Jump to content

The Stryker with a 30mm Autocannon?


Haveatya

Recommended Posts

do-suc-manh-xe-boc-thep-chien-dau-stryke

The United States army has begun putting these into testing and service a few months back and the upgrading seems to take pretty minimal time and effort. Would it be possible to get these introduced in Black Sea? With people pushing for the Armata because of its implementation, I believe putting in the the AT Dragoon and the 30mm Dragoon would bring motorized stryker units some additional firepower over the mk.19s and .50s on transport capable strykers now. I don't know how difficult it would be to implement these but perhaps they would be an excellent addition to a DLC for the game?

IMG_6087-1-e1477593562519-1024x654.jpg

Thoughts or concerns?

https://www.armytimes.com/articles/army-receives-first-stryker-upgraded-with-30mm-cannon

https://www.army.mil/article/177472/first_stryker_prototype_with_30mm_cannon_delivered_to_army

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/army-rolls-out-upgunned-stryker-30m-autocannon-vs-russians/

Edited by Haveatya
Additional sources and pictures
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes. The program is years ahead of schedule and has no downsides to the characteristics of the Stryker. As c3k said, it's unmanned and functions as just a heavier RCWS versus the contemporary mk.19 and .50s.  Same thing with the javelin variant. Because the uparmor packages that are now standard, the Stryker is too heavy for its intended weight class and must be transported via the same means as conventional mechanized units. So adding some weight is perfectly fine and acceptable. 

Last time a military project has moved this fast was when the Abrams was getting tested and up gunned to then 120mm. The program is honestly exceptional. 

Edited by Haveatya
Grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VladimirTarasov said:

No problem since Mr. Trump will be improving relationships I welcome such a beast into service :) no provocation there. 

It's worth bearing in mind the Obama administration started off with a "reset" to relations with Russia in an attempt to improve relations.  Wouldn't exactly count chickens at this point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

It's worth bearing in mind the Obama administration started off with a "reset" to relations with Russia in an attempt to improve relations.  Wouldn't exactly count chickens at this point.

 

Me neither with Mattis as Defense Secretary and Mitt Romney as possible Secretary of State. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

It's worth bearing in mind the Obama administration started off with a "reset" to relations with Russia in an attempt to improve relations.  Wouldn't exactly count chickens at this point.

 

Off topic however, Trump and Obama are not comparable even in the 1%, I'm sure things will be way better than they are now in terms of Russia and America's relations. Even the Anti-Trump "experts" are predicting so. Anyways that was quite off topic 

The up gunned Stryker looks promising they could go toe to toe with heavy IFVs with that upgrade, the firepower upgrade looks promising on it. But I see one possible problem, I heard the Strykers don't coupe to well on off road terrain, if this is true; will the extra weight from this turret affect the mobility of the Stryker? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather have this thread stay on the Stryker Dragoon and not the "what-if" of politics. The new system adds 2 tons of weight. Spread across 8 wheels that is 4000/8 so 500 pounds of weight per wheel which is pretty minor. Also the MGS is of similar weight already so if anything it is just standardizing their terrain capabilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Haveatya said:

I'd rather have this thread stay on the Stryker Dragoon and not the "what-if" of politics. The new system adds 2 tons of weight. Spread across 8 wheels that is 4000/8 so 500 pounds of weight per wheel which is pretty minor. Also the MGS is of similar weight already so if anything it is just standardizing their terrain capabilities.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I was referring to a complaint or two I've read from US army guys about the vehicle's mobility. If it doesn't affect anything at all then it's a good upgrade. When are those bad boys being thrown into service? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Off topic however, Trump and Obama are not comparable even in the 1%, I'm sure things will be way better than they are now in terms of Russia and America's relations. Even the Anti-Trump "experts" are predicting so. Anyways that was quite off topic 

The up gunned Stryker looks promising they could go toe to toe with heavy IFVs with that upgrade, the firepower upgrade looks promising on it. But I see one possible problem, I heard the Strykers don't coupe to well on off road terrain, if this is true; will the extra weight from this turret affect the mobility of the Stryker? 

Off topic because whatever:  

Just saying this isn't the first time someone has come in promising to make everything better with Russia.  

On topic:

Re: 30 MM

There isn't a 25 MM organic to the SBCT.  Army-Strategic level there was a little logic to something bigger, but the 25 MM is already pretty far down the state of the art for what it can do, if we're going for a system that'll be around for 10-20 years going for bigger makes some sense.   

Re: Mobility

The complaints about the Stryker aren't really "Stryker" specific, nearly as much as wheeled APC sort of thing going off road problems.  It's not going to be more mobile than the previous iteration, but I'd contend it's not going to be worse enough you'd notice the difference.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first heard about this Stryker upgrade, I was less than thrilled. One of the main points of the SBCT is its reduced logistics trail. It is easier to transport (getting it into theatre) and requires less logistics to support it (operationally speaking) than ABCT's. Further, it seemed like they wanted to give the Stryker capabilities that the Bradley already has by introducing a new vehicle instead of just using more Brads. 

