Stryker VS Ford Taurus

In recent weeks, the Army has ratcheted up its public relations machine touting the merits of its latest combat toy being deployed in Iraq, the $3 million-plus per copy wheeled armored vehicle known as the Stryker. With the insurgency’s offensive heating up recently in Mosul, Iraq, the Stryker is seeing some action and it’s obviously become tougher to keep the 300 or so Stryker armored vehicles out of harms way.

Case in point: Two Army soldiers were killed on Dec. 4 when their Stryker “received enemy fire during convoy operations.” (There have been no details released yet by the Department of Defense as to specifics surrounding the incident, what type of fire hit the Stryker, or whether the new armored vehicle was destroyed.) For some time now, POGO has been monitoring the Stryker’s development and testing, and we continue to have questions on the vehicle’s survivability from certain types of enemy fire, namely rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs (improvised explosive devices.)

We’ve also been watching the press reports, which have generally been very positive in recent weeks, but lacking in detail or supporting data to merit such glowing performance ratings.

So we asked Lonnie Shoultz, a former paratrooper with the 101st Airborne Division and former Green Beret with the 5th Special Forces Group and one of the Stryker’s most vocal critics, what he thought about one of the stories that appeared in a defense publication recently. Here’s the story and his comments in red after the jump:

Defense Today
December 1, 2004
Pg. 1

Army Finds Stryker Shines In Iraqi Combat Zone

By Scott Nance

The Army's project manager of Stryker brigade teams gave the new vehicle high marks in its initial use in the war in Iraq (Hidden in the placid north – see Macgregor July 15, 2004 House Armed Services Committee testimony).

Some 311 Strykers in Iraq have driven more than 3 million miles, according to Col. Peter Fuller. The initial reports before swapping out the crews said they had averaged 9,000 miles each.  The Army needs to read its own press releases.

Speaking yesterday at a conference in Washington, Fuller heaped praise onto the new platform for its mobility, survivability and other capabilities. “Survivability?”  They are hidden behind walls.

The first Stryker brigade was deployed in Iraq in October 2003, Fuller said. The Army recently used Strykers as part of its campaign against Iraqi insurgents in the city of Fallujah.  The Strykers never got within sight of Fallujah, then they were turned around with the OH-58 air cover and skedaddled back to Mosul.

"They road-marched a unit down to support that operation," he said. "And then, when Mosul started to heat up, they ran them back up north. We are finding they are very mobile in the theater."

Stryker has also been "very survivable," Fuller said.  If you are not in the line of fire – a Ford Taurus is survivable.

The vehicles have taken numerous improvised explosive device (IED) and rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) hits, and "they keep on surviving," he said.  See attachments for RPG survivability (Photos).

No IED attack has managed to penetrate the Stryker's hull, Fuller said, though he noted that one vehicle was lost due to a secondary fire.

The Army has been using a slat armor, referred to as a "bird cage," around Strykers to defend against RPGs.   See attachment (Photos).

"It's working very well," he said.  Very subjective standard.

Fuller displayed a picture to conference attendees of a scene where an IED had exploded next to a Stryker, with the force of the detonation rolling the vehicle twice.

"No one was killed in this," he said.  It also burst the eardrums of all four inhabitants and destroyed the vehicle.

Fuller also displayed a photo of the Stryker lost in that secondary fire.

"Everyone walked away—no one gets hurt in this," he said. "As a matter of fact, one individual jumped out and sprained his ankle when he was jumping out."  GREAT!  The Army finally has a way to fight a war with nobody getting hurt.   Then, why do we have over 1,100 dead?

Also, a General Dynamics Corp. official gave an overview of how the company is producing the vehicles for the military within tight time and cost constraints.  They bid $800,000 per vehicle.  We are now paying $3.2 million each.  How tight is that?

Back in the United States, the company is watching clocks and ledger books as the contractor manufactures Strykers, said Donald Howe, director of Stryker armed combat vehicles at the GD Land Systems unit.

Moving from platform concept in 1999 to combat fielding in 2003, General Dynamics has had to deal with a "very aggressive time line," Howe said.  Yeah, they flunked every phase of the trials from field test at the NTC (roll-overs) to flight testing (too heavy).

"Cost has been a consideration, so one of the challenges that General Dynamics has had is how to build these vehicles efficiently, and get the order-to-delivery time and fielding time minimized."  $800,000 to $3.2 million…

One thing the contractor has done to accomplish this is to "make maximum use" of 11 Land Systems facilities around the United States and Canada, Howe said.  That makes no sense without depth of definition.

The company also has focused construction at manufacturing centers in Lima, Ohio; Anniston, Ala.; and London, Ontario, Canada.  They are manufactured in Canada and the wheels are bolted on at the US sites.

GD had to think of and implement a production strategy minimizing assembly time "without having to add bricks and mortar," Howe said.  GD merged with General Motors Land Systems Division which owned the Canadian plant.

The company manufactures all upper hulls in Lima, and ships them to Ontario. It manufactures lower hulls in Ontario, and the two hulls are then joined there.  The tires are mounted in the US.

