Should Canada adopt the LAV III (AKA: Stryker) as its primary armoured vehicle family?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
:fifty: Surprised nobody caught this little bomb released by GAO late Friday. (also a highlights page available on GAO site).
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04925.pdf
http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d04925high.pdf
:rocket: :tank:
Strykers Weigh Too Much For C-130 Transport, GAO Says
By Lisa Troshinsky
08/17/2004 09:54:51 AM
The U.S. Army's Stryker vehicle, developed to fit into the service's transformational plan of becoming lightweight and rapidly deployable, will be too heavy to be transported by C-130 aircraft in many circumstances, especially when equipped with add-on armor, according to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report.
"The Stryker's average weight of 38,000 pounds - along with other factors such as added equipment weight and less than ideal flight conditions - significantly limits the C-130's flight range and reduces the size force that could be deployed," says the report, released Aug. 13.
The GAO recommended that the Department of Defense (DOD) provide to Congress clarification of expected capabilities and limitations of C-130 transport for Stryker vehicles and Future Combat Systems vehicles, as well as options for alternative transport.
DOD agreed that operational requirements for airlift capability for brigade transport need clarification, and said it is exploring the mobility capabilities required to support the National Military Strategy with an ongoing Mobility Capabilities Study. The study includes an assessment of the intra-theater transport of Army brigade combat teams, and is due in spring 2005.
Reaction
"The conclusions of the GAO report bear out some of our concerns, in that significant deployment of the Stryker with C-130s is more limited than we were given to believe at the time we chose to move forward with the program," Rep. Jim Saxton (R-N.J), who chairs the House Armed Services Committee's terrorism and unconventional threats subcommittee, told The DAILY. "Now we have to look at other ways to deploy the Stryker, for example, in larger aircraft like the C-17, on which three Strykers could be loaded. The problem is that recently completed mobility studies done with the C-17 and C-5 didn't consider this mission, and the Air Force would have to buy more C-17s than what is currently planned. The service originally planned to buy 220, and have so far committed to procuring 180 C-17s."
But an Army official said the service "never intended to have the Stryker fully combat capable, to roll-off a C-130 in fighting condition.
"We'll get the vehicles to specific areas of operation, then upload the equipment and ammunition. If the Stryker, fully loaded, can't fly on a single C-130, "the combatant commander has a number of options," he told The DAILY. "He can use more C-130 trips or other means of transportation. In a joint environment, we can work solutions."
No 'major' problem
Loren Thompson, an analyst with the Lexington Institute, said he doesn't believe the Stryker has a "major" weight problem.
"Every pound you give up in weight translates into loss of survivability and becomes less effective to operate," Thompson told The DAILY. "There is a problem now with weight that is specific to Iraq. The vehicles need add-on armor to protect against IEDs [improved explosive devices] and RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades], but you won't have a problem like this in Bosnia or Afghanistan."
According to a study of C-130 transport of Army vehicles by the Military Traffic Management Command, Transportation Engineering Agency, an armored C-130H aircraft taking off in ideal conditions such as moderate air temperature could transport 38,000 pounds for a maximum range of 860 miles. Adding just 2,000 pounds onboard the aircraft for associated cargo such as mission equipment or ammunition reduces the C-130 aircraft's takeoff-to-landing range to only 500 miles, the GAO said.
The Army has already ordered more than 1,200 - or 68 percent - of the eight Stryker production vehicle configurations it plans to buy, along with limited quantities of the two developmental vehicle prototypes for testing - the Mobile Gun System and the Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Reconnaissance vehicle prototypes. Stryker program costs have increased about 22 percent from the November 2000 estimate of $7.1 billion to the December 2003 estimate of $8.7 billion, the GAO said.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04925.pdf
http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d04925high.pdf
:rocket: :tank:
Strykers Weigh Too Much For C-130 Transport, GAO Says
By Lisa Troshinsky
08/17/2004 09:54:51 AM
The U.S. Army's Stryker vehicle, developed to fit into the service's transformational plan of becoming lightweight and rapidly deployable, will be too heavy to be transported by C-130 aircraft in many circumstances, especially when equipped with add-on armor, according to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report.
