Firepower Upgrade Planned for Strykers

[c3k]

Fire-fights with tanks isn't the job: protection from them could be a secondary role. Plus, mobile firepower to support the infantry fight is always a good thing. Bunkers, improved positions, etc., can inordinately hold up infantry. Nearby HE tossers fix that. This role has been played by regimental cannon companies, infantry guns, StuGs, and others. (Sure, some were pressed into anti-armor roles, but they all started as HE support.)

 

[mikeCK]

I agree. I'm fine with javelins and .50 cal. Would still like 1 30mm cannon per company. Good for laying down fire in buildings and such

[Battlefront.com]

Let's also not forget that the US Army does do task forces quite nicely.  I think we can all agree from playing CM that a company of Stryker infantry backed by a platoon of Abrams is an extremely potent force.  The capabilities of the Strykers and infantry are pretty darned good on their own, but with some Abrams in overwatch they're pretty much unstoppable.

Of course some of the big benefits of the Stryker concept are operational and strategic rather than tactical.  Although the air deployment goal largely went out the window, they are still easier to maintain in the field and can move faster between areas of operation, under their own power, faster than Bradley based infantry.  These concepts matter in prolonged or fluid combat environments.  Weighing them down with weaponry and a heavier logistics tail (another downside of the 30mm) doesn't seem to be a good thing to me.  Like others pointed out, trying to make a Humvee into a Bradely was a pretty dumb idea, but the Army did try it!

Steve

[MikeyD]

A 30mm autocannon might be a good idea if its a replacement for MGS as an infantry fire support vehicle, which has turned out to be a something of a bust. One per platoon perhaps. Enough of a bang to cover most contingencies for infantry support without being so powerful that operating in close proximity to infantry becomes a danger, itself. Anything needing a bigger bang you fire a missile at it. Army has most recently become concerned about the lunatic ISIS threat and their penchant for using armored-up suicide heavy trucks as a 'precision weapon'. Would a .50 cal stop one?

[John Kettler]

The Stryker was originally to be air transportable in the ubiquitous C-130, I believe. It's still air transportable, but now, with its additional armor and slat armor requires either a C-5B or a C-17! I refuse to believe we can airlift a M1A2 SEP V3 but somehow not lift a fully tricked out Stryker in the last two. As for firepower upgrades, I believe they're needed, but as noted, there are cascading effects involved in terms of the Stryker's ability to operate, especially off road. If we're not careful, we might wind up with the even worse overburdened Stryker being road bound like the MRAP--and tipping over while parked! Perhaps, he offered only somewhat puckishly, we should license build the Typhoon from Russia? Those things are tough! Not to mention they appear to have excellent capability in very rough terrain. If we're going to have something the size of a house to begin with...

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[John Kettler]

BigDork,

Here's information on Stryker 30 mm cannon and Javelin upgrades from mid-February 2016. Believe you'll find it of interest.

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/army-to-upgun-all-strykers-30-mm-javelin/

Regards,

John Kettler

[Jammersix]

On 11/23/2015 at 1:07 PM, Alchenar said:

The job of the APC is to move troops rapidly around the battlefield/operational area while attracting a minimum amount of attention.  If it's getting into fire-fights then it isn't doing its mission.

The Bradley is not an APC.

[Michael Emrys]

8 hours ago, Jammersix said:

The Bradley is not an APC.

Okay, so what would you call it? Cavalry Fighting Vehicle? Light Tank?

Michael

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

20 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

Okay, so what would you call it? Cavalry Fighting Vehicle? Light Tank?

Michael

Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

IFVs are intended to follow their infantry into close combat, and their weapons systems are designed specifically to support that infantry on the battlefield.  It is an integral part of the platoon's direct fire planning and is expected to participate wholly in the fight, being left behind only when absolutely required.  Early IFVs were also intended as basically a platform for their infantry to fight from, but that never worked right and can now be held as an archaic requirement.  

An APC is an armored box that keeps the infantry safe going forward to a dismount position.  It may support the infantry if required, but is generally not considered a integral part of the platoon's fire power (or think of it this way, if you're digging in a US mech platoon circa 1985, the Bradley equipped unit will dig its Bradleys in forward with sectors of fire as part of the defensive plan.  The M113 platoon will keep the PCs to the rear generally).  Generally it is armed and armored for self defense vs offensive purposes.  
 

[Splinty]

Speaking as an old Bradley guy Panzerkrautwerfer has it exactly right. With the added ability to fight on the move with the tanks they support.