The hull structure either is left in Ontario for outfitting, or shipped to Alabama for equipping there, he said.  Like I’ve been saying.

Thus far, GD has delivered 994 Stryker vehicles, forecasting it will produce 2,449, Howe said.  The contract was for 2008 Strykers.

Two-thirds of the vehicles will be completed in Alabama, with the rest in Ontario, he said.  The wheels bolted on – only.

To maintain the Strykers, the Army has embedded mechanics with the units, whether in the United States or in combat zones, Howe said.  The US is not allowed to own its spare parts.  The GD technicians repair them from GD parts stocks as charge three times the retail price.

"We're talking about mechanics being embedded in the combat units, just the way reporters were during the initial start of [Operation Iraqi Freedom]," Fuller said.  We’re talking about company men paid $250,000 per year – same as mercs.

"They are absolutely embedded with the unit."  See above.  For $250,000 per year I’d marry the vehicle commander.

Comments

[Brad]

Currently serving in the military. This vehicle has saved my fellow soldiers' lives (which places it several steps above most of the Army equipment we have), regardless of how you feel about the politics of it's production.

[CoolURJets]

Beth at POGO points out a very real problem. One I pointed out regarding the F-22 debate. For this country to maintain its greatness we need men up and down the chain of command who will speak freely, honestly and critically about our country's national interest. Unfortunately too many men are concerned about their next job and not doing their current one as they should.

[Beth at POGO]

Unfortunately, our leaders at the Pentagon have usually come from a defense contractor or are on their way out the door to their next lucrative defense contractor job. So, their "reality" might really be shaded by green (for money). For example, Army Lt. General David K. Heebner landed a nice juicy job at General Dynamics after he helped the company land the Stryker. See this link. Or just tune in to the growing list of casualties in the Darleen Druyun Boeing tanker lease scandal in today's Washington Post.
Are these just isolated incidents, not indicative of a broader problem at the Pentagon? You decide. Here's the report POGO did on the revolving door, see The Politics of Contracting.

[pete keating]

Too the last poster how about reading the Testimony of the Army Chief of Staff to the House Armed Services Committee yesterday.

Here is how Defense Daily reported it.
"Defense Daily
Feb. 10, 2005
Story on Army Secretary and Chief of Staff testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on February 9, 2005.

[Gen.] Schoomaker also had words of praise for another vehicle system, the Stryker wheeled armored vehicle made by General Dynamics [GD].
Stryker debuted in combat with the deployment of the first Stryker Brigade Combat Team to Iraq in late 2003; the Army chief said he was
"absolutely enthusiastic" about the eight-wheeled vehicle, which has in the past been a lightning rod for criticism from proponents of tracked
vehicles.
"I would say that we're absolutely enthusiastic about what the Stryker has done and its performance," Schoomaker said. "Not just as a
vehicle--but as a system. The Stryker Brigade Combat Team as a system is a very good view into the brigade combat team unit of action."
Schoomaker described an operation last year where the Stryker Brigade based in northern Iraq dispatched a battalion combat team on a
420 mile move."
The battalion, Schoomaker said, "Entered battle on that move at one place, won, and moved to another battle, and did all of this in 48
hours. And did it with planning on the move, great blue-force situational awareness, great joint interconnectivity, and exactly the
kind of leadership, exactly the kind of combat capability we're looking for as we move toward our Future Combat System."
The Stryker, the general added, also has "the highest operational readiness of any system that we've had over there."
In fact, the vehicle may have new potential customers. Schoomaker said that U.S. Special Operations Command, which oversees special
operations forces worldwide, has also taken interest in the vehicle.
"U.S. SOCOM is working with us now, and is interested in Stryker variants as perhaps part of their solution for special operations
forces," he said.
Stryker remains a top acquisition priority for the service. Less certain, however, is the way ahead for a more ambitious program, the
Future Combat System, the Army's transformation centerpiece."

That's the opinion of a someone who knows the "reality of war" first hand. As opposed to an internet posting defense pundit.

[Karl Vietmeier]

To the last poster - Take a look at this analysis of the Stryker and come back with your point-by-point criticism:
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/pdf/stryker_reality_of_war.pdf

I can't imagine how anyone could seriously consider this vehicle for use in urban combat.

[peter keating]

I do not know why POGO asked a military "expert" who has never been on a Stryker to comment when there are over 1,000 combat veterans from the Stryker Brgade in Washington state available? Or Chris Gilbert a Seattle Times reporter who was embedded with the unit in Iraq?

From the first note by your expert his analysis did not add up. 300+ Strykers in Iraq driving 9,000 miles each equals nearly 3 million miles. I've never heard of a Ford surviving a car bomb explosion, rolling over and all passengers walking away alive. The soldiers in Strykers survived IED and multiple RPG attacks routinely in Iraq.

The photos of the one Stryker engulfed in flames is horrific. The story is the soldiers in that vehicle walked away alive. And they learned not to hang extra fuel cans and motor oil containers on top of their Stryker where enemy fire can ignite them.

I could attack every error in your military experts analysis but your readers get the point.