Stryker failures - Page 2




 
--
 
April 4th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by cPFC/SAJROTC
Our local newspaper recently did a story using some elements from the linked story. We have a Stryker Brigade posted here in Alaska at Fort Richardson, and they sighted these failures with the vehicle:

-Alaska Strykers burn 11 tires a day
-Primary weapon cannot fire accurately while vehicle is in motion
-Laser sighter fails to function at night
-Vehicle susceptable to RPG fire
-Added armor makes tires have to be checked 3 times daily to insure pressure isnt dangerously high or low.
-Commander's screens are black and white, while most of the ways prescribed to ID a potentially dangerous vehicle is based on color.
-Some screens fail entirely
-Screens obscured (as article states)
-Stryker limits the range of it's transport, the C-130 Hercules.
-Seat belts do not fit soldiers wearing combat gear and/or body armor.
-Vehicle prone to rolling
Those sound like some serious flaws that really should have been spotted during prototype testing. It's all very well saying that the troops are happy using it - that isn't the point. The point is that these flaws have slipped through when they should not have done. You wouldn't be happy with a car if you had to check the tyres three times a day or if some of the features failed to work properly right?. Why should combat troops have to put up with it?
Not to be rude but,
All vehicles have flaws and they are never fully know until combat, you can't simulate 6 RPGS, an IED and a grenade hitting a vehicle all at one time in a crowded urban area.

The M113 had flaws and its the most widely used and manufactured APC used in the world.

Question? How often do you driver your car throught pothole ridden, IED infested, Fydayeen shooting at you with RPGs in the streets road?

I'll say it again, all vehicles have flaws that aren't detected or spotted until combat because you don't see them until then. Thats why during Nam we tested alot of equiptment in actual combat but the loss of life was to great, so know we have to test and thats not as effective.
April 4th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Airman Adam Seaman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by cPFC/SAJROTC
Our local newspaper recently did a story using some elements from the linked story. We have a Stryker Brigade posted here in Alaska at Fort Richardson, and they sighted these failures with the vehicle:

-Alaska Strykers burn 11 tires a day
-Primary weapon cannot fire accurately while vehicle is in motion
-Laser sighter fails to function at night
-Vehicle susceptable to RPG fire
-Added armor makes tires have to be checked 3 times daily to insure pressure isnt dangerously high or low.
-Commander's screens are black and white, while most of the ways prescribed to ID a potentially dangerous vehicle is based on color.
-Some screens fail entirely
-Screens obscured (as article states)
-Stryker limits the range of it's transport, the C-130 Hercules.
-Seat belts do not fit soldiers wearing combat gear and/or body armor.
-Vehicle prone to rolling
Those sound like some serious flaws that really should have been spotted during prototype testing. It's all very well saying that the troops are happy using it - that isn't the point. The point is that these flaws have slipped through when they should not have done. You wouldn't be happy with a car if you had to check the tyres three times a day or if some of the features failed to work properly right?. Why should combat troops have to put up with it?
Not to be rude but,
All vehicles have flaws and they are never fully know until combat, you can't simulate 6 RPGS, an IED and a grenade hitting a vehicle all at one time in a crowded urban area.

The M113 had flaws and its the most widely used and manufactured APC used in the world.

Question? How often do you driver your car throught pothole ridden, IED infested, Fydayeen shooting at you with RPGs in the streets road?

I'll say it again, all vehicles have flaws that aren't detected or spotted until combat because you don't see them until then. Thats why during Nam we tested alot of equiptment in actual combat but the loss of life was to great, so know we have to test and thats not as effective.
I don't believe you were being rude so you can stand easy Cadet. However, I would draw your attention to the flaws that were listed and ask you this. Do you think it's reasonable to assume that a flaw as basic as not being able to fire the primary weapon accurately on the move should have been picked up during prototype testing?

I believe you've taken my car analogy a little too literally. The point is - if you had bought a car that had basic flaws in it you'd be upset right? For a vehicle such as the Stryker, being unable to accurately fire the weapon on the move, or having a laser sighter that fails to fire at night, are basic flaws or, more correctly, manufacturing defects. It smacks of cost cutting or incompetence and I know both are rife in defence procurement industries.

