Stryker-Future Of Armoured Personal Carriers

[fieldmarshal]

Stryker
Future Of Armoured Personal Carriers
www.army-technology.com/projects/stryker/


BACK GROUND
Stryker is a family of eight-wheel drive combat vehicles, transportable in a C-130 aircraft, built for the US Army by General Dynamics Land Systems - Canada (formerly General Motors Defense) and General Dynamics Land Systems Division of USA. Stryker is based on the GDLS Canada LAV III 8x8 light armoured vehicle, in service since early 2001. The LAV III is itself a version of the Piranha III built by Mowag of Switzerland, now part of GDLS - Europe. Fabrication and final assembly of the vehicles is being shared among plants at Anniston, Alabama; Lima, Ohio; and London, Ontario.
The Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) combines the capacity for rapid deployment with survivability and tactical mobility. The Stryker vehicle enables the team to manoeuvre in close and urban terrain, provide protection in open terrain and transport infantry quickly to critical battlefield positions.
The contract for the US Army's interim armoured vehicle (IAV) was awarded in November 2000. The vehicles form the basis of six Brigade Combat Teams. The contract requirement covers the supply of 2,131 vehicles. Deliveries of Stryker infantry carriers began from General Motors London, Ontario, plant in March and General Dynamics Anniston, Alabama, facility in April 2002. Over 450 vehicles have been delivered and one SBCT has been fielded. The second SBCT will be declared operational in late summer 2004 and the third will begin receiving vehicles in May 2004. The eight-wheeled Stryker is the first new military vehicle to enter service into the United States Army since the Abrams tank in the 1980s.
Initial Operational Test and Evaluation began in May 2003 with the Arrowhead Lightning II exercise. In November 2003, the Stryker entered operational service with the US Army, when a Stryker brigade landed in Kuwait. Stryker brigades are deployed in Iraq and a Stryker vehicle first entered combat in December 2003.

VARIANTS
Stryker variants include the Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV) and the Mobile Gun System (MGS). There are eight configurations of the ICV including Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBC RV); Anti-Tank Guided Missile (ATGM); Medical Evacuation Vehicle (MEV); Mortar Carrier (MC); Engineer Squad Vehicle (ESV); Command Vehicle (CV); Fire Support Vehicle (FSV); and the Reconnaissance Vehicle (RV). They have parts commonality and self-recovery abilities and are equipped with a central tire inflation system.
The Reconnaissance Vehicle is fitted with the Raytheon Long Range Advanced Scout Surveillance System (LRAS3). The system includes a second-generation Horizontal Technology Initiative (HTI) thermal imager, day TV and eyesafe laser rangefinder. The US Army is to enhance the system by lengthening the sensor mast to 10m, increasing the range to 10km.

STRYKER INFANTRY CARRIER VEHICLE
The Stryker is a full time four-wheel drive, selectively eight-wheel drive, armoured vehicle weighing approximately 19t. The vehicle can attain speeds of 62mph on metalled roads and has a maximum range of 312 miles.
The basic infantry carrier vehicle (ICV) provides armoured protection for the two-man crew and a squad of nine infantry soldiers. The basic hard steel armour is augmented by applique panels of lightweight ceramic/composite armour produced by a team led by IBD/Deisenroth Engineering of Germany. The armour provides integral all-round 14.5mm protection against machine gun rounds, mortar and artillery fragments. RPG-7 protection is optional. In Iraq, in January 2004, Stryker vehicles were outfitted with a "cage" of slat armour, which encircles the vehicle about 18in from the main body, as protection against rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). Add-on reactive armour kits will be fielded from March 2005.
The ICV has a Kongsberg Remote Weapon Station with a universal soft mount cradle, which can mount either a 0.50 caliber M2 machine gun, MK19 40mm grenade launcher or MK240 7.62mm machine gun. It is also armed with four M6 smoke grenade launchers.
The vehicle's commander has an FBCB2 (Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below) digital communications system that allows communication between vehicles through text messaging and a map network, as well as with the battalion. The map shows the position of all vehicles on the battlefield and the commander can mark the position of enemy forces on the map which can then be seen by other commanders. FBCB2, "the tactical internet", includes the Raytheon AN/TSQ-158 Enhanced Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS).

The Stryker driver has three M-17 periscopes and a DRS Technologies AN/VAS-5 Driver's Vision Enhancer (DVE). The vehicle commander has seven M45 periscopes and a thermal imager display with video camera.

