Interim Armored Vehicle

Last updated
Interim Armored Vehicles arrive at Fort Lewis for the 3rd Brigade, 2d Infantry Division, Interim Brigade Combat Team c. 2003 Interim Armored Vehicle handover.jpg
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), previously known as the Medium Armored Vehicle (MAV), 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.

Contents

Shinseki's Army

In a June 1999 communique, U.S. Army Chief of Staff General 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 its 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]

Proposals

The Army conducted a Platform Performance Demonstration at Fort Knox in January 2000. The demonstration was intended to inform the Army about what was available as well as assess each vehicle’s adaptability to the new brigades and their potential for the insertion of new technology to improve its capabilities. Vehicles assessed included the Pandur the M1117, the LAV III and LAV III assault gun variant, the Dragoon APC, the Bionix 25, the LAV 300 Mark II, the 6x6 Véhicule de l'Avant Blindé, the TPz Fuchs, the GDLS Dragoon, the Mobile Tactical Vehicle Light and the M8 Armored Gun System. [3]

Commonality between vehicles was seen as a desired, but not essential characteristic. [4] As of February 2000, the Army believed that most of the Medium Armored Vehicle variants would be based on the infantry carrier vehicle variant. The mobile gun system and howitzer variants would be permitted to share less commonality. [5] In March 2000, the Army confirmed it would award up to two contracts. [6] In February, Major General John Caldwell had said the Army would only award one contract, rather than splitting the contract among two winners. [7] In April, Shinseki said the Army had no preference of wheeled versus tracks but said "management could be pretty challenging," if both wheeled and tracked options were chosen. [8]

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. [9] The U.S. Army outfitted the unit with LAV IIIs borrowed from Canada, [10] which served as the main surrogate for the IAV. Others included the Lynx, TPz Fuchs, B1 Centauro and M113. [11]

In April 2000, the Army released its request for proposals for the IAV. [12]

A United Defense AGS rolls off a C-130 for the IAV platform performance demonstration at Fort Knox circa December 1999 Armored Gun System Platform Performance Demonstration.jpg
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 Bionix 25 Platform Performance Demonstration.jpg
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 Mobile Tactical Vehicle Light Platform Performance Demonstration.jpg
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. [18]

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. [19] In its decision, the Army cited the LAV's greater mobility, particularly its high speed on paved roads. [20] The Army was also impressed by the LAV's armor which, in its baseline configuration, could resist 14.5 mm rounds. [21]

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." [19]

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 Shinseki, who pressed GM–GDLS to hasten their work. [19]

GAO's decision denying United Defense's protest in the IAV contract Interim Armored Vehicle GAO decision.pdf
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. [22]

The GAO denied UDLP's protest of the award in April 2001. [23]

In February 2002, the Army formally renamed the IAV as the "Stryker" after two unrelated U.S. soldiers who posthumously received the Medal of Honor: Private First Class Stuart S. Stryker, who died in World War II, and Specialist Four Robert F. Stryker, who died in the Vietnam War. [24]

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. [25]

Planned buys as of December 2000: [26]

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. [27]

In September 2002, the Army conducted a Congressionally mandated side-by-side testing of the M113A3 and the Stryker. [28]

Stryker crews operated more effectively in the Stryker. Interior space was less restricted in the Stryker. The quieter ride allowed crews to 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. [28]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">XM2001 Crusader</span> American 155 mm self propelled artillery project

The XM2001 Crusader was to be the United States Army's next-generation self-propelled howitzer (SPH), designed to improve the survivability, lethality, mobility, and effectiveness of the artillery as well as the overall force. It was initially scheduled for fielding by 2008. United Defense was the prime contractor; General Dynamics the major subcontractor. In early May 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld canceled the US$11 billion program because he considered it neither mobile nor precise enough. The prototype SPH vehicle is on display at the cannon park at Fort Sill.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stryker</span> American family of wheeled armored fighting vehicles

The Stryker is a family of eight-wheeled armored fighting vehicles derived from the Canadian LAV III. Stryker vehicles are produced by General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada (GDLS-C) for the United States Army in a plant in London, Ontario. It has four-wheel drive (8×4) and can be switched to all-wheel drive (8×8).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">G7 howitzer</span> Towed howitzer

The G7 is a South African 105 mm howitzer, produced by Denel Land Systems (DLS). With a maximum range of 32 km (20 mi) it outranges all existing 105 mm howitzers, as well as most current 155 mm howitzers. During development, it was known as the Light Experimental Ordnance (LEO), with the G7 label being chosen later to fit in with Denel's two existing howitzer products, the G5 towed 155 mm howitzer and the G6 self-propelled 155 mm howitzer.

