# Technical problems plagued Stryker



## Jason Jarvis (31 Oct 2003)

From The Ottawa Citizen:

--------------------------------------------------

*Technical problems plagued Stryker*
Report this year warned against buying tank replacement until bugs worked out

a journalist  
The Ottawa Citizen 

Friday, October 31, 2003 - The vehicle selected to replace the military‘s tanks has been dogged by technical problems and Canada would be "ill-advised" to accept delivery of the $600-million fleet until more money is spent correcting those troubles, a top defence official was warned earlier this year.

Defence Minister John McCallum announced yesterday that the government would buy the Mobile Gun System, or MGS, a vehicle he said would be purchased in record time. The wheeled vehicle, designed to replace the country‘s Leopard tanks, is seen by Mr. McCallum as a key part of the army of the future.

But tests by the U.S. military have revealed a series of problems with the main armament on the U.S.-built MGS. The blast from the gun damaged parts on the armoured vehicle. In addition, there have been problems with the weapon‘s loading system. And soldiers who tested the vehicle complained it was too cramped.

"The MGS continues to encounter technical faults that have not been satisfactorily resolved," warns a May 8 briefing note produced by staff for Alan Williams, the Defence department‘s top equipment official. "It is expected that they will be corrected with money and time."

"Canada would be ill-advised to accept delivery of MGS until the technical faults" are corrected, it added.

But Canadian army Col. Bob Gunn said while there have been problems with the vehicle‘s weapon, he has been informed that those have been fixed. "I‘m sure every time they go and try something else they‘ll find another little bug some place and fix it," added Col. Gunn, who is involved in determining the army‘s equipment needs.

Another army official said that the military expects that, with all the research and development money the U.S. is spending on the MGS, the vehicle will be ready by 2006 when it is delivered to Canada.

Pete Keating, an official with General Dynamics, the company building the MGS, noted that the problems were fixed several months ago and the vehicle will be put through even more rigorous testing by the U.S. military.

The U.S. army is also buying the MGS and a similar wheeled vehicle designed to carry troops. The armoured vehicles are collectively known as the Stryker.

Another Canadian Defence department report produced in the summer noted that U.S. soldiers who took part in testing the Stryker complained about the intense heat in the vehicle in desert conditions. Vehicles also suffered massive damage to their tires on some terrain, the study pointed out.

Canadian military officials also anticipated criticism of the purchase because of concerns the new vehicles are vulnerable to attack by enemy tanks and might have problems being transported by air, according to the Defence department documents. They also noted that since the military has had a shortage of technicians to work on armoured vehicles, some Canadians might ask questions about whether the army would be able to maintain the MGS.

Mr. McCallum defended the purchase in the Commons yesterday, noting that it was the army that requested the MGS and that the generals believed it was the best vehicle for their needs. Opposition MPs said Mr. McCallum‘s decision to get rid of the Leopard tanks puts Canada on par with Luxembourg and Iceland which are also without heavy armoured vehicles.

The Stryker vehicles have also had their share of critics in the U.S. military. Some American officers argue that the move toward such lighter forces is dangerous. They believe that heavier armoured vehicles are needed on battlefields such as in Iraq. Wheeled vehicles, such as the Stryker, while good on roadways, lack the mobility for cross-country warfare, they maintain.

In addition, Canadian military researchers warned five years ago that replacing the Leopard tank with a lighter armored vehicle, similar to the MGS, would not only cost Canadian lives but would be morally and ethically wrong.

But army commander Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier said that while the Leopard tank has many qualities, it is limited in what it can do on missions such as those the military now finds itself taking on. In the past, the army has not made much use of its tanks, he added.

"The strong qualities of a Leopard tank parked in Valcartier or Edmonton or elsewhere are useless to our soldiers in Kabul, Eritrea, Bosnia or anywhere else that we deploy them," said Lt.-Gen. Hillier.

"In some cases, we can‘t get it there because the only aircraft that can fly in are the C-130s and it‘s too heavy for that. In other places, it cannot manoeuvre and I give you the streets of Kabul, as an example of that."

--------------------------------------------------

Okay, I won‘t argue with LGen Hillier about the ability to actually deploy the MGS -- if we had the aircraft to do so -- but what good would it do in Kabul?