"The Stryker's average weight of 38,000 pounds - along with other factors such as added equipment weight and less than ideal flight conditions - significantly limits the C-130's flight range and reduces the size force that could be deployed," says the report, released Aug. 13.
The GAO recommended that the Department of Defense (DOD) provide to Congress clarification of expected capabilities and limitations of C-130 transport for Stryker vehicles and Future Combat Systems vehicles, as well as options for alternative transport.
DOD agreed that operational requirements for airlift capability for brigade transport need clarification, and said it is exploring the mobility capabilities required to support the National Military Strategy with an ongoing Mobility Capabilities Study. The study includes an assessment of the intra-theater transport of Army brigade combat teams, and is due in spring 2005.
Reaction
"The conclusions of the GAO report bear out some of our concerns, in that significant deployment of the Stryker with C-130s is more limited than we were given to believe at the time we chose to move forward with the program," Rep. Jim Saxton (R-N.J), who chairs the House Armed Services Committee's terrorism and unconventional threats subcommittee, told The DAILY. "Now we have to look at other ways to deploy the Stryker, for example, in larger aircraft like the C-17, on which three Strykers could be loaded. The problem is that recently completed mobility studies done with the C-17 and C-5 didn't consider this mission, and the Air Force would have to buy more C-17s than what is currently planned. The service originally planned to buy 220, and have so far committed to procuring 180 C-17s."
But an Army official said the service "never intended to have the Stryker fully combat capable, to roll-off a C-130 in fighting condition.
"We'll get the vehicles to specific areas of operation, then upload the equipment and ammunition. If the Stryker, fully loaded, can't fly on a single C-130, "the combatant commander has a number of options," he told The DAILY. "He can use more C-130 trips or other means of transportation. In a joint environment, we can work solutions."
No 'major' problem
Loren Thompson, an analyst with the Lexington Institute, said he doesn't believe the Stryker has a "major" weight problem.
"Every pound you give up in weight translates into loss of survivability and becomes less effective to operate," Thompson told The DAILY. "There is a problem now with weight that is specific to Iraq. The vehicles need add-on armor to protect against IEDs [improved explosive devices] and RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades], but you won't have a problem like this in Bosnia or Afghanistan."
According to a study of C-130 transport of Army vehicles by the Military Traffic Management Command, Transportation Engineering Agency, an armored C-130H aircraft taking off in ideal conditions such as moderate air temperature could transport 38,000 pounds for a maximum range of 860 miles. Adding just 2,000 pounds onboard the aircraft for associated cargo such as mission equipment or ammunition reduces the C-130 aircraft's takeoff-to-landing range to only 500 miles, the GAO said.
The Army has already ordered more than 1,200 - or 68 percent - of the eight Stryker production vehicle configurations it plans to buy, along with limited quantities of the two developmental vehicle prototypes for testing - the Mobile Gun System and the Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Reconnaissance vehicle prototypes. Stryker program costs have increased about 22 percent from the November 2000 estimate of $7.1 billion to the December 2003 estimate of $8.7 billion, the GAO said.
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 430
Just to shed some light on this.....
Canada DOES NOT have the Stryker...we have the LAV III...different beast in many ways
Much heavier, differnent turret, FCS etc....
Also....Canada does not have the lift capabilities. They require the C-130 J to get off the ground (barely BTW)
Don't even get me started on the MGS POS
Regards
Canada DOES NOT have the Stryker...we have the LAV III...different beast in many ways
Much heavier, differnent turret, FCS etc....
Also....Canada does not have the lift capabilities. They require the C-130 J to get off the ground (barely BTW)
Don't even get me started on the MGS POS
Regards
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Franko said:
Too late. Said the same thing two days ago on another thread about the Stryker being too heavy where I provided the same news article sans links at:
http://army.ca/forums/threads/18250.from1092600839.html#new
No further comments were added, unless you include SCum77.
