Thread: Stryker pics from Iraq

Shek,

Really honoured to meet you and extremely glad you lived through the ordeal. My thanks for doing the dirty work for us.

However, if you don't mind a simple debate, the SBCT is no longer air deployable. The FMs I have access to dropped that mention altogther. I don't know how much faster they could get into theatre than the heavies but it would not be that much faster now.

Reading through the original intent of the SBCT, I have to seriously asked what could the Stryker accomplish that an armoured HUMVEE could not? I don't mean slugging it out with the heavies since both are mince meat but rather HUMVEE require alot smaller footprint and would provide the greater manouverbility.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Shek,

Really honoured to meet you and extremely glad you lived through the ordeal. My thanks for doing the dirty work for us.

However, if you don't mind a simple debate, the SBCT is no longer air deployable. The FMs I have access to dropped that mention altogther. I don't know how much faster they could get into theatre than the heavies but it would not be that much faster now.

Reading through the original intent of the SBCT, I have to seriously asked what could the Stryker accomplish that an armoured HUMVEE could not? I don't mean slugging it out with the heavies since both are mince meat but rather HUMVEE require alot smaller footprint and would provide the greater manouverbility.

Chimo,
I would agree that deploying the SBCT within 96 hours is an overambitious goal given the amount of lift that would truly be available during a contingency.

One of the scenarios we trained and developed was "early entry." The thought was that a Stryker force would airland behind a forced entry force (75 RGR, 82 ABN, 101 ABN) and conduct a RIP, secure the airfield/FLS, expand the lodgement, and have the capability to conduct missions requiring operational mobility. It's been awhile since my S4 days, so I've forgotten a lot of the big picture #s of aircraft required to move the BDE, but if you needed to move a SBCT IN BN (including mechanics and a small FLE), it would take about 35-40 C17s or around 100-110 C130 sorties. This is a much more digestable number. An IN CO would secure the FLS/airfield and the other 2 x IN CO could secure follow on OBJs as needed. This capability was needed after 75 RGR secured what became Rhino Base in Afghanistan during the first televised op there. Instead, the Rangers left the OBJ and the Marine Corps resecured it a month later (and I believe they used LAV-25s; how ironic). In northern Iraq in MAR 03, a Stryker BN, or the entire SBCT would presented a much more credible threat than the small heavy package that was flown in. I don't think UAH would have had the same effect.

As far and compared/contrasted against an UAH, the Stryker provides several advantages.

1. Dismounted infantry capability. With an UAH, to get a truly dismountable 9 man infantry squad, you would need 3 UAH (3 dismounted pax per UAH plus driver and gunner). In doing this, you've now created the need for 4 additional pax to drive these two additional UAH. Obviously, something has to give here. So, a necessary compromise could be to have 2 x UAH with 2 drivers, one dedicated heavy weapon (M2 or MK-19) gunner, and a 7 man dismounted pax squad (one of the SAW gunners would mount in the second UAH's ring mount while moving and then dismount with his squad). This gives you 10 pax, 2 UAH, and 1 heavy weapon vs. 11 pax, 1 Stryker, 2 heavy weapons. With less space and a 7 man squad, you would be hard pressed to maintain the capability of both the SDM or Javelin. For the weapons squad, you would have to go from a 3 man M240 gun team to a 2 man gun team to make room for the PL, PSG, FO, and medic. You are still left with no room to carry attachments (snipers, THT, interpreters, CA) or conduct non-standard CASEVAC or even evacuate detainees or EPWs. When mounted, the PL now has 8 vehicles (even greater if you have any attachments) to control instead of 4. With the HMMWVs, your ability to dismount and remount is slower (getting in and out of a HMMWV in duty uniform vs. with full kit, seat belts angling with equipment, and C4ISR in the way [FBCB2 CPU, FBCB2 Display, PGLR] is a completely different ball game) as well as having to assemble as a squad instead of being able to dismout as a squad. My assumption is that the Army wouldn't equip wingman HMMWVs given the shortage and cost of this equipment, so you would now be left with half your element without digital communications, increasing the risk for breaks in contact and the need to disseminate analog and digital graphics (you couldn't adjust graphics on the fly as I did during ops on a regular basis - this was one the greatest things about the SBCT with 100% of combat vehicles having FBCB2). Finally, you'll lose the capability to carry all the mission essential equipment - ground penetrating radar/metal detectors, explosive detectors, SUAVs, SWORDS, urban mechanical breach kits, quickie saws, shotguns, special demo kits, etc.

