At the end of January, Christian posted some trenchant criticisms from troops in Iraq about the Stryker system, focusing on the 105 mm Mobile Gun System built by General Dynamics Corp. He cited a litany of problems, with probably the biggest being the tropical heat generated by the system.
I got an update from Col. Jon S. Lehr, commander of 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry. Lehr told reporters today that he has signed a two-page memo to the Army leadership saying the Stryker has some warts but it is clearly a piece of equipment we need to keep. He admitted the heat problem, noting that the temperature climbs to 130 degrees in the crew compartment. In addition, the coaxial machine gun has some feeding problems. But overall, the troops told him the system works, and, with improvements, should do a decent job.
Another system that Lehrs units used was the ever-evolving Land Warrior. This one earned much higher marks from Lehr: I think its a great piece of gear. And hes sent another memo to the Army leadership recommending that it be deployed throughout the Army. There are a few warts, in particular the day optic system, which Lehr said actually made things worse for soldiers. They got rid of that and lightened the systems weight always a key factor in winning praise from always over-burdened troopers.
Perhaps most importantly for the system in the long run, Lehr said Land Warrior integrates nicely to the mobile data systems carried by things like tanks and Strykers.
As to how Kehrs unit has fared during its deployment in Diyala Province, get a load of these stats:
220 high value targets captured
1,700 insurgents captured
500 insurgents killed
25,000 miles of roads cleared
2,100 IEDs cleared
Lehr’s bottom line: Overall, Diyala has seen a 70 percent reduction in violence over the last year.
– Colin Clark
220 high value targets captured
1,700 insurgents captured
500 insurgents killed
25,000 miles of roads cleared
2,100 IEDs cleared
Lehr’s bottom line:
so what is the logic here? they caught 220 high value target because of the mgs? correlation does equal causation. prove to me that the mgs has anything to do with those results. other units capture and kill just as many or more insurgents it has nothing to do with with fact that they have the mgs.
Does anybody know if they have any plans to send any Stryker units to Afghanistan? I believe that the MGS as a big “shotgun” could take out a lot of Taliban & al Qaeda if they tried to attack our troops en mass.
Can a Chinook lift & carry an MSG into the mountains like in the Kunar/Nuristan region? If not,maybe Afghanistan is the place to contract for some Sikorsky/Erickson CH-54B/S-64F Tarhe Skycrane/Aircranes.
I guess the Strykers will get some serious upgrades/retrofits to make them more relevant and useful for urban theaters. Suspensions, engine, power systems, new armor/IED/EFP, communications/sighting..etc. Basically making it close to 30 tons. So much for the air trans theory for a ‘highly mobile lightweight’ APC.
http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0508/news/news1505_stryker.htm
I still think the MGS is overkill. I prefer a 30mm or 50mm autocanon version, like an IFV.
The Stryker System is a General Dynamics/MOWAG Generation III Piranha.MOWAG is already producing a Generation IV which is larger,& testing a Generation V vehicle called the Piranha Evolution with General Dynamics for the UK’s Future Rapid Effects System-Medium Weight Armored Vehicles.So the Strykers just need to be upgraded by a generation or 2. That again begs the question of whether we have the lift helicopters in our inventory to carry them to where they are needed.For whatever “sound(?)” reason we retired our Skycrane helicopters,is it coming back to bite us in the ass when it comes to moving Stryker vehicles further than a C-17 could carry them(& forget Skycranes carrying people in special compartments or boxes,that’s what the Chinook is for.)?
i am always skeptical when some high ranking officer like a colonel says something to the press about his units performance or some equipment performance. i doubt they are going to say something negative about his unit or be critical of anything because it could effect his chances to make general. so of course you are going to get everything is A-OK for fear of a bad performance review. asking a colonel how did his unit perform is like asking a car salesmen “is the sticker prices a good deal?”
check out this stryker misfire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwsqpnYQqjA
thank you dod for 3 million dollar reilable weapson systems like the mgs.
Good Evening Folks,
I guess the Colonel hasn’t gotten the word yet. All Strykers are going to be remanufactured, in Canada, where else, with replacement of suspensions, transmissions and engines.
