What happens when you're a cheerleader but things are going wrong with your team? You can do the "fan" thing and keep saying all is well even though they're obviously not (F-35 supporters)...or...you can bite the bullet and say shit is fucked up and its time to fish or cut bait.
Never in a million years would I have predicted that we would be where we're at with the AAV replacement. When the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle was canceled, I was reassured by statements from HQMC that we would turn to and get another vehicle to the fleet quickly.
Hindsight is 20/20 and its now obvious we were fed a heaping dose of bullshit. So where does that leave us? Right now we're looking at upgrades to the AAV to begin sometime in the near future (or so we're told) and eventually a selection between four companies for a new, less capable ACV 1.1.
American Mercenary has a different idea...
The AAV is a good solution for getting lots of Marines to shore. It is not an optimal patrolling solution. The Stryker is a great patrolling solution (decent arms and armor, moves fast, very maneuverable). Add in very precise 120mm Mortar Fire and things get very interesting for maneuver commanders.Read the whole thing here.
From my perspective this seems like a win/win for the USMC. The hulls are available, the capabilities of the LAV III family are well known inside the USMC, and there is massive interoperability with the US Army built into the supply chain.
Now, the cons of this solution, it will cost money in an era of diminishing budgets. It won't provide a "leap forward" level of capability for the USMC compared to some of the other (more expensive) options on the table. It may seem to some Marines that they are getting "the Army's scraps" instead of the latest and greatest (although those flat bottomed hulls are still newer than most HMMWVs the USMC has in the inventory).
Quite honestly, where before I might have automatically poo poo'ed the idea, now I'm not so sure. It will get us vehicles that we need now. Give us back the capability to transport 2 Marine Expeditionary Brigades in protected transport and not in MTVRs...and we could fall on the Army's supply chain.
As far as making them amphibious. Yeah. Sticking point. I would argue against doing that so we could get the vehicle we want in the future and not be stuck with interim becoming permanent.
All I know for sure is that less than 500 "modernized" AAVs will not cut it. The world is burning and we need vehicles now not later. Army Strykers might be the best we can hope for....at least for the moment.
But wont you face a hostile response from the industry at such a solution ? Add to that all the lobbies they control. After all, thats probably 10's of billions of dollars being taken away from them.
ReplyDeleteAnd on another note, I am surprised by the utility of that original Piranha vehicle. The last time a simple economical ground vehicle was transformed into soo many avatars it was the T-38 tank fron the Czeckoslovakia when the Germans came up with the Pz38 tank and Hetzer among other things....that and the original Pz 1,2,3,4's.
probably. but we brought that on ourselves. we've dicked so hard with industry over this MPC/ACV/ACV 1.1/ACV 1.2 that it wouldn't surprise me if the USMC wasn't ever taken seriously again.
DeleteIf you don't make them amphibious you can cut the cost down even further as now the price point is simply for "flat bottom Stryker"
ReplyDeleteYou might get more buy in from the Air Wing by reminding them the Stryker is C-130 transportable.
yeah...that would definitely work...we could even bring back our Air Contingency MAGTFs! but the big plus is that we could bring them in on LCACs, work out standard operating procedures for follow on Stryker Brigades and most of all do a simple equipment transfer from the Army to Marines, put on our racks and be done with it. i just want to do a lessons learned by not doing the amphibious thing because interim became permanent...i wonder how many forget that the Stryker was suppose to be out of service by now replaced by the FCS.
DeleteWell, if you want a real armor upgrade, you could simply take over some of the Bradleys we have hanging around, but they are significantly more expensive to operate than Strykers.
DeleteEarly Bradley models were equipped with a water barrier, which was erected by the crew before entering the water – a procedure that takes about 30 minutes (by doctrine). Later models have an inflatable pontoon, which fits on the front and sides of the vehicle. This pontoon is inflated in about 15 minutes, and is continuously pressurized during water operations. The pontoon is compartmentalized to provide protection against sinking in the event of rupture of the pontoon. Water propulsion is provided by tracks which propel the vehicle at about 4 MPH max.
You'll see the Army get really serious about a "pivot to the Pacific" when Bradley crews start training on amphibious operations, something I've never seen in my career.
The "amphibious" mode of the bradley was a perilous task to crewmembers when the bradley was initially tested. It didn't work.
Delete30 some years later, and now with the bradley weighing 30 tons with far more protection than its first iteration, amphibious capability is a physical impossibility.