STRYKER MOBILE GUN SYSTEM
GM GDLS delivered eight pre-production Stryker Mobile Gun Systems to the US Army between July 2002 and March 2003. Low-rate initial production (LRIP) of 72 additional mobile gun variants is underway at General Dynamics' Anniston, Alabama, facility. Full-rate production is to begin in late 2005. Stryker MGS has also been selected by the Canadian Army, which plans to acquire 66 systems to replace Leopard 1 tanks.
The Stryker Mobile Gun System variant consists of the basic vehicle with a General Dynamics Land Systems fully stabilized shoot-on-the-move Low Profile Turret. The turret is armed with a M68A1E4 105mm cannon with muzzle brake and an M2 0.50 calibre commander's machine gun. The Stryker Mobile Gun System can fire 18 rounds of 105mm main gun ammunition, 400 rounds of 0.50 calibre ammunition and 3,400 rounds of 7.62mm ammunition. Curtiss-Wright Corp's Vista Controls supplies the fully automated ammunition loading and replenishing system. Two M6 smoke grenade launchers are also fitted.
The Mobile Gun System has the same C4ISR communications and driver's vison equipment as the ICV, but the gunner has three periscopes and a compact modular sight with dual field of view day and thermal channels. The MGS also has detectors for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
An advantage to the Brigade Combat Teams in having the mobile gun vehicle of the same Stryker family of vehicles is the commonality across the entire capability and the reduced logistics requirement. The Stryker mobile gun does not require a track-vehicle mechanic as would be required for example for the deployment of an M-8 mobile armoured gun system.

 

[fieldmarshal]

I was a documentry about it.........n am impressed.........so i wanted to share it with you guys :smokingc:

 

[gf0012-aust]

As a personal opinion, I still prefer tracked APC's in specific environments.

Tracks have better traction and weight in a built up area, tracks also rarely get bogged, and have a better lower pressure footprint - critical in some types of conditions.

Aussie Digger might have a view, I don't know whether he's been on Tracks and Tyres in East Timor, but we did bring tracks over to ET as the tyre platforms had some situational probs.

 

[fieldmarshal]

the quantum jump in tech that the stryker presents is awosome.......it leaves every thing thing else in the dust........other than that the whole rational behind styker is the fact that it will operate in strength.....goin up till battelion......so when u take them like that they represent somthin unique and simply amazin in capability and fire power.....n the the best thing is that its all inigrated...........so basically they are all different pieces of one big platform.

 

[Gremlin29]

Interestingly enough the US Army Rangers are going to be adding a Stryker brigade.

 

[P.A.F]

It's a handy weapon. i quite like it anyway.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Wheels aren't an entire replacement for tracks as far as armoured vehicles go. They aren't as capable across difficult terrain as tracked vehicles, they can't mount as much armour and are therefore more vulnerable to anti-armour weapons, mines and HMG's/Light Cannons. This also greatly restricts their close combat capability, ie: the ability to manoevre the vehicle at close range and deliver their infantry troops. A Stryker brigade will be forced by the lack of capability to offload their troops some distance from the battle and force the infantry to fight their way forward to battle. Something like a Bradley is able to drive right up to the defensive positions and offload the infantry straight into the enemy... The 105mm Gun variant of the Stryker will also not be able to stand up to main battle tanks, of almost any variant. If they get a shot away first, they MIGHT destroy or severely damage the tank. If they don't, their vehicle WILL be destroyed. Wheeled vehicles are good at high road travel and require far less maintenance than tracked vehicles. They are much faster, easier to deploy and generally have a significant range advantage over tracked vehicles. Both types of vehicles have advantages and disadvantages. I generally look at things this way. A tracked APC should be used for close combat and a wheeled armoured vehicle for recce/cavalry tasks, and infantry carrying in less demanding environments such as peacekeeping or some such, IMHO. Not in East Timor gf, but in Australia I have. The ASLAV's operated by Australia (an earlier variant of the Stryker) are excellent. They are very fast, have good firepower, (25mm Bushmaster cannons and 2x 7.62mm GPMG's) are very advanced (tech wise, with thermal imagers, night vision, laser range finders etc) have great range and reasonable off-road capability. Their armour is not the best and I bet the boys in Iraq are somewhat concerned about that, given the planned armour upgrades are still some years off. They do however lose tyres at a ferocious rate and if you've ever seen an exercise in the Northern Territory, it's not unusual to an entire 2 Cav Regt troop stopped in the middle of nowhere, with every car disabled due to tyre punctures... Oh how ironic it is then to see an M113A1 trundle past...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Wheels aren't an entire replacement for tracks as far as armoured vehicles go. They aren't as capable across difficult terrain as tracked vehicles, they can't mount as much armour and are therefore more vulnerable to anti-armour weapons, mines and HMG's/Light Cannons. This also greatly restricts their close combat capability, ie: the ability to manoevre the vehicle at close range and deliver their infantry troops. A Stryker brigade will be forced by the lack of capability to offload their troops some distance from the battle and force the infantry to fight their way forward to battle. Something like a Bradley is able to drive right up to the defensive positions and offload the infantry straight into the enemy... The 105mm Gun variant of the Stryker will also not be able to stand up to main battle tanks, of almost any variant. If they get a shot away first, they MIGHT destroy or severely damage the tank. If they don't, their vehicle WILL be destroyed. Wheeled vehicles are good at high road travel and require far less maintenance than tracked vehicles. They are much faster, easier to deploy and generally have a significant range advantage over tracked vehicles. Both types of vehicles have advantages and disadvantages. I generally look at things this way. A tracked APC should be used for close combat and a wheeled armoured vehicle for recce/cavalry tasks, and infantry carrying in less demanding environments such as peacekeeping or some such, IMHO. Not in East Timor gf, but in Australia I have. The ASLAV's operated by Australia (an earlier variant of the Stryker) are excellent. They are very fast, have good firepower, (25mm Bushmaster cannons and 2x 7.62mm GPMG's) are very advanced (tech wise, with thermal imagers, night vision, laser range finders etc) have great range and reasonable off-road capability. Their armour is not the best and I bet the boys in Iraq are somewhat concerned about that, given the planned armour upgrades are still some years off. They do however lose tyres at a ferocious rate and if you've ever seen an exercise in the Northern Territory, it's not unusual to an entire 2 Cav Regt troop stopped in the middle of nowhere, with every car disabled due to tyre punctures... Oh how ironic it is then to see an M113A1 trundle past...

