Originally Posted by Shek
I am not sure I understand how it has a huge logistical advantage, could you explane more?
My bigest problem with the Stryket is not its preformance just the price that it comes at. I do think it is better than a 113 just not enough better for the price tag.
Stu,
1. M113s would guzzle twice as much gas, and so you'd have to nearly double the number of fuelers. While only a small increase in the number of overall vehicles, on the margin it has a huge impact, as it is already a difficult task to resupply the SBCT under a scenario where there is only an aerial LOC.
2. The Stryker's engine is the same as the engine in the FMTV. Because of this, you have a smaller PLL and ASL (repair parts that are on-hand and hauled around by the unit) requirement than if you had a FMTV/M113 combo. Also, there is more commonality of parts across the Stryker variants than there would have been across the M113/M8 combo. You have the same effect here as with the engine story. In the end, the M113 equipped unit would require more vehicles to carry these additional parts
3. The Stryker has fewer maintenance requirements above and beyond the analysis in #2. So, if you had a M113 equipped IBCT, you'd have to add even more vehicles.
While the above three points aren't exhaustive, because the SBCT is designed to be very lean on logistics without much of a cushion, once you start adding on the margin, it has a huge impact on everything. Not only do you add vehicles, but you add the requirement for more gas to run these vehicles, soldiers to crew the vehicles, food to feed these vehicle crews, ammunition to arm these vehicle crews, etc.
Hopefully, the above gives you an idea on why the Stryker has the logistical advantage. As far as price goes, an extremely valid argument. Having spent my time in Iraq in a Stryker, I am certainly biased in favor of having spent the extra $$. The one thought that I would leave is that the cost advantage of M113 is not as great as some would claim, as you would have to do large upgrades to existing mothballed M113s to get them to the equivalent standard as a Stryker in terms of protection, lethality, commo platforms, etc. That being said, though, the M113 still would have been a cheaper option.
Flash report
Tonights lead story on the local news in Slapout is that the Daleville,Al. (near Ft. Rucker)just had 1970's model M113 donated to the police department. Whoooo Doggies!! I have some buddies on the Daleville police department. It is police blue with lightning bolts on the side and the word "NEGOTIATOR" painted on the front. They made them take off the 50 cal., oh well. Anybody have an extra Stryker laying around?
I've seen a handful of websites where the local police department has some old M113s as part of their SWAT unit. It's interesting to see them all painted up as a police vehicle!
Vehicle protection
The other advantage of Stryker of M-113 is armor. The Stryker is built to withstand heavy machine gun fire. It's supposed to have a ceramic overlay for RPG/shaped charge warheads - which ran into development problems - slat armor is the expedient replacement. M-113's have repeatedly proven to be too vulnerable without significant uparmoring. The IDF has completely redone theirs, but I doubt they fully trust even that level of protection any more given what happened in the recent fighting in Lebannon.
Really, I think the whole Stryker vs. M-113 debate is kind of besides the point. The current mucky mucks in charge of procuring/developing new systems are perfectly capable of turning in an M-113 based platform which has all the problems of a Stryker and spending just as much money while they're at it. I think better oversight by Congress, the Department of Defense and the Army could have brought either project in for a lot less money than was/is being spent.
When I started reading the Stryker debate I remembered a photograph from the Russian operations in Afghanistan. Three guys in a delapidated pick up had just taken out three Russian personel carriers with RPG's. The cost of troop carriers versus the beat up pick up must have been enormous.
Selil,
That's what happens anytime you don't employ equipment properly and use poorly trained conscripts. The unwritten Soviet creed of death before dismount gave the initiative to the mujihadeen, allowing for their successful ambushes.
As far as the performance of the Stryker against the RPG in Iraq, the RPG has been ineffective. I'm aware of only one catastrophic kill, which was a fluke (the RPG hit some POL loaded on the exterior of the vehicle, started an exterior load fire, and the soldiers weren't able to put the fire out resulting in 0 injuries but one burned Stryker), and the slat has been nearly 100% effective in preventing penetration into the vehicle. For nearly three years of service across all of Iraq, that's a pretty substantial track record.
The organic ceramic armor for the Stryker does not protect against RPGs. Even the M1A2 Abrams with all of its armor still doesn't offer complete passive protection against the standard RPG. The slat armor was redeveloped to serve as an interim solution since the ERA tile package hadn't been developed, tested, and fielded yet.
As far as costs, outside of the MGS, the Stryker program hasn't had significant cost overruns. The cost has gone up due to having feedback from combat experience that has driven condensed lifecycle upgrades; however, additional oversight by DoD or Congress would not have brought the program cost down much - IIRC, about 25-40% of the program's costs has been spent on infrastructure upgrades to allow installations designed to handle light/mech brigades to handle the increased size of a SBCT. This means better sim centers, ranges, combat vehicle trails to departure airfields, etc. These costs would have existed no matter what platform was chosen. In the end, the M113 option could have been cheaper up front, but you would have had the costs of more logistics and a more difficult footprint to support when deployed.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks