Garry

I did read many interesting articles in favor of Stryker and against.... I also read intresting discussion on that in some Russian forums.

How would you compare BTR-90 vs Stryker?

cato

As platforms, they are probably equal. Both combat tested,and subject to repeated upgrades to increase efficacy. That being said, it is not about the platform that makes the Stryker what it is. The stryker is simply the carrier for a whole host of electronic goodies, as well as a squad of infantry. It is about the system the paltform fits into, and frankly, in that respect, the SBCT beats hands down all other comers. Russian BTR equipped units don't even come close, although I hear that they are headed in the right direction. One of the moderators (Shek) served in a Stryker unit and could probably shed dome light on your question.
Take Care,
Cato

zraver

ditto what he said. The Stryker was built under the RMA doctrine so its info-war systems are state of the art.

Now the BTR 90 is a great and very robust veihicle and its anti-tank variant is probalby the most powerful wheeled anti-tank platform in the world.

omon

btr can swim, side doors, but equipment vise, i think stryker has the edge, stryker's armor is stronger than btr 60, 70, 80, but 90 is different, i can,t find specs, whatever i found said armor is a secret.
plus stryker(most) has ac. cost wise i think btr90 is cheaper, thou 90 made for export only(in russia), ukraine has them in its army.

sappersgt

I thought the original BTR design had two engines because a single engine powerful enough wasn't available. I'm amazed the evolved design has continued on in the same manner. Is this a "bug" now turned into a "feature"?

__________________
Reddite igitur quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo
(Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's)

omon

my mistake, since btr80 they have single v8 turbo diesel.
btr 90 has improved 510 hp diesel,

The BTR-90 costs less than half as much as the Stryker, even when equipped with a lot of the electronic gadgets that make the Stryker so popular with the troops.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hta.../20070501.aspx

Garry

Hi Omon, thank you for your input!

Is it really armored as Stryker? I read that BTR-90 has alliminium armor... is it really that strong to hold a machine gun fire?

Stryker is stated to hold 14.5mm in front and in sides... can BTR-90 match this?

I remember in one Russian forum there was a discussion on another interesting point - interior configuration. In all Soviet infantry fighting vehicles soldiers sit face to the armor and have small holes to fire from their guns.... this means that interior is divided into two sections - left and right....

In Stryker, soldiers sit face to face... they can fire only through open hatches... however interior is not divided into two and they have MORE space.

Another difference is wheels. I noticed that Stryker weels are more narrow than BTR-90 (or any BTR)! Why?

omon

i doubt btr90 has alluminium armor, it weights 20tonns, vs 13 for btr80, it does have a turret, btr 60-70-80, can,t stop 14,5mm round, stryker armor thicknes is 14,5mm as many sourses say, not that it can stop 14,5, kpvt(14,5mm hmg) can penatrate 30mm of steel at 500m, i doubt striker can stop it.
as for internal set up, soldgers ride btr on top, not inside, as afgan war proved, you are more likey get killed inside than out, 1 rpg can kill everyone inside, but if you sit outside you jump off, spread, and won,t be sitting duck, even inside apc, also if you hit mine, you'll be thrown off if outside, inside won,t be pretty,
btr can inflate deflate wheels on the go, i don,t know if stryker can do it, may be it contributes to tire size.

omon

if i had to pass thru narrow moutan roads, i'd rather be outside btr, than inside a stryker,

i'd love to take a btr on a fishing trip.

zraver

BTR's were horribly vunlnerable to mines,t ahts why they rode on top. The Stryker howeve is not facing mines, but IED's where you want somethign between the blast and you. Different tactical enviroment, different tactical responces.

omon

wouldn,t a bunch of artilry rounds burried under the road, be as effective as mines? i think they would, afgan fighters used ied than too, thou i agree with you the situation is different in iraq, afgans had more opportunities to put a mine in the mountan roads,(they even placed it where the tanks tracks were, and than fix the track print on the ground) than iraq fighters in the city, in front of everyone, war in urban enviroment, and remote mountans are not the same, you are right about that.

zraver

IED's are often buried/hidden/emplaced to the side and set up as a ground burst vs a buried channeled burstign charge so it is a different threat.

Triple C

I thought the ceramic tiles on Stryker was supposed to stop 14.5mm HMG rounds.

Straight from FAS:

"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 . . .The Strykers are protected by armor sufficient to withstand 14.5mm heavy machine gun fire and 152mm overhead artillery fire. A strengthened undercarriage protects the personnel inside from mines. "

__________________
ORBIS NON SUFFICIT.

Shek

The above is true.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

omon

Beginning in October 2001 the Stryker underwent coupon testing, which is taking small squares of armor and firing at it with various caliber weapons and munitions at varying distances. After the tests, officials discovered that the initial armor proposed by the contractor was not suitable and changes in the armor were ordered in early 2002. When modifications are made to the armor, the vehicle will be able to stop 7.62mm and 14.5mm armor piercing ammunitions.

GM Defense delivered a new, denser ceramic-skin armor for Stryker in May 2002. In the summer of 2003 the first Stryker vehicles had problems with the armor not adequately protecting the crew from 14.5mm fire. This was fixed by backing the ceramic armor on the Strykers with a 3mm steel plate. Depending on the model, up to 126 tiles could be installed. When the LAV-III add-on armor is mounted, the LAV-III weighs 43,000 pounds, which precludes C-130 transport altogether.

