Temporary file: gg-021006xxx.docPage 1 of 45

Army Leadership and the Stryker Armored Car

Program have failed ‘Army Transformation’

Don Loughlin; 9 October 2002; File: gg-021006a.doc

(Earlier title: "The ‘Shinseki Transformation Initiative’ -- is a fiasco."

DJL File: gg-020213E.doc

This is an update on the earlier report. Part ‘A,’ Addendum, below, contains new
information not available when the earlier report was released in May 2002

PART ‘A’. ADDENDUM Begins on Page 2

# / Section: / Page / References
1. / Introduction and Background / 2 / A, B, C
2. / Rigged Wargames / 3 / D
3. / Stryker Failures / 3 / ------
a. The Stryker is not deployable
by C-130 aircraft / 3 / E, F, G, H
b. Stryker Test Failures / 5 / F, I
c. Mobile Gun System problems / 5 / J, K, L, H, M
d. MGS Conclusions ------/ 6 / ------
4. / Cost Overruns / 6 / N, O
5. / Side-by-side tests, M113 vs Stryker / 7 / P, Q, E
6. / Recommendations / 8 / ------
7. / References to Addendum * / 9 / A to Q

*A URL is provided in Section 8 for practically all References. That will allow the reader to quickly find and read the entire Reference cited, if desired.

For References without a URL, my file number is usually given, beginning with ‘gg-02______.xxx. I can send the file by email if requested to do so.

Page 11 of 45

PARTB. ORIGINAL "TABLE OF CONTENTS"

(Contents slightly revised)

Part B had the earlier title: "The ‘Shinseki Transformation Initiative’ -- is a fiasco."

Section: …………………………………………………………………. / Page / Exhibits
A. Introduction / 13
B. The original story ………………………………………………….. / 13 / 1-3
C. Rationale for the fiasco / 13
D. The evidence: ……………………………………………………….. / 14
1. The need for C-130 deployability was met long ago / 14 / 4
2. Wheeled armored vehicles do not have the tactical mobility claimed / 14 / 5
a. Background of the fiasco: From Section A.3.b. / 15 / 6.1-6.3, 7
b. 1998 Strategic Studies Institute, AWC report: From Sect. A.3.c. / 16
c. False claims re: Wheels vs. Tracks: From A.3.c.(5) / 16
3. The Army is not buying off-the-shelf LAV-IIIs, …………………...
and the LAV-III is not deployable by C-130 / 17
a. The requirement is that the IAV must be off-the-shelf and C-130 deployable. / 17 / 8 - 13
b. The LAV-III is not C-130 transportable / 18 / 14 - 19
c. The Army is not buying off-the-shelf LAV-IIIs / 23 / 20 - 22
d. System Integration issues / 25
4. Independent evidence of Tracks vs. Wheels ……………………… / 27
a. The FSCS / TRACER program
b. Army in Transformation – The Wheeled Versus Tracked Question / 27
28 / 23
24

Page 12 of 45

c. Army Science Board Studies. (ASB) / 28 / 25
d. Closer Review … Wheels Not More Reliable Than Tracks / 29 / 26
E. Mandatory side-by-side testing of IAV vs M113………………….. / 30
1. Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 4205," 6 October 2000 / 30 / 27
2. Santorum-Lieberman Letter to Rumsfeld, 21 March 2001. / 31 / 28
3. Army leaders wanted to cancel the field evaluation. / 31 / 29
4. Current status of the CE test issue. / 33
F. The GAO ruling against UD/LP’s protest ………………………… / 33 / 30-34
G. The Ft. Knox Platform Performance Demo / 34 / 35
H. The Retirement of LTG Heebner ………………………………….. / 35 / 36
I. "Calendar of Events" / 36
J. Why the fiasco? ……………………………………………………… / 39 / 37-40
K. Exhibits / 40
L. Disclaimer …………………………………………………………… / 45