Army wants more lethality for Strykers

[mikeCK]

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/04/the-30-millimeter-solution-army-upgunning-strykers-vs-russia/

Apparently the 105mm MSG was a dud and -shockingly- a .50 cal machinegun just doesn't cut it vs modern light armor. The army wants to replace the Msg and some .50 cal Strykers with a 30mm auto cannon

[Thewood1]

I don't understand why the army didn't just buy the LAV-25.  Won't the Stryker then just be an upgraded LAV after all that development money was spent?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

I don't understand why the army didn't just buy the LAV-25.  Won't the Stryker then just be an upgraded LAV after all that development money was spent?

 

LAV-25 is based on a earlier iteration of the vehicle, a lot smaller, less armor, less room for everything.  From the get go the Stryker was always intended to be primarily a "carrier" vehicle and to that end, the need to fit a complete squad into the infantry version was viewed as essential.  To that end the LAV-25 can carry about 6 "cold war" soldiers (no body armor and somesuch, basically rifle and Kpot with LBE, more practically it can cram in fourish), which made it a bit of a non-starter.

 

The need for some sort of direct fire support platform for the Strkyer formations was always known, and the MGS was supposed to provide that at a Company level.  In practice it has had some success, but always the following problems:

 

1. In many COIN missions, 105 MM is just too much gun

2. A very limited ammo supply (a whole platoon of MGS carries about 1.5 Abrams in ammo)

3. In conventional missions, it has neither the armor, or firepower to serve as a real maneuver platform.  

 

The autocannon armed version will likely be a better choice for direct fire support, both as a dedicated platform, and as a "upgun" Stryker modification.

[danzig5]

So they have actually approved it. It will probably be a remote weapon station like this one, so as not to eat up internal space. I seem to recall with this modification it could still carry nine bros.

30mm Stryker in CMBS when?

Edited April 25, 2015 by danzig5

[Liveload]

Fun toy for arms makers, game players, and politicans to engage in all manner of pedantry over. Personally I don't find many 19K's with nice things to say about those cans. Best I've heard is, "well, they're better than a Humvee..."

Edited April 25, 2015 by Liveload

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Personally I don't find many 19K's with nice things to say about those cans

 

19Ks coming off of MGSes were the worst.  We were a M1A2 SEP v2 company, and received a wide range of folks from different backgrounds, but receiving guys who'd never been off of M1A1s, guys who hadn't seen a tank since basic training all were uniformly easier to work with than trying to deprogram all the stupid stuff the MGS teaches you to do wrong.  RUMMIT last time I heard about it was they were taking tankers off of the platform for just that reason.

 

 

 

30mm Stryker in CMBS when?

 

Think it's the same answer as with the Armata.  If it's in service shortly then I imagine it'd sneak in with the "future thingy" module that's been rumored and hinted about.  

[Mhiester]

The autocannon armed version will likely be a better choice for direct fire support, both as a dedicated platform, and as a "upgun" Stryker modification.

 

As far as Black Sea goes, the autocannon on the battle taxi was a good move for the Russians. Those BTR-80s and 82s with the 30mm cannons have caused so much pain in my time playing.

[Kieme(ITA)]

On a side note I would like to point out that also Italian Army has gone with upgrading their wheeled IFV with 30mm guns instead of 20/25mm.

[c3k]

I like the big gun move. The Russki's always go for muzzle diameter.

 

30mm autocannon stryker makes it equivalent to BTR80/82, with the benefit of better sensors and SA, for both the vehicle and the dismounts.

 

I'd replace the MGS with their 105mm with some direct fire 120mm mortar turrets. See: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/piranha/piranha13.html and http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1850.html and http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1191.html

 

I'd go with the single barrel, and have the PRIMARY use to be direct support. I'd stick a battery of 6 with every company. That way each platoon gets 2.

 

If a maneuvering platoon needs firepower, the 2 which are with it can fire directly on the enemy. (Or pop the guys hiding in a gully, behind a ridge, etc. If the vehicle can see where to target, they can hit it.) If that doesn't work, then the other 4 120mm's can be used for indirect fire using all the gee-whiz digital comms and datalinks. The time from the "help" call to rounds on target should be just a few minutes. 120mm mortar shells bring a lot of oomph to a fight. That way, the 3 platoons can assist one another through maneuver AND on-call fires.

