Stryker falls short in first major field test
By Frank Tiboni, Staff Writer
FORT IRWIN, Calif. - The Stryker's debut in a joint war game exposed flaws in the U.S. Army's new armored personnel carrier, according to initial service observations.
[See the actual U.S. Army ATEC document explaining the lav3stryker failures (PDF File)]
The biggest problem was difficulty loading the 107-inch-wide vehicle on a C-130 Hercules transport plane.
"Very little can be stowed in its proper place due to C-130 loading restrictions," said "Stryker Findings," an Aug. 6 document produced by observers from the Army's Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC), the Alexandria, Va.-based organization that monitors the service's weapon system acquisition and development.
The authors of the 21-page document also found other faults with the $2 million Stryker's performance in last month's Millennium Challenge 2002 U.S. military exercise, including:
* Its gun and grenade launcher - the remote weapon station - could not find and fire at the enemy while moving.
This proved fatal during the war game, which pitted the new vehicles against infantry troops and Soviet-made armored personnel carriers.
Thirteen of 14 Strykers were destroyed by small arms fire, grenades and guns mounted on enemy vehicles, during ambushes and other encounters on one of the exercise's missions.
On one of the simulated missions, the Strykers failed to kill a single enemy vehicle.
* A total of 13 tires on the 16 Strykers needed replacement during the 96-hour war game.
* The Stryker interior is so cramped that troops inside found it difficult to drink from their canteens.
Army spokesmen, however, said Stryker performed very well.
"These are 'hot wash' perceptions from some observers very early in the exercise," Army spokesman Carl Mahnken said Sept. 13. "Most point to initial shortfalls in crew training, including for air load that were rapidly remedied. Validated data and actual evaluations from many sources throughout the entire exercise are still being assessed, but it's clear that the Stryker's performance was outstanding."
ATEC spokesman Warren Field said in a Sept. 13 statement that the document reflects initial observations by command observers at Millennium Challenge 2002.
The document was "one of many data inputs to an evaluation that will result in a report to be published in the future," Field said.
He declined further comment about the document, saying that ATEC policy is not to discuss internal working documents.
One senior industry source criticized the complaints.
"The next thing they'll be complaining about is that the cup holders are too small," the source said.
Officials with GM GDLS Defense Group LLC, Sterling Heights, Mich., declined to comment on the details in the document.
"Our role is to wait until the Army does a coordinated review of the data and sorts out those items that should be looked at for a materiel fix," Pete Keating, GM GDLS spokesman, said Sept. 13.
Keating said the Army's job is to look at leadership, training, doctrine and organization issues related to Stryker; GM GDLS's job is to look at materiel.
Keating said the issues with the Stryker and its remote weapon station are typical of the Army's new acquisition process. Development, testing and fielding happen more or less at the same time in an effort to get equipment to soldiers more quickly.
"There is a rigorous qualification process ongoing with the fielding of the remote weapon station," Keating said. "As we identify improvements, we'll make those adjustments."
The joint venture company comprises Sterling Heights, Mich.-based General Dynamics Land Systems and General Motors Defence, London, Ontario, which builds the Light Armored Vehicle-3 upon which the Stryker is based.
Tight Squeezes
The ATEC document indicated that Stryker may not yet meet one of the top requirements for the $4 billion, two-year-old program: that it be easily transportable aboard C-130s.
The armored personnel carrier's width has been a concern since the Army unveiled the 8x8-wheeled vehicle in April.
The Air Force, which has not yet certified the vehicle for transport aboard C-130s, granted a waiver to lift four Strykers during the August war game, held at the Army's National Training Center here.
To fit a Stryker aboard a C-130, Soldiers removed ammunition from external racks and stowed it inside the cabin, the document said. Soldiers also had to disassemble and remove the remote weapon station, which includes an MK 19 40mm grenade launcher and a .50-caliber machine gun.
"Many exterior parts must be removed prior to loading on the C-130," the document said.
Although the Army has touted Stryker's smooth ride and spacious quarters, the ATEC document cited comments from drivers and embarked troops who found otherwise.
"Squad members found it difficult to access a canteen, drink, then restow it," the document said. "Squad [members] found it difficult to access ammunition and load personal weapons."
Soldiers said they did not have enough room in the Stryker to put on their protective clothing and equipment, the document said. Vehicle drivers also had no accessible, secure space in which to store Kevlar helmets and night-vision goggles.
Gun Problems
A more serious issue, according to the document, was problems discovered with the remote weapon station during combat tests it faced during Millennium Challenge, a three-week, $250 million military exercise intended to experiment with U.S. military equipment and tactics.
