"New Stryker Variants Gear Up for Testing"

[akd]

Posted 02-Feb-2006 09:49

General Dynamics Land Systems in Sterling Heights, MI received a $24.5 million contract for spare parts that are unique to the two newest Stryker variants: the M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS) and the M1135 Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBCRV). This contract funds procurement of initial unique spares for the first-time fielding of these two variants, and has a total potential value of $50 million if all options are exercised.

So, how does this fit into the evolution of the USA's Stryker vehicle family, and future production plans?

The Stryker MGS and NBCRV variants entered low-rate initial production (LRIP) in December 2005. General Dynamics will deliver 17 of the Stryker NBC Reconnaissance Version and 72 of the Mobile Gun Sysytem variants during low-rate initial production. The vehicles will be used for various tests and user evaluations through Q4 2007, and the Milestone C decision to begin full-rate production of both variants is also slated for the fourth quarter of 2007.

The M1128 Stryker MGS variant is meant as a direct-fire infantry assault vehicle with a 105mm cannon mounted in a low-profile, fully stabilized, "shoot-on-the-move" turret. It's intended to provide firepower support for Stryker Brigade Combat Teams, primarily for engaging hardened positions but also for dealing with enemy vehicles as required. It will also be used by the Canadian Armed forces.

Stryker MGS has had a rocky development history, with widespread reports of problems with the recoil of its gun and center of gravity. DID's photo up top would even appear to indicate a support bracket for firing tests, though a specific inquiry to General Dynamics Land Systems, we received this response:

As you can see from the photo the recoil is not a problem firing the gun for the vehicle.... in the past critics have made the claim that you could not fire over the side but the photo proves you can. What you identified in the red box is the instrumentation cables used to manual fire the gun and collect data. Other photos show the same cables as well.

The M1135 Stryker NBCRV, meanwhile, provides the U.S. Army's Stryker Brigade Combat Teams with the Department of Defense's newest nuclear, biological and chemical detection equipment in a Stryker chassis. The core of the NBC RV is its on-board integrated NBC sensor suite and integrated meteorological system. An NBC positive overpressure system that minimizes cross-contamination of samples and detection instruments, provides crew protection, and allows extended operations at MOPP 0 (i.e. without protective clothing for its occupants).

The MGS and NBCRV have a high level commonality with the rest of the 310 Strykers that comprise a Stryker Brigade Combat Team, easing the unit's training and logistics burden. The Army is slated to have six Stryker Brigade Combat Teams by 2008, and some of them have already served in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Work will be performed in Sterling Heights, MI (73%), London Ontario, Canada (15%), Tallahassee, FL (10%), and Scranton, PA (2%), and is expected to be complete by July 31, 2007. This was a sole source contract initiated on Dec. 9, 2003 by the Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command in Warren, MI (DAAE07-02-C-B001).

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/02/new-stryker-variants-gear-up-for-testing/index.php

http://www.gd.com/news/press_releases/2006/NewsRelease%20January%2026,%202006.htm

[John Kettler]

akd,

Good stuff! Until I read the text, I thought the boxed item was a camouflage net which had fallen down.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for the links!

Steve

[mun13f]

I'm sure you guys have had this debate a million times already, so I apologize: Isn't the Stryker kind of stupid?

[flamingknives]

Yes, we have had the discussion ad nauseum, and no, the Stryker isn't kind of stupid.

[oren_m]

Is that an NATO M-68 gun?

[hellfish]

Yes.

[Peter Cairns]

Whats the Stryker MC B.?

Peter.

[hellfish]

Mortar Carrier variant with a 120mm mortar. The MC A carries an 81mm mortar.

[civdiv]

I'm not a consumer, so I am a little hesitant to wade into the Stryker issue. But from just about everything I have read, the thing is a dog. And I have 3 close friends w/ Stryker Bdes, and they all say the thing is terrible. One guy really wants the M113 varient, and he sent me this;

-The M-113 is 2 feet shorter in height and 6 feet shorter in length.