If the army was serious about "pivot in the pacific", it would re-field reburbished M113s and the M8 Buford, something its never going to do, unfortunately. Yes, those vehicles, in order to accomodate amphibious capability, will have far less protection than when they have the added armor providing 30mm protection. That is something the Army will have to deal with, as soon as they tell mothers inc. to STFU and accept the fact that just adding armor is not a solution to many problems. COIN operations allowed us the luxury of doing this. Pacific war WONT.
The Stryker, in its current form, is NOT C130 transportable. and never will be quite frankly. C130 airborne operations is something of an anathema to the army, even though its a capability that has been castrated since the end of the Cold War that the army desperately needs.
Finally, some people see the obvious. Stryker with some modifications is the best solution for the USMC. Lets be honest, no 8X8 vehicle is capable to swim like AAV-7. No matter what the contractors say, that's impossible.
ReplyDeleteFor a smaller Cost, USMC could Buy NEXTER VBCI... Ok, I get out...
ReplyDeleteyou can't beat free Fabsther. these vehicles would come from storage or from Army stock.
DeleteWhat, your country already store them ???????????? WTF ! 500 of them stored ?
DeleteAs the Army transitions to Double V Hulled Strykers the older Flat Bottomed Stryker hulls are essentially "free" to the USMC if they choose to go that route. They use the same power pack as the MTV family of vehicles, although other options are available.
Delete88 Strykers per Infantry BN, 3 Infantry BNs per Stryker Brigade, plus a RSTA BN with about 66 Strykers. The Army is looking to upgrade more than one Brigade to DVH configuration, so 500 hulls wouldn't be a huge stretch. Not all of them would be ICVs though, but I don't think that is a deal breaker.
The best idea at this point.
ReplyDeleteThe Marines always did this, took Army gear and cast offs and used them the Stryker will do the job until something better comes along and commonality will make it cheaper.
I get it that getting better armor fast is a priority but flat bottom Strykers, really? GD's entry has all of the awesome features about current Strykers but it can carry 12 war-fighters (according to GD), has a double v-hull (a necessity), can swim, and likely has greater lethality than analog Strykers. Why settle, especially when they have already settled for the AAV "Upgrade Program"? Really?
ReplyDeletehow do you know that? i've been scouring the internet for open source material on all the competitors including GD's and i can find nothing. i even had an inside source that fed me a few tidbits but he/she has gone silent. but the bigger issue is budget. Amos dicked around for four years, basically ignored the program, revived it when the Marines went ape shit about his cancellation and then tried to placate everyone with this nonsense called ACV 1.1 and 1.2.
Deletelong story short, do you believe that the procurement train wreck has been cleared? do you really believe that pressure to buy some jacked up, maintenance heavy, needing to be upgraded F-35's will allow the purchase of a new armored vehicle?
i want to believe that since we have new leadership thats from an infantry background that we can put this house in order. but no matter how much i try i just believe that Amos dug too deep a hole, the F-35 has too much momentum in the Pentagon and that the Marine Corps is going to be screwed for a generation or two.
getting Army Strykers is probably the best that we can do now. it sucks bad but i see nothing that convinces me otherwise.
I got the info from a press release from GD back when all the vehicles were doing water testing.
Deletehttp://www.generaldynamics.com/news/press-releases/detail.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1811=18488
It has to be taken with a grain of salt as it comes direct from GD and no one has seen it but if there is anyone who could get all of it together, i'm inclined to think that it's GD. They have a lot of experience with the platform and especially with integrating v-hulls, the DVH Stryker and Canadian LAV III upgrade proposals were floating around for little bit before the triggers were pulled on them recently.
I totally agree about budget and everything and no, I don't think that it has been worked out at all. I'm not saying I see a way out but it just seems like (and is) such an injustice to have better vehicles so close yet so far. Flat bottom Strykers seem like giving up but I don't think it's there yet, hopefully the new Commandant can clean up some of this mess, the Marines deserve a vehicle that they can have faith in.
---"You might get more buy in from the Air Wing by reminding them the Stryker is C-130 transportable."--- Unfortunately it is not. Only with unsafe flying waivers. And USAF had a 1-time waiver. And in order to move a Stryker 100 miles or so you need 2x C-130s. Especially if you want the Mel Gibson road warrior cage. This takes a long time to go through, but it pretty much explains why we would not want to damn the USMC by giving them Strykers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rig8cE6Z4vo The USMC needs their own, dedicated combat vehicle.