 

Direct fire 120mm can also fire into embrasures and windows of bunkers/fortified buildings. They don't need the (over)penetration the 105mm L7 tank gun brings.

 

Oh, and the Stryker won't roll over if the turret fires when it's sideways on a hill. That may or may not be a benefit.

 

Ken

Edited April 25, 2015 by c3k

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I'd be happier with an "upgun" ICV in every platoon with a 20/30 MM on a RWS type mount, then a 40 MM variant with a larger full on unmanned turret basically replacing the MGS one for one at the Company.  The sort of airburst thing Bofors has done with their 40 MM makes it look attractive, and it ought to make anything short of a tank pretty swiss cheese pretty fast.

[Wildman]

Whoops, I guess a wheeled gun platform wont replace a tank.....didn't we learn that in WW2 or somefink?

[agusto]

In my opinion the best armament for an IFV is a combination of a 20-30mm autocannon + 1 or 2 ATGM tubes. This combination makes it perfect for supporting its dismounts with exactely that kind of firepower they need. Enemy DsHK in a building 3000m away? Put an ATGM on it. A wild T-72 appears? Go ATGM! A group of bad guys 250m away in that treeline over there? A burst from the autocannon and they are gone.

 

.50 cal, 40mm grenades and 105mm guns are all nice and good but they cant compete with the versatility and effectivity of the ATGM + autocannon solution.

[Panzerpanic]

Im with agusto on that one. Maybe it depend of the tactical use the contrt want for their ifv but i always find that an ifv without the duo autocannon/missile lacking. An exemple is the warrior in cmsf.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I've never understood the lack of ATGMs on IFVs.  Even something simple like a Milan strapped to one of the hatches goes a long ways.

 

Same deal with Strykers, wouldn't be a stretch to strap Javelins to the RWS, the allocation of TOW-Strykers to BDE level always struck me as weird (especially considering the historical M113 formations which kept its AT assets as a Company sized element allocation to the Battalion vs Company sized element for the Brigade).  

Edited April 25, 2015 by panzersaurkrautwerfer

[Pablius]

Javelins should be strapped to everything...Strykers, COLTs, the head of the US President...

 

Jokes aside, the BTRs with the 30mm gun are quite handy, at least in CM...they go from nearly useless as an offensive platform to somewhat worth the risk against infantry

 

What about Strykers with a 30mm auto cannon and big thermobaric rockets? Would that make US Inf squads happy?

[John Kettler]

I thin the MGS turret should be replaced with the ARES 75 mm. The gun is big enough to destroy all but the toughest targets, yet the ammo is small enough to allow carriage of may times more rounds than the pathetic 14 of the MGS. This would not only provide greater combat endurance, but would provide many more tactical capabilities, such as the ability to easily engage elevated targets (45 deg elevation capability), potent HE capability, airburst rounds and much more. There is no ground attack bird, fixed or rotary wing, which can take a KE strike from one, either, providing much needed air defense capability--over and above prox. In case people think such a notion is ridiculous, understand that US analysts reviewing video tapes documenting successful ground force engagements under the early 1980s JAWS (Joint Attack Weapon System) were shocked to discover OPFOR stand-in tanks were getting valid (simulated) KE engagements vs inbound A-10s on gun runs.

This guy below, while not, in my view, right about everything, makes some very good points. He's in love with APCBC, for example. Firing DU or maybe even advanced no DU KE, the ARES 75 mm could kill anything short of a MBT frontally, any tank from the sides and rear and could badly abuse even the nastiest MBT frontally with punishing autocannon fire, quite possibly doing even worse damage than the now-dreaded-in-CMBS 30 mm autocannon

http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2010/04/medium-calibre-allround-option.html

Additional info. The site proper is geared toward Twilight 2000, but what he does is to take existing or planned weapons and convert them into game stats. He is a very good researcher. What he has to say about the ARES 75 mm gun turret is most interesting.

http://www.pmulcahy.com/best_stuff_that_never_was/best_lcv_that_never_were.htm

(Fair Use)

The turret of the LAV-75 is very low-profile, being less than a meter tall. During development, a bustle rack was added at the rear of the turret for crew equipment and any additional gear and ammunition. The most remarkable part of the turret is the main armament – an ARES 75mm autocannon. This gun uses a revolving breech to speed reloading as well as new case-telescoped ammunition with a combustible case. Recoil is largely taken up by a recoil piston, and the rest by a recoiling breech. The LAV-75 has a two-man crew; the commander doubles as a gunner. The commander has a hatch on the turret roof, with a pintle-mounted M-240 machinegun on a contra-rotating cupola. The ARES autocannon has another M-240 as a coaxial machinegun. In an unusual twist, the driver can fire the coaxial machinegun in an emergency, though he cannot fire the autocannon. The commander’s sights are located in an armored head atop the turret, and consist of an advanced FLIR imager, an image intensifier (primarily for day use), and a standard telescopic coincidence sight as a backup. A ballistic computer and a laser rangefinder are located in the turret, with the laser firing from a coaxial position opposite the coaxial machinegun. The commander/gunner can access these sights from the cupola if needed, though he cannot aim or fire his machinegun from under armor. In another unusual twist, the driver has his own sight head with a FLIR and image intensifier; he can therefore assist the commander/gunner in finding targets in a sort of hunter/killer setup. The driver also has direct vision blocks for normal driving. Both the driver and the commander/gunner can use direct binocular or monocular sight interfaces to access the information from their sight heads, or may view them on an LCD screen."

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited April 25, 2015 by John Kettler

[Panzerpanic]

Could be funny but ill take some at waepon over another anti inf weaponery. A tow2 or javeling would be food

[c3k]

Vertical stack some Javelins, like how the Navy packages their missiles on the foredeck and, err, poopdeck of their ships. Have a 6 pack (or 12 pack) of Jav's ready to launch out of some Strykers. Presto magicko: no more bad tanks.

[Pat O]

We made multiple suggestions while in the experimental phase at 3/2. The first vehicles we had to begin testing the Interim Brigade Concept were Canadian Lavs with a 25mm. We used those to come up with initial concepts on how to employ infantry out of a LAV and get the BN ready. The Strykers came and we immediately suggested adding a 5th vehicle to each platoon armed with the 25mm. This wasn't possible so we suggested a weapons platform only with a TOW and 3 RWS stations or miniguns. I think even a quad .50 cal was put up by someone which would have been epic in Iraq. Shows you how slow things are to move. The 30mm would be a great tool!  

[cool breeze]

Too bad they wont just go for a total hodge podge.  All those stryker variants seem too awesome, I want ALL!.  Except the 105mm.  Gimmie quad .50 cal, 25mm +TOW, 40mm Bofur, 75mm ARES, and TOW with 3 RWS.  And slap some Javs on some lol .  I just watched the preview for MadMAX,  with all this we will SO be ready for peak oil    Oh and of course C3k's 120mm mortar.

Edited May 25, 2015 by cool breeze

[MikeyD]

 

I've never understood the lack of ATGMs on IFVs.

 

Well, one supposes that the IFV would be... superfluous.    An infantryman can effectively place an ATGM behind the smallest cover. Behind a trash can or cardboard box. An ATGM with an armored vehicle attached needs to find protective cover for the entire armored vehicle. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

There's really two arguments in terms of ATGMs on vehicles:

 

1. It allows more offensive employment of ATGMs.  While the vehicle cannot do as much when the missile is being shot, it's a lot more rapid to go to a short halt and pop off an ATGM, than dismount the ATGM because ohcraptank.  Also in that regard it means your dismounted rifle element doesn't have to carry a few dozen extra pounds of ATGM launcher and missiles everywhere it goes dismounted because it has mobile organic AT.

 

2. The scale of ATGM can be significantly better than the ATGM carried by the dismount.  Even if it lacks the F&F and top attack of the Javelin, the TOW-2B is still a much more potent missile than the majority of infantry portable ATGM systems.  

 

Additionally, with most systems the IFV with an ATGM is much less sensitive to supressive fires.  

[c3k]

RWS on every Stryker with Bushmaster IV 40mm. Every platoon also gets a section from the Weapons Platoon. That would be a pair of 120mm direct/indirect firing mortars. Yeah, firepower wins firefights. Big booms, fast booms, accurate booms, sloppy booms, and booms that just go boom for the fun of it. The Platoon Commander would have to have a pimped-out Stryker. I like the idea of quad-50's, but the Bushy IV would put that to shame. Gotta think on that. Yeah, been thought on: he gets the 75mm ARES. Gotta keep the commander with the big one.