In short they are to heavy for the existing drive train. All this will add 5K lbs to the total weigth of the Stryker. I guess so much for being transported by C-130’s.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Would the Stryker upgrades make it a GEN IV then(from GEN III)?
Also,if trying to bring back old CH-54 Skycranes to carry Stryker Vehicles into place(like mountainsides) is a non-starter,how about contracting with private companies for the use of Russian Mi-26 HALO’s to do the heavy lifting?
The Piranhas are built by Mowag for the global market. The Strykers are variants built for the Army, 1 of their many customers. GD is along for the ride in order to overcome the bias against foreign companies. Mowag is sure to push their Piranha V as the basic vehicle for the FCS. There’ll be lots of competition ’cause there will be literally billions of $$ in profits at stake.
The Stryker MGS is not the ideal vehicle for Afghanistan. They need something on a helicopter transportable tracked chassis. Unfortunately, no one seems to be making anything like that, anywhere. The closest thing might be the Wiesel 2, which probably can’t handle much more than the 25mm Chain Gun.
It would probably be awkward as hell,but maybe put a heavy gun,maybe a 60mm hypervelocity gun or a 90mm gun on a Bv206 chassis for use in the mountains like in Afghanistan.Unfortunately,the Stryker MGS is probably the lightest gun system we have to use in Afghanistan(if it ever makes it over there).It just seems like there is a problem with having a lift helicopter to carry it where the C-17s don’t go.that’s why I thought if we had either a Skycrane or Mi-26 Halo on hand to lift it,or just get a CH-53 Super Stallion from the Marines to lift it into place.I’d think that firing 105mm anti-personnel(“shotgun”) rounds from it(Stryker MGS) would help against Taliban/al Qaeda attacks.
It just seems like we aren’t using the obvious choices for use in Afghanistan.We’re not using Bv206s(even though we have some in Alaska).We’re not using Wiesels(I’m sure Germany would loan us a few).We’re not using MATTRACKS in place of tires for our HMMWVs.Our tactics are senseless for mountain warfare.
Roy Smith,
Enough with the Skycrane already, the Chinook can carry a heavier payload!
pfcem
“And the Interceptor Vest is the finest body armor available”.….blah,blah,blah.
We all know that our lift capability could be better.We all know that we desperately need lighter armored vehicles & that the FCS is too far off into the future to help our troops now in Afghanistan. I know that our NATO allies brought armored vehicles with them to Afghanistan,but we didn’t.We lucked out during Operation Anaconda,but Afghanistan is just one “Black Hawk Down” away where we’ll have to beg our NATO allies for help to rescue troops who didn’t bring appropriate vehicles or weapons with them.I’m trying to understand why our leaders,who should know better,have willfully blinded themselves to the large glaring needs of our military & why so many have bought into the big lie?Maybe instead of blowing up tunnels in Tora Bora,we should have taken possession & moved our troops into them.I’m sure we have Satellite Dishes that could pick up AFN in the mountains & in the caves.Bob Shepherd in his book “the Circuit” mentions how American FOBs & Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan are located at the base of mountains or valleys between mountains vulnerable to Taliban caused rock slides & avalanches.At least the Soviets had the sense to put their men on top of the mountains so that they could look down on their enemy.
I’ll laugh my ass off if somebody says that the reason we don’t have Strykers,or other armor assets,in Afghanistan is because we don’t have the Rotor Lift capabilities to move them where needed,because THAT is what I have been saying all along.This has all been one big fiasco brought on by the Ashkenazi Khazar Rothschilds & their stooges(& THEY have no intention whatsoever of letting us “win” this war).
The idea of shoving a modern system in a box (C-130) that was designed some 50 years ago was absurd to begin with. Keep ‘em light/small enough you can transport them in number in C-17s and be done with the weight/size obsession.
Roy Smith,
The point being is that you need to get out of this fantacy life you are in & join the real world.
Bring back the Skycrane does NOTHING! There is no vehicle the Skycrane can carry that can not be carried by the CH-47 Chinook (or if you REALLY need to the CH-53 Super Stallion). The Skycrane has is purpose but transporting vehicles around the battlefield IS NOT ONE OF THEM.
You really don’t know why we didn’t go INTO the caves? Because doing so played right into the terrorists hands & we would have suffered unacceptable losses. Doing things like we did in WW2 is unacceptable these days. Hell, the main stream media is gaga over the absolutely phenomenally LOW loss rate we have had.