ReplyDeleteisnt there places where wheeled stryker cant go without suffering mobility issues ? the doctrine of USMC, how far inland will they use their Amphibious APC like AAAV ? isnt it better to use these specialized vehicles for it's original purpose and get better armoured APC tracked when they can land it ?
ReplyDeletethat blasted , burned and overturned AAAV still fresh in my mind ...
"As far as making them amphibious. Yeah. Sticking point. I would argue against doing that so we could get the vehicle we want in the future and not be stuck with interim becoming permanent."
ReplyDeleteor the USMC can adopt a vehicle which, in its standard form, is amphibious, like the Patria. The Stryker isn't, which is a problem for the marine corps (and they SHOULD fucking know this). Obviously with additional armor retrofitted, it will lose this amphibious capability, but more flexibility and options are better than fewer. BUT, to GDLS, it would place the Stryker program in a existential crisis because the Patria/Havoc is better in every conceivable way, and lead to many questioning why *that* cannot start replacing the Stryker. Politics.
I dont believe that the Marines will benefit from Strykers. As demonstrated by Army experience, they caused more problems than they solved.
...jesus christ, Amos really fucked the Corps good, thats all I have to say >:(
I'm really curious about your statement "as demonstrated by Army experience." as it seems to lack any personal experience on your part. The Stryker did exactly what it what supposed to do, replace the M113 based formations with a force that is more agile tactically and strategically.
Delete"The Stryker did exactly what it what supposed to do, replace the M113 based formations with a force that is more agile tactically and strategically"
DeleteThe Stryker didnt even meet its base requirement of being C130 transportable and it still isn't (never will be).
Thats not "doing what its supposed to be", that means it should have been grounds for getting the axe.
It replaced a vehicle on the basis that it was supposedly cheaper to operate, yet this has been demonstrably prove false.
and why are you questioning my experience in the manner when all of the Strykers laundry list of issues is one of the most well documented facts in recent history?
Well hell, nobody tell the California Air National Guard. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stryker_MC_unloading_from_C130.jpg
DeleteThe fact that the Stryker isn't C-130 transportable from all runway conditions and has a max range of 850 miles doesn't worry me too much. The 4 day minimum deployment time for a Stryker Brigade is still way faster than an Armor Brigade Combat Team, although it can only be done with C-17s in the mix since there are non Stryker vehicles in an SBCT that cannot be transported by C-130 at all. The point is that if it is a problem on paper, but not a problem in reality, it isn't a problem.
Fuel costs for the M113 are double per mile what they are for a Stryker, so I don't understand the "supposedly" cheaper to operate part. Now that the servicing and maintenance contracts are up, Army mechanics have taken over the maintenance and upkeep, so you can subtract that contracting costs from the equation.
I'm questioning your experience because your opinion without experience is like the nattering of some internet gun noob who has very strong opinions about Mausers and Lee Enfields without ever having handled either. The M113 had abysmal armor, poor situational awareness for crew members and dismounts, and was very slow. The Stryker on the other hand, won't get penetrated by a Dshka, has great situational awareness for crew and dismounts, and is very fast. One Stryker Battalion managed to serve as the QRF for all of Iraq, because they were the only formation that could transit the entire coutnry fast enough to have meaningful significance.
The Army didn't fall into the "perfect" trap the way the USAF has with the F-35. There is never any perfect system, and you need to get to "good enough" and stop throwing money at a problem. This is the reason the Army canceled the Comanche and GCV to throw money back into existing platforms that are working now but still have room to upgrade. We fell into the "perfect" trap with our camoflauge pattern, so it isn't like we have aquisition down pat.
For what it is worth, my experience in Iraq with Strykers has made a huge fan of the platform over the M113. Maybe in a few decades armor technology will allow a vehicle that is as light as a M113, as fast as a Stryker, with the fuel consumption of a HMMWV and the protection of an Abrams. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
"Well hell, nobody tell the California Air National Guard. "
DeleteJesus, ive repeated myself a hundred times over this.
1.) Transporting it within a tiny fraction of the C130's fully loaded transportation distance is NOT meeting the requirements of a vehicle designed for strategic response troops. Not even remotely.
2.) Why did the army constantly change their tune about the C130 transport requirements?
3.) A mortar carrier!? really? Funny how there is no IFV variant or the much loved MGS!
"The fact that the Stryker isn't C-130 transportable from all runway conditions and has a max range of 850 miles doesn't worry me too much."
