Jump to content

Interim Armored Vehicle

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Schierbecker (talk | contribs) at 01:31, 15 August 2022 (→Proposals: Bionix pic). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Interim Armored Vehicles arrive at Fort Lewis for the 3rd Brigade, 2d Infantry Division, Interim Brigade Combat Team c. 2003

The Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV) was a U.S. Army armored fighting vehicle acquisition program. General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) and General Motors Defense proposed a vehicle based on the LAV III. The Army selected the LAV III proposal over three other submissions. The LAV III was renamed Stryker.

In a June 1999 communique, Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki said "our heavy forces are too heavy and our light forces lack staying power." He called for heavy units to be "more strategically deployable, and more agile with a smaller footprint, and light forces must be more lethal, survivable, and tactically mobile."[1]

In remarks at Association of the United States Army meeting in October, Shinseki laid out his vision for a lighter, more transportable force. He called for a mid-weight unit that would strike a balance between heavy armor and infantry. Shinseki said such a unit would be especially capable for operations short of war. The Army was to do this by investing in an interim fleet that would herald the way to a much more advanced subsequent generation of vehicles (later called Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles).[2]

Shinseki said one of his goals was to reduce the service's logistics footprint, which makes up 90 percent of the it's lift requirement. He expected to make this possible by building future fighting vehicles on a common chassis and using mutually compatible ammunition. He proposed that these vehicles be light enough for intra-theater airlift via C-130. He expected that the generation of vehicles after its next fleet would be wheeled, which would be up to 70 percent lighter than the interim fleet.[2]

The technology for Shinseki's desired force was not expected to be ready until beyond 2010. In the interim, Shinseki sought to bring a prototype unit, using commercial off-the-shelf technologies, online by the end of the fiscal year.[2]

The 3rd Infantry Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, a heavy brigade at Fort Lewis, became the first to be converted into a Stryker Brigade beginning around March 2000.[3] The LAV III served as the main surrogate for the IAV. Others included the Lynx, TPz Fuchs, B1 Centauro and M113.[4]

Proposals

A United Defense AGS rolls off a C-130 for the IAV platform performance demonstration at Fort Knox circa December 1999
A Bionix 25 infantry fighting vehicle mounts a firing ramp at the IAV Platform Performance Demonstration

Four teams submitted proposals:

United Defense MTVL is driven onto a heavy equipment transporter for the IAV platform performance demonstration at Fort Knox circa December 1999

In its evaluations, the Army noted that it found neither the wheeled nor the tracked candidates to have any definitive edge over the other. All else being equal, wheeled vehicles generally have less internal volume. However, the Army found the wheeled submissions had adequate space for its requirements. No significant differences in weight or mobility over terrain were seen.[8]

In November 2000, the Army awarded the IAV contract to GM-GDLS. At $4 billion, the deal was the largest combat vehicle purchase since the Bradley Fighting Vehicle program in 1980.[9] In its decision, the Army cited the LAV's greater mobility, particularly its high speed on paved roads.[10] The Army was also impressed by the LAV's armor which, in its baseline configuration, could resist 14.5 mm rounds.[11]

The service rejected a split buy of the M8 AGS offered by UDPL, citing the system's lower top speed and different maintenance requirements. The service said a single fleet would simplify maintenance and allow units to "move as a fighting unit."[9]

At the same time as the contract award, the Army announced a 16-month schedule slip due to additional development work required on the Mobile Gun System and Fire Support Vehicle. The NBC vehicle also required additional integration work. The schedule slippage displeased Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki, who pressed GM-GDLS to hasten their work.[9]

GAO's decision denying United Defense's protest in the IAV contract

In December 2000, UDPL filed a challenge to the contract award, forcing the Army to issue a stop-work order. In its protest, UDLP said it's vehicles would be ready one to two years earlier at about half the cost of GM-GDLS's proposal. UDLP also alleged that Army officials had unfairly aided GM-GDLS's proposal by permitting the company to substitute its Stryker ATGM variant for the Mobile Gun System variant due to a two-year schedule slippage in the latter.[12]

The GAO denied UDLP's protest of the award in April 2001.[13]

Variants

Army officials proposed a self-propelled howitzer IAV variant. Officials later tabled this idea as this variant would require considerable technological risk and expense. The service settled on M198 howitzer for its artillery requirement, later to be replaced by the M777 howitzer.[14]

Planned buys as of December 2000:[15]

Comparison with Light and Heavy Brigades

In 2000, the Army studied the differences between Light, Medium (Interim) and Heavy Brigade Combat Teams. It concluded that Medium Brigades equipped with LAVs would cost 40 percent less to operate than Heavy Brigades. LAVs were expected to go at least 1000 mean miles between failures, compared to 654 for Heavy Brigades. Medium Brigades were expected to move more quickly and provide greater survivability and firepower than Light Brigades.[16]

In September 2002, the Army conducted a Congressionally mandated side-by-side testing of the M113A3 and the Stryker.[17]

Stryker crews operated more effectively in the Stryker. Interior space was less restricted in the Stryker. The quieter ride allowed crews hold conversations and plan missions. Stryker drivers could sustain longer operations than M113 drivers, who could receive hearing damage after just five hours of continuous operations.[17]