As I understand it, one of the main reasons why the Leo was not deployed to the Balkans was because of what it was -- a tank. Tanks don‘t do peacekeeping. I‘m not so sure an MGS wouldn‘t be as inflammatory to Afghanis as a Leo (unless of course they read our papers and know it‘s a turkey).

That said, I have to theoretically agree with Old School that something is better than nothing. I‘ve got an old friend in the LdSH, however, and the thought of him deploying in an MGS wouldn‘t help me sleep any better at night.

I understand the economical and logistical reasons behind wanting to standardize vehicles on the same platform, and for the ability to stuff them into a Herc, but I‘ve got to think there are better, operationally-proven systems out there, like the Centauro or Rooikat.

Does anyone know anything about the procurement program for this vehicle? What other contenders were there?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (31 Oct 2003)

We have ten million generals, and a Col is the dude "determining the Army‘s needs"?

I keep hearing that you CAN‘T deploy these on a Herc with the add on armour kits, you have to make two trips.

So we have 66 of these things - how many Hercs remain in the fleet, out of curiousity?

How many tankers do we have that can refuel the CC-130 in flight?

I suspect that the ability to deploy these by CC-130 is a bit of a "so-what", isn‘t it?


----------



## MG34 (31 Oct 2003)

Considering we do most of our moves by rail or ship using the herc is not much of a big deal.We did move a LAV by Herc without any problems but it was only a short hop from pet to Trenton.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (31 Oct 2003)

I think the whole idea behind deployment by that yes man Hillier is that we don‘t have to wait to ship them by sea, we can take them in by air (quicker), however there is a lot of questions about that as well.


----------



## onecat (31 Oct 2003)

I think its a good that we are buying something currently in production to save on costs, and to get them quicker.  But this just seems like a bad choice to me.  I can think of many peices kit that needed more.  Like the Seaking replacement, or newer CC-130‘s or heavy lift helo‘s.... they should come first.  Of course the CF won‘t get SeaKing replacements until Jean is long gone... This is just a political choice, that is poorly thought out.  What ever happened to the trail period and testing of kit before we buy it.  Look how long it took to get the G-wagon.


----------



## Recce41 (31 Oct 2003)

MG
 I was on the PMO Lav trial Baracuda Cam kit trial. The Lav cannot be loaded with full kit. it is over weight Load limit for a Herc is 20,000 lbs. Even the old Cougars required the coffin bin taken off, the ammo shipped seprate. Also it is to high. The tyres have to be lowered or the LWR has to be taken off. The LAV 105 has to be loaded on a flat ramp. Due to the barrel is too long. 
Study finds new Army vehicle too vulnerable