General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) is a manufacturer of military vehicles such as tanks and lighter armored fighting vehicles.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LAV III</span> Canadian wheeled armored personnel carrier

The LAV III is the third generation of the Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV) family of armored personnel carriers built by General Dynamics Land Systems – Canada (GDLS-C), a London, Ontario, based subsidiary of General Dynamics. It first entered service in 1999, succeeding the LAV II. It is the primary mechanized infantry vehicle of both the Canadian Army and the New Zealand Army. It also forms the basis of the Stryker vehicle used by the U.S. Army and other operators. The Canadian Army is upgrading its LAV IIIs to the LAV 6 standard. Early in its development history it was referred to as the 'Kodiak', but the name was never officially adopted.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LAV-25</span> Reconnaissance vehicle

The LAV-25 is a member of the LAV II family. It is an eight-wheeled amphibious armored reconnaissance vehicle built by General Dynamics Land Systems and used by the United States Marine Corps and the United States Army.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brigade combat team</span> Basic deployable unit of maneuver in the U.S. Army

The brigade combat team (BCT) is the basic deployable unit of maneuver in the U.S. Army. A brigade combat team consists of one combat arms branch maneuver brigade, and its assigned support and fire units. A brigade is normally commanded by a colonel (O-6) although in some cases a brigadier general (O-7) may assume command. A brigade combat team contains combat support and combat service support units necessary to sustain its operations. BCTs contain organic artillery training and support, received from the parent division artillery (DIVARTY). There are three types of brigade combat teams: infantry, Stryker, and armored.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">M8 Armored Gun System</span> American light tank

The M8 Armored Gun System (AGS), sometimes known as the Buford, is an American light tank that was intended to replace the M551 Sheridan and TOW missile-armed Humvees in the 82nd Airborne Division and 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment of the U.S. Army respectively.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">M1128 Mobile Gun System</span> American eight-wheeled assault gun Stryker variant

The M1128 Mobile Gun System (MGS) is an eight-wheeled assault gun of the Stryker family, mounting a 105 mm tank gun, based on the Canadian LAV III light-armored vehicle manufactured by General Dynamics Land Systems for the U.S. Army.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">M1134 Anti-Tank Guided Missile Vehicle</span> American armored fighting vehicle Stryker variant

M1134 Anti-Tank Guided Missile Vehicle is a U.S. anti-tank missile carrier that is an armored fighting vehicle from the Stryker family of vehicles. As the primary tank destroyer system of the US Army's Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT), the M1134 ATGM Vehicle reinforces the SBCT's infantry battalions, reinforces the SBCT reconnaissance squadron and provides long-range direct fire. Models with the double V-hull upgrade are known as the M1253 ATVV.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles</span> Tracked armored fighting vehicles

The Manned Ground Vehicles (MGV) was a family of lighter and more transportable ground vehicles developed by BAE Systems and General Dynamics as part of the U.S. Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. The MGV program was intended as a successor to the Stryker of the Interim Armored Vehicle program.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">M551 Sheridan replacement process</span> Competition of United States Army

The Armored Gun System (AGS) was a U.S. Army competition in the 1990s to design a light tank to replace the M551 Sheridan and TOW-equipped HMMWVs. It was the ultimate incarnation of several research programs run in the 1970s with the aim of providing air-mobile light infantry forces with the firepower needed to last in the battlefield.

The Armored Systems Modernization (ASM) was a U.S. Army combat vehicle procurement program canceled in 1992. The Army sought to develop a family of six armored vehicles based on two common chassis, one heavy and one medium, which would both share commonalities. Systems that the ASM sought to replace included the M1 Abrams main battle tank, M109 howitzer and M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. The Army spun out several of the systems—Advanced Field Artillery System, Line-of-Sight Anti-Tank and the Armored Gun System—after canceling the program, but all of these programs were eventually canceled.

The Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) is a United States Army program intended to procure a variety of armored vehicles to add new capabilities to Army units and replace existing platforms that are nearing the end of their service life. The program covers the following systems:

The Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV) is a series of armoured vehicles built by General Dynamics Land Systems – Canada (GDLS-C), a London, Ontario-based subsidiary of General Dynamics. It is a license-produced version of the Mowag Piranha. The LAV family came about from the Armoured Vehicle General Purpose (AVGP) requirement of the Canadian Army. The first generation of LAV was created by Mowag for the Armoured Vehicle General Purpose (AVGP) requirement of the Canadian Army. This was a 6x6 variant of the Piranha I produced by General Motors Diesel in London, Ontario. Since entering service in 1976, it has undergone a number of upgrades. The LAV II introduced the now-familiar 8x8 configuration. The LAV continues to form the backbone of the Canadian Army's combat vehicle fleet. The LAV series of vehicles exist in a number of different variants and are used in a number of different roles such as armoured personnel carriers, engineering vehicles, command posts, ambulances and armoured recovery vehicles.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mobile Protected Firepower</span> Program of United States Army

The Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) is a U.S. Army program to procure a combat vehicle that is capable of providing mobile protected direct offensive fire capability. The projected vehicle has been designated the M10 Booker, and will according to description essentially serve the role of an assault gun.

The M10 Booker is an armored vehicle that is intended to support our Infantry Brigade Combat Teams by suppressing and destroying fortifications, gun systems and trench routes, and then secondarily providing protection against enemy armored vehicles.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Future Scout and Cavalry System/TRACER</span> US/British armored reconnaissance vehicle

The American Future Scout and Cavalry System (FSCS) and British Tactical Reconnaissance Armoured Combat Equipment Requirement (TRACER) were a joint U.S.–British reconnaissance vehicle program.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">M35 (tank gun)</span> U.S. weapon developed early 1980s

The M35, known during development as the EX35 and XM35, is an American 105 mm caliber low-recoil tank gun.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">M10 Booker</span> American armored fighting vehicles

The M10 Booker is an armored fighting vehicle under development by General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) for the United States Army, developed from the GDLS Griffin II armored fighting vehicle as the winner of its Mobile Protected Firepower program in June 2022. The initial contract is for 96 low rate initial production (LRIP) vehicles, with first delivery by the end of 2023.

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". Inside the Army. Vol. 11, no. 25. Inside Washington Publishers. pp. 1, 6–8. JSTOR   43984647 . Retrieved 7 February 2022.
  2. 1 2 3 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. Clemons, Jon (March–April 2000). "Soldiers Try Out Medium Armor In Fort Knox Demonstrations" (PDF). (United States Army Armor School. No. Vol. CIX, No. 2. U.S. Army Armor Center. Retrieved 20 January 2023.
  4. Baumgardner, Neil (3 December 1999). "Commonality Not an Absolute Must for MAVs, Army Officials Say". Defense Daily. Vol. 204, no. 42. Access Intelligence. Retrieved 18 January 2023.
  5. Baumgardner, Neil (2 February 2000). "Army Agrees to Evaluate Alternative MAV Acquisition Strategy". Defense Daily. Vol. 205, no. 20. Access Intelligence. Retrieved 18 January 2023.
  6. Baumgardner, Neil (10 March 2000). "Army Opens Possibility of Multiple IAV Awards". Defense Daily. Vol. 205, no. 46. Access Intelligence. Retrieved 15 January 2023.
  7. "Caldwell Reaffirms Single Contract Strategy for IAV Program". 22 February 2000. Vol. 205, no. 33. Access Intelligence. 22 February 2000. Retrieved 15 January 2023.
  8. Wolfe, Frank (26 April 2000). "Shinseki: Wheeled/Tracked Battalion Would Require More Management". Defense Daily. Vol. 206, no. 18. Access Intelligence. Retrieved 15 January 2023.
  9. 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.
  10. Baumgardner, Neil (2 December 1999). "U.S. Army to Borrow LAV IIIs From Canadian Army". Defense Daily. Vol. 204, no. 41. Access Intelligence. Retrieved 18 January 2023.
  11. 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.
  12. Baumgardner, Neil (10 April 2000). "Army Releases IAV RFP". Defense Daily. Vol. 206, no. 6. Access Intelligence. Retrieved 15 January 2023.
  13. 1 2 3 4 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.
  14. 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.
  15. "General Motors Trumpets General Dynamics Deal For Meeting IAV Requirements". Defense Daily. Vol. 207, no. 44. Access Intelligence. 1 September 2000. Retrieved 15 January 2023.
  16. 1 2 3 "United Defense Touts Production Readiness, Deployability For IAV Competition". Defense Daily. Vol. 208, no. 6. Access Intelligence. 10 October 2000. Retrieved 15 January 2023.
  17. 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.
  18. 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. pp. 1, 11. JSTOR   43984843 . Retrieved 6 February 2022.
  19. 1 2 3 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.
  20. 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.
  21. Burger, Kim (11 December 2000). "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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. Marcia, Triggs (April 2002). "Army names interim armored vehicle "Stryker". (Army)". Defense Daily. Vol. 78, no. 3. Access Intelligence. Retrieved 18 January 2023.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 1 2 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.