• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Army’s new infantry assault buggy is a useless garbage pile

dimsum

Army.ca Myth
Mentor
Reaction score
13,358
Points
1,260
The secondary headline made me chuckle:

This thing is absolute dog shit.

...the ISV proved so ineffective at providing rapid mobility capabilities to the squad during testing that the unit “concealed their ISVs and drivers close to the objective and dismounted eight soldiers per vehicle to accomplish missions before recovering their [vehicles],” basically ditching their rides in favor of a dismounted engagement.

 
The Army’s new lightweight infantry assault buggy is cramped as hell, too small to haul supplies, and “not operationally effective for employment in combat and [engagement, security cooperation and deterrence] missions against a near-peer threat,” according to a new assessment from the Pentagon’s chief weapons tester.

Was the tester testing what he wanted to test or what the army wanted the vehicle to do in the first place?

Designed to provide enhanced mobility to a nine-soldier light infantry squad and all their gear, the Army’s 5,000-pound Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV) is intended to support a squad over 72-hour operations, and be employed by airborne and air assault Brigade Combat Teams to “provide rapid cross‑country mobility to conduct initial entry and offensive operations,” as the Pentagon describes it.

Clear enough to me. A runabout to take the load off the rifleman's back and legs.

But according to a new analysis from the Pentagon’s Operational Testing and Evaluation (OT&E) arm published in January, the ISV is barely equipped to do any of that, offering an even more dismal view at the Army’s new assault buggy compared to even last year’s critical OT&E assessment.

During testing conducted at the Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, in March 2021 and Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in August 2021, the OT&E report concluded that the vehicle “lacks the capability to deliver effective fires, provide reliable communication, and force protection,” to an infantry squad.

The only pause I have is over the communications. Force protection? From a skeleton vehicle? Effective fires from one that is jam-packed?

“The rifle company equipped with the ISVs did not successfully avoid enemy detection, ambushes, and engagements during a majority of their missions,” according to the report. “In order to traverse cross country routes and wooded terrain, the unit was forced to reduce their speed, resulting in slowed movement, or maneuvered on improved routes, negating any element of surprise.”

“During missions, the unit experienced numerous casualties, delaying mission accomplishment and degrading its combat power for follow-on missions,” the report said.

The ISV proved so ineffective at providing rapid mobility capabilities to the squad during testing that the unit “concealed their ISVs and drivers close to the objective and dismounted eight soldiers per vehicle to accomplish missions before recovering their [vehicles],” basically ditching their rides in favor of a dismounted engagement.

“This action reduced their combat force, exposed the ISVs and drivers to opposing force attacks, and increased the risk of additional combat losses,” according to the report.

Who was the daft Armoured bugger that wrote the report? He apparently wanted a Bradley that could be slung under a Blackhawk for the traditional "Death befor Dismount!" brew up!

The Army’s new infantry assault buggy is a useless garbage pile
The Infantry Squad Vehicle under testing at U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona in 2021. (U.S. Army/Mark Schauer)

The OT&E report goes on to detail substantial deficiencies in the ISV during combat situations, from the vehicle’s relative lack of ballistic armor to the fact that, due to its design, “personal weapons were not easily accessible on the move, degrading the ability of the squad to quickly react to enemy actions and ambushes,” according to the OT&E report.

"Relative lack of armor" :ROFLMAO: This guy wrote the Norwegian Blue sketch for Monty Python?


To make matters worse, the ISV is still deeply uncomfortable to ride in, making entering and exiting the vehicle rapidly in full combat gear a major challenge and further degrading the vehicle’s effectiveness in a combat situation. Add to it that service members’ inability to easily fire their weapons or dismount to engage targets made them sitting ducks during ambushes.

“The ability of the soldier to egress from [the] center and rear-seated positions in the ISV was hindered by the limited space and interference from stored mission equipment during missions,” the report says. “The seating positions for the soldiers are cramped and uncomfortable. During IOT&E, over 60 percent of the soldiers expressed dissatisfaction with the ISV ride comfort.”

