Post to make this a controversy, it is really the Army making sure that it captures lessons from the BDE's experience in Iraq so it can improve the vehicle. Just like the Bradley and Abrams are both updated versions (f
 
Quote    Reply

Seeker    RE:Stryker: Bargain or Boondoggle?   4/2/2005 12:24:32 AM
For what its worth heres the report in all its 120 pages of glory....seems like there are a few bugs that need to be worked out and thats about it? http://www.pogo.org/m/dp/dp-StrykerBrigade-12212004.pdf
 
Quote    Reply

Seeker    Possible cost explaination   4/2/2005 12:40:12 AM
The cost figure maynot be all that big a secret. Most maintenance costs are based on peace time deployement while war time deployment increases this rate by upto 7 times [so I hear]. If the base vehicle is 1.8 million and their were 2150 purchased thats about $4 Billion. So the remainder is the expected operating costs over 20 years? Thats $ 2 billion or 50% over 20 years or 2.5% per year. From various sources I gather the following information about AFV operating costs. I gather the operating costs of a older 60 ton tracked AFV is about 10% [purchase price] per year[Chieftain etc] , while a similar weight Abrams tracked AFV is 20% per year in peace time...so modern tech cost twice as much. An older 40 ton tracks [Leopard-1 etc] should be about 5% per year. Thats 10% per year if it was modern technology. Something small like a 20 ton tracks is going to be around 2.5% per year or 5% with high tech gear. If it was wheeled thats likely to be 1/2 this or about 1.2% [ 2.5% with high tech]? So thats ~ 8 billion over two war years...also didn't the number of Strykers ordered increase above the 2150 region in the last year?
 
Quote    Reply

shek    Tacoma News Tribune Article Re:Washington Post CALL Report Article   4/2/2005 8:58:27 AM
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/military/stryker/story/4740198p-4371493c.html Flawed Strykers still save, troops say MICHAEL GILBERT; The News Tribune Last updated: April 2nd, 2005 02:35 AM Soldiers from two Fort Lewis Stryker brigades rushed to the defense of their 19-ton vehicles this week, reacting to broad media coverage of a leaked Army report. The performance of the wheeled infantry carriers in Iraq was just one part of the report on lessons learned by the Army’s first Stryker brigade. The 120-page document was based on interviews conducted in the six weeks before the unit came home last fall. But news reports this week that focused on flaws in the $2 million Strykers provoked strong responses from soldiers who spend long hours inside them. “I have watched this vehicle save my soldiers’ lives and enable them to kill our nations’ enemies,” Lt. Col Erik Kurilla wrote in a letter to The News Tribune this week from Iraq, where he’s serving with the second Stryker Brigade. “In urban combat there is no better vehicle for delivering a squad of infantrymen to close with and destroy the enemy.” The Army report covered a wide range of strengths and weaknesses that the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division soldiers identified in all aspects of their tenure in northern Iraq – intelligence gathering, communication networks, radio systems, fixing the local economy, working with interpreters, even dealing with embedded reporters. A recurring theme was the challenges of a 5,000-soldier brigade taking over from an Army unit four times its size – the 101st Airborne Division – in an area spanning 14,000 square miles. The goal of the report was to identify what worked and what didn’t, and to pass along solutions identified by soldiers and commanders in the field. “Military leaders usually acknowledge the things going right, but tend to focus more on what needs improvement so units can learn and improve their combat readiness,” according to an executive summary of the report. It was compiled by Army researchers who visited the 3rd Brigade in Mosul in September and October. Col. Bob Brown, who commands the Fort Lewis brigade that took over for the 3rd Brigade in October, said much the same. “Instead of hiding our heads in the sand and saying the Stryker is perfect, that nothing’s wrong with it,” Brown said Friday from Mosul, “the purpose is to learn from mistakes and to always improve, whether it’s the vehicle, the systems, the people, whatever.” But it’s what the report said about the Stryker vehicles that made news this week, after it was first leaked to The Washington Post and then released by the Army on Thursday. The Dec. 21 report by the Center for Army Lessons Learned does not compare the Stryker’s vulnerability to rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs with that of the more traditional military vehicles in Iraq – Humvees, M113 armored personnel carriers, M1 Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles. It does outline a number of issues with the vehicle, such as: • The slat armor cages meant to protect the Strykers from RPGs – the world’s most prevalent anti-armor weapon – are defeating about half the grenades fired at the vehicles. The Army had expected the slat armor would stop about 80 percent. • The slat armor stops some types of RPG rounds, but doesn’t fare as well against others. • The Stryker’s four roof-top hatches need to be better protected. Several soldiers have been killed by shrapnel from roadside bombs, RPGs and gunfire while standing in the hatches with their heads and shoulders exposed. But closing the hatches and having all soldiers ride inside is not the answer, said Brown, who commands the 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division. “You’re safer the more eyes you have out looking,” he said. Roadside bombs are hidden. Suicide car-bombers might blend in with heavy traffic. “You can’t get a feel for what’s going on unless you’re up looking around,” Brown said. Soldiers from the 1st Brigade have added sandbags and other items to protect them in the hatches. The Army is also working on blast shields that soldiers could see through but that would also protect them from shrapnel, Brown said. The report recommended that adjustable platforms be installed so soldiers can make sure they’re not standing too far out of the hatches. Soldiers who talked to the Center for Army Lessons Learned teams had a slew of other suggestions for the vehicle, including: • Stabilize the Stryker’s gun so that it can be fired more accurately on the move. • Add an infrared mode to the standard and thermal modes on the camera mounted on the Stryker’s remote weapons station. • Put more powerful speakers in the passenger compartment so everyone can hear what’s being said on the radio. • Start an Army Stryker driving school so that new soldiers who arrive at a Stryker unit have already learned how to operate the vehicle.
 
Quote    Reply

towgunner1960    RE:Tacoma News Tribune Article Re:Washington Post CALL Report Article   4/2/2005 12:20:18 PM
To me the most damning indictment of stryker is, where were they in march 2003? If stryker is the best thing since sliced white bread, it seems the army would have jumped on the chance to have stryker show its stuff during the heavy battles in march and april. You really can't say it was because stryker wasn't ready yet, because it is basically a upgraded lav3, which has been used by the marines for the last 15-20 years. Remember during the first gulf war, the air force rushed f15e to completion and sent it to combat before it was highly ready, because they believed in it so much. Did anyone test strykers armor with rpgs without the slat armor, before we bought it? If stryker would have been used in march 2003 before we rediscovered rpg's might be a problem, without slat armor then they would have shot to $hit the same as lav3 and lvtp7 as used by the marines. The u.s. taxpayer is NOT getting his moneys worth on the stryker. If its such a wonderful urban assault vehicle then why has it missed all of the major battles and is kept in somewhat safer areas of Iraq? C130 transportable? barely. DOD quote, "we didn't know our enemies would shoot rpgs at us". Duh, they been shooting them at us since the 60s. Unbelievable.
 
Quote    Reply

Seeker    Any one who thinks a 20 ton LAV should resist RPGs ...   4/2/2005 12:44:51 PM
knows nothing! The AFV was deployed before it was ready and these types of bugs often crop up when new vehicles are pressed into warzones. Read your military history! BTW no one ever claimed the basic Stryker could resist RPGs, they said with applique it could! That applique was not even supposed to be ready before march 2004 and that has slipped to spring 2005...and now were are seeing Bradelys and Strykers with new ERA applique.But if you knew anything about ERA you'd know it never offers complete coverage of the vehicles armor. I read the ERA only covers about 1/2 of the vehicles profile, so this will always be a problem with Strykers/Bradelys etc.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics