Leaked Report: Stryker Armored Vehicle
-
(Source: Project On Government Oversight (POGO); issued March 31, 2005)
An internal Army report, marked “For Official Use Only,” reveals that the Stryker Interim Armored Vehicle has been only 50 percent effective overall against Rocket Propelled Grenades during combat in Iraq, much less effective than what the Pentagon has publicly claimed.
According to the report: “Soldiers were briefed that slat armor would protect them against eight out of eleven strikes against Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG) attacks…In the field, soldiers say the slat armor is effective against half of the RPG attacks.”
The December, 2004 report was published by the Center for Army Lessons Learned (http://call.army.mil) based on a study conducted in Iraq from September 22 to October 19, 2004. The report, which was obtained by POGO earlier this year, can be viewed here: http://www.pogo.org/m/dp/dp-StrykerBrigade-12212004.pdf
The report said that the 5,000-pound improvised “slat” armor attached to the Stryker is failing to defend against two of the three types of RPG attacks that have been used against U.S. soldiers in Iraq -- primarily strikes by anti-personnel RPGs and anti-tank RPGs. When these two types of RPGs hit the vehicle, “the shrapnel continues to move through the slat and hits exposed personnel,” the report says.
Some of the other conclusions of the study include:
--The high-tech StrykerÂ’s computer software is slowing and overheating in the extreme temperatures of Iraq. As a result, the Center said the vehicles need to be air-conditioned. The Army has approved adding air-conditioning to the vehicles, but funding has not yet been approved.
-- Stryker operators are not, but should be, trained before going to Iraq because the addition of the 5,000-pound “slat” armor to the vehicle significantly increases the circumference and weight of the Stryker, changing its performance. The slat armor also has reduced the vehicle’s off-road capabilities.
-- The StrykerÂ’s primary offensive weapon system, a grenade launcher, does not hit targets when the vehicle is moving.
--The slat armorÂ’s extra weight is causing problems with the vehicleÂ’s automatic tire pressure system, requiring crews to check tire pressure three times a day.
--The Stryker brigadeÂ’s tires were designed primarily for off-road surfaces, but are often being driven on hard road surfaces. As a result, the brigade has been replacing tires at a rate of nine-per-day.
The Stryker, a $4 million-a-copy, eight-wheeled, 19-ton armored Army vehicle, was deployed in Mosul, Iraq beginning in late 2003, despite warnings by the PentagonÂ’s top independent tester, Thomas Christie, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), that it was not thoroughly tested against RPGs. see http://www.pogo.org/m/dp/dp-stryker-DOTE-2004.pdf
In January 2004, POGO revealed that Christie warned the Secretary of Defense that the vehicle should not be deployed in Iraq because it is vulnerable to rocket propelled grenades see http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-040101-stryker.html. At that time, POGO also raised questions about the January 2000 hiring of former Army Lt. General David K. Heebner by General Dynamics Corp., and the subsequent award 11 months later of the $4 billion contract to General Dynamics to build the Stryker.
As a top assistant to Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki, Heebner played a significant role in drumming up procurement funding and support for Shinseki's plan to transform the Army, which included the Stryker. In October 1999, only three months before Heebner retired, Shinseki's "Army Vision" statement called for an interim armored brigade: "We are prepared to move to an all-wheel formation as soon as technology permits." General Dynamics' primary competitor and an unsuccessful bidder for the Stryker contract, United Defense, primarily manufactures tracked, rather than wheeled, armored vehicles.
In meetings and conference calls with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, then Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Steve Cambone, and then Department of Defense Comptroller Dov Zackheim, attended by POGO staff, Rumsfeld and the others made it clear they were not interested in buying more than four brigades of Strykers. However, the Army and Congress were pushing twice that number – eight brigades, they said.
“The Army should not put inadequately tested equipment in the field, as it creates a false impression that the troops are properly equipped to fight in combat. The Army should speed up the process of deploying the proven M113’s armored personnel carriers that are sitting out of harm’s way while the Stryker is being showcased in Iraq,” said Senior Defense Investigator Eric Miller.
The Project On Government Oversight investigates, exposes, and seeks to remedy systemic abuses of power, mismanagement, and subservience by the federal government to powerful special interests. Founded in 1981, POGO is a politically-independent, nonprofit watchdog that strives to promote a government that is accountable to the citizenry. -
see ah .. stubborn lah ... dun wan to buy our byonics now kanna huntam over there.