No we DO NOT desperately need lighter armored vehicles. We desperately need people to pull their heads out of their ass & realize that lighter IS NOT neccessarily better & that the idea that you can realistically air transport a Mechanized/Motorized Brigade sized force no matter how light the vehicles ain’t going to happen. Just look at the trend, wheeled AFVs are getting HEAVIER, not lighter…
look what is needed for 4 gen warfare is a all terrain track. with v shape hulls that can with stand ied, small arms up to 50 cal, and rpgs with the ability to be mobilized anywhere in the world. and supported by air drop so you can minimized attacks on your ground supply lines. and a decent size cannon on it. what a joke after all the claims about how great the stryker is now they are putting a new suspension system in? why didnt they get it right the time?
So I was browsing through some of the comments and came across “Posted by: pfcem at May 24, 2008 10:45 PM” ““Afghanistan is just one “Black Hawk Down” away where we’ll have to beg our NATO allies for help to rescue troops who didn’t bring appropriate vehicles or weapons with them.
Are you serious?? You mustve not been in any firefights lately. Or you must be in a POG unit or some pampered army unit. Our weapons are far more sophisticated than any insurgent can imagine. The very few times they grew a set large enough to try to attack us it would only be minutes before they ran with their junk tucked between their legs. I come from a Infantry unit and thats all you need on the ground!! Between those Mk19’s and 50’s and the sickest group of guys on the ground I wish those insurgents would bring more to the table than they do. It would make for some fun. Sempre Fi!
Cpl. Parente
USMC
David,
Actually that was posted by Roy Smith. Most of his comments here & in other threads indicate he lives in some alternate reality (&/or has a poor grasp on this one).
“Won’t stop the crys of ‘fail’ from our leftist friends“
Perhaps they would be right — you can’t win a war by bodycount. You might count the Vietnam war as a success by those sort of benchmarks, but not everyone agrees.
You can clear 25,000 miles of road every year without getting any close to the end.
Byron,
TINSTA ALLONS! TINSTA ALLONS!
SDAF,
WR
Once again Cole demonstrates he lives in some alternate reality (&/or has a poor grasp on this one). AND completely misrepresents the TRUTH posted by others (such as myself).
NO I DO NOT believe the supply of oil is unlimited and the lives/livelihoods of logisticians should be tied up in resupplying behemoths. I NEVER said anything even remotely close.
My position has ALWAYS been that we SHOULD have 240 C-17 in addition to 100+ C-5M.
I am fully aware that we are modernizing the M1 tank & that some peeple have the wet dream that we can/should keep them in service until 2050.
And since Cole STILL either doesn’t know the truth or is purposely ignoring it since it “crashes” his alternate reality…
I have already give this previously concerning the supposed mobility benefits of “lighter” FCS brigades/divisions vs “current” Abrams/Bradley brigades/divisions & of air transport vs seas transport but shall post it here again. From http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=7122.
C-17 Sorties to Deploy Brigade-Sized Unit
Current Vehicles = 410
FCS = 340 to 380
Sealift Ships Needed
Current Vehicles = 2 Fast sealift ships
FCS = 2 Fast sealift ships
Days to Deploy Brigade-Sized Unit
Current Vehicles = 23 Airlift or 23 Sealift
FCS = 19–20 Airlift or 23 Sealift
Days to Deploy Division-Sized Unit
Current Vehicles = 135 Airlift or 27 Sealift
FCS = 115–130 Airlift or 23 Sealift
So now that the FACTS have been made clear ONCE AGAIN it should be clear to EVERYONE that the “lighter” FCS DO NOT provide a major deployability benefic over current “heavy” forces AND that airlift also DOES NOT provide a major deployability benefic over sealift.
Cole,
Thanks for missing the ENTIRE POINT. That is that the combat vehicles that make up a Brigade or Division are only PART of total valume/weight of the unit AND that the number C-17 sorties required to air transport an entire Brigade-sized unit both too large to be practical & not that much less with FCS vs current vehicles.