See also

References

  1. ^ Winograd, Erin Q. (28 June 1999). [Intent Letter Says Heavy Forces Are Too Heavy: Shinseki Hints at Restructuring, Aggressive Changes for the Army "Intent Letter Says Heavy Forces Are Too Heavy: Shinseki Hints at Restructuring, Aggressive Changes for the Army"]. Inside the Army. Vol. 11, no. 25. Inside Washington Publishers. pp. 1, 6–8. Retrieved 7 February 2022. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)
  2. ^ a b c MacRae, Catherine (14 October 1999). "Service Wants to Be Lighter, Faster, More Lethal: Army Chief of Staff's 'vision' Is Focused on Medium-weight Force". Inside the Army. Vol. 15, no. 41. Inside Washington Publishers. p. 6. JSTOR 43995956. Retrieved 7 February 2022.
  3. ^ Burger, Kim (2 October 2000). "Rigorous Training Expected to Increase Comfort Level: Brigade Team Soldiers Give Up Tanks, Firepower With 'Hard Feelings'". Inside the Army. Vol. 12, no. 39. Inside Washington Publishers. pp. 1, 11–12. JSTOR 43985046. Retrieved 7 February 2022.
  4. ^ Burger, Kim (2 October 2000). "Brigade Combat Team Has Trained Mostly on LAVS: Soldiers Give Praise for Wheeled, Tracked Vehicles at Ft. Lewis". Inside the Army. Vol. 12, no. 39. Inside Washington Publishers. pp. 1, 11–12. JSTOR 43985049. Retrieved 7 February 2022.
  5. ^ a b c d Burger, Kim (26 June 2000). "VT Kinetics Looks for Foothold in U.S.: Newcomer to Armored Systems Market Offers Tracked Vehicle for IAV". Inside the Army. Vol. 12, no. 25. pp. 4–6. JSTOR 43984833. Retrieved 3 February 2022.
  6. ^ Burger, Kim (12 March 2001). "GM-GDLS Hope to Continue With Army Transformation Effort". Inside the Army. Vol. 13, no. 10. Inside Washington Publishers. p. 9. JSTOR 43985309. Retrieved 6 February 2022.
  7. ^ Burger, Kim (4 December 2000). "Stockpile May Not Be Suitable for New Lav III: Army Preparing to Procure 105 mm Ammunition for New Gun System". Inside the Army. Vol. 12, no. 48. Inside Washington Publishers. pp. 13–14. JSTOR 43985160. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  8. ^ Burger, Kim (17 July 2000). "Performance Evaluation Nearly Complete: Iav Competition Reveals No 'huge Differences' Between Wheels, Tracks". Inside the Army. Vol. 12, no. 28. Inside Washington Publishers. p. 1, 11. JSTOR 43984843. Retrieved 6 February 2022.
  9. ^ a b c Burger, Kim (20 November 2000). "LAV Variants Will Require Some Development: Testing of New Interim Vehicle May Upset Army's Fielding Schedule". Inside the Army. Vol. 12, no. 46. Inside Washington Publishers. pp. 1, 6–7. JSTOR 43985129. Retrieved 6 February 2022.
  10. ^ Burger, Kim (20 November 2000). "Kern Says Vehicle Award Does Not Settle Debate Over Wheels and Tracks". Inside the Army. Vol. 12, no. 46. Inside Washington Publishers. p. 6. JSTOR 43985137. Retrieved 6 February 2022.
  11. ^ Burger, Kim (11 December 2000). [Stable URL https://www.jstor.org/stable/43985163 "UDLP Protests Contract Despite Qualms, Official Says: Army Will Not Override UDLP Protest of IAV, Stop-Work Order Holds"]. Inside the Army. Vol. 12, no. 49. Inside Washington Publishers. pp. 1, 6–8. JSTOR 43985163. Retrieved 6 February 2022. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)
  12. ^ Burger, Kim (15 January 2001). "In-lieu-of Vehicle Helped GM-GDLS Win, Company Says: UDLP Offers Additional Evidence of Army Bias in Favor of LAV III". Inside the Army. Inside Washington Publishers. pp. 1, 6–7. JSTOR 43984265. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  13. ^ Winograd, Erin Q. (7 May 2001). "GAO Releases Redacted Decision: UDLP Won't Pursue Further Action to Overturn Army's IAV Decision". Inside the Army. Vol. 13, no. 18. Inside Washington Publishers. JSTOR 43985396. Retrieved 23 January 2022.
  14. ^ Burger, Kim (3 July 2000). "New units to get towed artillery: ARMY POSTPONES PLANS TO OUTFIT BCTs WITH SELF-PROPELLED HOWITZERS". Inside the Army. Inside Washington Publishers. pp. 1, 5–7. JSTOR 43984843. Retrieved 6 February 2022.
  15. ^ Burger, Kim (4 December 2000). "Lav III Will Require $9 Billion Over Lifetime: Integration of Army Systems Brings Interim Vehicle Cost to $6 Billion". Inside the Army. Vol. 12, no. 48. Inside Washington Publishers. pp. 1, 11–12. JSTOR 43985149. Retrieved 6 February 2022.
  16. ^ Burger, Kim (11 December 2000). "Brigade Teams to Cost 40 Percent Less in O&S Than Heavy Brigades". Inside the Army. Vol. 12, no. 49. Inside Washington Publishers. p. 9. JSTOR 43985173. Retrieved 6 February 2022.
  17. ^ a b Winograd, Erin Q. (13 January 2003). "Congressionally Mandated Report Completed: Army: Armored Vehicle Evaluation Confirms Stryker Is Its Best Option". Inside the Army. Vol. 15, no. 2. Inside Washington Publishers. pp. 1, 8–9. JSTOR 24819853. Retrieved 6 February 2022.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interim_Armored_Vehicle&oldid=1104444700"