2. Mobility. Cross country mobiliy of a Stryker was far superior to a light HMMWV, let alone a UAH. I believe the maddest I ever saw my 1SG was at NTC when I had the company in a wedge going cross country at 25mph. The ride in the Stryker was as smooth as a Cadillac, but my poor 1SG was bouncing around like a rag doll inside his HMMWV and he was falling back. Once he caught up when we were at a halt, he came up screaming at us to slow down and remember that he was in a f*#!ing HMMWV. Additionally, he frequently couldn't go where the Strykers could go (his HMMWV stayed inside the FOB in Iraq minus the driving it north from Kuwait at the start of our tour - when the company moved to another FOB south of Mosul, we had it shipped on a flatbed that was making a run). As far as mobility on roads, the Stryker, even with the slat armor was faster than your standard HMMWVs (I've been in one opened up on the Italian autostrada) - I can't speak for the UAH since I've never ridden in one, so I'd have to let someone else answer whether it has getup and go with the extra weight from the armor. Urban mobility is a wash I believe. UAH can fit down tighter roads, but has trouble jumping higher curves and driving over rubble.

3. Survivability. Stryker wins hands down. 14.5mm vs. 7.62mm direct fire protection. Twice the protection from underbody strikes. With slat armor and reactive armor when it's fielded, the RPG protection is invaluable. Soldiers in hatches are much more protected from IED strikes. With three soldiers in the hatches and the capability to mount light and medium machine guns with the Platt swing mount on the Stryker, it has a much greater capacity to deter attacks or defeat direct fire attacks.

4. C2. In a Stryker, you can have a leader meeting to disseminate info/orders in the protected confines, turn on the interior lights and still maintain light discipline, carry a laptop with electronic target packets, imagery software, huddle around a map. You can't do this in a UAH. Also, your FBCB2 capability in a UAH becomes a light discipline risk at night since you have windows.

The UAH option has some benefits.

1. Maintainance. The Stryker maintained an incredible OR rate for the amount of miles that we put on those things, in the upper 90%, along with a low zero balance ASL/PLL. However, tires are bigger, engines are bigger, etc. Even with a higher OR rate, you're still going to need more parts and haul capacity

2. Fuel. Stryker can go 300 miles on a 53gal tank. I don't know the specs on a UAH, but I'm sure that a UAH has much better gas mileage than a Stryker. However, with 2 UAH per Stryker, I think it would probably be much closer than one may initially think and maybe even advatage to the Stryker. LOGPAKs would take longer since you're filling up twice the amount of vehicles.

3. Driver's Training. Strykers aren't that complicated, but they are more complex than a UAH (e.g. CTIS, HMS (height management system)). Our drivers' training progam was one week. With a HMMWV, you have a shorter training period and many more soldiers that will PCS into your unit that already have a HMMWV series license (although we always required new training and road tests for the M1114 due to all the additional weight unless they had a M1114 specific license).

I think the Stryker equipped brigade, as an infantry-centric organization, provides much more capability. I didn't bring it up earlier, but the MGS platoon, whose variant's production has been ordered now, will be equipped with 105mm cannons that will provide an incredible breaching capability to the infantry platoons and an ability to fight tanks (not the preferred method, but a capability nonetheless). That's a capability hard to duplicate with a UAH (anti-tank, yes, with the TOW and soon the LOSAT, but urban breaching to that extent, no). I hope that this illustrates some of advantages and disadvantages as I see them.

The Stryker is not air deployable by C-130 without a weight waiver.

C-130H deployability was an original design goal and specification. Once it was found that the Stryker couldn't do it, the spec was dropped.

Stryker is OK for what it is...an armored car...but it's way overpriced for what it is also...an armored car(and a very lightly armed one at that).

We'd have saved spit loads of money by using M-113A3s(which already exist in the thousands), and would actually have a real live C-130 deployable(not to mention air droppable) force then as well. The costs are not 'a wash', as the entire support structure and massive spare parts reserves were already in place for the M-113A3, as well as trained personnel to maintain and operate them. All that had to be started up from scratch on the Stryker, which is a vastly expensive undertaking.

Even straight up USMC LAV-25s would've been a far better selection IMO.

Such is life...

"1. Maintainance. The Stryker maintained an incredible OR rate for the amount of miles that we put on those things, in the upper 90%, along with a low zero balance ASL/PLL."

I would certainly freaking hope so. The damned things are brand new, and a wheeled APC is hardly a complicated beast.

Such is to be expected. I'd be pretty pissed if my new car was less than 99.9% reliable, as an example.