 

Every Stryker air guard spot would have a 7.62 mini-gun. Yeah. On flex mounts that allow flring over a 270 degree arc, from the front to the rear, with overlap. And against high-angle threats, as well. That's 8 gatling guns sending love per platoon. Nothing but tracers. 'Cause it looks better that way.

 

Weapons platoon would also have some Javelin Strykers. They'd be gun-gimped, but make up for it by completely gutting the pax compartment and replacing it with vertical launch Javes....linked to every other Stryker. Any linked Stryker see a tank? Wifi-mojo causes a Jave to vertical launch from the OTHER Stryker and put some boom on the bad guy. More boom. Yeah. That'd be, what, like 2 or 3 dozen Javelins ready to go? 3 of those vehicles in each Weapons Platoon. Meted out 1 per maneuver platoon (just like the 2 120mm'ers.) So, a platoon of dismounts would have 7 lovely strykers looking out for them. Nice...

 

How about a low-mount .50 in front of the TC's hatch? Under the 40mm's zone of travel? With, like the mini-guns, a ballistic shield. That .50 would have its traverse blocked by the RWS turret behind it, but who cares what's behind you when you're attacking? Yeah, this thing is made for offensive booms.

 

Obviously, coax 7.62 (single barrel, chain-drive, since this is a RWS).

 

Oh, and we'd have ammo Strykers. Someone has to schlep the reloads up to the fighting rigs.

 

120mm direct fire cures a whole lotta problems. If a 120mm mortar on a flat trajectory can't do it, then send in the Abrams. Or pull back and use artillery.

 

The role of every piece of equipment is to ease the burden on the dismount.

 

Each platoon (reinforced with its "slice" from the Weapons Platoon) would bring:

 

4 .50 cals

8 7.62 miniguns

3 40mm Bushmaster IV autocannon

1 75mm ARES

4 7.62 coax

2 120mm direct/indirect fire mortar

36 remote-linked Javelins (not counting those carried internally by all the Strykers. )

 

 

Yeah, you're right: we're missing some autogrenade action. Gotta think some more...

Edited May 26, 2015 by c3k

[AttorneyAtWar]

RWS on every Stryker with Bushmaster IV 40mm. Every platoon also gets a section from the Weapons Platoon. That would be a pair of 120mm direct/indirect firing mortars. Yeah, firepower wins firefights. Big booms, fast booms, accurate booms, sloppy booms, and booms that just go boom for the fun of it. The Platoon Commander would have to have a pimped-out Stryker. I like the idea of quad-50's, but the Bushy IV would put that to shame. Gotta think on that. Yeah, been thought on: he gets the 75mm ARES. Gotta keep the commander with the big one.

 

Every Stryker air guard spot would have a 7.62 mini-gun. Yeah. On flex mounts that allow flring over a 270 degree arc, from the front to the rear, with overlap. And against high-angle threats, as well. That's 8 gatling guns sending love per platoon. Nothing but tracers. 'Cause it looks better that way.

 

Weapons platoon would also have some Javelin Strykers. They'd be gun-gimped, but make up for it by completely gutting the pax compartment and replacing it with vertical launch Javes....linked to every other Stryker. Any linked Stryker see a tank? Wifi-mojo causes a Jave to vertical launch from the OTHER Stryker and put some boom on the bad guy. More boom. Yeah. That'd be, what, like 2 or 3 dozen Javelins ready to go? 3 of those vehicles in each Weapons Platoon. Meted out 1 per maneuver platoon (just like the 2 120mm'ers.) So, a platoon of dismounts would have 7 lovely strykers looking out for them. Nice...

 

How about a low-mount .50 in front of the TC's hatch? Under the 40mm's zone of travel? With, like the mini-guns, a ballistic shield. That .50 would have its traverse blocked by the RWS turret behind it, but who cares what's behind you when you're attacking? Yeah, this thing is made for offensive booms.

 

Obviously, coax 7.62 (single barrel, chain-drive, since this is a RWS).

 

Oh, and we'd have ammo Strykers. Someone has to schlep the reloads up to the fighting rigs.

