Stryker Article: Amazing!

[The_Burning_Kid]

I got a link from a friend on the Stryker and I must say some of the stuff really surprises me and makes me like this baby even more.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...sons/index.php

I think it has developed into a good Urban Combat Vehicle, if I may say.

[gunnut]

Cool. I have wondered for over a year why we still use humvees for convoy escort duties in Iraq. I even asked why not use wheeled armor vehicles. Apparently the army felt the same way.

[Shadowsided]

ca anyone provide me with info about the 105mm gun on the striker. Also can u fit a javelin on it cuz i noe it cna be mounted on vehicles. How punishing is the 105mm gun?

[The_Burning_Kid]

ca anyone provide me with info about the 105mm gun on the striker. Also can u fit a javelin on it cuz i noe it cna be mounted on vehicles. How punishing is the 105mm gun?

The 105mm that will be used on the Stryker is the same one that was used on the origional M1 (which was changed to the 120mm on the M1A1).

[-{SpoonmaN}-]

Australia could really benefit from employing a reliable, easily transportable lightweight APC as well, since the M-113s we use now are getting pretty darn old, and from what I understand the Bushranger isn't really comparable since it's more of an armoured car, so maybe the Stryker would be a good fit to work alongside the Bushranger if it's working out so well.

[Ray]

Mounting a 105mm would be interesting.

What about the CG factor?

How is the design overcoming the physical forces that will subject the APC to skew, topple, stand up on the rear (so to say) like a horse, the trunion pull etc etc.

I of course do not know the technical parameters of the Stryker and hence my doubts!

[tankervet]

Mounting a 105mm would be interesting.

What about the CG factor?

How is the design overcoming the physical forces that will subject the APC to skew, topple, stand up on the rear (so to say) like a horse, the trunion pull etc etc.

I of course do not know the technical parameters of the Stryker and hence my doubts!

Sir your doubts are one of the main reasons that the MGS is not in service at this time. The last I heard was that it still would only allow limited traverse from fender to fender due to the fears that you mentioned.

[Shek]

Spoonman,

The Stryker has proven to be a solid vehicle that has proven up to the task of the role it was selected for. However, I wouldn't count out the M113 family of vehicles - it still boils down to what you need the vehicle to do, and just as the Stryker has some advantages, so does the M113. I'm not famliar with the role that the AUS M113s fill, but your ASLAVs should give you a very good idea of the capabilities of the Stryker platform itself - all the high speed digital communications equipment aren't Stryker specific.

Ray and Tankervet,
I'm not as plugged into the Stryker program as I used to be, so I don't know specifics, but low-rate initial production has already been approved totaling 72 MGS. That's two SBCTs worth of MGS vehicles - color me skeptical, but if MGS Strykers are tipping over with CG issues, then I don't see the Army dropping at least over $100 million to produce these vehicles. The milestone C decision for accepting production of the remainder of the MGS vehicles is expected to be made by the end of 2007 (not sure if its end of fiscal year or calendar year).

One note of caution - when the Strykers were initially fielded in the summer of 2002, the safety restrictions on it were crazy and nowhere near the real capabilities of the various systems - this was because all the safety testing hadn't completed all the necessary validations. So, when the MGS actually begins fielding and you start hearing about restrictions, check to see if they are just because the safety releases haven't been signed, if it's a real world capability limitation, or if it's unclear.

[tankervet]

Yeah roger that Sir. I actually spoke out of my butt instead of doing research on it. I have searched the internet for the last hour and cant find anything about it tipping over besides people saying, hey that things going to tip over. I did find this to be an interesting video clip. Canadian MGS Video

Although this is a Canadian version from what I read its pretty much the same. Same M68 105 mm etc.

Also as a side note it looks like the gun is moving quite a bit during recoil. I wonder is there is some anti recoil device at work in the gun mounting system. That is besides the normal ones that were use to seeing.

[Ray]

The Mobile Gun System configuration carries a General Dynamics 105mm tank cannon in a low-profile, fully stabilized, "shoot on the move" turret. Its armor protects the three-soldier crew from machine gun bullets, mortar and artillery fragments on the battlefield. The Stryker Mobile Gun System can fire 18 rounds of 105-mm main gun ammunition; 400 rounds of .50 caliber ammunition; and 3,400 rounds of 7.62-mm ammunition. It operates with the latest C4ISR equipment as well as detectors for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

The Stryker Mobile Gun System [MGS] will employ four types of 105mm tactical ammunition. High explosive/high explosive plastic (HE/HEP) ammunition will destroy hardened enemy bunkers, machinegun and sniper positions, and create openings in walls through which infantry can pass. Kinetic energy (KE) ammunition will be employed to destroy a variety of Level II armored vehicles. High explosive, anti-tank (HEAT) ammunition is well suited to defeat a variety ofthin-skinned vehicles and provide fragmentation effects. Finally, anti-personnel (canister) ammunition will defeat attacking dismounted infantry in the open. HE/HEP, KE and HEAT each have or will have complementary training ammunition.

The Stryker vehicles are designed not to exceed a 38,000-pound weight limit, to enable them to fly on a C-130. As of early 2002 the mobile gun exceeded the maximum by 3,000 pounds. The mobile gun system had weighed 45,000 pounds until an aggressive weight reduction program began in January 2002.