However, now that I've been able to read more about the project, I've changed my opinion. This upgrade seems like the best of both worlds. It does not reduce the capabilities of the Stryker (troop capacity and the like) and seems like it won't be that much more logistics/maintenance heavy. The increased firepower is also a very good thing. Overall I think the project is a good idea. The only concern I have for it right now is ammo capacity. If it can only carry 100 rounds or so, I'll be a bit disappointed. In order for that increased firepower to really matter, its gotta be able to use it for more than a single firefight. 

Now my biggest worry is that after these vehicles are introduced in large numbers, the Army tries to use them as a one size fits all vehicle. ("Why do we need these Bradley's when this 30mm Stryker is basically the same thing? Relegate the Brads to recon roles only, and look at the money/maintenance we save!" *yikes*) But I have yet to hear anything like this happening, so I may be getting ahead of myself on that one. 

As far as seeing it in game, I would certainly love to see that. If nothing more I would like to see how it performs on the tactical battlefield. I personally cannot stand the Stryker with just the .50 or Mk19. Not nearly enough firepower, very vulnerable, and the damn road wheels are not good in rough/broken terrain. I always prefer using the Brads for these reasons and others, but it looks like the 30mm Strykers would bridge most of that gap (minus the road wheels of course) I'm sure BFC will include it in a module or something later down the line, as long as they can get enough technical info on it to properly model it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't remember where but I was talking to a rather informed individual and he said the 30mm has similar characteristics to the Apache's cannon. The likelihood of getting any more details are pretty slim so modeling it with those statistics would likely be fair.

While there is an increase in weight, the addition of slat armor has already made the Stryker overweight for its initial role of high aerial mobility. Also it will still weigh less than the MGS which is transported alongside it conventionally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haveatya,

Welcome aboard!

What a fine first post. We;ve been reading about the upgunning, but yours is the first pic on can recall, and the renderings are just lovely. Clever of us to have it as a Super CROWs, taking a page, I believe, from the Russians in doing so. Always good to be able to improve armament while keeping troop capacity. Being years ahead of schedule is, sad to say, not the US defense procurement norm. But if your source is right about the new gun's being akin to the M230, then there's a big problem. The M242 on the current Bradley is a high velocity weapon, whereas, the M230 on the Apache is, by comparison, medium at best and is singularly lacking in the APDS category altogether.

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

The 30 mm won't be an orphan long when it comes to ground warfare. Seems the Army's looking to buy (wait for it) 50,000 JTLVs (Joint Tactical Light Vehicle) as replacements for armor challenged Hummers and clumsy MRAPs. Oskkosh is going full bore at the subset (JRV) Joint Recon Vehicle program, and its gun truck has an M230 fitted. Have to say the US is going to have to work pretty hard to beat the technical performance and weapon resistance of things like Russia's Typhoon.

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/09/gun-truck-oshkosh-unveils-30mm-chaingun-jltv-for-army-recon/

IICaptainMiller",

The short answer is that it isn't, starting with the rather embarrassing fact the Stryker is almost totally roadbound. The Stryker is nowhere nearly as well protected as the Bradley is, either, lacks the sensor suite, the high velocity long range gun and the integrated TOW capability inherent in both the BFV and the CFV.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30x173mm XM813 cannon.  Uses same ammo as A-10, but a programmable HE air burst round is in development for the Dragoons.  Holds 156 rounds of ready ammo, but apparently can be reloaded from under armor.

The 4-view render comes from this presentation, which has much detail:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2016armament/Toepfer.pdf

AFAIK, there are no intentions currently to rearm the entire fleet, just a single brigade set for 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Europe.

Edited by akd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Haveatya said:

I can't remember where but I was talking to a rather informed individual and he said the 30mm has similar characteristics to the Apache's cannon. The likelihood of getting any more details are pretty slim so modeling it with those statistics would likely be fair.

Apache M789 HEDP

  • 30mm x 113mm
  • projectile weight: 236g
  • muzzle velocity: 805 m/s
  • burst charge: 21.5 grams

Stryker Mk 238 HEI-T

  • 30mm x 173mm
  • projectile weight: 362g
  • muzzle velocity: 1080 m/s
  • burst charge: 56 grams

 

Edited by Vanir Ausf B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

akd,

Thanks to your weapon designator, I was able to run down the weapon. It most emphatically is NOT like the Apache's cannon. It is, in fact, a nastier version of the Bradley's auto cannon. The Stryker will therefore have a potent capability vs RUS light armor (and likely all sorts of stuff from the flanks and maybe even nose) at several klick range. Naturally, FF has gone on strike again and won't paste, so search under

Advanced Lethality and Accuracy System for Medium Caliber (ALAS-MC) from REDCOM

Not only is it quite the read from the 30 mm side of things, but there is a Bushmaster III coming in 50 mm!

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stryker 30mm cannon, using above specs, brings over 200,000 Joules on impact. (Muzzle velocity.) The Apache cannon brings 75,000J. Obviously, these are NOT kinetic penetrators. They have very different roles. Just bringing this up to show the different order of magnitude of the energies these two weapons bring.

Additionally, the Apache is an area weapon. It disperses a lot. The Stryker cannon is much more accurate...from my understanding.

I can see the Brad cannon being upgraded sooner than later. The 25mm was nice...in 1980. (Again...conjecture.)

(My comment upstream about all Strykers being upgraded was pure conjecture.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...