Your worry is irrelevant. Those were the requirements and it didn't meet them. 0__o and to not worry about not having such a capability is why our airborne troops are in lightly armored humvees. yeah, whatever.
" The point is that if it is a problem on paper, but not a problem in reality, it isn't a problem."
This is some kind of doublespeak for moving the goalposts of the program. Have you seen the fucking reality of the problems with the platform?
"Fuel costs for the M113 are double per mile what they are for a Stryker, so I don't understand the "supposedly" cheaper to operate part."
That is a statistics from GDLS that is highly suspect and has been proven wrong since Strykers have been operating.
"Now that the servicing and maintenance contracts are up, Army mechanics have taken over the maintenance and upkeep"
Not for the Strykers. And you really dont understand DOD contractor roles do you?
I"'m questioning your experience because your opinion without experience is like the nattering of some internet gun noob who has very strong opinions about Mausers and Lee Enfields without ever having handled either."
Likwise, the same can be said about somebody that repeats the talking points from the manufacturer's brochure.
"The M113 had abysmal armor"
In its base model, 7.62 resistance. The M113A3? 12.7mm frontal. There are numerous upgrades of applique armor that place its protection up to 30mm too.
So no, when especially compared to the Stryker, its survivability is no more worse than any other vehicle in service today. using the gasoline engined Vietnam war era model does not cut it.
"poor situational awareness for crew members and dismounts"
Compared to what? the Stryker? and in what way? I've been in both vehicles and this was not the case.
"and was very slow."
LOL I question your experience now.
The M113 is faster than the Bradley and definitely faster than the Stryker cross country. The Stryker has them beat on pavement, which is a big "MEH" when it comes to combat capability.
"The Stryker on the other hand, won't get penetrated by a Dshka,"
Neither will the 113 in modern configuration.
"One Stryker Battalion managed to serve as the QRF for all of Iraq, because they were the only formation that could transit the entire coutnry fast enough to have meaningful significance."
In what year? 2005?
"The Army didn't fall into the "perfect" trap the way the USAF has with the F-35. There is never any perfect system, and you need to get to "good enough" and stop throwing money at a problem."
Well tell the army to stop doing that with the Stryker LOL
"For what it is worth, my experience in Iraq with Strykers has made a huge fan of the platform over the M113."
My experienced in afghanistan were preferential towards tracked vehicles. Different terrain types, different requirements: as i have always argued, get both.
To conclude my point to begin with: Stryker acquisition to the Marine Corps is foolish given the limitations of the family of vehicles and the fact that there is a better vehicle available for Marine Corps requirements.
You keep referring to on paper requirements. If you are too stupid to understand that you can't get everything on a wish list without breaking the budget (see the F-35, which modified the "supercruise" definition of 5th Gen) then go smoke another one.
Delete2006-2007, during "the surge."
As far as "seeing the fucking reality of the platform" yes I've seen it. In Iraq and in Afghanistan. Have you actually "fucking seen it?" Or are you just flapping your pie hole based on crap you read on the internet?
The M113 being faster than a Bradley is a pointless point. A Bradley can kill a M113 from over 3.75 kilometers away, even with 30mm add on armor on the M113.
If you really want M113s, there are plenty in the boneyard, the newest ones with hulls made in 2006. Feel free to lobby to have the USMC get those. They use more fuel, have less situational awarness, and abysmal CIED performance. But they'll float, so they have that going for them. Makes you wonder why the M113 was never adopted by the USMC, doesn't it?
But I predict that the USMC will not adopt the M113. They've had the chance to do that since the 1960s and have never done it.
let me add this. if we're going to use the M113 we might as well be happy with the AAV. they're both old tech and have been modernized but are still lacking. additionally the maintenance requirments with tracks is a sight to behold. question. which would you rather do? bust track or change a tire? give me a tire any day of the week and twice on sunday. which engine is more cost effective? give me something that has parts commonality so stocks are full and i don't have to cannibalize one vehicle to fix another. and if that isn't enough, give me something that the Army is using so when i run out i can make a call over to their shop and get it sent over...even if the body is different, if the internal widgets are the same then i'm saving money for Marine specific gear that i need.
DeleteFirst and foremost, AM brought up the M113, not me. Nowhere did I suggest the marine corps should adopt it. Like the Army, the Marine Corps would benefit greatly from having BOTH tracked and wheeled vehicles. The argument of "tracks vs wheels" is a false dichotomy that everybody else but the US Military is refusing to take part in because is erroneous.