-The MTVL is 2 feet shorter in height and 3 feet shorter in length.

-All three can carry a nine-man rifle squad.

-The up armored M113A3 has equal protection and weights 6 tons less.

-The up armored M113A3 and MTLV have better hp/ton ratio.

-The M113A3 is air droppable and swim able the Stryker is not.

-The rubber padded tracks on the M-113A3 and the Stryker wheels have the same ground pressure on roads.

-The tracks on the M-113A3 have superior ground pressure off road.

-The M-113 can be fitted with any turret the Stryker can carry and some it can’t.

-The M-113 can be fitted with up to 30mm/RPG protection the Stryker can’t.

-The M-113 can pivot turn the Stryker turns like a bus.

[hellfish]

The M113 certainly has some advantages over the Stryker, as does any tracked vehicle. But it also lacks a lot of the capability of the Stryker as well. I think either I or someone else has made all these points in other threads, but I'll regurgitate:

The 113, for instance, is very old. Yeah, you could probably restart production on them but you know someone would point out that we've got something like 10,000 in storage already that have been rusting away for the past 10-20 years.

The 113 is also very slow. Slower than the Bradleys and Abrams even. One of the advantages of the Stryker that I've heard those troops rave about is the speed - you can chase anything you need to and redeploy far faster and with less impact on local infrastructure than you can with a 113.

The Stryker is also much quieter than the 113. Read any of the AARs from the Stryker units in Iraq and you'll inevitably read about how the Strykers were able to sneak up on their objectives because they were so quiet.

The Stryker is vastly more simple to maintain. I was a 113 driver/TC for a time and even simple PMCS was a chore, nevermind repairing a broken/thrown track or wrecked road wheel. Many reports of Strykers losing one or more wheels to IEDs and still being able to unass under their own power (and without having to expose troops to enemy fire to repair anything).

Crew comfort is also a biggie - troops report that they can sleep in a Stryker for long movements. In a 113, and I know this from personal experience, it's difficult to keep from vomiting, let alone sleeping.

I'm not saying the Stryker is the be-all and end-all. I think it's a great vehicle to enhance light infantry with, though.

I wouldn't mind seeing one or two Stryker brigades convert to the M113A3/MTVL and M-8 Buford AGS as a way of increasing flexibility (and I'm a huge fan of the M-8, which I think is vastly more capable than the MGS) if only to allow for a more flexible response than wheeled vehicles alone. This could be especially useful for austere environments where the local infrastructure is old or non-existant. Africa, for example, where many roads and cities are totally dilapidated or anywhere with a significant rainy season (SE Asia or Central America) where a wheeled vehicle would find it's usefulness limited. For example, you could make an airborne Stryker brigade with the M113/MTVL and M-8, which would be a great capability to have and you'd probably be able to deploy a brigade anywhere in the world within 96 hours - a keystone of the Stryker concept that the current vehicles probably can't meet.

The fact of the matter is, though, that Strykers were designed with a city fight in mind - you don't need low ground pressure off road or tracks for that. The Stryker does it's job well, the troops love it, and the results have been pretty clear, IMHO.

[ February 14, 2006, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: fytinghellfish ]

[John Kettler]

civdiv,

Intriguing info! What's an MTVL? Never heard of it.

fytinghellfish,

Excellent counterpoints. Have small one of my own, though, which is that M113s are primarily made of aluminum, hence don't rust. You could say "oxidizing away" though and be correct.

Regards,

John Kettler

[hellfish]

Hahaha... very good point. I'd forgotten that. But if you ever happen to see a motorpool with M113s on the side of the highway, you'll know what I mean. The little buggers are all rotting, if not rusting, away.

