The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - January 8, 2009

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest

Advertisement



New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies

Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Armor Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Did the greater Yellowstone caldera just erupt.....
longrifle    8/3/2008 3:31:04 AM
.....or was that sound just Mike Sparks exploding:



Army asks to start retiring M113, Fox vehicles

By Kris Osborn - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Jul 22, 2008 12:59:13 EDT

The Army plans to retire the Fox reconnaissance vehicle and M113 Armored Personnel Carrier, replacing them with Stryker and Bradley fighting vehicles, service documents say.

The 111 20-ton Fox vehicles in the fleet, which will reach the end of their useful life by 2012, will be replaced by the Stryker Nuclear Biological, Chemical and Reconnaissance Vehicle, according to a June PowerPoint presentation titled ?PDM II Combat and Tactical Vehicle Strategy.?

PDM stands for program decision memorandum, documents designed to plan budgets and strategy for acquisition programs. A copy was obtained by Defense News, a sister publication of Army Times.

The 6,000 M113s are ?not suitable for an era of persistent conflict? due to ?survivability shortfalls and space, power, weight constraints.?

The documents refer to a ?unit burden? calculus to measure a vehicle?s ability to sustain and survive threats and rigorous terrain on the battlefield. ?All alternatives [referring to Bradley, Stryker, JLTV, FCS vehicles] have better reliability than the M113,? the documents say.

The retirements of the Fox and M113 will begin immediately, if the Army?s plan is approved by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England and the Pentagon comptroller after it is presented.

?By 1 Aug., 2008, the director PA & E will evaluate the expected costs and benefits of the proposed strategy and of alternative strategies,? the PDM said.

The M113s in 15 heavy brigade combat teams would be replaced with 1,455 Strykers and 240 Bradleys, while the ones in Echelons Above Brigade, units higher than brigade combat teams such as the division or corps level, will be replaced with 2,471 Strykers, the PDM says.

Retiring the M113s will save the Army at least $691 million through 2030 in operational and maintenance costs, according to the service?s analysis of its gas efficiency, electricity and power requirements. It costs the Army $38.20 to drive an M113 one mile, more than double the $14 figure for the Stryker.

Newer vehicles are also designed to require less maintenance and fewer specialized parts.

?One of our watchwords is commonality, as we move forward with our vehicle integration strategy,? said Army spokesman Lt. Col. Martin Downie. ?We?re very aware of the need to reduce the number of repair parts in the maintenance stream and to simplify the process whenever we can.?

Adding 981 Strykers to the current 3,117 will cost $11 billion, or $1.8 billion per year from 2010 to 2015, the PDM said.

The M113 plan is part of the Army?s response to the November order to map out its vehicle plans issued by England and the Pentagon comptroller?s office.

Army analysis indicated Strykers and the yet-to-arrive FCS Manned-Ground Vehicles are best able meet the most missions, which include command-and-control, general-purpose, ambulance, mortar and infantry-carrier roles.

The Bradley was close behind, cited as being able to perform general-purpose, armored medical evacuation and command-post missions.

The least versatile vehicle outlined on the chart was the M997 Humvee ambulance.

?The Humvee Ambulance will not be procured due to survivability limitations,? the PDM says.

Stryker, JLTV, Bradley, FCS MGVs and MRAPs are all listed as having superior ambulance capabilities. Existing M977s will be moved from heavy brigade combat teams to infantry brigade combat teams.
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

doggtag    (sigh...)   8/3/2008 12:34:09 PM
Wow,
where did these PDM writers learn their math?
 
"Adding 981 Strykers to the current 3,117 will cost $11 billion, or $1.8 billion per year from 2010 to 2015, the PDM said. "
 
Yet just a few paragraphs above that...
 
"The M113s in 15 heavy brigade combat teams would be replaced with 1,455 Strykers and 240 Bradleys, while the ones in Echelons Above Brigade, units higher than brigade combat teams such as the division or corps level, will be replaced with 2,471 Strykers, the PDM says."
The 1,455 Strykers to replace M113s in the 15 HBCTs,
plus the 2,471 Strykers for the EABs,
that adds up to 3,926.
Not the 981 mentioned later.
 
Where again is that money supposed to come from?
How exactly does replacing an already-manufactured M113, based on its anticipated/estimated maintenance life cycle costs thru 2030 or whenever, plus its costs per mile of use,
how does that even get close to the costs of a new Stryker, plus figure in what a new Stryker will cost a few more years down the road (for a majority of complex military systems, there are no economies-of-scale rate discounts for bulk orders), and taking into effect also the Stryker's cost per mile for use thru the same 2030 timeframe?
(sounds like someone's cherry-picking data and figures to support their end of the argument, but not offering up the full cost disclosures of everything else that, more than likely, work against them...)
 
Someone please show us all the numbers on this one.
Because I just don't see the Army being able to get upwards of $24B for those almost 4,000 more new-build Strykers (and I'm being frugal at suggesting ~$6M a piece),
not if it also wants umpteen billion for several BCTs of FCS vehicles.
Because, those 981 Strykers for $11B- can we get that etched in stone- that breaks down to about $11.2M per vehicle just thru 2015. How much more will those vehicles cost thru 2030?
And at ~$11.2M per vehicle, then those 3,926 vehicles comes closer to $43.97B, yes, with a B. Is that then including their operational lifetime costs thru 2030, or is that solely just the cost of off-the-production-line vehicles?
 
Let alone, where does the money come from for 240 more Bradleys?
Supplemental funding covers battlefield losses,
and with the majority of older basic- and early-model hulls already having been sent off to the depots for refurb'ing to newer standards, those 200+ plus Bradleys are going to haver to be new builds also...at how much $$$?
 
Looks as if the Army is soon going to be in for a rude procurement awakening just as the USAF and USN are currently "enjoying".
What do we do then when all these Stryker proponents get their wish, but in the process Congress decides that the Army isn't going to get sufficient money then for funding multiple BCTs of  FCS vehicles?
Does the Army play the same card that the USN is now playing with the DDG1000, and merely do a 180 and suggest, "we don't really need the FCS anyway, we can just roll some of the offshoots into the current fleet" ?
 
Abrams, Bradleys, even Paladins, they all have resets & upgrades in the works to see them thru 2040, easy.
Pushing for more money for more Strykers just to satisfy whoever's d*ck-waving about the M113s being useless and a maintenance nightmare, is more likely going to drain money from other projects, not just whatever funds would've been allocated just to care for the M113 fleet.
 
What programs are the Army willing to sacrifice, in addition to the entire M113 fleet and its logistics chain, to cover the costs associated with almost 4,000 more Strykers (and however many more new build or refurb'ed Bradleys)?
And how long is it going to take to phase out all those M113s, and their logistics-common vehicles and supply chains, and replace them with Stryker variants and Bradleys?
Are those units awaiting vehicle replacement supposed to wait in limbo, in non-mission-capable status, waiting for their new Strykers, because someone suggested it'll save more money (but not necessarily lives) in the long run?
(yet again, it seems bureaucratis bean counters are looking for short-term money saving schemes, and they're not really weighing cost expenditures for implementation over the long run as compared to their suggested cost savings.)
 
(I couldn't care either way really, because by 2030 I'll either be dead or retired, but I am concerned with what programs will be offered up as sacrificial lambs to procure all those Strykers...)
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy