It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stryker vehicle failed.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Internal army report rips the new vehicle apart

"The Army's most modern troop carrier, the Stryker, has failed to adequately protect soldiers from certain explosive devices and has demonstrated problems ranging from seat belts that don't fit around armored soldiers to tires that have to be replaced frequently, an internal Army report indicates."

"Everything from the vehicle's communications technology overheating to the accuracy of its weapon systems were called into question in the report, published by the Center for Army Lessons Learned and made public Thursday by the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog group".

The Army report was based on interviews this fall in Mosul, Iraq, with the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, Stryker Brigade Combat Team.
Soldiers had been assured that the slat armor would protect them from eight out of 11 rocket-propelled grenade attacks, but the actual experience in Iraq was that soldiers were harmed in half of such attacks because the shrapnel was able to penetrate the slats. The armor also deflected only half of attacks by high-explosive anti-tank rockets, the report said.

The Stryker initially was touted as easy to maintain in part because it had tires that could be inflated and deflated with a control inside the vehicle, but having the extra armor cage forces the soldiers to do it manually because extra pressure is needed in them.
Crews have to check the tire pressure at least three times a day to maintain the proper pressure levels.
The single-ply sidewall tires were designed primarily for off-road use, but the Strykers are primarily being driven on hard pavement, leading to the brigade replacing about nine tires a day.

Other hardware problems :
- A driver vision enhancement tool is too small and obscured by the steering wheel.
- Weapons can't shoot accurately when the vehicle is moving.
- In one model, known as the Stryker Reconnaissance Vehicle, the vehicle commander doesn't have a weapon station and must stand on a step that is so high it leaves him vulnerable to attack.

"Even the Stryker's horn has proven inadequate in traffic situations. The Army report suggested soldiers in Iraq replace it with a louder one purchased locally, and to help clear traffic, it recommended "throwing rocks at cars that don't get out of the way and use of local hand signals to show `slow down.'"

Of course Pentagon defends the vehicle, they say it's OK and all the problems will be fixed, bla,bla.

link

So what do you think? Should use Army continue to use this vehiclle which has many problems and is
a/ overpriced (1.8 mil. per piece)
b/ most of it is produced in Canada so it creates very few jobs in US, and probably violates Buy American Act philosphy (everything for federal money should be build/purchased in US if possible).




posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Why do you think the Marines are trying to pawn it off off us.

The Bradley isn't just tracked armor, those tracks come off for road use in fact. Light armor is just that, light. The time for newer better, light armored troop transport/s is now. We have had almost a decade to improve on what was top tech, and now with the revolution of alternative materials and composites, we should have humvees bigger than Abrams for transports now.

Down with the Stryker.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
We have had almost a decade to improve on what was top tech, and now with the revolution of alternative materials and composites, we should have humvees bigger than Abrams for transports now.

Down with the Stryker.



Agreed. I wouldn't want to be the guy over there knee deep in sand trying to make this plastic crap work. All bells and whistles and no functionality or intuitive design. Can you imagine drawing straws to find out who has to inflate the damn tires..again!


What does everyone expect though? They've got a civilian as SoD (and what a sod he is too), they've got scientists (for the most part) designing weapons for combat (should be military men all) and they're getting enamored with this "lighter, faster" concept without focusing on what's important, reliability and functionality.

The inefficiency is too staggering to be simple foolishness, I really believe they're funelling money out of gov. budgets into the pockets of private contractors who couldn't care less if the product works, they just want to churn as many out as possible and charge top dollar the junk. That's a tragedy for the troops, who have to rely on these weapons to save their lives. It's a betrayal, not simple negligence. (IMO)

As far as defense from RPG fire, I'm waiting for MetalStorm/Phalanx to become standard issue for all mobile infantry, that would help a great deal. I'm very much opposed to the use of DU however, and I suggest tungsten carbide as an alternative. It's more expensive, not quite as heavy, but much, much safer to handle and use. In Germany you can't even own a spent DU round, because you'd pick up more radiation in a couple hours than they allow exposure to in a year. People have to wake up on this issue and make demands to keep the soldiers and Iraqi civilians safe.

Also, I'm waiting for Jump Jets to become a reality. Imagine a fast-scan, low level radar to detect incoming projectiles, and a series of solid fuel-pellet boosters affixed to the undercarriage of the vehicle. If the radar detects an incoming projectile, an integrated computer determines trajectory and issues a 'fire' command to the boosters in the appropriate combination - or maneuevers the jets into the appropriate position and then fires. The former would work with lots of jets, the latter would work of just a handful, say half a dozen. The solid fuel would limit danger, the radar/integral computer would remove the human error from evasive maneuvers, and what you're left with is a sight to behold.