Delete"You keep referring to on paper requirements."
WHICH IS FUCKING IMPORTANT, NO? I mean jesus christ on a fucking palm tree /face palm/
"If you are too stupid to understand that you can't get everything on a wish list without breaking the budget (see the F-35, which modified the "supercruise" definition of 5th Gen) then go smoke another one"
Then you move on and find/develop a vehicle that can, especially since airborne transport capability is absolutely critical for america's strategic response forces and the raison d'etre behind the entire Stryker Brigade Combat Team concept to begin with.
"As far as "seeing the fucking reality of the platform" yes I've seen it. In Iraq and in Afghanistan. Have you actually "fucking seen it?" Or are you just flapping your pie hole based on crap you read on the internet?"
Why are you choosing to attack me personally? because I dont agree with you? I've seen them get mauled badly in BOTH theatres, in addition to other vehicles ill-suited for counter-insurgency operations. I've worked alongside Stryker troopers, where I learned of the limitations of the family of vehicles. The pattern of the entire program's history in real-world conditions paints a far different picture than Stryker fanboys and GDLS would like to paint, but whatever.
"The M113 being faster than a Bradley is a pointless point. A Bradley can kill a M113 from over 3.75 kilometers away, even with 30mm add on armor on the M113."
Well, gee, way to move the goalposts there. I thought that sentence was addressing speed?
You are trying to compare the vehicle killing prowess of the Bradley IFV (stabilized 25mm, TOW, 7.62 coax) with the M113A3 APC (typically M2 50 cal with no stabilization). Apples and oranges.
"But I predict that the USMC will not adopt the M113"
And I agree with this. The M113 is pretty much buried for good. There are better vehicles available for the role of APC.
Like I said, my hypothesis about the hypothetical Marine Corps usage of the Havoc/AMV is that its value as a far more cost effective/flexible vehicle will be discovered, which would lead the army to questioning the wisdom behind continuing to use the Stryker.
"and if that isn't enough, give me something that the Army is using so when i run out"
Which should have been done decades ago. From armored vehicle power packs to uniforms and plate carriers.
The Stryker is faster than the M113 that it replaced. It has better armor than the M113 that it replaced. It has better situational awareness than the M113 that it replaced. It costs less than half as much to operate per mile as the M113 it replaced.
DeleteYour only real point is that the 1,000 mile transport by C-130 requirement was never met, because the Stryker maxes out at 850 miles transport by C-130. It takes one C-130 to 21 trips to transport a Companies worth of Strikers. It takes a C-17 6, and that includes all the Soldiers in that company as well. It takes an Anatov 225 only two trips...
Let me put this another way, there is no replacement for the M113 that can meet all the requirements for armor, speed, and deployability on the wish list the Army put together. At least not with 1990s technology that was available for the interim wheeled brigade concept back when GEN Shinseki spearheaded the effort.
You think that there are better options out there for the USMC. I do not disagree with that. What I am pointing out is that all of those options are cost prohibitive. Stryker hulls basically free for the taking, verses yet another round of "vehicle trials" that the USMC will do to replace the AAV and then just decide on another round of lifecycle upgrades to the AAV?
How many rifle trials has the Army conducted and still ended up doing product improvement on the M4? HK416, FN Scar, XM8?
Right now the USMC has M1 tanks and AAVs. That is not a good tactical mix for land operations. We saw that when the USMC got bogged down trying to keep up with the Sledgehammer Brigade moving into Bagdhdad in 2003. The USMC doesn't have a real "fighting vehicle" for the Infantry. The Stryker platform would add that capability and allow for fast moving combat formations built around the combined arms team concept. The Abrams isn't amphibious, isn't C-130 transportable, and has no replacement available because even the Army is just going through the continual upgrade process instead of designing new armor (and we have thousands of Abrams hulls sitting in "wartime reserve mode" around the world).
It isn't a perfect solution, but it is something the USMC can do now for relatively low cost. If the USMC wants to upgrade the hulls with the Piranha III amphibious capability, that is an option too (although it costs more money).
The Gods of the Copybook Headings will not be denied.
The Army got smart on engine components. The Stryker uses the Cat C7 engine. The same engine we use in our MTV trucks across all formations. For what it is worth the M113's latest round of modernizations used the same C7 system. The "modular Army" has been looking for parts commonality whenever possible.
ReplyDeleteThe USMC used the Bradley power pack and torsion bar systems for the latest round of AAV upgrades, so that provides some "economies of scale" across formations too.