 

120mm direct fire cures a whole lotta problems. If a 120mm mortar on a flat trajectory can't do it, then send in the Abrams. Or pull back and use artillery.

 

The role of every piece of equipment is to ease the burden on the dismount.

 

Each platoon (reinforced with its "slice" from the Weapons Platoon) would bring:

 

4 .50 cals

8 7.62 miniguns

3 40mm Bushmaster IV autocannon

1 75mm ARES

4 7.62 coax

2 120mm direct/indirect fire mortar

36 remote-linked Javelins (not counting those carried internally by all the Strykers. )

 

 

Yeah, you're right: we're missing some autogrenade action. Gotta think some more...

 

We'll also need other Strkers to carry the Strykers if they break down!

 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Given my chance, I'd go full Sparky and turn the whole Stryker family into artificial reefs.  Then I'd go back to the AGS type platform and develop the following full track variants:

 

1. Light Tank with 105 MM, possible Javelin mount for killing MBTs

2. Fire Support/Scout vehicle with 40 MM autocannon and some sort of expanded capability Javelin (bigger rocket motor for more range, possibly larger warhead) in dual or quad mount.

3. APC with modular weapons mount capable of accepting M240, MK-19, M2 or a light-weight 20 MM.  Also ability to accept infantry-Javelin tubes to mount and fire same.  Possibly accept smaller passenger count in exchange for smaller lighter vehicle.

4. "Support" model of the APC with no weapons station (sans mount for flex type MG), and open bay for various specialty equipment (mortars, CP, etc).  I don't intend this to be "modular" in the sense that you could make a mortar carrier with an allen wrench and 45 minutes, but that the base model PC would be effectively the same/nearly the same minus the equipment for the specialty role.

 

As far as common features:

 

Having a vehicle that's able to be airdropped/roll off the plane ready to kill is a waste of time.  We're simply not going to commit transports in an area dangerous enough to require a vehicle to roll off a C-130 laying waste to VC surging over the tarmac.  On the other hand, building a vehicle designed to be "assembled" on the receiving end with fairly modest tools could allow for a high degree of deployability.  It worked rather handily with M24s and similar light tanks historically.

 

Modular armor arrays and a basic "naked" hull APS system.  The big mistake of the FCS was building a vehicle to replace all other vehicles, and relying on technology that wasn't a one for one good analog with the replaced technology (so early APS for heavy armor plate).  Using a similar model to replace the Stryker is superior however, as the base level armor and protective systems would be on par with a Stryker, while the add on passive, active, and organic APS would instead represent a marked increase in protection.

 

Tacit acceptance of smaller passenger count.  The constant infantry insistence in stuffing 9 dismounts in an APC is cute and all, but the compromises it imposes on the vehicle itself have never really ended well outside of having a full rifle squad in each vehicle.  

 

Acceptance of CVRT sort of commonality, like a shared suspension and drive system, but otherwise allowing vehicles to be built as needed vs trying to make everything fit in a Stryker/M113 shaped box.  

 

Light "naked" weight being a priority.  Surviability is good, but Strykers right now already sink up to their hubs on modest terrain.  Offering commanders on the ground the choice of "light" or "heavy" performance would make a very flexible formation capable of both being "heavy" COIN forces, or able to hold their own in a conventional fight.  

 

If I had to MTOE it, i'd go with effectively a Stryker Company with a one for one replacement of Strykers with the only "differences" being the old MGS platoon returning with the FSV/Scout model vehicles instead.  Battalion would operate a light tank company (10 vehicles, 1 CO track, 3 platoons of 3, intention either being to divy up like the MGS was supposed to be, or concentrated for traditional armor missions).  Of course the biggest change would be returning the maintenance element back to the Battalion/Company teams as what the hell was that about.

 

CAV would be still four vehicles, just 2 FSV/scout, 2 APC models. Possibly augmented by small/light motorized vehicles to move dismounted teams to and from OPs (motorcycles, some sort of ATV thing).  

 

Anyway.  Not going full sparky.  The M113 needs to be dead.  The Stryker wasn't a bad idea as a concept, but the evolution of the vehicle, and the design considerations that went into making it a wheeled platform/the "new world order"* mentality generated something that marginally accomplishes mission.  

 

*Not the lizard one.  The 1990's vision of how the US Army was going to operate, and the sort of threats and considerations that went with it.