This is the second devastatingly critical assessment of the ISV handed down by the Pentagon’s weapons tester in a row. The January 2020 OT&E report noted that, with a lack of an underbody and ballistic survivability requirement, the ISV “will be susceptible to enemy threats and actions” — and the soldiers inside will remain basically helpless to respond.
“Soldiers cannot reach, stow, and secure equipment as needed, degrading and slowing mission operations,” according to last year’s OT&E report, which noted during testing, soldiers on all ISVs “could not readily access items in their rucksacks without stopping the movement, dismounting, and removing their rucksacks from the vehicle.”
Despite these issues, the Army appears to be plowing ahead with its procurement and fielding of the ISV. The service awarded GM Defense a $214.3 million contract in June 2020 to manufacture 649 ISVs for soldiers and, eventually, support the potential production of up to 2,065 vehicles over eight years with additional authorization.

“This vehicle is going to help Soldiers in the Infantry Brigade Combat Teams that currently walk everywhere,” Steve Herrick, product lead for Ground Mobility Vehicles with the Army, said in a release following testing at the Yuma Proving Ground. “It’s made to be ‘a better boot,’ a capability that allows you to effectively change how you operate.”
In November 2021, Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks even shared a brief video clip of her driving the ISV on Twitter:

But the fact that the Pentagon’s weapons tester says that the ISV is not fit for combat against a “near-peer threat” — the DoD euphemism for Russia and China — should give officials pause before actually deploying the ISV in any sort of contested environment, say, ever.

1643331902918.png

Can't help but wonder how comfortable a ride these were. Doesn't appear to be much in the way of effective armour or ability to deploy weapons. And I can't see anybody riding over the objective on these things. And yet there seem to be an awful lot of relaxed soldiers wearing red bonnets on them.

This isn't the first time I've seen an OT&E report that seemed to be doing its best to prove an elephant isn't a cow.
 
The secondary headline made me chuckle:

I dunno what all the whining is about. There's no way I wouldn't dismount, from any vehicle smaller than a Leo 2, before assaulting an enemy position.

And, to borrow a Zipper Head observation, a bad ride is better than a good walk (carrying 100lbs).

Anyways, it's for paratroopers so is clearly intended to be consumed in battle, like the occupants ;)
 
I think one of the prime targets for this vehicle (aside from airborne and air assault) are the IBCTs (11 IBCTs are targeted to be equipped with an estimated 2,065 vehicles - the Army has 14 Active and 19 ARNG IBCTs [which includes 3 with the 82nd; 3 with the 101 Airborne and the the 173rd Airborne IBCT in Europe]) whose only vehicles at this time are in the battalions' weapons companies. It's like the Stryker. It's not for combat assault, its for movement. With the Stryker there is armoured protection but even there the intent is to dismount well outside the objective area and operate to the objective on foot.

This thing is designed to be light and inexpensive transport to allow the brigade to move rapidly; not a fighting vehicle in any way shape or form. The testers didn't seem to make that clear and if I read anything out of this it's that the trialing unit doesn't know how to use these things tactically. But that's what trials are for.

I'm not sure what the communications issue is. I expect platoons use their standard dismounted radios and I would expect at company and above that a slightly more robust radio suite can be mounted.

Kit storage is an issue. Basically the design is for rucks to be thrown on the roof mesh or hung off the sides but there seems to be little room for anything like spare ammo, crew served weapons (although I've seen a picture of one with a 7.62 MG on top), water, rations, extra fuel etc. A full squad would have to be on fairly light scales.

🍻
 
The testers didn't seem to make that clear and if I read anything out of this it's that the trialing unit doesn't know how to use these things tactically. But that's what trials are for.
I'm a bit heartened (if "disheartened" is a word, I'm making "heartened" a word too) that even the US Army, with their new-fangled everything, still screws up project requirements and OT&E :sneaky:
 
I don't understand this one. The army get GM to make a light truck. Its a basic chevy S-10 with no sheet metal. The army gets the truck. They give it to units to test and then say it's a not a good MRAP. That's what I read. I don't think that is what was asked for.

Do they not have a program to replace the Humvee with the JLTV? Is that not the up armoured vehicle?
 