The MTVL is kind of an updated M113. The Canadians use it and the Aussies have something similar to it now as well (The M113AS4?)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m113a4.htm

[hellfish]

Oh, and here's a good Stryker vs. M113 article:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m113-iav.htm

[civdiv]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

Oh, and here's a good Stryker vs. M113 article:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m113-iav.htm

Now before I begin, these aren't my opinions, just those that I have heard from people within the Stryker Bdes. People whom I know personally. But in terms of the article, they have answered many of the points that have been brought up. And the first thing that comes to mind from the article is that the comparisons are ALL being made versus the stock M113 of 1960's vintage. Again, these are not my arguments, and I definately respect your views as you used to live with an M113;

M113 Gavin vs Stryker

The Army says the Stryker family of vehicles are considered less vulnerable to small arms and weapons fire than the M113 family of vehicles. The crew and engine compartments of the Strykers are fully protected up to 14.5mm armor piercing (AP) rounds while the crew and engine compartments of the M113s are protected only up to 7.62mm AP rounds. Although a 14.5mm armor design was developed for the M113s, the armor was never produced and fielded.

There are several armor kits available for the the M113, and several make the M113 more resistant to small arms, crew serves, RPGs, IEDs, etc, than the Stryker. And several of the Stryker vehicles that have been destroyed or damaged have been penetrated by stuff that the armor was supposed to stop. In particular, because of the body shape and the fact that it is wheeled, only about 60% of the vehicle can be fitted with reactive armor, whereas about 90% of the 113 can be. And the 113, even with the extra armor, is 6 tons lighter than the Stryker.

For vehicles weighing 10-20 tons, tracked vehicles have better cross-country mobility in sand, mud and snow than wheeled vehicles, while wheeled vehicles have much better speed and ride quality over primary and secondary roads than tracked vehicles.

The Stryker has HORRENDOUS offroad mobility because it is overweight even before they added the 3 ton RPG screen.

The experiences of Afghanistan and Iraq appeared to confirm the belief in the wisdom of transformation to meet the threats of the 21st century. For instance, both the Army and Marine Corps found the need for more armor. In particular, the need arose for medium-armor units; those with armored vehicles heavier than the Humvee and M-113 Armored Personnel Carrier, but lighter than the Abrams Main Battle Tank or Bradley Fighting Vehicle. A first step in that transformation is the creation of medium-weight combat brigades built around a new fighting vehicle, the Stryker.

That part is just a self-licking ice cream cone. 'Oh, the Stryker is heavier than the M113, and we need a heavier vehicle!' What does weight, in and of itself, provide you besides poorer off road mobility? If you have the same carrying capacity, the same armament, the same protection, why do you need an extra 6 tons?

During and after the American Civil War, many military leaders looked at cavalry differently. The idea was that a horse was there for transportation and that was it. Even cavalry leaders such as Gen. Philip Sheridan believed horses were for nothing but transport. The M-113 was a part of that. Designed in the 1940s and 1950s, the M-113 was an armored personnel carrier. It was a full-track vehicle and hundreds of thousands of them were built. Variants of the vehicle are still in service as emergency vehicles.

I'm not sure how that fits into the argument. The Stryker has the exact same role.

But wheeled vehicles offer many advantages. While other military organizations had a wheeled armored personnel carrier – most notably the Marine Corps' light armored vehicle – the US Army did not, until the Stryker. The Stryker vehicle is an eight-wheeled infantry carrier. The vehicle is designed to get light infantry from point A to point B on the battlefield. Upon arrival, the troopers dismount the vehicle and fight on foot.

So what are these advantages besides moderately better road movement and a smoother ride? And in regards to the smoother ride, the USMC stuck the Bradley suspension on their AMTRACs, and it was a HUGE improvement!

The difference between a Stryker and an M-113 is like the difference between a Yugo and a Rolls Royce Silver Ghost.

In price tag maybe. $10 billion for the Stryker.

The first thing you notice about the Stryker is that there is a steering wheel. The M-113 had two sticks coming up from the floor, with each one controlling a track. Visibility out of the driver's hatch is good. It's a 2,000 percent improvement over the M-113, most notably because you are buttoned up. There is also a video camera that helps the driver.