For example, the gun could not fire accurately while the Stryker was moving.
"The remote weapon station must come to a halt to engage targets," the document said. "This takes on average two minutes."
The document also said the weapon station on one Stryker failed to operate.
In addition, Soldiers had difficulty drawing a clear picture of enemy forces with the remote weapon station's periscope, the document said.
Instead, Soldiers had to expose themselves, sticking their heads out of the hatches and using night-vision goggles and the telescopic sights on their Javelin anti-tank missiles.
Soldiers' Support
Stryker Soldiers who participated in Millennium Challenge 2002 supported the Army's selection of the Stryker as the base vehicle for the service's new rapid reaction force.
"The Stryker's job is to get dismounted Soldiers to the fight quickly," 1st Lt. Kirby Dennis, a Stryker platoon leader at Fort Lewis, Wash., said in an Aug. 6 interview.
Dennis said Stryker's mobility enabled his platoon to circle the enemy - covering 97 miles in seven hours - and seize a theater ballistic missile site. Maximum speed on a hard surface is 62 mph.
Private 1st Class Tyler Coughlon, who joined the Stryker platoon four months ago, also raved about the vehicle. Coughlon said Aug. 6 that an armored personnel carrier that transports him fresh to the fight, instead of having to hike 20 miles carrying 80 pounds of gear, is a great benefit.
Soon after August media reports cited Pentagon officials' concerns about the Stryker's suitability for C-130 airlift, the Army's public affairs office distributed to its spokesmen a list of recommended talking points about the vehicle.
According to the Aug. 26 document, the four airlifted Strykers required only minor changes for airlift and were made ready for combat about 15 minutes after disembarking.
The five-page document also highlighted Stryker's reliability, noting that the 16 vehicles were ready 98 percent of the time.
The new vehicles will outfit the six Stryker Brigade Combat Teams, which compose the interim force in the Army's transformation to a lighter, rapidly deployable force.
Each brigade and its 366 vehicles are intended to be able to move on C-130s anywhere in the world in four days.
The first team will receive its Strykers in January and is supposed to be combat ready by May.
Fatal Flaws?
One defense consultant said the ATEC observations indicate the vehicle is fatally flawed.
"The Stryker is nothing more than a thinly armored truck that can't shoot on the move and exposes the vehicle commander to enemy fire in order to reload a puny machine gun," said Michael Sparks, co-author of "Air-Mech-Strike: Three-Dimensional Phalanx," a book on future service warfighting tactics.
Sparks, a lieutenant of paratroopers in the Army Reserve, said he supports the Army's effort to create a medium-weight, rapid-reaction force but suggests a different vehicle.
"Just because the Strykers fail as viable combat platforms does not mean today's Army can do without C-130 transportable, armored, mechanized, digitally connected units that rapidly deploy without need of ports or airfields," Sparks said.
Defense News
October 7-13, 2002
Pg. 4
DoD May Scale Back Stryker To Fund FCS
By Amy Svitak and Frank Tiboni
The U.S. Army's Stryker armored personnel carrier is in danger of being scaled back in favor of more transformational projects, such as the service's Future Combat System, in the 2004 budget proposal, senior Pentagon officials say.
The Office of Secretary of Defense is considering several options for the Stryker's future, including reducing the number of planned Stryker brigades in the Army from six to three.
"There is a lot of concern that the Stryker is not a transformational program, and that it should be scaled back," one senior Pentagon official said Oct. 2.
It is unclear whether senior Defense Department officials would approve a proposed funding reduction. Pentagon officials say senior leaders are keen to fund other Army programs perceived as more cutting-edge and better able to support the service's transformation efforts to a lighter, more rapidly-deployable force.
Funds for six Stryker Brigade Combat Teams are included in the Program Objective Memorandum (POM) for 2004 to 2009 that the service submitted to the Pentagon in late September, Army spokesman Carl Mahnken said Oct. 4. "Pentagon assessment and program review of the 04-09 POM is ongoing," Mahnken said. "Results and recommendations on the POM are not yet available."
The Army planned to buy more than 2,000 Strykers at a cost of roughly $4 billion to outfit six new brigades, the first of which is to be combat ready in May.
But the program has been controversial.
The Army put into effect a plan in June to fix numerous Stryker problems. The plan, "Materiel Release Get Well Plan," obtained by Defense News, cited 43 problems, including more gun and troop compartment issues that need to be fixed before the service fields 366 Strykers in January.
Mahnken said the problems are typical of most new systems.
Editor: like the Sgt. York DIVAD had. And is was scrapped, like lav3stryker should be!
1st TSG (A) Analysis
According to a source, that 96-hour IBCT deployment metric was selected without consulting the Air Force, which concluded the requirement would be impossible to meet. (See next article below).
It seems to me we had this little discussion about a month or more ago... Does this mean we can all high five each other as another 20-30 Billion $$$ goes down the poop chute?
The solution to all of this is take M113A3 Gavins, M8 Buford AGS light tanks, apply advanced technologies that are ready like band-tracks, hybrid-electric drives etc. and get a FIREPOWER AND MANEUVER FORCE not a poopy Lav3stryker or wheeled FCS "unit of laxative action" that begs for air strikes from the USAF to save them. The Gavin/Buford force can be PARACHUTE AIRDROPPED FROM C-130s SO THE USAF DOESN'T HAVE TO AIRLAND HEAVY METAL OBJECTS WITH WINGS WEAKENED BECAUSE THEY ARE EMPTIED OF FUEL TO FLY.
YES.
Oh, by the way, another word for this is:
"Air-Mech-Strike".
Airborne!
1st TSG (A) Staff
FCS Follies
Inside the Army
------------------------------------------------------------------------
96-hour deployment time line said to be in jeopardy
SOURCES: MATURITY OF FCS TECHNOLOGIES, 2008 FIELDING DATE IN QUESTION
_______________________________________________
Date: September 16, 2002
The Army's Future Combat System program is headed in "some seriously wrong directions" and is in danger of missing the fiscal year 2008 fielding date set by Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki, sources said last week.
Concern about the viability of FCS is tied directly to the most critical feature of the future warfighting platform. The FCS concept centers on a networked system of systems, but, sources say, officials fear the necessary network will not be available until the second block of production -- and no one is certain when that will occur.
The problem is that many of the various technologies planned for FCS simply are not mature enough, a source stated. For example, a recent assessment of the Multifunctional On-the-Move Secure Adaptive Integrated Communications (MOSAIC) system, which will comprise one component of the network, determined it will not be ready to transition out of the science and technology base until the fourth quarter of FY-04. However, the source pointed out, the system development and demonstration phase for Block I of the FCS program is supposed to start late next year or at the beginning of FY-04.
Officials are further concerned that the FCS lead systems integrator, a team of Boeing and SAIC, has not crafted a back-up plan to provide an on-the-move network by FY-08, if MOSAIC or other components are not available.
Many other pieces of the Future Combat Systems also are not as far along as they should be to meet the 2008 fielding date, according to sources. According to the General Accounting Office, a system should achieve a technology readiness level [TRL] rating of seven before it is moved out of the tech base into SDD. Yet, an evaluation conducted by the science and technology objective project managers themselves found the TRL for FCS subsystems averaged between three and six, with almost nothing reaching the higher end of the scale. No technologies merited a seven, a source said.
According to an official, the FCS engine and the Integrated Defense System received a 5.5 TRL. The Precision-Guided Mortar Munition was rated a five; Objective Force Warrior only got a three.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency declined to submit a TRL for NetFires, a key offensive weapon for FCS. A source asserted that NetFires technology is very immature, with significant challenges for its datalink, automatic target recognition capability and the anti-jam performance.
Other important technologies that did not reach TRL seven include: the Precision Attack Missile, the Loitering Attack Missile, the Combat Hybrid Power Supply, FCS ballistic armor, and the Small Unit Aerial Vehicle.
Sources also claim that the FCS unit-of-action, which will equate to the current brigade echelon, is growing uncontrollably. The 2,000-person unit was supposed to weigh 2,200 tons, but a source contends it now tips the scales at 12,000 tons -- and it keeps getting larger.
The Army has designed the FCS concept around C-130 compatibility and had planned to deploy one FCS brigade via 100 of the Air Force planes. However, a 12,000-ton force would require 900 aircraft, a source said.
Transportation by Air Force C-130 faces other problems, too, an official said. Allegedly, the Air Force has told the Army it will land C-130s only on concrete runways, limiting where the service can send its troops. Further, the aircraft will carry armor, which will reduce payload size. The Army wants a 20-ton FCS, which is a significant improvement over the 70-ton Abrams tank. But that is not good enough, a source suggested; realistically, an armored and fueled C-130 will be able to accommodate only a 13-ton payload.
Sources said the Army also is backing away from the deployment time line promised by Shinseki. According to that blueprint, a brigade must be able to deploy to any location around the world from the continental United States within 96 hours. An official said last week the 96-hour standard now applies to intra-theater delivery of the force only; the time line to deliver the force to the theater has been dropped.
According to a source, that 96-hour metric was selected without consulting the Air Force, which concluded the requirement would be impossible to meet.
-- Erin Q. Winograd