-
Do you seriously think any suckers would buy Made-In-Singapore products ??
-
hey the byonics are C130 deployable and got strap on ERA armor to defeat RPG ok.Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:Do you seriously think any suckers would buy Made-In-Singapore products ?? -
Its not about the capabilities of the Bionix...U.S. (and many other states) weapons acquisitions are also about politics...to the politician, capability is secondary to securing his/her place in the next election. Business interest groups play a big role in this u know...
That's why the Stryker was selected despite the problems and controversies...The Bradley vehicle is another case in point.... 
-
Thats very true especially in the US.Politics can be more important than saving lives such as in this case. The people who decided on the Styrker must have wanted to retain the jobs in the US by awarding it to a US company as opposed to a foreign one like STK.
I don't know the specifics of the two vehicles but according to the above article,one thing is for sure. The version of BX sent to US for evaluation if acquired for this Iraq campaign clearly don't have the problem of the need to change approximately 9 tires a day! And ERA clearly offers more protection than some improvised cage armour. Agree?
-
Agree +1
we shud also send some SOF boys there to operate the bionix and show the yankees the superiority of our vehicles. -
For those not aware -- the Bionix ICV was one of four finalists for the Stryker competition. I have even heard reports that it was the runner-up. So don't pray-pray with our vehicles!
The reasons why the Bionix ICV lost to the LAVIII are quite simple:
Firstly, it is clear that the US Army leadership wanted wheels, not tracks, due to the higher strategic mobility they provide. Wheeled vehicles burn less fuel per km and travel faster on roads. Therefore, tracked vehicles are normally loaded on wheeled carriers for long-distance moves and they wanted a vehicle that could self-deploy. However, the LAVIII that won the competition gained a lot of weight on the way to becoming the Stryker, mostly in the form of electronics and armor. Since the original vehicle was not designed to take so much weight, the Strykers are bound to break down more than expected, as they are experiencing now.
The irony is that the Bionix ICV was based on the much heavier Bionix 25 and 40/50 that we use, so even if it were loaded down with the Americans' toys it should still have worked well. The Bionix ICV was also the most heavily armored of the finalists (despite the removal of the Bionix 25's applique), so it would have also needed less add-on armor. A Bionix-based Stryker might have turned out to actually be easier to support than the current Stryker in the end. Sad really.
Secondly, ST simply did not know how to play the game. Weapons purchases in the US must go through Congress, and all the congressmen want some of the weapon to be built in their state to create jobs. ST tried very hard to arrange it so that the Bionix would be built all over the US, and for former US Army generals to back their bid, but they simply were not as good as the LAV team. This was their first time fighting for such a big contract, playing in the premier league of the arms industry. They just did not have the experience to succeed politically. Too bad.
Thirdly, the US Army wanted the LAVIII -- the competition was for show. The requirements and rules kept changing throughout the competition when the tracked vehicles handily thrashed the wheeled ones, with the Bionix and MTVL in front. It was really a farce.
Why the US Army did this is still anybody's guess. Some people say that the US Army CoS at the time (Gen. Shinseki) did not understand armor. He left armor early in his career. He ended up forcing a wheeled vehicle on them they did not want. The Stryker is still disliked by tankees in the US Army, though loved by its own crews. The lack of understanding also shows when you see how he gave everybody in the US Army black berets, which were formerly a status item worn only by armor, then airborne. That was a real slap in the face for these outfits -- imagine if we gave everybody red or khaki berets. There was probably some infighting somewhere during the Stryker programme. -
last time they wanted to rush the bradley too rite?....on one of the tests they put flame retardant in between the cabin and the outside armour to show that the occupants inside would be safe....
think the Officer in charge with the bradley program was falsifying reports abt the tests too
there was a movie made abt the whole design of the bradley rite? -
It came runners-up to the Stryker.VT Kinetics had a partnership with United Defense, if I'm not wrong.And this initial partnership blossomed into a tank project which might or might not be still ongoing.Originally posted by dkhoo:For those not aware -- the Bionix ICV was one of four finalists for the Stryker competition. I have even heard reports that it was the runner-up. So don't pray-pray with our vehicles!
The reasons why the Bionix ICV lost to the LAVIII are quite simple:
Firstly, it is clear that the US Army leadership wanted wheels, not tracks, due to the higher strategic mobility they provide. Wheeled vehicles burn less fuel per km and travel faster on roads. Therefore, tracked vehicles are normally loaded on wheeled carriers for long-distance moves and they wanted a vehicle that could self-deploy. However, the LAVIII that won the competition gained a lot of weight on the way to becoming the Stryker, mostly in the form of electronics and armor. Since the original vehicle was not designed to take so much weight, the Strykers are bound to break down more than expected, as they are experiencing now.