The controls on the M113 can be changed. I mean, the M-60 had two sticks, the M1 has sort of a flight yoke. And the M113 can rotate in place while the Stryker turns like a bus.

And I have heard many complaints that the visibility from the Stryker just plain sucks. I'm not sure what models we are talking about, but I have heard in one varient the gun sight, or maybe the drivers view, is almost totally blocked by an equipment upgrade (I can't remember the specifics). The cupula is also vulnerable and crews reinforce it with ammo cans full of sand. And in one varient the TC has to fully expose his entire upper body to see the road.

And I've also heard that you can't hit the side of a barn with the gun while moving. The gun is highly prone to jams (all Mk-19s are prone to stoppages, and then you have to manually cycle the weapon, I'm not sure if this is what they are talking about.), and the vehicle has to be exited to reload the weapon, or to clear the jam. The vehicle is also top heavy and prone to rollover, and this has happened with fatalities on at least several occassions.

In regards to the MGS, the gun is so loud that if the crew comparetment is not properly sealed you can kill the crew with the overpressure. I've read that it produces 200db when it fires. I read in one place that dismounted personnel need to be 450 meters away. Now that sounds a bit extreme. Maybe 450 meters to meet OSHA standards or something. Plus the troops in Iraq have been screaming for the MGS for almost 2 years now, and it keeps getting delayed.

Handling characteristics of the Stryker are good, even up to 50 mph. Drivers might have been able to get an M-113 up to 50 if you were going downhill with the wind behind them. But if they did, their fillings would rattle out.

Where are you going to be driving so fast? Only if your whole unit is driving down a paved road can you go that fast.

The Stryker is bigger and has a higher profile and better armor than the M-113.

It doesn't have better armor and the higher profile is a vulnerability.

The tracked M113 has, as it happens, 28% less volume under armor than the Stryker so one might reasonably expect Stryker to be bigger externally. However, the wheeled Stryker is, in fact, over 63% bigger in exterior volume. Note. The M113-Stryker ratios are 257 versus 330 cubic feet internally, and 870 cubic feet versus 1,420 cubic feet externally.

Maybe to a stock M113, but not to a MTVL. Again, they are comparing it to a different vehicle than is being proposed as a replacement.

The Stryker can't go as many places as a fully tracked vehicle like the M-113. But those who have driven both say they can go through pretty much the same terrain.

From EVERYTHING I have heard, that is total BS.

Plus the Stryker can run with four tires shot out. Try to keep moving if the track comes off on an M-113.

The Stryker can do about 5 mph with 2 tires shot out. And you cant shoot a track out, you can only blow it off. And because the Stryker has wheels, it has tie rods. And a burst from an AK can take them out.

Maintenance is easier on the Stryker, but there was initially a shortage of parts in the system because the vehicle is so new.

Agreed. But there has been a huge shortage of tires, rims, axles, transfer cases, and tie rods because the vehicle is much heavier than it is supposed to be.

[Ryan Crierie]

Stryker with the RPG cage has a ground pressure of about 90~ PSI. Meanwhile, a M1A2 Abrams which weighs 70 tons is about 17ish PSI. Do the math. Strykers are effectively roadbound unless:

1.) The area is very very dry.

[hellfish]

Comments in semi-random order:

The M113A3 has a steering wheel, IIRC. I was on an A2 with the sticks, though.

Pivot steering in a 113 was strictly forbidden in my unit due to the very high risk of throwing a track. I think that was the reason, anyways. It's been a good 7 years or so. But still, yeah, I think the 113 has a tighter turn radius.

The armor upgrade kits for the 113 will cost money, and the article mentions that they've never been in serial production, making the price potentially even higher. The Stryker/LAVIII has been in production for quite a while now, keeping the vehicular and protection costs down. Save for maybe the RPG cage, but I can't imagine that was terribly expensive.

Remember the pricetag for the Stryker also includes all the electronics and commo systems that would have to be installed on the M113s as well.