I don't understand this one. The army get GM to make a light truck. Its a basic chevy S-10 with no sheet metal. The army gets the truck. They give it to units to test and then say it's a not a good MRAP. That's what I read. I don't think that is what was asked for.

Do they not have a program to replace the Humvee with the JLTV? Is that not the up armoured vehicle?
Yup.

So, take a squad in FFO and give them the option for a 20k advance up towards the Line of Departure for an op via:

A) the ISV; or

B) the black Cadillac.
 
People are stupid.

It's a Team Vehicle, or a Squad Mobility Assistance Vehicle - you can't get a whole entire Squad in it, and it wasn't designed for that.
It really isn't a bad vehicle when used to there role it was designed - but apparently none of the testers, or the trials staff have a clue what that was.

I actually liked Iltis, generally.
Useless vehicle -- to small to be a Light Utility Vehicle, and woefully underpowered -
 
@KevinB, so they probably could have named it an ITV vice ISV and lift half a squad? Would there be a reason that ‘team’ may have been turned down if originally pitched that way?
 
I don't understand this one. The army get GM to make a light truck. Its a basic chevy S-10 with no sheet metal. The army gets the truck. They give it to units to test and then say it's a not a good MRAP. That's what I read. I don't think that is what was asked for.

Do they not have a program to replace the Humvee with the JLTV? Is that not the up armoured vehicle?
I refer you to the fascinating documentary Pentagon Games.
 
People are stupid.

It's a Team Vehicle, or a Squad Mobility Assistance Vehicle - you can't get a whole entire Squad in it, and it wasn't designed for that.
It really isn't a bad vehicle when used to there role it was designed - but apparently none of the testers, or the trials staff have a clue what that was.


Useless vehicle -- to small to be a Light Utility Vehicle, and woefully underpowered -

But, speaking from experience, when it rolled over in a slow speed crash it was easy for the occupants to hop out and manhandle it upright again ;)
 
Yup.

So, take a squad in FFO and give them the option for a 20k advance up towards the Line of Departure for an op via:

A) the ISV; or

B) the black Cadillac.
Wonder if the trialling unit(s) were working in a training area large enough to include that component.

More curious about this.
In order to traverse cross country routes and wooded terrain, the unit was forced to reduce their speed, resulting in slowed movement, or maneuvered on improved routes, negating any element of surprise.
Is this another mismatch between trials application and the vehicle concept, or an actual issue with the vehicle?
 
Note to self: Paint some 4 seat Gator ATVs matte green and sell them to CAF for a retirement plan. Include some red LEDs for 'tactical lighting', and offer it in a matte black for operators. Include unnecessary carbon fibre parts for extra wow factor.
 
Note to self: Paint some 4 seat Gator ATVs matte green and sell them to CAF for a retirement plan. Include some red LEDs for 'tactical lighting', and offer it in a matte black for operators. Include unnecessary carbon fibre parts for extra wow factor.
Include NVG-compatible near-IR lighting as well, NP. Red is terribly untactical when there are operators out there with NVDs.
 
Kit storage is an issue. Basically the design is for rucks to be thrown on the roof mesh or hung off the sides but there seems to be little room for anything like spare ammo, crew served weapons (although I've seen a picture of one with a 7.62 MG on top), water, rations, extra fuel etc. A full squad would have to be on fairly light scales.

🍻

Or you could look at these things as belonging to the CQ and load them up with water, fuel and bullets, hang the rucks from the sides and have the troops clamber in on top and ride until they have to drop off.

Then the vehicles will be a bound behind the troops, moving at black caddy pace. CQs guys might even have room enough to swing an MG while mounted.
 
Include NVG-compatible near-IR lighting as well, NP. Red is terribly untactical when there are operators out there with NVDs.

But how do you read your mactac map without a red light on the prairie?
 
Include NVG-compatible near-IR lighting as well, NP. Red is terribly untactical when there are operators out there with NVDs.
Good call! Really was just thinking of adding random LEDs to make it sexier, not for any real purpose.

Maybe add some more buzzwords, like having a HUD, tactical interface, and something mil-spec (even if it isn't relevant to the actual vehicle function).
 
Back
Top