[Michael Emrys]

3 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

IFVs are intended to follow their infantry into close combat, and their weapons systems are designed specifically to support that infantry on the battlefield.  It is an integral part of the platoon's direct fire planning and is expected to participate wholly in the fight, being left behind only when absolutely required.  Early IFVs were also intended as basically a platform for their infantry to fight from, but that never worked right and can now be held as an archaic requirement.  

An APC is an armored box that keeps the infantry safe going forward to a dismount position.  It may support the infantry if required, but is generally not considered a integral part of the platoon's fire power (or think of it this way, if you're digging in a US mech platoon circa 1985, the Bradley equipped unit will dig its Bradleys in forward with sectors of fire as part of the defensive plan.  The M113 platoon will keep the PCs to the rear generally).  Generally it is armed and armored for self defense vs offensive purposes.

This is basically how I had it figured out 25+ years ago when I followed developments more closely. Then after Desert Storm and the end of the Cold War, it didn't seem like all that much was happening, so I drifted away from contemporary developments. Recently (you can blame Black Sea for a lot of that) I returned to the subject and I find a lot has happened and is ongoing and I find myself adrift in a sea of new and bewildering terminology as well as new weapon systems and tactics for using them.

Which is a way of saying thanks for having the patience to go over what must be basic ABCs for you. I can use some guidance now and then.

Michael

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

6 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

This is basically how I had it figured out 25+ years ago when I followed developments more closely. Then after Desert Storm and the end of the Cold War, it didn't seem like all that much was happening, so I drifted away from contemporary developments. Recently (you can blame Black Sea for a lot of that) I returned to the subject and I find a lot has happened and is ongoing and I find myself adrift in a sea of new and bewildering terminology as well as new weapon systems and tactics for using them.

Which is a way of saying thanks for having the patience to go over what must be basic ABCs for you. I can use some guidance now and then.

Michael

No worries.  I really enjoy this forum as during my time on active duty, I had my head crammed full of military knowledge and stuff.  In my normal civilian career, it isn't relevant at all, and in my Guard career it's increasingly less relevant.  It's nice to share the information with folks who are interested in it.

The other key IFV-ism the Splinty touched on is the ability to inter-operate with tanks.  So in that regard an IFV must be able to cross the same terrain as a tank, while keeping up with same.  

Another interesting philosophical angle to it would be the "center" of the IFV vs APC formation.  The IFV exists to keep infantry rolling with tanks, on a tank heavy battlefield.  The APC exists more to give mobility to infantry heavy formations, often with tanks subordinated in support.

Basically compare the ABCT and the SBCT formations.  The CAB is a whole fist full of shock and awe combined arms, the SBCT is modern day Dragoons.  

[Michael Emrys]

I've always been skeptical of the whole Stryker concept. It seemed to me to be based on the assumption that the US Army would mainly be fighting Sudden "brushfire" wars against technologically inferior foes (like, for instance, in Somalia) where strategic mobility was the primary priority. But we have in reality been faced with foes who, although certainly our technological inferiors, are nevertheless able to hold their own while putting a modicum of hurt on us. And faced with a foe that is, or nearly is, our peer, the Stryker may find it hard to find a job where it can be really useful. Even as providing (lightly) armored mobility for "modern day Dragoons"—undeniably a useful role—I have to wonder if there couldn't be something better at a lower cost. Something along the lines of the M113 perhaps?

Michael

[c3k]

Did I just hear "Gavin"? 

 

(I am SO totally kidding!!! Please don't start. Err, "continue".   )

Stryker needs more firepower. 30mm is a good start. A 50-50 mix of 30mm and Javelin doesn't make sense to me. It'll guarantee the wrong type will be in place at the wrong time. I'd make 'em all 30mm with a Javelin launcher built in. More is better. If the APS system gets put on-line, the Stryker will make more sense. As it is, the latest version has a much greater survivability than the initial versions. (Not vehicle survivability, but passenger survivability.) APS could/should significantly reduce the threat from ATGMs. I don't know how good APS can be against modern sabot rounds, but those are fired by tanks. If a Stryker gets shot at by a tank, I can't see any rational way of preserving it, short of having the Stryker have the same armor as on the front of an Abrams...which only has that armor on the front because it weighs so much and bulks out so much. So, accept the sabot round killing the Stryker: APS could save it against anything else.

Toss in better sensors and integrated targeting/intel across the platoon/company, and you have something far better than what rolled off the assembly line 10 years ago.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

2 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

I've always been skeptical of the whole Stryker concept. It seemed to me to be based on the assumption that the US Army would mainly be fighting Sudden "brushfire" wars against technologically inferior foes (like, for instance, in Somalia) where strategic mobility was the primary priority. But we have in reality been faced with foes who, although certainly our technological inferiors, are nevertheless able to hold their own while putting a modicum of hurt on us. And faced with a foe that is, or nearly is, our peer, the Stryker may find it hard to find a job where it can be really useful. Even as providing (lightly) armored mobility for "modern day Dragoons"—undeniably a useful role—I have to wonder if there couldn't be something better at a lower cost. Something along the lines of the M113 perhaps?

Michael

Part of the Stryker as a concept is a continuation of the hyper-agile 9th ID experiments from the 1980's.  It's not just a strategic agility, but a operational level one, the idea being it's an organization with a lot of maneuverability has a formation.  

In a nutshell the SBCT is supposed to own the OODA loop.

Where it falls apart somewhat is that so long as it keeps ahead of the enemy, it wins.  Once the enemy catches it, it usually loses that agility it requires, either through being forced to commit to ground favorable to infantry, or is simply too beaten up to continue mission.  In looking at the various NTC rotations one of the comments is a certain requirement for SBCTs to be augmented by armor if they're going to go against anything other than "like" systems.  

The M113 just isn't a very agile system, and a lot of the "smart" systems that the Stryker has well exceed the capabilities of a M113 in terms of electrical load or just complexity.  Wheeled vehicles also offer a certain degree of mobility/support requirements ratio that better enables the whole agility piece.

 

 

1 hour ago, c3k said:

Did I just hear "Gavin"? 

 

(I am SO totally kidding!!! Please don't start. Err, "continue".   )

Stryker needs more firepower. 30mm is a good start. A 50-50 mix of 30mm and Javelin doesn't make sense to me. It'll guarantee the wrong type will be in place at the wrong time. I'd make 'em all 30mm with a Javelin launcher built in. More is better. If the APS system gets put on-line, the Stryker will make more sense. As it is, the latest version has a much greater survivability than the initial versions. (Not vehicle survivability, but passenger survivability.) APS could/should significantly reduce the threat from ATGMs. I don't know how good APS can be against modern sabot rounds, but those are fired by tanks. If a Stryker gets shot at by a tank, I can't see any rational way of preserving it, short of having the Stryker have the same armor as on the front of an Abrams...which only has that armor on the front because it weighs so much and bulks out so much. So, accept the sabot round killing the Stryker: APS could save it against anything else.

Toss in better sensors and integrated targeting/intel across the platoon/company, and you have something far better than what rolled off the assembly line 10 years ago.

I mean this in purely an illustrative manner, but you're talking about adding a slice of pizza to your cheeseburger.  The base vehicle can only carry so much gear, armor, weapons, and personnel.  "Passive" armor arrays (like the Abrams's style arrays) are simply way too heavy for a wheeled vehicle, and active options only go so far (SRAT is mostly an anti ATGM/RPG option).  Add on weapons also carry a pretty heavy penalty, especially the autocannon turret.

Basically see the GCV program for what happens when you put too much on one platform.  

[c3k]

20 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

 

I mean this in purely an illustrative manner, but you're talking about adding a slice of pizza to your cheeseburger.  The base vehicle can only carry so much gear, armor, weapons, and personnel.  "Passive" armor arrays (like the Abrams's style arrays) are simply way too heavy for a wheeled vehicle, and active options only go so far (SRAT is mostly an anti ATGM/RPG option).  Add on weapons also carry a pretty heavy penalty, especially the autocannon turret.

Basically see the GCV program for what happens when you put too much on one platform.  

Bah! If it means dropping the squad down to 5 men, then so be it!! Also, it'd be cool to let each Stryker have a vertical  launched drone system. And anti-air capability. Solid state lasers should fit the bill.

2 man squads could work, if needed. And add another axle. But only if it could be amphibious.

See? That's procurement.

In a serious vein, the 30mm turret is a good upgrade. A passive defense against ATGM/RPG? Probably too heavy, if "passive" means armor, so we agree. Active systems which defend against ATGM/RPG pretty much defend against everything lethal...except for direct-fire cannon. If it's BMP fired autocannon, at least the Stryker has a chance to engage the enemy. It it's a MBT, then the Stryker is the in the wrong place. So, I stand by my turret with a Javelin launcher concept. That Javelin launcher doesn't add much weight...and if one is on each Stryker, at least it has a pretty good capability against enemy vehicles/armor and won't be a total sitting duck. 

[Michael Emrys]

29 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

The M113 just isn't a very agile system, and a lot of the "smart" systems that the Stryker has well exceed the capabilities of a M113 in terms of electrical load or just complexity.

Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting a return to the M113, but a new design that is strictly intended to be a battlefield bus for infantry, preferably on tracks so as to not be road-bound in primitive country. I am open to hear why that's not a good idea. One strike against it I suppose is that it would entail developing a whole new vehicle in a costly and time-consuming process.

Michael

Edited August 16, 2016 by Michael Emrys

[Michael Emrys]

2 minutes ago, c3k said:

And add another axle. But only if it could be amphibious.

And pulled by eight tiny reindeer.

Michael

[Jammersix]

2 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

I've always been skeptical of the whole Stryker concept.

As a veteran of those very M113s, I'm with you all the way, as long as it's clear that you're advocating a new design, fully tracked, with at least as much firepower as a modern Bradley has. Incorporate lessons learned from the Stryker, admit that General Shinseki was wrong, and build a real, modern IFV with both cutting edge technology and the ability to carry a full rifle squad.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Jammersix

[Michael Emrys]

2 minutes ago, Jammersix said:

As a veteran of those very M113s, I'm with you all the way, as long as it's clear that you're advocating a new design, fully tracked, with at least as much firepower as a modern Bradley has. Incorporate lessons learned from the Stryker, admit that General Shinseki was wrong, and build a real, modern IFV with both cutting edge technology and the ability to carry a full rifle squad.

Uh, I am not advocating a new IFV with lots of firepower. That gets us back into the overweight, overpriced realm. I just want a vehicle that will carry a full squad in an armored box and that can traverse most any terrain and with just enough weaponry to protect itself against lightly armed men on the ground. Its job is not to go looking for trouble, but to transport men who will then go looking for trouble.

Sounds like what you want is a light tank that can accompany heavy tanks on the same battlefield and carry a few infantry too. And that's fine if you can manage to put it all in the same package. I don't think trying to put a full squad in that package is going to fly though...unless your infantry consists of particularly ferocious midgets.

Michael

[Jammersix]

No, I want an M1A4 Abrams that can carry a full squad.

[Jammersix]

And I don't want precious heavy-lift cargo space taken up with other foolishness. Like Strykers.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Jammersix

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: Future IFV

I think it gets down to a twist on the old engineering proverb:

You can have firepower, armor, a full squad, and mobility.  Pick three.  

I'm of the mind you can really go without the full squad if you're looking at an IFV.  Without the other three it can't keep pace with an armored formation.

At some point, likely out of boredom I doodled out an MTOE for a sort of "alternate" armor brigade.  I eventually came up with the basic unit being a five vehicle platoon, based around similar chassis, but three would be APC pure, carrying full squads but otherwise just RWSes with MGs/MK-19s, and then the other two would be a "gun" version that would mount an autocannon and ATGMs with no troops.  Armor would be modular ala M8 AGS.

Three of these plus a platoon of light tanks based on the same basic chassis would make up a company, three companies plus a conventional tank company would make up a Battalion.  Cav troops would mirror the old ACR template (two platoons of six "gun" PCs, two platoons of four conventional tanks), three troops make up the Squadron.  FA assets would be some sort of SP 155 MM plus HIMARs.

I envisioned it as sort of an ACR-like formation in that it was a lot of hurt per set of boots, with smaller units of action.  I didn't fully flesh it out (as by the lack of fires details), but I think the IFV has a concept is reaching the end of what's realistically possible.  The GCV was a disaster mobility wise to only barely meet the firepower/armor/troop requirements.  Russian IFVs have firepower and mobility, but only hypothetically fit a squad, and are deathtraps in a firefight.

Most other IFVs fall somewhere in the middle, but none of them either carrying enough troops, enough firepower, or enough armor.  

Dunno.  Again it's company grade officer musings.  

[Kinophile]

On 14/08/2016 at 11:53 PM, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

 The CAB is a whole fist full of shock and awe combined arms, the SBCT is modern day Dragoons.  

Finally a succinct description of the difference between the two! 

[Krater]

Meanwhile, Lithuanians just ordered Boxers armed with both 30mm Rafael autocannon and Spike for about 3.5 million euro.