I was involved in the early production series ASLAVs. We had a couple of specials out at Wingield. One was a mobile ADS fitted with Chapparrals (spell?) They were trying to convince the ADF to buy some. I went for a burl around the GM test area in one - it's a little bit disconcerting trying to work out whether the centre of grav is stable at high speed turns...

One would hope that anyone trying to invade aust would be bringing tyred AFV/IFV's with then - they wouldn't last long. It would be a loggies nightmare.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

last time i heard this vehicle has some problems with its armour. a article said the strenth of the armour did not meet requirement.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I'm not sure about the Stryker, I've read they've had to put makeshift armour on the Strykers deployed to Iraq, but the Australian LAV's certainly have some large question marks over the capability of their armour. They are supposedly armoured to withstand 7.62mm NATO Armour Piercing rounds, as well as shell splinters (Mortar, Artillery etc). I hold significant doubts as to how well an ASLAV would stand up to this sort of round though and the problem with wheeled vehicles, is that they are limited to the amount of armour they can carry. I'm thinking that the armour fitted to the Strykers or the LAV 111's New Zealand has recently purchased, would be nearing the upper limit. The wheels and suspension systems simply can't cope with the weight.

 

[tatra]

The wheels and suspension systems simply can't cope with the weight.

But that is exactly the trade off between track and wheel: wheeled is faster, more strategically mobile but tracked deals better with terrain and has better armor. It seems unfair to criticize either system for not being the other. It think the key question is how to determine what mix you need to have (most armies have use for both wheeled and track vehicles). How do you do that?

 

[Aussie Digger]

I wasn't criticising either type of vehicle. I was pointing out each vehicle's strengths and weaknesses and offered my view on the most appropriate roles for each type of vehicle. You decide what type of platform you want based on your planned force structure. If you want light, highly mobile forces with reasonable combat power, Stryker is ideal. If you want heavier more survivable (and yes more combat capable) forces, than you need a tracked APC/IFV. I had hoped to point out that while the Stryker is very "flash" a similar unit equipped with a Bradley type vehicle would generally have a higher level of combat capability.

 

[gf0012-aust]

. How do you do that?

As you have just indicated, by a balanced force mix that reflects your political and battle doctrine.

 

[tatra]

. How do you do that?

As you have just indicated, by a balanced force mix that reflects your political and battle doctrine.

't was a rethorical question :

 

[gf0012-aust]

't was a rethorical question :

doh! :eek

 

[Libyan]

the stryker isnt futuristic, the stryker is atleast one generation behind south african and russian wheeled IFV's

Let me know when the stryker can fire a 105mm Nato full chamber presure tank gun (not a low recoil force gun) or do 1,000km on a s/d mission like the rooikat


or when the stryker can have as much protection speed and internal volume as the btr-3

 

[tatra]

the stryker isnt futuristic, the stryker is atleast one generation behind south african and russian wheeled IFV's

Let me know when the stryker can fire a 105mm Nato full chamber presure tank gun (not a low recoil force gun) or do 1,000km on a s/d mission like the rooikat

or when the stryker can have as much protection speed and internal volume as the btr-3

Rooikat's a great vehicle. Nontheless, it's "somehwhat" heavier than Stryker and I doubt very much it fits into a C130 transport. Again, a trade off between mobility, fire power and protection.

BTR-3? Never heard of it. Did you mean BTR-90 or BMP-3 or BMD-3?

 

[Awang se]

They probably use stryker as an Armored Recce Vehicles.

 

[moughoun]

I think there is quite abit of mis-conception of what the Stryker's mission is, it is designed to enable a reasonably armed and armoured force to quickly deploy to hotspot's and therefore keep the door open for larger more heavily armoured unit's to follow up, it was not designed to engage in open combat with other armoured vehicles it is just an inf taxi, the comparison with Bradley's or BMP-3 is a bit disengenuous, those are MICV a compleatly different type of vehicle

 

[Aussie Digger]

I compared the Stryker to show the difference between it and a Bradley. There were some "enthusiastic" posters in here claiming the Stryker would make every other armoured vehicle obsolete or something. I merely mentioned the Bradley as an example to show the difference between a Stryker type vehicle and an infantry Fighting Vehicle. I never compared the Stryker directly against a Bradley or a BMP-3.