GW
Y
Yard Ape
Guest
Yes, but wrong. Stryker & LAV III are names given to the vehicle platform (and are not names given to a variant). Our LAV III APC have GDLS LAV25 turrets. Their LAV III ICV have a PWS. Our LAV III MGS will be their Stryker MGS. Our LAV III TUA will have the turrets from our M113 TUA, their LAV III ATGMV will have a GDLS elevating TOW turret.Franko said:
To say that our APC has a turret & their's does not have a turret does not make the vehicle platforms different. "Stryker" is just the name that the US gave to the LAV III. Both names would apply to all variants regardless of what "bits" may have been added.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Yard Ape said:
So does that make our M113's the same as Sparky's "Gavins" and our Coyotes the same as the Marine Corps LAV25?
GW
Y
Yard Ape
Guest
"Gavins" are M113
LAV 25 are LAV I
Coyote are LAV II
therefore Coyote and LAV 25 and so these are not the same.
"Coyote" is also a variant name & not a platform name ("Bison" is also LAV II)
LAV 25 are LAV I
Coyote are LAV II
therefore Coyote and LAV 25 and so these are not the same.
"Coyote" is also a variant name & not a platform name ("Bison" is also LAV II)
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Yard Ape said:
OK; now I know where you are coming from. One of Sparky's ilk.
M113s are NOT Gavins, never were and never will be, except in the mind of "Sparky".
Sorry. ???
As for the rest...they are all different. :-\
GW
Y
Yard Ape
Guest
Ouch.George Wallace said:
That is correct, but for the eccentric few that feel the need to talk about "Gavins" they are in fact talking about M113. (My reply assumed you were one of these few. Apologies if I was wrong.)George Wallace said:
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
RNW said:
There is this guy, "Sparky", who is well known in the Armour/Armor community here and abroad who is notorious for writting papers on the M113 and calling it the "Gavin". He is a fanatic, an ex-paratrooper, of the US Infantry who spends 'all his waking hours' praising the "Gavin" and tearing apart the LAVs and all other wheeled armoured vehicles. He is well published, but very closed minded and opinionated and not very well appreciated on other Armor Forums. So usually if you see the word "Gavin" in any documentation, it has originated from his desk.
GW
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Would that be Lt. Mike Sparks? Sounds to me like it's him. I've read a lot of the information his group puts out. I think they make some good points and there is some important commentary on the importance of tracks, but unfortunately the rhetoric definitely borders on the fanatical at times, and the anti-LAV 111 information is very often way off base and inaccurate. I certainly read everything they produce with a critical mind, as the other side of the story is very rarely evident.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
To the best of my knowledge he is long Ret'd.
GW
GW
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
OK Fellas
Heres some imfo. The Styker is the org APC with the RWS. The others have not received a name as of yet. The Gavin is/was to be a replacement for the Bradley. Our Tow turrets will be replaced with the update one. It will have 8-12 TOWs.
The Coyote is getting the LAV sightheads which are better. There are many more changes coming. All/most of our LAV family vehs will not be the same as the US/Aussie ones.
Heres some imfo. The Styker is the org APC with the RWS. The others have not received a name as of yet. The Gavin is/was to be a replacement for the Bradley. Our Tow turrets will be replaced with the update one. It will have 8-12 TOWs.
The Coyote is getting the LAV sightheads which are better. There are many more changes coming. All/most of our LAV family vehs will not be the same as the US/Aussie ones.
Y
Yard Ape
Guest
Stryker is the platform name. The US APC is called Stryker ICV (infantry carrier vehicle). There is Stryker NBC reccon vehicle, Stryker MGS (mobile gun system), Stryker ESV (engineer section vehicle), Stryker Amb, etc.
TUA has been put on the LAV III and tested. The LAV III TUA is in all the documents describing army transformation. You may be thinking of the MMEV which will be ADATS placed on a LAV III and used primarilly to engage ground targets.