Imagine being the militant who just wasted his last rocket on what he thought was an easy target - a humvee puttering along a dusty highway leaking CCR from the internal speakers. He watches with glee as the RPG approaches, only to be shocked and amazed when the vehicle leaps like a flea just twenty or thirty feet out of harms way at the last second.


Too cool.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 06:18 AM
link   
You can have those "jumps", I would much rather see the metalstorm whip out a wall of lead from all the barrels to destroy the incoming before it even got near enough to be a risk. 30 ft is too close for comfort when stuff is going boom.

Long range or at the least medium would be a nice time for automated incoming projectile radar guided weapon systems to do their job.

That metalstorm is nice, but I hope the barrels change out fast, empty ones out side would be a risk replaceing.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Hey,

Wheeled APCs do have their uses, although even though they are touted as a purpose made urban assault vehicle, they just don't cut the mustard. In Afghanstan the Russians employed their BRDM's around the "urban" areas with some sucess, although in the beginning they lost quite a few until supported with BMPs. At present there isn't in my mind an effective wheeled APC currently in service, the stryker, while a good idea, failed when put into practice, its slap job armor upgrades don't work, its weapons don't shoot straight and its reguarded as a death trap to soldiers who have to ride in it. Hopefully it will be ditched and put into a successful tracked apc that actually protects its troops, untill the bradley or stryker, I say you yanks should buy British


Warrior APC
The Warrior Mechanised Combat Vehicle Entered development in 1972 and entered service with the British Army in 1987. The Warrioer was part of a move to change armoured personnel carriers from their role of merely transport vehicle to an effective combat addition to the common soldier. The design was inspired by the success of the Soviet BMP, designed to be a mobile fire base from which troops can fight rather than merely a transport, its more heavily armoured than any tracked apc currently out there.

Hell a BMP 2 might do


- Philip




posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 06:35 AM
link   
The stryker problem is not that it's wheeled or that it's RPG vulnerable, but that it has poor design with low possibility for future upgrades. The main problem are tires - those should be deflated when moving offroads, but this doesn't work with aditional armour. The constructers should have thought about this and solve it better. Also the weight with aditional armour is not good distributed causeing rollovers when turning.

And GooseUK I don't know why buy Waarrior, when US army has Bradley.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 06:45 AM
link   
The badleys, don't seem to be fairing to well either along with the Strykers.

As for wheeled APCs, I feel the fact that they are wheeled, limits their use in the modern battlefield, wheeled apcs, can't be uparmored as easily as a tracked counterpoint, due to the fact of load distrobution.

- Phil



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 06:45 AM
link   
What I find interesting, is the funny way tracks havn't changed a whole lot since they evolved from the M113.

If a sucessful wheeled armor is needed maybe people should look at the Spahpanzer Luchs for fire power, or OT-64 for transport.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 06:48 AM
link   
The brits have gone down the right path on this one - chobham armour on the warrior is better than the bradley ; either wholesale replacement of the bradley and styker armour or a new vehicle is needed now!



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
The brits have gone down the right path on this one - chobham armour on the warrior is better than the bradley ; either wholesale replacement of the bradley and styker armour or a new vehicle is needed now!


Since when has Warrior chobham armour?



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Since its production run started. IT was tasked with running BESIDE the Challenger in combat and uses many of the same systems, including armour. Why do you think it weights nearly the same as a small mbt!

- Phil



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 07:03 AM
link   
I don't know whatt you are talking about the basic Warrior weight is 25 tons that's the same as basic Bradley. It can have aditional armor, but Bradly can have it too.
BTW army technology states that Warrior has all around protection against 14.5 mm bullets, while ugraded Bradley against 30mm.
But I am no expert so maybe am I mistaken. Can you give me some link which states, that Warrior uses Chobham armor?


[edit on 3-4-2005 by longbow]



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   
www.alvisvickers.co.uk...

thats from the manufacturers own website


Warrior 2000 is the latest
evolution in this process of
continuous improvement.
It incorporates features to reduce
radar, thermal and acoustic
signatures; spaced aluminium
armour providing basic protection
against 30mm armour piercing
rounds, and is capable of carrying
a range of armaments up to120mm.


It would appear then that the warrior does NOT have chobham - or if it does , it is an aluminium version.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 07:45 AM
link   
the warrior has basic Aluminium armour... however it has chobham inserts in the same vein as the DU plate inserts within the m1a2 MBT



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
The Warrior is widely considdered the best protected IFV ever produced, it seems it very well armed too...

I never liked the Stryker, it never really impressed me...down with it...



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I don't like the Styker to me it basically a upgraded Humvee, it doesn't offer any new capabilities. I think the U.S. army should forget the Stryker either develop a new tracked vehicle like the Bradley with better armor, or just upgrade the current Bradley's.