By Rowan Scarborough 
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


The Army‘s new state-of-the art infantry vehicle slated to make its combat debut in Iraq in October is vulnerable to the kind of rocket-propelled grenades now being used by Saddam Hussein‘s guerrillas, a consultant‘s report charges. 
The Army, which rebuts the report‘s findings, plans to send 300 Stryker armored vehicles and 3,600 soldiers to Iraq. This first Stryker brigade will help put down the resistance that has killed more 60 American troopers since May 1. It will also be a preview of a lighter, more mobile Army for the 21st century. 
But a report prepared for Rep. James H. Saxton, New Jersey Republican, says the vehicle is ill-suited for such warfare. 
"Poorly armored and entirely vulnerable to RPGs," states the glossy, 108-page report prepared July 18 by consultant Victor O‘Reilly. 
An Army spokesman, however, said the Strykers are being fitted with added armor. This will "drastically increase their protection against kinetic energy weapons and increase RPG protection," said Lt. Col. Stephen Barger, spokesman for 1st Corps at Fort Lewis, Wash., where the brigade is being developed. 
As part of an accelerated development, the Army did not require Strykers to immediately feature anti-RPG armor. The brigade going to Iraq is now being fitted with slat armor. It works like a big catcher‘s mask, stopping a grenade before it reaches the Stryker‘s main body, thus keeping the explosion at a distance. Eventually, the Strykers will be fitted with more permanent armor now being tested. 
The Stryker has successfully passed live-fire tests against rifle and machine-gun fire. The slat armor system has also shown in tests that it protects against grenade blasts. 
Mr. O‘Reilly, who said he did the report at his own expense, says even with the added armor the Stryker‘s top and wheel wells are susceptible to RPGs that could kill all 13 soldiers inside the Stryker‘s infantry carrier version. 
The Pentagon this year signed off on a plan to procure enough Stryker vehicles to equip the first four of six brigades, which would become the vanguard of a lighter, quicker deploying Army. Despite Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld‘s program approval, a number of Stryker skeptics remain within the active Army, and among former soldiers and members of Congress. 
None is more vocal than Mr. Saxton, a House Armed Services Committee member. He succeeded during debate on next year‘s defense budget to "fence" $300 million in procurement funds until the Army answers operational questions. 
Mr. Saxton fears the Stryker is not only vulnerable to RPG fire, but is also overweight and cannot easily fit into a C-130 transport plane â€” a feat that is supposed to be one of its best selling points. 
The Stryker is actually a family of 10 vehicles that gets around on wheels, not the traditional rolling tracks. They include the infantry carrier vehicle, the mobile gun system, the anti-tank guided missile, the mortar carrier and the reconnaissance vehicle. 
After the Army took weeks to deploy a relatively small Apache helicopter unit on the Kosovo border in 1999, Gen. Eric Shinseki, then the chief of staff, moved to lighten the force. One of his answers was to develop a family of light, wheeled vehicles that eventually became the Stryker family. 
Mr. O‘Reilly‘s report, "Stryker Brigades Versus the Reality of War," is being circulated on Capitol Hill and among the active force and retirement community. Among his conclusions on the eight-wheel, 20-ton infantry carrier version: 
â€¢"Poorly armored and entirely vulnerable to RPGs." 
â€¢"Wheels & wells extremely vulnerable to small arms." 
â€¢"Bought to be C-130 deployable but too heavy." 
Mr. O‘Reilly is an author and counterterrorism authority who has written about military affairs. He said much of his information on Stryker comes from within the Army itself. 
"I have a passion for the Army, and when I see it going in the wrong direction, I get upset," he said. He said the Stryker is fine for light peacekeeping duty and policing, but he contends it is too vulnerable for land combat. 
Col. Barger, the Army spokesman, rebutted these criticisms. He ticked off a list of Stryker tests and exercises. These included loading the system on the C-130 and C-17 transport planes, as well as on ships and trains. The vehicle also has cleared readiness training at Fort Irwin, Calif., and Fort Polk, La. 
"For the past three weeks, in California‘s barren Mojave Desert, the Stryker Brigade Combat Team proved its speed, versatility and lethality against a world-class opposing force at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin," an Army press release said earlier this month. 
Built by General Dynamics, the Stryker is designed as a medium-weight armored system to fill the gap between light infantry units such as the 82nd Airborne Division and heavy armored units that can take weeks to get to battle. 
"It does fit on a C-130," said Kendall Pease, vice president of communications for General Dynamics in Falls Church. "It‘s been on a C-130. They have deployed it on exercises in a C-130. It fits. It meets all the requirements that the Air Force has given. Yes, it‘s true that it is fast, mobile, survivable, deployable and lethal. It meets all the expectations of the young soldiers that are required to use it in battle." 
Gen. John Keane, the Army vice chief of staff, told reporters last month that the Iraq-bound Stryker brigade faced "the toughest opponent our forces have ever faced" at combat training centers. "We‘ve put them through their paces and they‘re ready to go," he said. 
The Army plans to buy 2,100 vehicles, enough to put about 300 in each brigade. Mr. O‘Reilly says it will cost between $12 billion and $15 billion to equip six brigades. The Pentagon has funded the first three and made a down payment on the fourth. The Stryker is a pathway to the Army‘s ultimate transformation goal: a family of high-tech vehicles and aircraft called the Future Combat System. 
The objective is to get a Stryker brigade any place in the world in four days. But a June General Accounting Office report said that benchmark is not being met. 
The GAO credited the Army with reducing the logistics load, as compared with a 68-ton M-1A1 tank. "However, meeting the 4-day worldwide deployment goal of a brigade-size force would require more airlift than may be possible to allocate to these brigades; at present, it would take from 5 to 14 days, depending on destination." 
The Army announced last month it was sending the first Stryker unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, from Fort Lewis to Iraq. 
The Stryker unit will join the 3rd Cavalry Regiment in October. The regiment will leave Iraq in April and May, leaving the Stryker Brigade in Iraq until October 2004. 
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely said he has been following development of the Stryker for several years. 
"It‘s been a very controversial issue," said the Fox News military analyst in an interview. "This report really calls in to question whether this is the combat vehicle for the Army in the future." 
Gen. Vallely said the Stryker seems designed more for peacekeeping operations than for combat. He noted that the Army still has not decided what size gun to deploy on the Mobile Gun System variant. 
"The other thing is that it does not appear to be as efficient and effective as a tracked vehicle in combat operations," said Gen. Vallely, an infantryman. "It is also very vulnerable to [rocket-propelled grenades] and sniper fire at its wheels." 
Gen. Vallely said retired Gen. Shinseki initially wanted the 19-ton Stryker to be lighter and more mobile than current combat vehicles. 
"But it‘s a heavier vehicle and harder to move than what is required for very speedy mobility and transportability to areas of combat operations," he said. 
â€¢Bill Gertz contributed to this report. 
__________________________________________ 