So yes you are right that combat can highlight flaws that were never considered at design or testing stage. But even a non-expert like me can tell that the Stryker has flaws that should have been corrected before production.
April 5th, 2005  
thegrinch073
 
 
The Stryker and its technology is still being polishied up on. Eventually, the Stryker will be better suited for its role. Like all projects, it takes time.
--
April 5th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Anybody remember how many problems they had with the Bradley when it first came out? And that's just one among many such incidents with new equipment around the world.

Murphy's first law on technology is: "New systems mean new problems"
April 5th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Your right on the main gun and laser Doppleganger. Does anyone know what company makes it? And what main gun the 105mm? I though the US hadn't adopted the 25mm turret.


I don't know why these are flaws?

-Vehicle susceptable to RPG fire
-Added armor makes tires have to be checked 3 times daily to insure pressure isnt dangerously high or low.
-Seat belts do not fit soldiers wearing combat gear and/or body armor.
-Vehicle prone to rolling

The third one I can understand, but as someone said earlier what APC isn't susceptable to RPG fire? And the one on roll overs, samthing with the M113.
April 6th, 2005  
r031Button
 
 
I believe the main gun being refered to is either a .50 caliber HMG or a 40mm AGL fired via a remote weapons station.
April 6th, 2005  
cPFC/SAJROTC
 
When I said that a Stryker limits the range of the C-130, there was an article on Military.com, that states putting a full load of Strykers on the C-130 (vehicles, ammunition etc) cuts the C-130's range by nearly 1/2.

The main weapon I was referencing, while the caliber was not listed, was said to be "A 157,000 dollar grenade launcher"

As for being prone to rolling, we can build Hum-vees that are extremely ahrd to flip, but the Stryker is flipped. Look at it this way

High End Sportscar : SUV :: Humvee : Stryker

The problem with Armor and RPG damage is these are flaws that I feel should have been spotted in trials. Espically when we're going to be putting our troops into these vehicles. Building a vehicle that can be shot through doesnt seem safe, nor does it seem very safe to have to bolt on armor and then check the tire pressure. [Extreme Example]: What would happen if all the tires blew out in a firefight because of pressure problems? A combat zone is not the place to have to change a flat, espically if your overengaged as is.

I agree though that the Stryker is still a work in progress, but I agree with a quote made by a Stryker crew member here, anonymously he said "I hope the Pentagon learns soon that the battlefield is no place to be testing experimental vehicles or vehicles with design flaws."

Same thing with the Osprey, which the USMC recently sent to final trials, they didnt deploy the Osprey into a combat zone on a broadscale until they were at least fairly sure it could handle it. The Stryker was rapidly pushed in while these design flaws weren't addressed as they should've been. How hard is it to produce a seatbelt that will fit a soldier wearing body armor? Does it take several YEARS to do that? That should've been corrected very early on, it should've never happened, but it definetely should not STILL be a problem for our soldiers.


SoldierTech Articles On Stryker's Limitations:

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/...ryker,,00.html
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/...yker2,,00.html
April 6th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Upgrades on the way. Some now and all by 2007.

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/ar.../ln/ln16p.html
April 6th, 2005  
Snauhi
 
USA can copy those rpg nets too

April 6th, 2005  
Mikey
 
Not to put down the guys concerned with the RPG penetration issues of the stryker, but you got to remember it is a light (to medium) armored vehicle and not a main battle tank like the Abrams. The warheads of the old RPG-7 has come a long way and with the right warhead and with a good shooter, you could at easily disable a Abrams, let alone a Stryker. You got to remember that some of these insurgents either are the same insurgents that fought soviet tanks in the Afghanistan, and combine that with some ex-Iraqi 1991 army vets, and you probably some good knowledge and tatics on how to take out armored vehicle on their side. Before you put down the Stryker check out this interesting link on the RPG-7 and its tactical uses against armor. No weapon system is completely foolproof and unstoppable. The Stryker, like the M-16, the Sherman tank, and other weapons will have it flaws that will be improved on over time.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...fantry-rpg.htm