Yas a C-17 can carry 81+ tons but if can not carry it very far…
Cole,
Still misrepresenting what I have said. I never said that FCS won’t have their roles to play but don’t fool yourself into thinking that FCS combat vehicles provide THAT much of a deployability advantage over current “heavy force” vehicles. Not at the Brigade-sized unit & up anyway, possibly for a Company-sized or at the VERY most Batalion-sized units & smaller though.
Note that the 50–60 tons used in the GAO reports is an AVERAGE weight. Many loads will be less than 40 tons. AND with the exception of the M1 Abrams MBT, there is NOT that much of a difference in weight between all of the vehicles/troops/equipment of a current “heavy force” unit & a FCS unit…
Also note that FCS had a LOT more “clout” IF (& some of us knew all along if couldn’t/wouldn’t) it were C-130 transportable & even then only for small (Company, perhaps Battalion) size units (it takes 340–370 C-17 sorties to transport a full Brigade).
pfcem said: “I never said that FCS won’t have their roles to play but don’t fool yourself into thinking that FCS combat vehicles provide THAT much of a deployability advantage over current “heavy force” vehicles. Not at the Brigade-sized unit & up anyway, possibly for a Company-sized or at the VERY most Batalion-sized units & smaller though.
“
=================================
Who says the entire brigade must air deploy. A task force suited to the situation is likely which will leave a lot of stuff behind.
===================================
pfcem continues: “Note that the 50–60 tons used in the GAO reports is an AVERAGE weight. Many loads will be less than 40 tons. AND with the exception of the M1 Abrams MBT, there is NOT that much of a difference in weight between all of the vehicles/troops/equipment of a current “heavy force” unit & a FCS unit…
====================================
Actually, they used the load bearing of an austere east African airfield to limit payload to 60 tons…but it was wrong not to give the FCS unit at least an identical 60 ton figure. Doing that alone reduces sorties to 310…about 25% less than the 420 sortie heavy BCT.
Recall that the August 2008 CBO study sealift difference was 50% more combat power, or 3 FCS BCTs vs 2 heavy BCTs for 6 fast sealift ships. Sounds significant to me…and the FCS airlift figure grows more significant with judicious load planning at joint staff level to get closer to the 80+ ton figure.
====================================
pfcem continues:“Also note that FCS had a LOT more “clout” IF (& some of us knew all along if couldn’t/wouldn’t) it were C-130 transportable & even then only for small (Company, perhaps Battalion) size units (it takes 340–370 C-17 sorties to transport a full Brigade).“
=====================================
Could never envision 900 C-130s being a superior solution to 300 C-17s. Recall that only the armored vehicles cannot travel by C-130. Many logistics trucks and joint light tactical vehicles could still travel by C-130…coming later once substantial combat power is on the ground to protect/expand the airhead/port.
Cole,
It would be nice if what you posted actually HELPED your case but it doesn’t.
Footnote 11 DOES NOT say that FCS unis were saddled with average payload figures of an airborne, air assault, or light infantry unit! It simply explains why heavy units have a higher average weight.
“heavy” unit average 60 tons
FCS unit average 50–55 tons
“light” units average 50 tons OR LESS
How the hell do you get from “the number of daily sorties constrained by the capacity of the airfield in East Africa, based on average airlift payloads per brigade of 60 tons for modular heavy units and 50 tons to 55 tons for units equipped with Future Combat Systems” that the airfield limited the average sortie weight? Note the significance of the COMMA…
The Djibouti example IS NOT a “worst case” but a “realistic case” the FCS is/was based on the “need” for. We can air or sea deply Division or Corps sized Heavy units to areas with the proper infrastucture (limited by the air or seas transport capacity/availability), the FCS Bridage is/was intended for SUPPOSEDLY quicker deployment into areas WITHOUT the proper infrastructure. Note that FCS units WERE intended to be deployed via C-130…
The problem with the false belief that FCS units offer a MAJOR deployability advantage over heavy units is all the other “stuff” besides the combat vehicles that make up a unit. MOST of which is about the same (if not THE same) reguardless of whether it is a heavy unit or a FCS unit. A FCS unit still would/will require 4.0–4.5/5.0 (340–370 C-17 sorties vs 420) the thransport capacity of a heavy unit. So if you can deploy a Heavy unit somewhere in say 15 days, a FCS unit would take 12–14 — NOT a huge difference.
pfcem grasping for straws:
“heavy” unit average 60 tons
FCS unit average 50–55 tons
“light” units average 50 tons OR LESS
================================
Come on. You think FCS units that optimize C-17 payload/cube should be saddled with avg. payload figures close to HMMWV-based “cube-out” units like airborne/air assault brigades?
Here is the reality.
During early deployment with effective load planning you might expect to land 30 C-17s the first day at one austere airfield and 30 more at another airfield (noncontiguous ops), The result could be TWO of the following FCS task forces landed at two separate airfields:
22 medium tanks
32 infantry carriers (30mm and more infantry)
10 reconnaissance/surveillance vehicles (30mm)
6 NLOS-Cannons (155mm)
10 NLOS-Mortars (120mm)
6 armored C2 vehicles
2 armored ambulances
1 armored treatment vehicles
1 maintenance recovery vehicle
——————————
In contrast, the heavy modular brigade would use the same 30 C-17s at each airfield to land:
15 M1 tanks
14 M2 Infantry Bradleys (25mm and less infantry)
6 M109A6 Paladin SP 155mm howitzers
4 M3 Cavalry Bradleys
8 M113 Ambulances and C2 vehicles
1 M88 Recovery vehicle
————————-
Essentially, 60 C-17s would deploy most combat elements of two full combined arms battalion task forces in one day to two airfields.
The modular heavy unit would transport half a combined arms battalion task force to each airfield using the same 60 C-17 sorties.
So you can continue to believe there is little deployment difference between the FCS and modular heavy BCT…but those who do the math know the difference. I thought you were good in math.;)
Those who think logistics would quickly calculate that the 15 M1 tanks would require upwards of 7500 gallons of JP8 every FEW HOURS in the initial airhead defense…constantly running turbine engines to run sensors/radios. The 22 medium tanks would use only about 4400 gallons of JP8…every FEW DAYS in the initial defense…hybrid electric drive and lighter weight has its advantages.
Cole,
YOU are the one grasping at straws!
NO FCS units that optimize C-17 payload/cube ARE NOT saddled with avg. payload figures close to HMMWV-based “cube-out” units like airborne/air assault brigades? Heavy units average 60 tons. Light (aka Infantry) units average 50 tons or less. It is NOT beyong the realm or reality to believe that “medium” FCS units would average less than heavy units but more than “light units”. Note that this is the AVERAGE weight of each load, NOT the max…Also note that each unit “type” (heavy, medium, light) does not require the same NUMBEr of loads.
You are STILL missing the point. It takes 420 C-17 sorties to deploy a Modular Heavy Combat Brigade. It takes 340–370 sorties to deploy a Modular FCS Combat Brigade. Deploying a FULL combat Brigade (not Battalion — which I have already said FCS has an advantage) quicker than a heavy Brigade is THE #1 REASON for the FCS yet it “saves” only 10–12%!
I especially love how you try to put forth the notion that Heavy units are somehow INTENDED for 1st day air deployment to austere airfields…LOL
Like I said from the beginning, the FCS will NOT greatly reduce deployment time for Brigade-or-larger units for the simple fact that the combat vehicles only make up a portion of an entire unit & with the exception of the M1 Abrams MBT, the FCS vehicles are not THAT much smaller/lighter than their equivalent Heavy unit vehicles.
Cole,
You are missing the point. I already said TWICE that for smaller units FCS do have a notable advantage BUT that is not what I commented about back on May 25th…It also helps to put what I said into proper context by reading what it was in response to.
But since you obviously did not do that & I have no reason to suspect that you will now…Roy Smith is living is some kind of alternate reality where helicoptering AFVs around Afghanistan is the way to fight that particular conflict & that in order to do that we NEED to bring back the Skycrane & introduce lighter AFVs that it can carry around.
His flawed thinking of helicoptering light AFVs around Afghanistan is the same kind of flawed thinking that has dupped so many into thinking that equipping 15 US Army BRIGADES will transform that ~1/5th of the Army into realistic Air Mech Units (which IS the idea behind FCS). But when you actually LOOK at what is needed to deploy a full FCS BRIGADE & when you then compare that to what is needed to deploy a full Heavy BRIGADE (which are NOT intended to be used as Air Mech) you SHOULD see the folly in that thinking.