"I think the Stryker equipped brigade, as an infantry-centric organization, provides much more capability."

Compared to what? A heavy mech force? A light force?

Please be more specific sir.

"I didn't bring it up earlier, but the MGS platoon, whose variant's production has been ordered now, will be equipped with 105mm cannons that will provide an incredible breaching capability to the infantry platoons and an ability to fight tanks (not the preferred method, but a capability nonetheless)."

Please don't try that in real combat sir, the fighting tanks with MGS part...

"That's a capability hard to duplicate with a UAH (anti-tank, yes, with the TOW and soon the LOSAT, but urban breaching to that extent, no). I hope that this illustrates some of advantages and disadvantages as I see them."

LOSAT was cancelled several months ago.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

"I think the Stryker equipped brigade, as an infantry-centric organization, provides much more capability."

Compared to what? A heavy mech force? A light force?

Please be more specific sir.

"I didn't bring it up earlier, but the MGS platoon, whose variant's production has been ordered now, will be equipped with 105mm cannons that will provide an incredible breaching capability to the infantry platoons and an ability to fight tanks (not the preferred method, but a capability nonetheless)."

Please don't try that in real combat sir, the fighting tanks with MGS part...

"That's a capability hard to duplicate with a UAH (anti-tank, yes, with the TOW and soon the LOSAT, but urban breaching to that extent, no). I hope that this illustrates some of advantages and disadvantages as I see them."

LOSAT was cancelled several months ago.

The first statement was a comparison between a Stryker equipped and a UAH equipped BDE as per Chimo's question. All three forces have proven their place and effectiveness across a variety of spectrums, and the SBCT has proven itself extremely effective in Iraq.

As far as the MGS, its primary mission is to support the infantry platoons and the infantry company. It does, however, provide an anti-tank capability. Unlike the M1 Abrams, though, I would characterize this capability as a defensive one.

Could you point me to the LOSAT cancellation announcements? I've been pretty connected to defense news over the past year and don't recall this, and my Yahoo! and Google searches came up empty on this. The LOSAT would provide an offensive capability against tanks to the BDE CDR in the Anti-Tank Company (the currently fielded TOW2B is a quasi-offensive weapon given its wire guided limitations and the time of flight at max range, reducing its true standoff capabilities).

As far OR rate, it was actually in the 70s/80s when the vehicle was first fielded and took several months to climb into the 90s. It took some time to weed out parts/seals that weren't cutting it (these weren't design flaws, just manufacturing flaws). Before you cry wolf, my BN XO had the exact same experience with the Bradleys when they were first fielded, and that was a mature, developed program at the time of initial fielding. As far as the OR rate in the high 90's, if you were to look at how hard these things were ridden, you'd be impressed. Vehicles with around 10000 miles on them when they were shipped to Kuwait had over 100000 miles months later. While many of these were paved road miles, there were plenty of miles on muddy trails and crossing over curbs and rocky terrain. How reliable would your car be with that mileage over rough terrain?

True, flying a Stryker in a C130 requires a waiver. However, it flies in a C130 and can fly 500 nautical miles. You can put an asterisk next to it, but it's still a capability for a combatant commander.

As far as cost, read the GAO report on the MAV comparison exercise. There are no M113A3s available - the only ones that exist are with units that are authorized them. To take them would require replacements, "robbing Peter to pay Paul." This is not a no cost option. You would have to update "mothballed" M113s to the A3 version, whether they are going to the medium brigade or to replace the units that had their's taken. You would have to buy the bolt-on armor protection to get the vehicles to the same level of small arms protection afforded on the Stryker. Repair parts are in the system for current vehicles and the Army paid for them when they bought them, so once again, these parts weren't free. As far as maintenance training, unit mechanics across the entire Army could work on the engine since every single FMTV in the Army has the same engine. It would require some training on the drivetrain and other areas, but our unit mechanics were all over this rather quickly. By the way, there are separate MOS within the maintenance community, and the majority of our mechanics had not worked on M113s to my knowledge. So, they still would have required training in either case.

The LAV-25 can't carry the same amount of infantry as a Stryker. You're losing your focus on the infantry-centric organization design.

Here's a link to an interesting article about the 75th Ranger Regiment procuring 16 Strykers http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f...925-669719.php

Here's the link to the GAO MAV comparison exercise report that I've been referring to.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03671.pdf

Here's the summary found on the cover page:

According to the Army Test and Evaluation Command, both the Stryker and the M-113A3 enabled the infantry to complete missions. However, the Command concluded that the Stryker provided more advantages in force protection, support for dismounted assault, and close fight and mobility and was more survivable against ballistic and nonballistic threats. The Army also conducted a comprehensive cost analysis. GAO determined that the costs used in the analysis were reasonable and provided sufficient data to determine the vehicles’ relative
cost—with the Stryker being more expensive to acquire than the M-113A3
but less so to operate and maintain.