The irony is that the Bionix ICV was based on the much heavier Bionix 25 and 40/50 that we use, so even if it were loaded down with the Americans' toys it should still have worked well. The Bionix ICV was also the most heavily armored of the finalists (despite the removal of the Bionix 25's applique), so it would have also needed less add-on armor. A Bionix-based Stryker might have turned out to actually be easier to support than the current Stryker in the end. Sad really.
Secondly, ST simply did not know how to play the game. Weapons purchases in the US must go through Congress, and all the congressmen want some of the weapon to be built in their state to create jobs. ST tried very hard to arrange it so that the Bionix would be built all over the US, and for former US Army generals to back their bid, but they simply were not as good as the LAV team. This was their first time fighting for such a big contract, playing in the premier league of the arms industry. They just did not have the experience to succeed politically. Too bad.
Thirdly, the US Army wanted the LAVIII -- the competition was for show. The requirements and rules kept changing throughout the competition when the tracked vehicles handily thrashed the wheeled ones, with the Bionix and MTVL in front. It was really a farce.
Why the US Army did this is still anybody's guess. Some people say that the US Army CoS at the time (Gen. Shinseki) did not understand armor. He was kicked out of armor early in his career. He ended up forcing a wheeled vehicle on them they did not want. The Stryker is still disliked by tankees in the US Army, though loved by its own crews. The lack of understanding also shows when you see how he gave everybody in the US Army black berets, which were formerly a status item worn only by armor, then airborne. That was a real slap in the face for these outfits -- imagine if we gave everybody red or khaki berets. There was probably some infighting somewhere during the Stryker programme. -
Although, to be fair, the report is not that critical. Nine wheels per brigade per day is not very high compared to other vehicles. 50% protection against RPG is not bad (but not good either). Lack of stabilised weapons should not be an issue for an APC. The rest of the problems are relatively minor.
Nevertheless, Bionix might have been a better choice, especially if it turned out cheaper than the Stryker. If only... -
Bionix ICV ,stripped down version w/o the applique armour and turret , from 22 tons to 17 tons, I dun think it could withstand RPG as well.
So even if it is deployed in deploy in Iraq , it will likely to be mounted with applique armour as well which will make it too heavy for C-130.
In reality, the US army requirement is not really realistic, base on current armour techonogy, I dun think any 17 tons AFVs could realistically immune to RPG attacks.
For example M8 level 3 armour, which is supposed to be protected against older RPG is abt 24 tons. -
They wanted the 19ton vehicle LAV .. so now they are paying the blood price for it.Originally posted by dkhoo:For those not aware -- the Bionix ICV was one of four finalists for the Stryker competition. I have even heard reports that it was the runner-up. So don't pray-pray with our vehicles!
The reasons why the Bionix ICV lost to the LAVIII are quite simple:
Firstly, it is clear that the US Army leadership wanted wheels, not tracks, due to the higher strategic mobility they provide. Wheeled vehicles burn less fuel per km and travel faster on roads. Therefore, tracked vehicles are normally loaded on wheeled carriers for long-distance moves and they wanted a vehicle that could self-deploy. However, the LAVIII that won the competition gained a lot of weight on the way to becoming the Stryker, mostly in the form of electronics and armor. Since the original vehicle was not designed to take so much weight, the Strykers are bound to break down more than expected, as they are experiencing now.
The irony is that the Bionix ICV was based on the much heavier Bionix 25 and 40/50 that we use, so even if it were loaded down with the Americans' toys it should still have worked well. The Bionix ICV was also the most heavily armored of the finalists (despite the removal of the Bionix 25's applique), so it would have also needed less add-on armor. A Bionix-based Stryker might have turned out to actually be easier to support than the current Stryker in the end. Sad really.
Secondly, ST simply did not know how to play the game. Weapons purchases in the US must go through Congress, and all the congressmen want some of the weapon to be built in their state to create jobs. ST tried very hard to arrange it so that the Bionix would be built all over the US, and for former US Army generals to back their bid, but they simply were not as good as the LAV team. This was their first time fighting for such a big contract, playing in the premier league of the arms industry. They just did not have the experience to succeed politically. Too bad.
