The Stryker vehicle and Stryker brigades have discussed on this site numerous times, but I don't believe it has been recently. I believe the first Stryker brigade was operational in 2002. What's the analysis of the brigade structure, vehicle performance, tracks v. wheels debate, the RSTA concept/organization, and brigade doctrine? In other words has the Stryker been a success or failure?
Also, based on what has been learned with operational deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq, what changes should be made to the brigade?
Hopefully, those with knowledge and experience with the Stryker brigade will weigh-in.
I would think that putting a 25mm turret on the Stryker would limit the number of dismounts. A 25mm RWS might be too much gun for a vehicle that is considered an APC and not an IFV. The Army may not have put a 25mm on the recon versions because it would defeat the purpose of the Stryker RSTA squadrons - stealth based recce. Jcustis probably has a better answer.
There was a general problem with Stryker hull height and cargo bay height in C-130. The MGS version already exceeds C-130 dimensions IIRC, and lifting the vehicle with C-130J was the rationale behind using a <20 ton vehicle. A turret was thus not acceptable. The handful of MGS is an exception and can get the privilege of C-17-only airlift.
They could mount some lightweight autocannon such as 20 mm M621 or 30 mm ASP-30 on a mount like those used for .50cals, though.
Strykers didn't make it to the dance during the invasion, so that's a big unknown. I think we can surmise that it would have faired as well as the USMC's LAV-25, but keep in mind the success is more than a vehicle. It's a mix of doctrine, supporting arms, organization, etc.
Air mobility by a C-130 is an outdated standard that should have never been forced in the first place.
Last edited by jcustis; 05-25-2013 at 06:28 AM.
Bookmarks