While I'm not familiar with the M113A3 bolt-armor kits, my assumption is that they would make the force protection issue a wash, and you could add a RWS as discussed in this report to make the support for dismounted assault a wash. Both of these improvements would add to the base price of updating "mothballed" M113s to the A3 standards.

"Could you point me to the LOSAT cancellation announcements? I've been pretty connected to defense news over the past year and don't recall this, and my Yahoo! and Google searches came up empty on this. The LOSAT would provide an offensive capability against tanks to the BDE CDR in the Anti-Tank Company (the currently fielded TOW2B is a quasi-offensive weapon given its wire guided limitations and the time of flight at max range, reducing its true standoff capabilities)."

Someone posted an article on my site at the time it was cancelled. I don't have a source readily available, but i'll see what i can do(for the record, it was not officially 'cancelled', it's just no longer funded, according to the article).

I have serious reservations about the utility of LOSAT. The limited traverse capability of the HUMVEE launch platform means you have to be facing the enemy directly, creating numerous difficulties in shoot and scoot type defensive situations. When you're engaging tanks with a truck, you best be able to get out of dodge damned quick after your shot...and the LOSAT launcher forced the HUMVEE into a bad situation by forcing it to face off head on with the tanks.

If anything they should've mounted the thing facing backwards, lol.

Here ya go sir, relevant text listed below:

"While the tests were successful, the recently passed FY '05 Defense Appropriations Bill severely slashed LOSAT funding and said the Army should use what was left over to terminate the program at the end of low-rate initial production (Defense Daily, June 15)."

http://www.accessintel.com/cgi/catalog/sample?DD#A3

Lockheed is now working on a hypervelocity(Mach 6) missile for use in the TOW II launcher that appears to have great potential, and is far more compact than LOSAT.

"According to the Army Test and Evaluation Command, both the Stryker and the M-113A3 enabled the infantry to complete missions. However, the Command concluded that the Stryker provided more advantages in force protection, support for dismounted assault, and close fight and mobility and was more survivable against ballistic and nonballistic threats. The Army also conducted a comprehensive cost analysis. GAO determined that the costs used in the analysis were reasonable and provided sufficient data to determine the vehicles’ relative
cost—with the Stryker being more expensive to acquire than the M-113A3
but less so to operate and maintain."

Those are the tests that then House Speaker Newt Gingrich labeled "A joke".

I'm sadly quite familiar with them...

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Here ya go sir, relevant text listed below:

"While the tests were successful, the recently passed FY '05 Defense Appropriations Bill severely slashed LOSAT funding and said the Army should use what was left over to terminate the program at the end of low-rate initial production (Defense Daily, June 15)."

http://www.accessintel.com/cgi/catalog/sample?DD#A3

Lockheed is now working on a hypervelocity(Mach 6) missile for use in the TOW II launcher that appears to have great potential, and is far more compact than LOSAT.

Thanks - with all the high profile executions over the past 2 years (Crusader, Comanche), I'm surprised that this one slipped under the radar like this.

BTW, Newt retired from Congress in 1999.

"Thanks - with all the high profile executions over the past 2 years (Crusader, Comanche), I'm surprised that this one slipped under the radar like this."

No problem. I once wrote an article lauding the merits of the SM-4 LASM only to find out the USN had cut it's funding two days after it went to print.

I know the feeling...

"BTW, Newt retired from Congress in 1999."

Hehehehe, touche'.

Anyway, like i said, the Stryker is OK for what it is...but it's neither revolutionary or groundbreaking. It's electronics are, but you could mount those in a VW bus. What Stryker is IMO is underarmed and overpriced. Admittedly i've never even touched one...but i'm familiarized with the M-113, M-3, so i have a pretty good basis to found my opinion on.

For low intensity conflicts, the Stryker should be quite adequate for most missions it's tasked to perform.

BTW, the US had some 5,000 M-113A3s mothballed in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia prior to the commencement of OIF. Some of them as you know are being reactivated as we speak.

About the armor, the Stryker has enough armor to defeat a .50 BMG, while its slat armor detonates the RPG before it reaches the armor itself. This makes the RPG a big firecraker, not an armor-penetrating device of death.
http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/000977.html
http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/000769.html
Yes, I love Murdoc Online.