Stryker mobility

[Wisbech_lad]

Hmm, that article to me was more about replacing Humvee's fast, than Stryker brigade. Basically saying that getting M113's would be faster way of getting people behind armour in Iraq.

Must admit, my reading was that the price didn't include all the gizmo's, but his thesis is that what is needed in Iraq isn't the bells and whistles of a stryker brigade, but an APC that is more survivable than a humvee. Fair enough, but a different argument.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

i might as well post a couple other recent contracts for comparison.

modifications of already existing vehicles:

M1A2SEP modernization - 2.3 million a piece

Bradley M2A3 modernization - 2 million a piece

LAV III modification - 1.4 million a piece

whole new vehicles:

Boxer (German Stryker equivalent) - 3.3 million a piece

Pandur II (Austrian Stryker equivalent) - 3 million a piece

Patria AMV (Finnish Stryker equivalent) - 2-3 million a piece

Piranha III (Swiss Stryker equivalent) - 2.5 million a piece

[tiny_tanker]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

[sNIP]

Here is an article that I think is useful, first because it sets out not to rag the Stryker but just to compare it to the alternatives, and second because it gives some nice details on the alternative, to wit, an upgraded M113.

Stryker vsGavin

The military likes bullet points, so to add organizational heft to my arguement, I'll distill what I think are useful things to keep in mind when talking about the upgraded M113:

* Fully amphibious

* Turbocharged Diesel gives speed about 80 per cent of Stryker

* Upgraded electrics to include modern digital kit to US Army standard, however, it is not clear from the article whether this would be exactly

* Turns in place

* Can be uparmored to 14.5mm MG standard, RPG bird cage exists

* Aluminum hull, greater chance of fire in case of a HEAT hit.

* Steel belted one-piece radial track, not old-style links, effectively no maintenance

* Also quiet and smooth, as vehicle is not on steel tracks any more. 50 per cent weight savings over steel track, increased travel range to 4,000 miles.

* Track can burn and is more complicated to replace than a steel track.

* 4-5 of these vehicles fit into a Herc

* Can be air-dropped

* Vehicle is already in supply system.

* Same remote .50 as the Stryker has

* Existing frames for upgrade exist, according to the article there are close to 10,000 M-113 in US Army inventory that could receive the upgrade

* For the price of one Stryker ($3.3 million), you get eight of these upgraded M-113

Now Steve, even acknowledging that the Styker has it over the Gavin on survivability in case of a road bomb, I know one thing: In CMSF, I would definately prefer to have 8 x upgraded M113, rather than 1 x Stryker.

[/QB]

That article makes some interesting statements that your using to make some bold assumptions.

The M113A3 looks good on paper, but as the article states it doesn't have as much armor protection in its standard form, so add the appliqué armor package and birdcage and you get the weight up near the Strykers, this also increases the cost.

Next add the remote gun turret so the commander has some safety (the article says its not included in the A3 upgrade unlike what you state). So add more weight and hight and cost.

As for air mobility how do you think your going to fit 4 of these in a Herc?? Add in all the extras I just mentioned and its coming into the same issues the Styker has now, then throw the cage on it... this seems familiar for some reason.

Now the tracks will give you more manuverability in some areas as has been mentioned, but they also leave you vulnerable in the roles that the Stryker is being used (Route security, convoy security, moving in ied infested areas). If you loose a track in an ambush that vehicle and everyone in it will die. Also what is its protection against ied's and mines? For some reason I have images of Vietnam all over again with people huddled on top of the M113's so the mines don't kill them.

So in the end we'll have a vehicle that costs the same if not more than a Stryker, still has trouble being air transported, and it more vulnerable to the main killer ied's, not to mention the lack of being self recoverable. The Stryker just makes sense in comparison.

[average]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

StryjerPSG,

This is, after all, in most cases a 19-20 year old male without children of his own, or any skills making him useful to the civilian economy. He is generally more poorly educated that the society he is fighting for, and to be quite honest most of the time he is from at least the lower half of the socio-economic pyramid, and quite often the lowest third. His personal loyalties, if any, are to other members of his unit.

And this guy is carrying a rifle that can't hurt much, except other infantrymen.

Fact is, this guy is pretty much the most expendible soldier in the entire inventory. Of all the people in uniform, it is precisely this person the society can afford to lose the most. His death will not significantly affect the GDP or the size of the population.

And that makes perfect sense, as infantry are the ones that take the highest casualties. It is, if one is willing to think brutally, dumb to lavish a bunch of resources on the group most likely to be killed.

Now, I quite agree that sort of thinking won't fly in the modern US military, which has taken as one of its basic assumptions wars can be won without even moderate casualties, and often with light casualties. And the Stryker fits in very well indeed into that doctrine: all we really need to do is keep the infantry alive and comfortable, and so the civilian complaints down, and we will destroy any force out there.

That is to me is sloppy and dangerous reasoning. The US since 1950 repeatedly has been shown there are limits to military power, and every time it has forgotten the lesson, the society has suffered.

Bigduke,

The irony. The cliche. Your spelling, your nietzschean philosophy. Best laugh I've had all day.

Still a well thought out post despite me not having the same sort of will to power you do.

Take issue with the idea force protection is not important, political will is the key part of the national effort militarily. American public don't hold the lives of their soldiers as cheaply as say the Chinese. Too many body bags, the political will evaporates in anything other than a national emergency.

Second, all volunteer force isn't likely to be happy about going to die like cattle to cut your taxes. Ergo, you'll create even more problems with retention, training and hollowness by trying to save a few bucks on equipment and make life uncessarily spartan.

Continuing on, M113 was designed to surrive indirect fires and provide mobility in a storm of shot and shell cold war show down. Even with the Gavin upgrades, its still going to be hot, smelly, uncomfortable, probably break your back if a mine goes off under it and will melt when hit by a basic RPG-7V grenade.

Its kind of like a Stryker, just tracked, older, probably not as surrivable, and if its anything like the M113s I know, uncomfortable.

[ August 29, 2007, 05:22 AM: Message edited by: average ]

[thewood]

I spend a lot of time in China and lived there for a year. Chinese mothers get just as upset at losing sons as american mothers. Its just that american mothers can have more influence (both short term and long term) on political leadership than a chinese mother.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by tiny_tanker:

So in the end we'll have a vehicle that costs the same if not more than a Stryker, still has trouble being air transported, and it more vulnerable to the main killer ied's, not to mention the lack of being self recoverable. The Stryker just makes sense in comparison.

indeed. individual kits don't cost too much, but when you do a serious modernization/upgrade it quickly adds up to serious numbers. e.g. the current up-armor & gun shield upgrade for M113 costs "only" 100 000 dollars a piece. doesn't sound bad. but add a remote turret system and it costs 200 000 - 300 000 dollars extra. thermals, comms etc cost a whole lot more. still you need to add in various special dingdangs like counter sniper systems and such.

[Omenowl]

Funny, how the argument is what a waste the Stryker is in costs, and how the money could be better spent. I think this would be more true on why are we spending money on slightly modified planes such as the F/A18 superhornet or having so many F22s or B2s when 250+ million dollars could be spent much better on other items.

[Glukx Ouglouk]

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

Aren't the French moving to wheeled APC too?

Wheels vs tracks, I can see for a APC wheels make more sense, for an IFV probably tracks.

It's actually a wheeled IFV (called the VBCI), rather than an APC. The French army has allready been using a wheeled APC (the VAB) for years. AFAIK, the reasons for choosing a wheeled IFV were the cost and weight savings (the latter for airtransport with the A400M), at the condition that the offroad mobility had to remain good enough to follow the Leclerc tank. Mobility on roads may have played a role too.

I think it should be noted that the VBCI is a post-cold war design intended for the main roles of the French army nowadays - peace keeping operations and low intensity conflicts, notably in Africa,and all whithin a tight budget. I don't think wheels are inherently superior or inferior to tracks - it's simply a choice based on the intended role of the vehicule.

As for the Stryker, the way I see it is : if it works for the wars the US is fighting now, it's a good design, even if not perfect. As for the idea of using an upgraded M113 instead... If those are built new, they will most certainly not cost less than Strykers (and there's not much point in building new vehicules based on a 40 years old design) ; if they are taken out of storage, they are not only of an old design, but also old vehicules, which means that they would probably have to be completly rebuilt, not only to upgrade them, but also to extend their service life...

