Stryker failures




 
--
 
April 3rd, 2005  
Shadowalker
 
 

Topic: Stryker failures


http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...ker-report.htm

Army report showing the failures of the Stryker vehicle in raq
April 3rd, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Quote:
"The reports we get from the field overwhelmingly is that the vehicle is performing in an outstanding manner," Lt. Col. Kevin Curry said.

"Soldiers say they appreciate the vehicle, they want to stay in that unit, they want to go back, and if they go back they want to go in that vehicle. You couldn't get a better stamp of approval or show of confidence."
That says enough for me.
April 4th, 2005  
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
--
April 4th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cPFC/SAJROTC
-Stryker limits the range of it's transport, the C-130 Hercules.
So does a sack of potatos
April 4th, 2005  
Snauhi
 
USA were never good at making wheeled apc's
April 4th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Hey, the Stryker has some flaws. So what? The USA has not done much with wheeled APC's before it, so the US military is having to learn how the only way that it is possible: Trial, error and fixing the flaws as they arise.

How many of us would rather be out in the open, rather than inside a Stryker if an artillery shell explodes right next to you? A car bomb? A RPG being fired at you? Your odds of survival are seldom going to be diminished by being inside a Stryker. So people can die in a Stryker going into a warzone. You're a lot more sure of death in an unarmored Humvee. If circumstances merit a more heavily armored, slower APC, bring a Bradley for crapsakes!

A lot more could have been learned from other countries with regard to design. South Africa could have made some excellent suggestions for the design, and they have often done on this forum. So too could many other nations. But the Stryker fits the bill and fills a role that Bradleys and Humvees are not truly capable of filling. A Bradley just can't get where its going faster than the Stryker. [Top speed 45 miles per hour vs top speed of 60 miles per hour.] A Humvee can get there even faster, but it is a helluva lot easier to take out than a Stryker. The Stryker remains as the fastest most rapidly deployable fully armored vehicle we have, (at least that I am aware of.) It also fits inside a C130, which is a tremendous benefit in terms of deployment.
April 4th, 2005  
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?
April 4th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
The problem with computer screens and the seatbelts should probobly have been fixed earlier.

But at least 1/2 of those bulletpoints are just filler to make it look worse than it is.

Limits the range of a C-130? As the other guy said, so does a sack of potatoes.
Vulnerable to RPG fire? It wasn't designed to withstand RPG fire
Problems with tires with extra armor added? That's why the it is called EXTRA armor, because the vehicle wasn't designed to have that much armor.
April 4th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
The problem with computer screens and the seatbelts should probobly have been fixed earlier.

But at least 1/2 of those bulletpoints are just filler to make it look worse than it is.

Limits the range of a C-130? As the other guy said, so does a sack of potatoes.
Vulnerable to RPG fire? It wasn't designed to withstand RPG fire
Problems with tires with extra armor added? That's why the it is called EXTRA armor, because the vehicle wasn't designed to have that much armor.
the range issue with the c130 is a big issue.....esp for the NZLAV's (kiwi turreted version of the stryker). one of the requirments was that it could be flown across the tasman sea to australia....well a C130 with a NZLAV inside gets around halfway....not good.
April 4th, 2005  
beardo
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cPFC/SAJROTC
-Vehicle susceptable to RPG fire
name one vehicle that isnt