MG Vallely is an SF officer with alot of experience. While the idea of a lighter vehicle is great the Stryker has become heavier with the add on armor. An interesting development is the Marine interest in Stryker to replace its aging LAV force. 
Also MG I‘m a Recce guy at heart. Adv Recce qual (Inf and Armour), AIC qual I earned my coin,Para,JM,PI,RM,MO, have Brit,US Army,Marine,Navy(US),German,French and Italian wings, Demo/EOD,and many more Armour and other trade courses. Was slate for the Pathfinder and Ranger course before posting.And a LIL time just East. So I‘m not some yng fella, who thinks he knows it all.


----------



## Recce41 (31 Oct 2003)

Heres a link to read.
 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32898


----------



## MG34 (31 Oct 2003)

The main theme is that the Stryker is not immune to RPG hits well as has been shown in Iraq neither is the M1 or the M2 /M3 Bradley,3 of 12 M1 tanks were taken out by RPG fire by proper use of anti armour tactics and not engaging the tank head on but in the rear.there was even an M1 taken out by small arms fire which ignited spare POL on the turret which caused it to leak into the engine compartment which in turn set the vehicle on fire.
 There is no such thing as an invulnerable vehicle
all the bad press on the Stryker is just conjecture as none of the vehicles have even seen action yet.It is just a likely to survive a hit as any other armoured vehicle.
 In Canada the capibility to be airlifted is idiotic as there is not sufficent lift for the vehicles in the first place,we deploy by ship and rail  so the add on armour is not an issue to begin with.The fact that the vehicl must deploy stripped down is not a big deal either as the aircraft will be landing in a secure are to begin with where the add on could be attached anyway.


----------



## Recce41 (1 Nov 2003)

MG
 Landed in a secure areas. What if it was like in Cyprus,Somalia, Bosnia, Kososvo, etc on the first Rotos? So what if one out of the two or three Herc that transport all its kit gets shot down? In 88 I jumped into Kapiskasing. We were to drop our lynxs. That never happened, why? They could not fly with a full loaded Lynx. That was the same for the Cougars also. So they air landed in. Think about it. There you are with a Sqn of MGSs in pieces, all over the airfield. There are LIGHT tracked Tanks, able to be loaded and fight out of the box. 
 We bought the **** Coyote because of GM, bought the **** Lavs because of GM, bought the LSVW because of Western Star, bought the **** HLVW, MLVW, Cdn ilitis because of the no one likes Quebec made snow mobles (HAHA). We had go kit before. I remember the Inf complaining about the C7. Arty complaining about their kit, etc. 
 Why because as long as I can remember Canada has bought crap. IE Ross rifle - now.
 Back in the 50-60s we had the best Aircraft designed, best ship designed, best tanks designed. But we never buy them. We buy crap.
 My father spent 32 yrs from 43 -75 in the army and he always said. Canada buys just somethink for our soldiers to try not to use.
 I not complaining about the buy just the veh, as I stated there are better vehs, out there, that can do both an assault role to support the Inf, To take on other tanks, to do peace support Ops. I have a list of Light Tanks, I‘ll post them. They were a list the Army can up with for the Corp.
 People think you need a MBT to kill Tanks, NO. You need a goodveh that is Mobile, has good Fire power, and atleast small arm protection. 
 For if we loose the Tank skill, we will have a hard time getting it back.


----------