There are reports of the Strykers moving very fast even as individual vehicles in the pursuit of drive by shooters and other kinds of runners. And they caught up with them too.

I haven't heard of any Strykers being immobilized yet, either. At least from enemy action.

I'm really not a Stryker apologist, but I think it's a better choice than refurbishing old M113s. Newer production MTVLs might be a different story...

And I still despise the MGS. They say they don't want it to be a tank killer, that it's not supposed to fight like a tank, but then they give it a tank cannon with tank APFSDSDU rounds. I think if anything an old 105mm M102 howitzer tied to the chassis with 550 cord would have been a better choice for an MGS than what we're getting. Even better would be a 120mm gun/mortar like the AMOS. An M68 with 18 rounds is not useful, IMHO.

[Peter Cairns]

A couple of points to add to this.

Firstly on road infrastructure in the third world. If you are out to win the hearts and minds of the of the locals use wheels, as tracked vehicles tend to churn up the road surface so that when it rains you get a sea of mud and when its hot clouds of dust.

No one has yet mentioned one of the achilles heals of tracked vehicles Fuel consumption. The strker can go 3oo miles on just over 50 gallons thats near 6 mpg. The M-113 does 200 miles on an 80 gallon tank, thats 2.5 mpg, which means that do go the same distance you need 2.4 times as much fuel.

True as the M-113 takes more people you could probably move a Battalion with fewer vehicles, but you still need twice the fuel.

In addition the Stryker could probably cover it's 300 miles faster than the M-113 could it's 200. As to the off road arguement, In all but a few cases most movement over distance is prior to combat and by road.

Sure the M-113 could go further off road in to heavier country, and then when it's 80 gallon tank runs dry the fuel trucks can just run a 15 mile hose out to refuel it. Think about it people whats the point of being able to go where you logistical support can't.

In combat fast off road manouvering is for M1A2's and Bradleys, not Strykers and M-113's, there job is to get the infantry there and back out ( the turning circle is abit of a red herring as it really only comes in to play if you've put yourself in the wrong place)

I do find it surprising that the US didn't go for an amphibious version, as it reduces dependence on bridging equipment and the like in third world countries etc.

I also stated long ago (in the wierd and chaotic Independant Scotland thread) I liked the smaller 6 wheeled amphibious variant, that was more air portable, and potentially could be liked by a Chinook or Marine GJ, ( although only empty without add on armour).

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

civdiv,

Keep in mind that you are hear anecdotal evidence, even if direct. If you get 100 soldiers in the room, ask them a SIMPLE question that is quite specific, you'll likely get 123 answers. You'd get even more if fist fights didn't break out in order to resolve who is right and wrong

You've got 3 friends that think the Stryker sucks compared to a vehicle they aren't using. Their opinions are valid. However, I've heard, personally and indirectly, from MANY soldiers and officers associated with Stryker units in Iraq and they've said exactly the opposite. One funny story was about a critic of the Stryker program that came to Iraq for a fact finding examination. He refused to ride in anything but a Stryker after being there for a little while.

The point is that there is no one thing to satisfy all demands. The Stryker solves some needs and doesn't solve others. Depending on what you expect form the force will color your opinion of it. However, I don't see how any tracked force could have redeployed some 500km away from base and start conducting combat operations within 24 hours.

Whatever criticism is leveled at the Stryker program, that is the sort of shortfall in capability the Army felt it needed to correct. Is it worth the cost? Could there have been another solution? Perhaps, but not one with tracks. And I say this as a guy with two tracked vehicles. I love 'em to death and would never want to replace them with anything, but when I have to get into town quickly to pick up a six pack, and don't want to risk having to drink it on the side of the road somewhere, I get into something with wheels

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Further... I've read more than a few harsh words about the Bradley and AMTRAC vehicles from the soldiers and Marines that have to ride around in them. Negative comments about the Humvee aren't hard to find either. Let's not even start talking about body armor So if annecdotal negative comments are to be taken as the Gold Standard of assessing the value of something, then we might as well send everybody in uniform home because I'm sure nothing is "good enough" by that standard.

