Stryker collection (merged thread)

[Jones_RE]

The other advantage of Stryker of M-113 is armor. The Stryker is built to withstand heavy machine gun fire. It's supposed to have a ceramic overlay for RPG/shaped charge warheads - which ran into development problems - slat armor is the expedient replacement. M-113's have repeatedly proven to be too vulnerable without significant uparmoring. The IDF has completely redone theirs, but I doubt they fully trust even that level of protection any more given what happened in the recent fighting in Lebannon.

Really, I think the whole Stryker vs. M-113 debate is kind of besides the point. The current mucky mucks in charge of procuring/developing new systems are perfectly capable of turning in an M-113 based platform which has all the problems of a Stryker and spending just as much money while they're at it. I think better oversight by Congress, the Department of Defense and the Army could have brought either project in for a lot less money than was/is being spent.

[selil]

When I started reading the Stryker debate I remembered a photograph from the Russian operations in Afghanistan. Three guys in a delapidated pick up had just taken out three Russian personel carriers with RPG's. The cost of troop carriers versus the beat up pick up must have been enormous.

[Shek]

When I started reading the Stryker debate I remembered a photograph from the Russian operations in Afghanistan. Three guys in a delapidated pick up had just taken out three Russian personel carriers with RPG's. The cost of troop carriers versus the beat up pick up must have been enormous.

Selil,

That's what happens anytime you don't employ equipment properly and use poorly trained conscripts. The unwritten Soviet creed of death before dismount gave the initiative to the mujihadeen, allowing for their successful ambushes.

As far as the performance of the Stryker against the RPG in Iraq, the RPG has been ineffective. I'm aware of only one catastrophic kill, which was a fluke (the RPG hit some POL loaded on the exterior of the vehicle, started an exterior load fire, and the soldiers weren't able to put the fire out resulting in 0 injuries but one burned Stryker), and the slat has been nearly 100% effective in preventing penetration into the vehicle. For nearly three years of service across all of Iraq, that's a pretty substantial track record.

[reed11b]

has anyone looked into OTHER vehicles that have most of the strykers advantages but cost less, are easier to maintain, easier to transport and did I mention cost less? (May even be smaller then a large city bus too)? Dingo-2, Bushmaster, the New Wildcat (Built for RPGs baby!), etc.? The you could mix and match with a light armoured track such as the BVS-10 and never have to listen to "Gavin" vs Stryker arguments ever again. Otherwise, If it HAS to be a huge honking 8x8, I want at least a 20mm cannon and powerful IR capabilities.
Reed

[Fuchs]

Strange. Either I read too fast through this thread or we didn't mention the terrible reports about autoloader reliability yet.
Is the autoloader reliable now?

I personally don't understand why they used the Stryker vehicle for the MGS.
Its capability isn't much better than a modernized AMX-13 105mm/modernized Kürassier. They Russians have showed us that low velocity 100-120mm guns can be used for direct fire support. 105mm is not really a viable calibre against MBTs nowadays; you cannot knock out anything better than T-72 monkey models frontally using this calibre (although the best 105mm APFSDS is better than the very first 120mm APFSDS).
The Stryker MGS hasn't the same air deployability as the other Stryker variants.

It doesn't fit together imho. A BMD with 100/30mm guns turret is a better support vehicle in many terrains.
I would have chosen a path like the Japanese did with their newest MBT - a vehicle of about 40 tons, 120mm gun, tracks. That will easily cross most bridges and could be used for a bridgelayer, recovery and flail mineclearing versions as well.

[reed11b]

I have not heard a peep about the MGS lately. And I had been following it too, since it was were my belief in the sucess or failure of the stryker was hinged. Hell, if wheels were the key (lower maintance costs and quicker in theatre transport, etc.) why not look at the french? Bigger wheeled guns they did well(or at least alot). If 105 why not pre-existing 90mm or upgrade to 120mm? I believe the crux of the matter was the range of ammo for the 105mm and some arbitrary AT capacity. Put a decent turret on the IFV stryker (25mm and an AT missile) and put your 155s on wheels and you don't really need the MGS.
Reed

[Ken White]

It was never intended to be more than a temporary substitute for the FCS -- which will it now appears be tracked for cross country mobility reasons. It was selected because while not the best available vehicle it needed the least development effort and was the cheapest of its type. It was also selected to force the US Army to break the Heavy Division mentality (which may or may not work...).

The MGS was purchased to give direct fire support to Stryker units and it was emphatically not designed or planned to fight Tanks; it's a PC killer and bunker buster, roles for which the 105 is adequate. Here's a whole thread devoted to it; LINK

The Dingo, Bushmaster and Wildcat are different vehicles with different roles and do not have the x-country mobility of the Stryker. Stryker IFVs are armed with only a .50 cal instead of the 25mm precisely to keep the vehicle from being used as a 'light tank' -- which too many Brads get used for according to some.

Problem with 155s on wheels is you have to halt, emplace the weapon, expose the crew and then displace the weapon -- too much time and exposure; even solutions like the French Caesar and the Singapore and Israeli (and others) versions expose the crew. Only the Swedes have a wheeled 155 that does not and its too big for air mobility.

[Shek]

The other advantage of Stryker of M-113 is armor. The Stryker is built to withstand heavy machine gun fire. It's supposed to have a ceramic overlay for RPG/shaped charge warheads - which ran into development problems - slat armor is the expedient replacement. M-113's have repeatedly proven to be too vulnerable without significant uparmoring. The IDF has completely redone theirs, but I doubt they fully trust even that level of protection any more given what happened in the recent fighting in Lebannon.

Really, I think the whole Stryker vs. M-113 debate is kind of besides the point. The current mucky mucks in charge of procuring/developing new systems are perfectly capable of turning in an M-113 based platform which has all the problems of a Stryker and spending just as much money while they're at it. I think better oversight by Congress, the Department of Defense and the Army could have brought either project in for a lot less money than was/is being spent.

The organic ceramic armor for the Stryker does not protect against RPGs. Even the M1A2 Abrams with all of its armor still doesn't offer complete passive protection against the standard RPG. The slat armor was redeveloped to serve as an interim solution since the ERA tile package hadn't been developed, tested, and fielded yet.

As far as costs, outside of the MGS, the Stryker program hasn't had significant cost overruns. The cost has gone up due to having feedback from combat experience that has driven condensed lifecycle upgrades; however, additional oversight by DoD or Congress would not have brought the program cost down much - IIRC, about 25-40% of the program's costs has been spent on infrastructure upgrades to allow installations designed to handle light/mech brigades to handle the increased size of a SBCT. This means better sim centers, ranges, combat vehicle trails to departure airfields, etc. These costs would have existed no matter what platform was chosen. In the end, the M113 option could have been cheaper up front, but you would have had the costs of more logistics and a more difficult footprint to support when deployed.