Canadian Stryker Too Heavy for C130.

[KENNYR]

From an article in the Toronto Sunday Sun 15 August.........

The weight of the Canadian Army's new armoured vehicle significantly restricts the flight range of the C-130 cargo aircraft that transports it, U.S. congressional investigators have said.

Canada are buying 60 of these vehicles. The article goes on to say "Critics of the Canadian decision to buy the Stryker pointed to a 1998 study that concluded use of the vehicles would be a disaster. Experts said that the Stryker is under-armoured and mounts a gun which is too powerful for the chassis".

The Stryker weighs in, on average, at 17,100Kg. The report says that a C-130 carrying a Stryker would not be able to take off from all locations ".

I stand in awe of the Canadian procurement system and the decision making of the Canadian "Government?". Helicopters, submarines, the Iltis and now Stryker.:yuk: :hmm:

[MajorMadMax]

Gee, what's the Canadian Stryker version have that the American one doesn't, more beer? Ours seem to fit in our Hercs....

http://www.gendyn.com/prod_serv/combat/Stryker/Stryker%20Offloading%20From%20C-130.jpg

http://www.lewis.army.mil/transformation/stryker_c130/images/ATGM_0054.jpg

http://www.lewis.army.mil/transformation/stryker_c130/images/ICV_0054.jpg

[Load Toad]

But that wasn't he point of the post was it? It isn't that it doesn't fit - it's that it weighs so much that the C130 can't operate in the most desirable manner once the thing is inside.
I have no knowledge of these things myself - only from reading t'net - but isn't there a lot of criticism levelled at the Stryker based on it's weight / armour / performance etc when used in demanding environments - such as now in Iraq? And if it is found wanting there (is it?) - where is it suitable for?

[ORAC]

How Stryker Survives in Iraq (http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/478-626.asp)

[KENNYR]

Interesting article ORAC, thanks. Two very different points of view from people who are obviously using them "over there". Interesting comments by "greybeard" about the Strykers not being used off road or in the airportable role. Are there any C130 loadies out there that can confirm a statement such as "two bradleys will fit in place of one stryker"? It appears that the Stryker can be very easily taken out by RPG fire.

[OFBSLF]

It appears that the Stryker can be very easily taken out by RPG fire.If you look at the pictures of the Strykers operating in Iraq, you'll see the slat armor added to the outside of the hull. This add-on armor stands off several inches from the hull. The idea is that this sets off the RPG several inches away from the hull, so the shaped charge doesn't penetrate the hull.

I suspect that the Stryker can't fit into a C130 with that RPG armor installed.

[BEagle]

No doubt it'll fit in the A400M without any problem?

CF, please form an orderly queue....

[KENNYR]

OFBSLF, I guess that the armoured plates have to be fitted when it comes off the Herc!!!! Does this not defeat the "drive off, go fight" requirement of QRF? I know that we would pull 2 Scout helicopters and a landrover+trailer off the Herc, unfold the blades and have them in the air in about 20 mins. I wonder how long it takes for the Stryker to have the plates fitted.

Any Stryker users like to comment please?

[OFBSLF]

OFBSLF, I guess that the armoured plates have to be fitted when it comes off the Herc!!!! Does this not defeat the "drive off, go fight" requirement of QRF? ... I wonder how long it takes for the Stryker to have the plates fitted.Kennyr, yes I believe the do have to be fitted after landing. No idea how long that takes. IIRC, they were something of an expedient fix after seeing how many armored vehicles were getting hit by RPGs in Iraq.

[ORAC]

Washington Post: Study Faults Army Vehicle

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 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.

The vehicle's seat belts cannot be readily latched when troops are in their armored gear, a circumstance that contributed to the deaths of three soldiers in rollover accidents, according to the report. On the vehicle's outside, some crews have put sand-filled tin cans around a gunner's hatch that the report says is ill-protected.....

The criticisms of the Stryker's first performance in combat seem likely to give new arguments to critics of the Army's decision in 1999 to move away from more heavily armored vehicles that move on metal tracks and embrace a generation of lighter, more comfortable vehicles operated at higher speed on rubber tires. Senior Army officers in Iraq, like those at the Pentagon, have been surprised by the intensity of hostilities there since mid-2003, and lately some officers have said they depend on heavy armor to protect their soldiers in urban warfare, even though tanks in Iraq have also suffered unexpected damage....

In a report completed at the time of deployment, the Pentagon's operational test and evaluation office rated the Stryker vehicles sent to Iraq "effective and survivable only with limitations for use in small-scale contingencies." ....

[Huron Topp]

If memory serves, the Canuck version is to be the one with the turret and great wompin' gun. Problem was that the turret assembly would need to be removed for transport in a Herc.

See if I can find where I read that...

[SASless]

Part of the discussion ought to be about how the USMC has used the same vehicle for years...and loves it....but do not have all the fancy toys and thus a much lighter, cheaper, and much more mobile vehicle. The Army senior brass wanted a "light armored" brigade sized unit...then went about adding systems and weight until the vehicle got too heavy. When they realized they would be fighting in an urban environment and that the lovely old tech RPG was extremely lethal (remember 28 M-1 Abrams tanks have been destroyed in that kind of fighting) they then had to add yet another heavy passive defense measure. The slat armor looks good but one can see why it is only partly effective. In Vietnam the old reliable woven wire (think chain link version) fence worked a charm for defeating RPG's....it would be lighter and more effective but "UGLY"....and an embarrassment to the senior brass.

The political in-fighting within the US Army over tracked versus wheeled vehicles is also part of the argument. There is a need for both the Bradley and the Stryker...but neither side seems to be able to accept that. The Stryker folks think they have to up armor the thing to equal the Bradley....the Bradley folks will not admit the lack of stealth the tracked Bradley has.

If you fly them into a staging area with C-17's and C-5's....then inter-theater moves by C-130's....it ought to work....assuming you accept the fact the RPG will kill the vehicle.

Please note the latest version of the RPG anti-tank round will now kill an M-1 Abrams....it has a duplex warhead capable of penetrating 300mm of armor and can defeat any armor made.


A very good discussion of the Stryker and links to other places for information.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav.htm

[Razor61]

British Warrior and Challenger II's are using Slat's in Iraq also.
The Challenger has the slats along the side of the 'skirt' to prevent RPG attacks on the tracks etc. The Warrior i think first used them when deployed with Black Watch in the Sunni Triangle with the slats covering pretty much all of the vehicle.
The US Bradley also uses Slats, as does the D-10 Dozers they deployed to Fallujah (so does the Israeli's on their D-10s).
The 'new' variant of the M1A2 Abrams also utilises slat armour around the rear of the chassis to prevent RPG attacks on the engine compartment. Alongside this, the skirt is 'up armoured' and so is the chassis and turret.... (who would of thought the UK and US would be up-armouring their MBT because of Cold war era RPG's?)....not to mention the new Abrams now has an 'infantry telephone' :rolleyes:

[Load Toad]

OK - this isn't about planes and I know nowt about military things...

but.....

If you are going into any sort of battle or an urban area with hostile forces active - isn't it highly likely that the two weapons they are going to have in any number is the AK-47 or any of its derivatives and the RPG-7 and any blah blah blah....

So as difficult as it must be - isn't protecting your troops against those weapons a bit...er...obvious?

[rej]

Would it not fit in one of our Mk5s?

[SASless]

Load Toad,

Think about the fact that the western military forces still do not have something as effective, cheap, and effiecient as the RPG. We have some very expensive, complex, and relatively few in numbers, kind of weapons but nothing that compares with the simple old RPG....which is a deriviative of the German Panzerfaust from WWII days.

[Samuel]

The NZ Army bought 105 of those vehicles, and one will fit into a C130, and it will fly with it......but not far, which begs the question as where they would fly it to?

[MarkD]

anyone care to comment on the difference in capability offered by the Mk5s rej mentioned (and which by amazing coincidence have been offered to CF (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=168832)?)

[StopStart]

Mk5 would get that out of most places without too much difficulty. Pics on page 1 show it coming out of a (I think) short Herc with what looks like similar side guidance so I guess it would fit inside. :confused:
Performance-wise I can't see any issues with it although full mains isn't going to fly you round the world :)