Also, I think civdiv might be buying into some propaganda, outdated information, and/or completely false accusations. For example, the supposed shortage of certain key parts. Well, that is generally true for all vehicles in a combat zone. I doubt you would find any vehicle maintainence crew that said they had everything they wanted whenever they want it. That being said, I've seen readiness reports of Stryker units averaging in the high 90%s, even during periods of high activity. I don't know what the readiness levels are for tracked units of similar samplings, but I'm told it is much lower. Certainly has always been that way.

Another thing is speed and comfort. One of the things that was pointed to as a negative of the opening phase of OIF was the fatigue on troops couped up in Bradleys and AMTRACs. Not from fighting, but just from being moved around. So comfort should not be dismissed as unimportant. Stryker troops have repeatedly commented about this.

As for speed, when you have a military deployment zone for a single Brigade that is measured in hundreds of square KMs, you really want speed. In fact, you NEED speed, otherwise the enemy will know that they can attack one part without fearing reinforcements from showing up unexpectedly. The speed of Stryker units, which contain vehicles that can all do sustained 45mph travel for several hours without a break, allows the Army to be able to better counter the actions of an enemy that can pop up any where and any time it chooses to. And as mentioned above, when they arrive the fighting troops are ready to engage in combat with an extremely high degree of readiness.

Again, I'm not saying the Stryker program is without its flaws, nor that it is the perfect tool for all situations all the time. But CLEARLY it is filling a gap in the military's capabilities and it is apparently filling it quite well.

Steve

[ February 14, 2006, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Wicky]

Just buttin in for a sec - Steve take a look at the GF as we have a breakout of Jon J Rambo the 2nd. RED ALERT RED ALERT and is in urgent need of moderation.

Cheers

Please continue

[flamingknives]

A more on topic warning:

Most, if not all reference to the M113 as a 'Gavin' are down to Mike Sparks, who is wrong. Plus he seems to get more crazy as time goes on.

In other news, all armoured vehicles tip over. I've seen a pic of a Challenger 2 on its side on the BATUS training ground. So that's the middle of a largely flat prairie.

[hellfish]

Hehe... the mythos of Sparky survives. I hate the "Gavin" idea.

Semi-OT, but I had a pic somewhere of Brit Chally 2s, Canadian Leo 1s and US M1A1s at the BATUS facility somewhere. It was really a very cool pic because all the crews were totally mixed and enjoying each other's company.

[Moronic Max]

What you identified in the red box is the instrumentation cables used to manual fire the gun and collect data. Other photos show the same cables as well.

This is probably a really dumb question, but I think my handle means I can get away with asking dumb questions. Anyway, are those cables part of the production model stryker (as opposed to being there for tests), and if so, are they vulnerable to small arms fire?

[civdiv]

And I still despise the MGS. They say they don't want it to be a tank killer, that it's not supposed to fight like a tank, but then they give it a tank cannon with tank APFSDSDU rounds. I think if anything an old 105mm M102 howitzer tied to the chassis with 550 cord would have been a better choice for an MGS than what we're getting. Even better would be a 120mm gun/mortar like the AMOS. An M68 with 18 rounds is not useful, IMHO.

I agree completely. Why give the thing a weapon designed for armor if that's not its purpose? When you say the AMOS I guess you are talking about that neat 120mm direct fire/indirect fire mortar that is mounted on the LAV, right? The Corps was supposed to get it and I really loved the idea. But then they decided against it, because, IIRC, they didn't want to add another ammo type to the logistical train. I did see one though, I think they ended up selling some to the Kuwaitis. Neat concept. I would have loved to have had that extra HE capability, but the 25mm on the existing LAVs are pretty good for buildings and bunkers and stuff. And dang, those things are so accurate even without all the high speed sights the Bradley has. I once watched our LAVs nailing vehicles from like 2000 meters in Somolia on the second burst.