Study Faults Army Vehicle
I wonder who was involved in designing and approving....
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
I wonder if someone like the Bush-bashin' COL was involved in designing and approving this hunk-a-junk.
From The Washington Post (plenty of other sources also). Headline is linked.
Study Faults Army Vehicle
Use of Transport in Iraq Puts Troops at Risk, Internal Report Says
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 31, 2005; Page A01
The Army has deployed a new troop transport vehicle in Iraq with many defects, putting troops there at unexpected risk from rocket-propelled grenades and raising questions about the vehicle's development and $11 billion cost, according to a detailed critique in a classified Army study obtained by The Washington Post.
The vehicle is known as the Stryker, and 311 of the lightly armored, wheeled vehicles have been ferrying U.S. soldiers around northern Iraq since October 2003. The Army has been ebullient about the vehicle's success there, with Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, telling the House Armed Services Committee last month that "we're absolutely enthusiastic about what the Stryker has done."
But the Army's Dec. 21 report, drawn from confidential interviews with operators of the vehicle in Iraq in the last quarter of 2004, lists a catalogue of complaints about the vehicle, including design flaws, inoperable gear and maintenance problems that are "getting worse not better." Although many soldiers in the field say they like the vehicle, the Army document, titled "Initial Impressions Report -- Operations in Mosul, Iraq," makes clear that the vehicle's military performance has fallen short.
The internal criticism of the vehicle appears likely to fuel new controversy over the Pentagon's decision in 2003 to deploy the Stryker brigade in Iraq just a few months after the end of major combat operations, before the vehicle had been rigorously tested for use across a full spectrum of combat.
The report states, for example, that an armoring shield installed on Stryker vehicles to protect against unanticipated attacks by Iraqi insurgents using low-tech weapons works against half the grenades used to assault it. The shield, installed at a base in Kuwait, is so heavy that tire pressure must be checked three times daily. Nine tires a day are changed after failing, the report says; the Army told The Post the current figure is "11 tire and wheel assemblies daily."
"The additional weight significantly impacts the handling and performance during the rainy season," says the report, which was prepared for the Center for Army Lessons Learned in Fort Leavenworth, Kan. "Mud appeared to cause strain on the engine, the drive shaft and the differentials," none of which was designed to carry the added armor.
Commanders' displays aboard the vehicles are poorly designed and do not work; none of the 100 display units in Iraq are being used because of "design and functionality shortfalls," the report states. The vehicle's computers are too slow and overheat in desert temperatures or freeze up at critical moments, such as "when large units are moving at high speeds simultaneously" and overwhelm its sensors.
The main weapon system, a $157,000 grenade launcher, fails to hit targets when the vehicle is moving, contrary to its design, the report states. Its laser designator, zoom, sensors, stabilizer and rotating speed all need redesign; it does not work at night; and its console display is in black and white although "a typical warning is to watch for a certain color automobile," the report says. Some crews removed part of the launchers because they can swivel dangerously toward the squad leader's position.
... more at linked article
I swear this thing sounds like the Bradley Fighting Vehicle depicted in the great book, later HBO movie (link follows) The Pentagon Wars (1998, made for TV).
It burns my butt to no end that there were far too many officers wearing silver leafs, silver birds, and silver stars making decisions to build complete JUNK like this, and then deploy ground troops that are wearing no more than a few stripes on their arms in them knowing that they're destined to be killed almost instantly.
If you've not seen the movie The Pentagon Wars, it's highly recommended. It does a great job of pointing out the stupidity of the military procurement and design process, and I'm sure that this same process was involved in the Stryker. No matter how much I want to support the fine researchers at places like the Harry Diamond Army Research Lab facility, there's been far too many incompetent business people, military officers, politicians, and sorts of combinations there-of (reservists serving in dual roles, and doing none of it competently) that have created messes like this, and again, leaving enlisted soldiers to pay the price.
Some may look at my posts and replies to a certain COL and call me hostile and ask why I seem to be attacking an individuals credentials -- well here above are the reasons. Just as some point to our politicians and decry their competency, I can and do point to some of those same individuals and see bright, shining examples of their incompetency like these cases, and know who pays the price.
As with the Enrons, MCI Worldcoms, Sprints, and other badly run companies in the private sector, the officers of the company aren't the ones that pay the price. It's the line workers, the hourly workers, and the lower level technical people that lose their jobs and wind up paying for the incompetence of the idiots above them that are responsible for managing the budget. Those idiots that fudged the numbers and ignored the need to cut prices to keep up business and revenue so that workers didn't lose jobs. People with fancy titles that are tossed around just to impress and leave you feeling as if you were mandated to pay more attention to what they said because of the title. People just like that who made decisions along the way to create crap like the Stryker.
'nuff said.
From The Washington Post (plenty of other sources also). Headline is linked.
Study Faults Army Vehicle
Use of Transport in Iraq Puts Troops at Risk, Internal Report Says
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 31, 2005; Page A01
The Army has deployed a new troop transport vehicle in Iraq with many defects, putting troops there at unexpected risk from rocket-propelled grenades and raising questions about the vehicle's development and $11 billion cost, according to a detailed critique in a classified Army study obtained by The Washington Post.
The vehicle is known as the Stryker, and 311 of the lightly armored, wheeled vehicles have been ferrying U.S. soldiers around northern Iraq since October 2003. The Army has been ebullient about the vehicle's success there, with Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, telling the House Armed Services Committee last month that "we're absolutely enthusiastic about what the Stryker has done."
But the Army's Dec. 21 report, drawn from confidential interviews with operators of the vehicle in Iraq in the last quarter of 2004, lists a catalogue of complaints about the vehicle, including design flaws, inoperable gear and maintenance problems that are "getting worse not better." Although many soldiers in the field say they like the vehicle, the Army document, titled "Initial Impressions Report -- Operations in Mosul, Iraq," makes clear that the vehicle's military performance has fallen short.
The internal criticism of the vehicle appears likely to fuel new controversy over the Pentagon's decision in 2003 to deploy the Stryker brigade in Iraq just a few months after the end of major combat operations, before the vehicle had been rigorously tested for use across a full spectrum of combat.
The report states, for example, that an armoring shield installed on Stryker vehicles to protect against unanticipated attacks by Iraqi insurgents using low-tech weapons works against half the grenades used to assault it. The shield, installed at a base in Kuwait, is so heavy that tire pressure must be checked three times daily. Nine tires a day are changed after failing, the report says; the Army told The Post the current figure is "11 tire and wheel assemblies daily."
"The additional weight significantly impacts the handling and performance during the rainy season," says the report, which was prepared for the Center for Army Lessons Learned in Fort Leavenworth, Kan. "Mud appeared to cause strain on the engine, the drive shaft and the differentials," none of which was designed to carry the added armor.
Commanders' displays aboard the vehicles are poorly designed and do not work; none of the 100 display units in Iraq are being used because of "design and functionality shortfalls," the report states. The vehicle's computers are too slow and overheat in desert temperatures or freeze up at critical moments, such as "when large units are moving at high speeds simultaneously" and overwhelm its sensors.
The main weapon system, a $157,000 grenade launcher, fails to hit targets when the vehicle is moving, contrary to its design, the report states. Its laser designator, zoom, sensors, stabilizer and rotating speed all need redesign; it does not work at night; and its console display is in black and white although "a typical warning is to watch for a certain color automobile," the report says. Some crews removed part of the launchers because they can swivel dangerously toward the squad leader's position.
... more at linked article
I swear this thing sounds like the Bradley Fighting Vehicle depicted in the great book, later HBO movie (link follows) The Pentagon Wars (1998, made for TV).
It burns my butt to no end that there were far too many officers wearing silver leafs, silver birds, and silver stars making decisions to build complete JUNK like this, and then deploy ground troops that are wearing no more than a few stripes on their arms in them knowing that they're destined to be killed almost instantly.
If you've not seen the movie The Pentagon Wars, it's highly recommended. It does a great job of pointing out the stupidity of the military procurement and design process, and I'm sure that this same process was involved in the Stryker. No matter how much I want to support the fine researchers at places like the Harry Diamond Army Research Lab facility, there's been far too many incompetent business people, military officers, politicians, and sorts of combinations there-of (reservists serving in dual roles, and doing none of it competently) that have created messes like this, and again, leaving enlisted soldiers to pay the price.
Some may look at my posts and replies to a certain COL and call me hostile and ask why I seem to be attacking an individuals credentials -- well here above are the reasons. Just as some point to our politicians and decry their competency, I can and do point to some of those same individuals and see bright, shining examples of their incompetency like these cases, and know who pays the price.
As with the Enrons, MCI Worldcoms, Sprints, and other badly run companies in the private sector, the officers of the company aren't the ones that pay the price. It's the line workers, the hourly workers, and the lower level technical people that lose their jobs and wind up paying for the incompetence of the idiots above them that are responsible for managing the budget. Those idiots that fudged the numbers and ignored the need to cut prices to keep up business and revenue so that workers didn't lose jobs. People with fancy titles that are tossed around just to impress and leave you feeling as if you were mandated to pay more attention to what they said because of the title. People just like that who made decisions along the way to create crap like the Stryker.
'nuff said.
PolMach Forums
People expect it to have the survivability of an MBT and float too? And now it's less reliable and worse in mud than an M113? 
Stardock Forums