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Ok first of all: The stryker is not produced in Canada. It is Produced in France and assembled in Canada. Huge difference.

Second: I'm not sure how threads like this are useful at all, aside from letting people who have nothing to do with miltary decision making feel like they know something.

When i think of what my brother must think of his fellow americans who take part in this kinda talk i shudder. He just got back from Mosul for his 2 weeks of leave. He's a combat medic who drives these "Death traps" through a hostile city of 1.8mil every day. More so he's in an ambulance stryker with no weapons systems at all, with a giant red target on the side of it. (thank you Geneva convention)

This truck may or may not suck ass. but this is the kind of thing we discuss after our boys are back home and not running over families in VW's due to #ty french horns.

Lets at least pretend their are some mcGivers still out their who have something better to offer than. Wholesale 'em to another nation we can invade, before we're even done with them. Hell, the worst situation my bro was involved in had nothing to do with the trucks anyway. It was the mess hall blast of Dec 04 (he was eatting!) where some dude puts on some cammo and walks right into a forward op base, STRAPPED WITH EXPLOSIVES, Like he was the friggin potato man.

Stryker's arn't the problem. (the main course anyway) American's thinking they are impervious simply because they are american IS. And much of that stems from armchair military observation that bleeds into the minds of the troops on the ground that says: France did it, Canada did it, the equipment wasn't good enough, sell it. Screw that. These men and women face the tire pressure issue EVERY DAY!!! Don't brush this off with a sales pitch, or a vehicle line up. Put you minds to work to help solve the problems that are there.

Grab a paperclip and a friggin rubber band and think of an RPG going off next to your fragile minds. This s*it is real and i hope my brother never reads this s*itty thread.



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   
it aint bad as u may think, it may have some problems but the soldiers in the field loves them strykers. you are reading a report by a bunch of desk jockeys writing a report on a vehicle that they never experienced with since its a couple of thousand miles away while the soldiers are the one who should be the critics you should listen to.

news.yahoo.com.../ap/20050405/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_stryker_2



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   
You people should know better than to read such trailer park trash. If you want to know what the report says read this....

www.pogo.org...

120 pages of which a mere 20 refer to Stryker and a measely 5 refer to the armor. No problems identified that can't be fixed and the recommendation is to conitinue deployment as planned. Most of the problems surround the slat armor which weights alot and only defeats 1/2 of the RPGs fired. A fact that many people pointed out to them years ago. Army brass bought into a sales brouchure from the Russians who found out the truth in Chechenya.

What mobility problems stem from the desire for heavy protection. Guess what you can't have it both ways either you have a highly reliable lightly armored AFV like the Canadians use [LAV-II] or you try to go heavy and suffer problems related to that.

Any one who thinks a 20 ton APC should be able to survive RPG strikes is fooling themselves, thats why tanks weight 40-60 tons...cause you need that level of mass to stop such a threat. If you want to blame some one blame the people who are making the ERA ...it was supposed to be ready in 2004. But even thats no solution cause like the Bradely its ERA only covers the upper 1/2 of the APC so leaving the other almost 1/2 of the vehicle theoretically vulnerable.


Either that or blame your government for getting you into this war that requires sending such light infantry & their new APC prematurely into a role they were not intended for.

Any one who suggests replacing Stryker with a tracked vehicle hasn't understood a thing about this entire debate! Strykers are designed for LIGHT INFANTRY NOT HEAVY INFANTRY! With Light infantry its either wheels or leg mobility. They would never get Bradelys or Warriors.

BTW the Stryker design is Swiss not french and its base vehicle is one of the most successful modern AFVs



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by psteel
Any one who thinks a 20 ton APC should be able to survive RPG strikes is fooling themselves, thats why tanks weight 40-60 tons...cause you need that level of mass to stop such a threat. If you want to blame some one blame the people who are making the ERA ...it was supposed to be ready in 2004. Any one who suggests replacing Stryker with a tracked vehicle hasn't understood a thing about this entire debate! Strykers are designed for LIGHT INFANTRY NOT HEAVY INFANTRY! With Light infantry its either wheels or leg mobility. They would never get Bradelys or Warriors.


Of course nobody expevt Stryker to be new Abrams, but the problem is that it is not very upgradeable - for example inflating those tires - the designers should count with aditional weight! So they should make the tires able to inflate when the weight is 26-28 tons.
Also I think the Stryker is too high and the weight distribution sucks, especially with aditional armor. That's the reason for increased rollover threat.
Next I think it offers only few inovation for 1.8 mil.$. At least they should make it with hybrid engine/batteries to be able to run 15-30mins without IR signature (not much usefull in now in Iraq, but could be in future).




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join