Thirdly, the US Army wanted the LAVIII -- the competition was for show. The requirements and rules kept changing throughout the competition when the tracked vehicles handily thrashed the wheeled ones, with the Bionix and MTVL in front. It was really a farce.
Why the US Army did this is still anybody's guess. Some people say that the US Army CoS at the time (Gen. Shinseki) did not understand armor. He left armor early in his career. He ended up forcing a wheeled vehicle on them they did not want. The Stryker is still disliked by tankees in the US Army, though loved by its own crews. The lack of understanding also shows when you see how he gave everybody in the US Army black berets, which were formerly a status item worn only by armor, then airborne. That was a real slap in the face for these outfits -- imagine if we gave everybody red or khaki berets. There was probably some infighting somewhere during the Stryker programme.
And they wanted something with wheels .. they got what they want at 9 wheels a day logistic headache that comes with extra expenses
some more computer overheat leh and a grenade launcher dat dun work.
Ours may be heavier but I'm trust thats the optimum design for a stable vehicle that our engineers came up with. -
I thought the Stryker was suppose to replace the hummers as the vehicle to transport troops around. Instead of actually fighting? heh my bad i guess.
-
The only APC in the world that can withstand RPG is this Namer Israel APC. Israel military concept is crew safety first.So their armour is heavily protected,however the cons r expensive to maintain and difficult to support due to its heavy weight.
It is basically using a Merkava chasis and the fact Merkava chasis configuration is having its powerplant in the front and crew space at the back means little modification of the chasis and can easily convert into APC with ease.
-
mean SOBOriginally posted by zenden9: -
dats the chasis from the merkava, of course it can stop RPG
-
utterly speechless when looking at the pic..Originally posted by KumSioJui:dats the chasis from the merkava, of course it can stop RPG -
it's a diesel guzzling monster, dats why so expensive to maintain.
-
Here the view from the soldier on the ground that use Stryker:
Soldiers in field stand up for Stryker
By Edward Harris
Associated Press
April 05, 2005
MOSUL, Iraq — For soldiers inside the Army’s newest troop transport vehicle, the armored combat Stryker rides like a cross-town bus as it sways softly atop its rubber tires, its brakes hissing quietly — before the back shoots open and troops leap onto the streets of one of Iraq’s most dangerous cities.
Some 300 Strykers are patrolling northern Iraq after their September 2003 introduction — vanguard of a multibillion dollar program that commanders say boosts their chances in a largely hit-and-run battle with insurgents.
Rank-and-file soldiers hailed the Stryker during recent patrols in Mosul as faster, quieter and safer than other combat vehicles — despite last week’s internal Army study that found numerous design flaws.
“We’ve been hit with (roadside bombs) and rocket-propelled grenades several times. We have taken direct machine-gun fire,” said Spc. George May of the 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division based in Fort Lewis, Wash. “The Stryker has saved everyone’s lives at least once. It’s perfect for what we’re doing, which is urban warfare.”
Strykers are designed to carry troops on patrols and into combat — like Bradley fighting vehicles, or the Humvees that have came under criticism for lacking proper armor. But while the boxy Strykers somewhat resemble tanks, they generally lack heavy cannons and are propelled by wheels instead of tracks.
In Mosul, IraqÂ’s third-largest city with more than 2 million people, the Strykers race along main streets and creep quietly through winding back alleys, searching for insurgents who bury artillery shells and mines in roadsides and target the vehicles with rocket-propelled grenades.
Soldiers say the Stryker is quieter, allowing them to sneak up on the enemy. And they say its partially jerry-rigged armor guards them better than Humvees.
Unlike the tank-like, tracked personnel carriers that predominate across the rest of Iraq — such as the Bradley — the four wheels on either side of the 19-ton Stryker give it speed, stealth and mobility that allows it to outmaneuver insurgents, officers say.
“For what we’re doing, I think the Stryker is excellent,” said May, a 27-year-old native of Upper Dublin, Pa.
Still, an Army report from the Center for Army Lessons Learned found the vehicle bogs down in mud and the engine strains under 5,000-pound armor added by the Army.
The metal mesh armor, designed to deflect rocket-propelled grenades and large shrapnel from improvised bombs, has earned it a nickname: “the bird cage.”
The report also said the armorÂ’s extra weight has caused problems with the automatic tire pressure system, requiring crews to check the tires three times a day.