[RT North Dakota]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

* For the price of one Stryker ($3.3 million), you get eight of these upgraded M-113

This doesn't pass muster. A lot of these figures are just invented. -especally by the guys that keep calling the M-113, "The Gavin". -

There are simply no open source tender figures on upgrading M-113 for the US Army to an agreed specification or any set of comprehensive support costs. They do exist for the Australians and Canadians, but that's a different issue.

Again this buys into the Wannabe Force Developers idea that focuses on the vehicle capability and not the enhancement of light infantry.

[Splinty]

M113s are also made of aluminum-magnesium armor and will burn like a roman candle if hit by a HEAT round. The MEXAS tiles on a Stryker will not.

[lrrprecon]

Personally i would like to know how many of you who actually post here ever been in a M113 or Stryker. I know i have been in a M113 and i have driven one also. When it comes to a Stryker, i have been in the ones that went boom and now reside at the Stryker bone yard at Kuwait docks. Some of you armchair warriors only know what you read or see on CNN. If you really want a experience go down to your local recruiter, raise your right hand and give away some of your freedom for a couple years. Then your perspective of how these vehicles operate will be more clear. Personnaly i would pick a M113 over the Stryker, reason being i know how it works and operates. If you know how to drive a M1 then you should have no prob driving a M113. And another thing, a Stryker can not PIVOT steer, and in combat, i would rather want to PIVOT steer then back up. M113 is a versatile track vehicle, the army uses it for practically everything. So you could say its a very used workhorse. I also saw a Stryker break from its chains on a HET at CP22A on MSR Tampa, in Iraq and IMMEDIATLY catch fire and burn, i brought home a solidified disc from the armor that melted off the stryker. You can have that piece of c-r-a-p, i'll stick with my M113.

[ August 29, 2007, 06:36 AM: Message edited by: lrrprecon ]

[MikeyD]

"And another thing, a Stryker can not PIVOT steer"

I recall a couple very early Beta builds had the Stryker's full 40 foot (meter?) turn radius modeled. Ohmygod, what a giant pain! You would NOT want to play that game. The current version has 'rationalized' the vehicle's turn radius a bit, to make up for the AI not yet mastering the fine art of the 3-point-turn or any of the more challenging parallel parking maneuvers.

Stryker / M113 is a valid comparison seeing that the latest M113 in iraq have been upgraded to more closely match Stryker's armor protection. Slat cage, gun shields and applique armor. So they're starting from a common baseline - let the comparisons begin!

[Splinty]

Irrepcon, I spent 10 years in Mech Infantry, 3 in 113s and 7 in Brads. I am in Baghdad right now as an MP(15 days left!) and I work with Strykers quite often. The Stryker guys I've talked to think very highly of it and like me think the 113 is a piece of crap. This my 3rd tour in Iraq and my 18th year in the Army, so at least in my case I know that of which I speak.

[Bigduke6]

Bigduke,

The irony. The cliche. Your spelling, your nietzschean philosophy. Best laugh I've had all day.

Still a well thought out post despite me not having the same sort of will to power you do.

Take issue with the idea force protection is not important, political will is the key part of the national effort militarily. American public don't hold the lives of their soldiers as cheaply as say the Chinese. Too many body bags, the political will evaporates in anything other than a national emergency.

Second, all volunteer force isn't likely to be happy about going to die like cattle to cut your taxes. Ergo, you'll create even more problems with retention, training and hollowness by trying to save a few bucks on equipment and make life uncessarily spartan.

Continuing on, M113 was designed to surrive indirect fires and provide mobility in a storm of shot and shell cold war show down. Even with the Gavin upgrades, its still going to be hot, smelly, uncomfortable, probably break your back if a mine goes off under it and will melt when hit by a basic RPG-7V grenade.

Its kind of like a Stryker, just tracked, older, probably not as surrivable, and if its anything like the M113s I know, uncomfortable.

Average,

Well, I don't see alot of US national will to support war and continued casualites right now, and the policy from the get-go has been force protection.

I think that undermines your arguement force protection must drive military strategy decision-making.

Here is something else I think: The general public has other priorities besides making sure the troops have the best chance of staying alive. Some people want more schools and social programs, others want the government collecting less taxes.

Neither group will, without a good reason, support the very most survivable vehicle for the troops. Sure, they might say they support the troops, but talk is one thing and happily sending your taxes to the government is another.

This is why I keep coming back to results. If the weapon doesn't produce good results in a war, you are going to have a huge amount of trouble sustaining public support in funding the army using the weapon - no matter how great the troops say it is.

Frankly, if the US military had produced a victory by now, the US public would have swallowed all 3,500 dead and however many injured right now, and declared the military and its leaders a pack of geniuses. 3,500 dead is peanuts for a country the size of the US, that's about one month's worth of traffic deaths.

It may not be pleasant for the troops or people who really do in their hearts support the troops to look at the death so coldly. But wars are not won by nice intentions and feeling good. And it is a policy error of the first order, and a professional one for the military leaders as well, to delude themselves and the general public that there is a painless, low-cost way to win most wars.

The Stryker is, IMO, a glaring manifestation of this error. Its fielding is proof positive the military leadership would rather field a spiffy gee-whiz conventional force and hope, rather than have the moral courage to say (a) what we need is brutality and a police state or ( we can't win this war, and Strykers won't help.

Remember, the Stryker was designed for a new age conflict where the US has an overwhelming force preponderance. Well, they've got a war on precisely those terms, and unfortunately the weapon can't give us the result we need.

[Bigduke6]

RT North Dakota,

Fair enough, if the Stryker costs 1.8 million not 3.3 million, then you get 4 upgraded M-113, as opposed to 8, for a single Stryker.

To me, that is still a strong arguement in favor of upgrading the M-113 and fielding it instead of a similar number of Strykers.

From my perspective, slightly less ragged out passengers, better speed on roads, moderately better resistance to bomb ambushes, and better flame resistance in case of an RPG hit (Stryker advantages); are outweighed by upgraded M113 advantages.

(Among them substantially better cross-country capacity, dramatically better cross-country capacity if it rains, the ability to swim, an existing and long-ago-perfect parts supply network, one-quarter the cost, etc. etc.)

Again this buys into the Wannabe Force Developers idea that focuses on the vehicle capability and not the enhancement of light infantry.

I am not sure what you mean here. Are you arguing that vehicle capacity and light infantry capacity are mutually exclusive?

:confused:

For the record: In my day in the APC world I've ridden on Marder, BTR-80, MTLB, BRDM, M-113, M-577, BMP-I and M2. All in all if I can choose I much prefer helicopters.

[RT North Dakota]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Stryker / M113 is a valid comparison seeing that the latest M113 in iraq have been upgraded to more closely match Stryker's armor protection. Slat cage, gun shields and applique armor. So they're starting from a common baseline - let the comparisons begin!

No it's not- It's like comparing the M-113 to the M3 Half-track, and then to the M2 Bradely.

What is more, you can't do it because all you have is some opinions and some experience to base the comparison on, and no actual data to define the M-113 you are comparing it to.

EG: - Is the up-armoured M-113 still amphibious? Fuel consumption? Transmission MTBF? Repair and overhaul budget across 3 years? How are you going to compare survivability against a TM-46?

[RT North Dakota]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Again this buys into the Wannabe Force Developers idea that focuses on the vehicle capability and not the enhancement of light infantry.

I am not sure what you mean here. Are you arguing that vehicle capacity and light infantry capacity are mutually exclusive?

</font>

[Sixxkiller]

I often wonder about why things must be as they are. The Stryker is no better or worse than any vehicle we can deploy there outside of an Abrams. Maybe we should just give the troops bicycles and sleds, but then someone would just get mad when that mountain bike GI Jonah is riding on got a flat tire.

But the Stryker does its job. It isnt an Abrams thats for sure, but these days what would be safe from an RPG?

And yet again it's another "WE ARENT WINNING THE WAR" throw in. We have already won the war. Wars are won by militaries. We have without a doubt established our military presence in the region. No one can kick us out by force.