TUA has been put on the LAV III and tested. The LAV III TUA is in all the documents describing army transformation. You may be thinking of the MMEV which will be ADATS placed on a LAV III and used primarilly to engage ground targets.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
I think 'we' had better be careful of how much 'we' are starting to put onto this chassis. I've seen the photos of the ADATS turret on the LAV III and thought it was not as good as on the M113 or TLAV chassis for exterior servicing and operation. The LAV chassis is a lot narrower than the tracked chassis.
I know we have a 'roll-over' problem with the LAV IIIs in certain conditions, and fear the placement of heavy turrets on that chassis. That much weight above the vehicle's center of gravity will only compound that problem.
I will not get into the MGS debate here.
GW
I know we have a 'roll-over' problem with the LAV IIIs in certain conditions, and fear the placement of heavy turrets on that chassis. That much weight above the vehicle's center of gravity will only compound that problem.
I will not get into the MGS debate here.
GW
Gunner
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 430
Washington Times
September 2, 2004
Pg. 20
Army Off Its Wheels?
By Jack Kelly
Until recently, and especially after the Russians' troubles in Grozny, the
conventional wisdom held armor was not as effective in an urban environment
as it is in the countryside. Narrow streets restrict visibility and
mobility. Tall buildings permit defenders to attack tanks and armored
personnel carriers at their most vulnerable point. (The armor is thinnest on
the top of the vehicle.)
But the Israelis and now the Americans have stood the old conventional
wisdom on its head. They have shown nothing is more effective in urban
combat than armored vehicles, properly employed as part of a tank-infantry
team.
The importance of armor in urban combat can be overstated, as it was in Alex
Berenson's article in Monday's New York Times. It's important to remember
that in Najaf we fought a remarkably incompetent foe and there were no
buildings so tall the guns on an Abrams or a Bradley couldn't be elevated
enough to engage people on rooftops.
Still, it is clear other nations will examine carefully the lessons learned
in Najaf, and earlier in Baghdad, in rewriting their doctrine for combat in
built-up areas. Alas, it appears the U.S. Army may not be among those
learning the lessons of Najaf.
The Army seems hell-bent on replacing the armored forces that brought us
victory with a lightly armored bus. An armored bus. Think about the concept
for a moment.
They say a camel is a horse designed by a committee. The Army must have
consulted that same committee in coming up with the Stryker, which lacks the
speed and agility of an armored car, but also lacks the firepower and armor
protection of a Bradley. It is, however, very expensive, fulfilling what
seems the chief requirement of new weapons systems.
The Stryker is the brainchild of Gen. Eric Shinseki, chief of staff of the
Army in the last years of the Clinton administration. Gen. Shinseki was
embarrassed when wheeled Russian vehicles were able to get to Kosovo ahead
of American tanks and Bradleys.
The Stryker is a super-sized version of the armored car the Marines have
used for decades. The LAV-25 is fast mid maneuverable, and--with a
turret-mounted 25 mm chain gun and a coaxial 7.62mm machine gun--packs a
wallop.
The Stryker is larger and heavier (19 vs. 11 tons), because the Army wanted
it to carry a full nine-man squad (vs. six for the LAV-25) and have enough
armor to protect against heavy machine guns. (The LAV-25 protects only
against small arms.)
The gain in size and weight is a problem, because the Stryker is supposed to
fit on a C-130 tactical transport. To address this problem, the turret and
chain gun were dispensed with. The basic Stryker has either a ..50-caliber
machine gun or a 40mm grenade launcher, which the gunner must reload from
outside.
There are a half-dozen proposed variants of the Stryker vehicle, the
nuttiest of which is the armored gun system, a 105mm cannon mounted on a
Stryker chassis.
It is a profoundly bad idea to put a big gun on a wheeled vehicle, because
the vehicles lack the stability to absorb the recoil when the gun is fired.
The cannon can't penetrate the armor of a modern tank, because the gun had
to be dumbed down to lessen the recoil. Even so, in tests, the AGS has shown
a disturbing tendency to flip over when the gun is fired, if the gun is not
perfectly aligned along the center line of the vehicle.