“The Army should not put inadequately tested equipment in the field, as it creates a false impression that the troops are properly equipped to fight in combat,” said Eric Miller, who investigates defense issues for the oversight group.
In Iraq, infantrymen and officers bridled at the report, saying many of the problems have been fixed and insisting the Stryker’s speed — upwards of 60 mph — outweighs any deficiencies.
The soldiersÂ’ duties in Mosul center on countering the militantsÂ’ favored attack tactics: suicide car bombings, roadside remote-controlled explosives and anti-tank mines wrapped in garbage bags and left along roads.
Soldiers who ride inside or stand up through portals in the roof spring from the Stryker’s back hatch to search vehicles for car bombs or passengers for illegal weapons. Bristling with guns and antennae, the vehicle will lurch to a halt while an officer screams: “Get out! Get out! Get out!” to urge his soldiers down a back ramp.
The soldiers say they often confiscate weapons and arrest suspected insurgents — contending the Strykers’ agility gives them the upper hand.
And without clattering tracks, the vehicles draw less attention, especially at night and during clashes, they say.
“For what we’re doing, the Stryker is much better than a Bradley, because it’s much faster and quieter,” said Spc. Michael Neel, a 24-year-old Stryker driver from Ridgecrest, Calif., who has also piloted a Bradley.
“Being quiet is an advantage because they don’t know where we’re at. If they attack us, we can circle around behind them without them hearing us, because the firefights are loud. You can’t even notice us driving up.”
Still, Neel says heÂ’d rather ride in a Bradley during a large-scale battle between massed forces because of its heavier firepower.
The $7 billion Stryker program is intended as a stepping stone to the ultimate goal: a high-tech family of fighting systems known as the Future Combat System, expected to include unmanned ground and aerial vehicles.
Officers say the Stryker is part of a larger drive by the Pentagon to turn the Army into a fighting force that can react to threats more quickly.
Lt. Col. Michael Gibler, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 21st Infantry Regiment, said his squad of Strykers has weathered about 100 rocket-propelled attacks, without one of the rounds ever killing a soldier inside.
Like the troops, Gibler, 41, of San Antonio, Texas, said heÂ’s surprised by the StrykerÂ’s civilian vehicle-like ride.
“I’ve got a Ford F-250 at home that I haul my horses around with,” he said. “And the Stryker arguably handles better than my truck.”
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-766691.php
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maybe for urban warfare, we do need something like that.
In fact, I hope that SAF will replace the old V-200 with the Terrex, it certainly offer better protection and mobility than the old 4x4 V-200.
The advantages of having a wheeled vehicle for urban warfare is that they are quiet and faster speed as compare to a tracked vehicle.
But for conventional warfare, tracked still rule. -
Maybe for urban warfare, we do need something like that.
Well here are a few reports on the dangers and weaknesses of LAV & Stryker and comments on how air deployable the Stryker is.
In fact, I hope that SAF will replace the old V-200 with the Terrex, it certainly offer better protection and mobility than the old 4x4 V-200.
The advantages of having a wheeled vehicle for urban warfare is that they are quiet and faster speed as compare to a tracked vehicle.
But for conventional warfare, tracked still rule.
According to one report, before a stryker was loaded into a C-130 it has to be stripped down. I think they may as well have gotten the bionix they be better off today.
This reports shows the danger and weakness of LAV, vehicles overturn, stuck in mud needs to be pulled out by M113 tracked vehicles, tyre punctures, tyre sabotage etc etc etc ...
... "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!
http://www.combatreform.com/lavdanger.htm
http://www.combatreform.com/gg021006a.htm -
they spell wrongly, should be striker.
-
Another good report on comparison between tracked and wheeled.
http://www.geocities.com/wheelsvstracks/index.htm -
Judging from the above website,the version of BX sent for evaluation by STK should have won the contract instead of the Styrker and this is of course assuming that no politics are involved. This is especially true for the reduction in height,the BX is obviously shorter than the Stryker. So can fit in a C-130 easily.
-
hmm..so when ppl start dying of RPG hits while sitting in the stryker... instead of blaming himself\herself for being so stupid...they can claim:i died without firing a shot just because some morons in congress wanted to preserve their jobsOriginally posted by tankee1981:Thats very true especially in the US.Politics can be more important than saving lives such as in this case. The people who decided on the Styrker must have wanted to retain the jobs in the US by awarding it to a US company as opposed to a foreign one like STK.
just one of the many ironies of the United states of America...when in doubt..look after yourself first