The only war we are losing is with the way the military is being used. Until politicians realize that our training isnt conducive to being the worlds police without establishing our own government in occupied areas, then we will never again appear to win a war according to your ideas of winning. Look at Israel and Palestine for example. Israel could, like the US in Iraq, wipe out the entire population at will. They can come in by force and do raids, knock down settlements, and kill terrorist leaders at a whim. But do they have 100% control or have even a relative level of safety even in Israel? So why do the American people think that the US has some magic answer to make peace through occupying a culture of people that havent been able to be controlled by any foreign national power. (Romans, Brits, Soviets...)

So expecting some total victory without nuking the whole middle east is mindless....

[Bigduke6]

And for those of you willing to read a bit, this might be worth checking out -

Aussie Govt M113 Upgrade White Paper

The very short version is that the Australians have figured out a way to upgrade an M113 and pay a shade over 800,000 dollars (US) per carrier to do it, a bit less for the non-combat versions.

Here is what they are buying:

* A .50 cal in a turret where you can change the barrel out without going outside the vehicle.

* Digital communications

* Day/night sights (not thermals)

* Engine cooling kit

* A faucet with cold water (Huh? Not beer?)

* Fuel tanks on the rear of vehicle

* Improved suspension

* Vehicle "stretched" a bit

* Spall curtains on the interior

* Applique armor

* More powerful engine

* Night vision goggles for operators

* Air conditioning

This makes the vehicle between 2.5 and 5 tons heavier, 119mm taller, 450mm (max) longer, and 40mm wider. It loses amphibious capacity.

So if the Aussie experience is the measuring stick to use, then an M113 upgrade costs less than half of a Stryker, and you get a cold water tap to boot!

I would guess a larger order from the US guviment to BAE Industries would be lower-cost per M113, I would assume BAE can overhaul the vehicles more cheaply than the Australians. But there's a bench mark for you MickeyD.

I bet if some other people kicked in to the discussion, we could build a pretty good approximation of what the cost to the US taxpayer would have been if it was M113 brigades and not Stryker brigades.

[lrrprecon]

Originally posted by Splinty:

Irrepcon, I spent 10 years in Mech Infantry, 3 in 113s and 7 in Brads. I am in Baghdad right now as an MP(15 days left!) and I work with Strykers quite often. The Stryker guys I've talked to think very highly of it and like me think the 113 is a piece of crap. This my 3rd tour in Iraq and my 18th year in the Army, so at least in my case I know that of which I speak.

Well thats great, thanks for your opinion. You guys stop patrols considering your countdown? We did patrols and right seat rides up to our 5th day before we packed up to head home. Well i stayed to load up the HET's and then a month in kuwait at Camp Arifjan to load the VEH's on the boat. What unit you with?

[Bigduke6]

BD6. - I don't like Stryker, and I think what the US army did with a good idea, was criminally stupid. - The idea, around for a long time, was to try and make light infantry relevant to modern operations. - done brilliantly by the UK's Royal Marines. - then look at Stryker!

In this respect, the actual performance and capability of the vehicle is not as important as folks think - though yes it is important, not to have a **** vehicle. The critical thing is to be able to get infantry companies to a point in time and space, where they are useful/needed, and to be able to sustain and support them, while they perform the mission.

Then - peculiarly enough - you and I seem to agree in alot of ways.

If only some one would invent a nice cheap tough trasnport helicopter. Then light infantry would really be a dominant force.

But with the way smart munitions are going smaller and cheaper and more accurate these days, I have a sneaking suspicion pretty much all big war machines are going to be just targets before too very long.

[MikeyD]

"No it's not- It's like comparing the M-113 to the M3 Half-track, and then to the M2 Bradely."

I meant to say Stryker and uparmored M1113 are a valid basis for a comparison, not implying they're going to be judged equal vehicles in the end. Both vehicles carry similar numbers of troops, carry similar armor, and the same .50 cal mg (and same common diesel engine or am I wrong on that?). With those as common benchmarks not-undue comparisons can be reasonably made. Canada made just this sort of comparison and is now shipping upgraded M113s to Afghanistan to suppliment their LAV-III fleet.

[Splinty]

Originally posted by lrrprecon:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Splinty:

Irrepcon, I spent 10 years in Mech Infantry, 3 in 113s and 7 in Brads. I am in Baghdad right now as an MP(15 days left!) and I work with Strykers quite often. The Stryker guys I've talked to think very highly of it and like me think the 113 is a piece of crap. This my 3rd tour in Iraq and my 18th year in the Army, so at least in my case I know that of which I speak.