So the AGS doesn't work, wouldn't be of that much use even if it did, and
can't fit on a C-130. But the Army wants it to replace tanks, which plainly
do work.
Someone who learns only from his own experience is said to be a nitwit. So
what do you say about those who refuse to learn from their own experience?
Jack Kelly, a syndicated columnist, is a former Marine and Green Beret and a
former deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force in the Reagan
administration. He is national security writer for the Pittsburgh (Pa.)
Post-Gazette.
September 2, 2004
Pg. 20
Army Off Its Wheels?
By Jack Kelly
Until recently, and especially after the Russians' troubles in Grozny, the
conventional wisdom held armor was not as effective in an urban environment
as it is in the countryside. Narrow streets restrict visibility and
mobility. Tall buildings permit defenders to attack tanks and armored
personnel carriers at their most vulnerable point. (The armor is thinnest on
the top of the vehicle.)
But the Israelis and now the Americans have stood the old conventional
wisdom on its head. They have shown nothing is more effective in urban
combat than armored vehicles, properly employed as part of a tank-infantry
team.
The importance of armor in urban combat can be overstated, as it was in Alex
Berenson's article in Monday's New York Times. It's important to remember
that in Najaf we fought a remarkably incompetent foe and there were no
buildings so tall the guns on an Abrams or a Bradley couldn't be elevated
enough to engage people on rooftops.
Still, it is clear other nations will examine carefully the lessons learned
in Najaf, and earlier in Baghdad, in rewriting their doctrine for combat in
built-up areas. Alas, it appears the U.S. Army may not be among those
learning the lessons of Najaf.
The Army seems hell-bent on replacing the armored forces that brought us
victory with a lightly armored bus. An armored bus. Think about the concept
for a moment.
They say a camel is a horse designed by a committee. The Army must have
consulted that same committee in coming up with the Stryker, which lacks the
speed and agility of an armored car, but also lacks the firepower and armor
protection of a Bradley. It is, however, very expensive, fulfilling what
seems the chief requirement of new weapons systems.
The Stryker is the brainchild of Gen. Eric Shinseki, chief of staff of the
Army in the last years of the Clinton administration. Gen. Shinseki was
embarrassed when wheeled Russian vehicles were able to get to Kosovo ahead
of American tanks and Bradleys.
The Stryker is a super-sized version of the armored car the Marines have
used for decades. The LAV-25 is fast mid maneuverable, and--with a
turret-mounted 25 mm chain gun and a coaxial 7.62mm machine gun--packs a
wallop.
The Stryker is larger and heavier (19 vs. 11 tons), because the Army wanted
it to carry a full nine-man squad (vs. six for the LAV-25) and have enough
armor to protect against heavy machine guns. (The LAV-25 protects only
against small arms.)
The gain in size and weight is a problem, because the Stryker is supposed to
fit on a C-130 tactical transport. To address this problem, the turret and
chain gun were dispensed with. The basic Stryker has either a ..50-caliber
machine gun or a 40mm grenade launcher, which the gunner must reload from
outside.
There are a half-dozen proposed variants of the Stryker vehicle, the
nuttiest of which is the armored gun system, a 105mm cannon mounted on a
Stryker chassis.
It is a profoundly bad idea to put a big gun on a wheeled vehicle, because
the vehicles lack the stability to absorb the recoil when the gun is fired.
The cannon can't penetrate the armor of a modern tank, because the gun had
to be dumbed down to lessen the recoil. Even so, in tests, the AGS has shown
a disturbing tendency to flip over when the gun is fired, if the gun is not
perfectly aligned along the center line of the vehicle.
So the AGS doesn't work, wouldn't be of that much use even if it did, and
can't fit on a C-130. But the Army wants it to replace tanks, which plainly
do work.
Someone who learns only from his own experience is said to be a nitwit. So
what do you say about those who refuse to learn from their own experience?
Jack Kelly, a syndicated columnist, is a former Marine and Green Beret and a
former deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force in the Reagan
administration. He is national security writer for the Pittsburgh (Pa.)
Post-Gazette.
Similar threads