The effects of this problem are apparent in the composition of the MGS Platoon (Mobile Gun System.) FM 7-22 lays out the MGS PLT as an organic element of each IBCT Infantry Company within the IBCT BN. Each Company Commander has at his disposal within the MGS PLT 3 MGS Strykers, with the mission of supporting the dismounted Infantry with direct, supporting fires IOT destroy hardened enemy bunkers, machine guns, and sniper positions. The MGS Stryker is armed with a 105mm Low Profile Turret capable of a 6 second cycle rate and 18 ready rounds. Apparently, the MGS is a popular system and will be a tremendous asset to the IBCT Company Commander. Similar to an AT Platoon attached to an Airborne Infantry Company; the MGS PLT will provide the lighter armed Strykers and dismounts with outstanding firepower.

The armor protection creates a contradiction for the MGS Stryker. Currently, the MGS is fielded with armor protection capable of .50 cal munitions. The add-on scaleable armor in development promises protection against 14.5mm and hand-held HEAT up to and including RPG-7 penetration. The obvious rationale for the developmental armor is the precise evaluation of MG and ATGM threat during support to infantry assault operations. Emerging technology finds itself between a rock and a hard place when faced with the MGS platform. Armor already in use on tanks can stop ATGM, but is too heavy for the air-mobile MGS. Developmental reactive armor must meet the cost, weight, size, and soldier-proof requirements established for the MGS Stryker. Caught in-between the weight restrictions and the desire to protect against ATGM threats on the future battlefield, the MGS is suffering an identity crisis. The stryker makes no attempt to perform in ways it is not capable of; it embraces it's light-skinned composition, and uses it's reduced weight and speed to fight as a faster, more agile force on the battlefield. The MGS, with it's tank-like 105mm top, wants the best of both worlds with the speed of the Stryker, and armor resistance of a Bradley. As seen in large cashes seized in Afghanistan, the RPG is a cheap and heavily saturated weapon system available to every possible IBCT opponent in the world.

The platoon includes three MGS vehicles, each with a crew of three: VC, gunner, and driver. The platoon leader and platoon sergeant are the VCs for two of the MGS vehicles.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...nd/iav-mgs.htm

This is the what the performance is to be.

I am trying to search for the design parameters and the forces about a point that will play when the gun is fired and its effect on the stability and effectiveness of the shot and weapons platform.

Interestingly, it is capable, as per the claim, to "fire on the move". This requires a very stable CG and one of the way to reduce the "flip" effect is by increased weight or to reduced recoil. Therefore, it is interesting to know how the recoil has been reduced since the weight seems to be light enough for air transportability.

Is the ammunition fin stabilised?

[tankervet]

Is the ammunition fin stabilised?

No it should'nt be because it uses a rifled bore.

[Shek]

Yeah roger that Sir. I actually spoke out of my butt instead of doing research on it. I have searched the internet for the last hour and cant find anything about it tipping over besides people saying, hey that things going to tip over. I did find this to be an interesting video clip. Canadian MGS Video

Although this is a Canadian version from what I read its pretty much the same. Same M68 105 mm etc.

Also as a side note it looks like the gun is moving quite a bit during recoil. I wonder is there is some anti recoil device at work in the gun mounting system. That is besides the normal ones that were use to seeing.

I'm sure that the MGS had some CG issues from the get go - most of the Stryker urban legends actually had some truth or were completely true at one point in time. However, like most everything, progress is typically forward.

I'm curious - have you run into any 19Ks that served with a SBCT in your units? I'd be curious to see what they thought of their experiences. My guys for the most part either loved being in the SBCT and around us knuckle-draggers and wanted to stay with the MGS (even though they were on ATGMs!) or were having fun, but preferred heading back to the Abrams and never returning.

[tankervet]

I'm curious - have you run into any 19Ks that served with a SBCT in your units? I'd be curious to see what they thought of their experiences. My guys for the most part either loved being in the SBCT and around us knuckle-draggers and wanted to stay with the MGS (even though they were on ATGMs!) or were having fun, but preferred heading back to the Abrams and never returning.

No I havent actually. I do have a good friend that came from a SBCT a while back. He was with the first one, cant remember what unit it was at Ft. Lewis, but they had not even fielded the Stryker for them yet. It was in 02 I think when he left, but dont quote me on that. But yeah he liked it but wanted to return to the Abrams.

[Shek]

No I havent actually. I do have a good friend that came from a SBCT a while back. He was with the first one, cant remember what unit it was at Ft. Lewis, but they had not even fielded the Stryker for them yet. It was in 02 I think when he left, but dont quote me on that. But yeah he liked it but wanted to return to the Abrams.

I was in 3 SBCT (3/2 ID or SBCT 1), and we didn't get the first Strykers until the summer of '02, and the ATGMs were fielded in late Jan 03. If he was in 1-23 IN, there's an outside chance that I could have known him, but probably not. Sounds like I would have been the S-4 at the time.

[Shek]

BTW, my MGS platoon when I was in command were a bunch of studs - their combined "squad" won the company squad competition. Made for some great trash talking between the infantry platoons and MGS platoon. My favorite was when one of the IN PSGs put a sign on the snack machine stating "tanker mess hall." The MGS PSG responded by adding a sign "Breakfast of Champions - Squad Competition Champions!" The IN PSG was so mad that he ended smoking his platoon in a half joking manner for not winning