Well thats great, thanks for your opinion. You guys stop patrols considering your countdown? We did patrols and right seat rides up to our 5th day before we packed up to head home. Well i stayed to load up the HET's and then a month in kuwait at Camp Arifjan to load the VEH's on the boat. What unit you with? </font>

[flamingknives]

Holy cow! So much wrongness!

Points:

1) Aluminium armour doesn't burn. Worst case it melts.

2) there is no such thing as an AFV called the Gavin except in Mike Sparks' fevered imagination.

3) An uparmoured M113 isn't amphibious. An M113 without applique armour isn't proof against 7.62mm AP.

4) You can't fit more than 1 on a C130 in terms of volume, let alone mass.

5) Rubber tracks are not no-maintenance or low vibration. The BvS-10 has significant vibration issues.

6) With the cost of CROWS, you would only get six for the cost of one Stryker. That's just CROWS and doesn't account for all the shiny stuff.

7) The Australian upgrade is by Tenix, I believe, and has degenerated into an over-due over-budget and unsuitable project that would make the UK MoD blink.

8) Stryker units are not Light Infantry. Never were, never will be. The US army still has light infantry formations, still has heavy armour and now it has a middle ground too.

9) Boxer and AMV are not really comparable to the Stryker, beyond having 8 wheels. Both have significantly more armour - Boxer weighs more than a Warrior!

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Well time for a shortened rant on the history of APCs/IFVs and importantly why the type that were produced happened .

As we all know first there were open-topped battlefield taxis, no more than bullet proof on a good day . Then there came the battlefield taxis of the ‘50s and ‘60s which were often, but not always, tracked and enclosed. Followed by real firepower being added with turrets fitted with medium armament. In the ‘80s we got heavier IFVs with reasonable protection against the medium armament of other IFVs.

Why did we get this order of development and these types of infantry vehicles? The reason is money… which in turn is dependent on the rate of economic development. No one will ever have been in any doubt that in high-intensity warfare, i.e. war against another first or semi-first world nation, infantry vehicles with the same level of protection as MBT would be way better in every way. But until now no one could afford them… until the last twenty odd years anyway.

Israel in the late ‘80s and ‘90s went over to infantry vehicles with the same level of protection as MBTs because this was now affordable and had huge and obvious advantages over lighter weight vehicles.

It is worth noting that land warfare equipment in general, MBTs are an example of this, are today cheaper in real terms than in WWII. You will often find that people compare costs of tanks from WWII with today’s models by index-linking them to take account of inflation. When they do this modern MBTs turn out to be more expensive than in WWII. Or sometimes do anyway. But this is not the true cost. The true cost of anything is the highest valued alternative forgone. i.e. the percentage of GDP that a batch of say 5000 M1A2s would cost compared to the percentage of GDP a batch of 5000 Shermans in ’43 cost. Measured this, the correct way to measure the true cost, MBTs today are cheaper than they were in WWII, and getting cheaper.

If the Cold War had not ended or there had been some other squaring off between developed or near developed nations over the last ten years then in the ‘90s all the major players would have moved to infantry vehicles with the same protection levels as MBTs. Not just Israel.

You would also find that tanks from all the major players, in fact even the Swiss, Swedes and Koreans… would have moved to 140mm guns, or smaller guns with the energy as 140mm guns.. plus active hard kill defensive system that shoot down ATGM/RPGs and such.

Sorry to be so long-winded but I thought it necessary to illustrate the point that all the current generation of infantry vehicles, and the current generation of tanks un-retro fitted with more powerful guns and hard-kill defensive systems are very much designed for war against Third World nations. By wilful neglect.

I am sure the Stryker is a very fine battlefield taxis but no one will be fooling themselves that it is fit for anything other than warfare against Third World opponents. It is the equivalent of some of the kit the British produced in the ‘20s and ‘30s for war in the colonies as opposed to against other developed nations.

Heavy armour, equipped with hard-kill systems, is very much the future. Not the medium systems that have been, still are in some circles… so fashionable in recent years.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

PS. Have click around on this site for some latest news in armour and hard-kill systems.

http://www.defense-update.com/

Lots of interesting news on armour .