The Army was concerned about the Rocket Propelled Grenade threat, the enemy's weapon of choice. So two new types of armor have been installed on the vehicles. The most obvious add-on to the discerning eye is called slat armor. It resembles a "bird cage" that will add three feet to the Stryker's width. The slat armor installed on the Strykers resembles a big catcher's mask that wraps around the vehicle. The armor is basically a grill of wire mesh that will cause the RPG to detonate away from the vehicle. Plans are in the works to add another type of armor package to the inventory. That add-on armor is called "reactive armor." Essentially that armor explodes when an RPG or other anti-tank round hits it. It's already on M-2 Bradley fighting vehicles.

United Defense Industries, Arlington, Va., received a $7.9 million contract from GM Defense 04 November 2002 to develop and test add-on applique armor that will stop RPG-7 rounds. The contract requires United Defense to develop and test the applique armor by February 2004. If it passes, the company could build 1,600 add-on armor kits by 2006.

Production Qualification Testing of the rocket-propelled grenade-level add-on armor began in May 2003 and found that the armor performance did not meet Army requirements. As a result, the Stryker program experienced delays in all add-on armor related testing to allow the contractor to refine its armor solution to meet Army requirements. Re-qualification of the new add-on armor solution resumed in September 2003 and will continue through February 2004.

Add-on armor for the Stryker adds approximately 7,000 lbs to the vehicle weight and approximately 12-14 inches to each side. To accommodate the increased weight, the tires were inflated to 90 psi and the Central Tire Inflation System (CTIS) was disengaged. As the vehicles moved from a hard surface to a softer one (in a grove of trees) the vehicle's tires sank into the soft ground. The winch on the Stryker is not sufficient to recover a Stryker with add-on armor mounted; therefore, some other vehicle recovery asset must be used.

Another challenge was the problem moving the vehicles down narrow two-lane roads while they had the add-on armor on the Strykers. The vehicles were unable to pass side by side. One driver had to pull off the road to make room for the other vehicle to pass. When he did this, the vehicle would sink into the dirt and require another vehicle to recover it. This made it important for the battalion staff and company-level leaders to ensure that they did detailed mission planning and route selection to reduce the possibility of two vehicles passing. While this does not appear to limit maneuver, it could cause temporary loss of momentum.

Stryker Armored Vehicle

The Stryker combat vehicle destined for Iraq next month is being reinforced with thousands of steel plates after new Army testing showed some of its ceramic armor failed when shot at by heavy machine guns.
Workers for prime contractor General Dynamics Corp. are attaching nearly 6,000 of the steel plates to bolster certain sections of the 132-tiled surface of the family of Strykers, the Army's showcase system for its 21st century transformation.
The Army began the 11th-hour testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland earlier this month, and said it had discovered that the ceramic armor's manufacturer, the German firm IBD, had been sending "non-standard" tiles. The armor did not fit specifications for one of three reasons: the wrong size; a different chemical mix; or was made by a subcontractor not approved by General Dynamics and the Army.
An Army official yesterday called the entire incident a "pain," but said all the Strykers will meet survivability standards before they leave Fort Lewis, Wash., next month for Iraq. The contract calls for the Stryker to repel anything up to a 14.5 mm round.
By adding steel plates where needed, "We now have assurance we have 14.5 mm protection," said Col. Mike Cannon, assistant deputy for systems management at Army headquarters in the Pentagon. The test ended at Aberdeen Sunday.
Kendall Pease, vice president for communications at General Dynamics in Falls Church, said more than 20 two-man teams are now at Fort Lewis affixing the steel, at the corporation's cost. "This vehicle is designed to provide fast, mobile, lethal, deployable transportation for the troops and that's exactly what it's going to do," Mr. Pease said.
The Stryker family of infantry, gun, mortar, reconnaissance and other type vehicles is the Army's first major step toward creating a lighter, more mobile force. It plans six brigades of 3,600 soldiers and some 300 vehicles, costing about $12 billion. The 1st Brigade going to Iraq by ship will have 309 Strykers.
The Stryker has attracted an array of critics, including lawmakers and retired generals who say it is too heavy and vulnerable to enemy fire. But the Army has persevered in winning budget approval.
The problem arose last winter, when the Army discovered ceramic tiles provided by IBD were not the right size. In the summer, technicians X-rayed samples and found conformation problems.
The Army selected 39 tiles representing each category of tiles deemed "nonstandard."
Of the 39, 27 qualified against machine gun fire. Seven failed. Another five were deemed failures before testing because they were of the same configuration as the seven. The 12 failures represented a total of 5,800 tiles on 309 vehicles — 14 percent of a total 40,788 tiles — that must be reinforced with steel plates.
IBD issued a statement last week defending its techniques. It said: "In a large program such as the Stryker, the production of armor is an iterative process that often requires numerous tests and adjustments to the original design before it is accepted into service. ... We are confident that people who understand this process realize that the IBD 14.5 armor is a sound design."

New armor plates ordered for Stryker - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics

An internal Army report, marked “For Official Use Only,” reveals that the Stryker Interim Armored Vehicle has been only 50 percent effective overall against Rocket Propelled Grenades during combat in Iraq, much less effective than what the Pentagon has publicly claimed.

According to the report: “Soldiers were briefed that slat armor would protect them against eight out of eleven strikes against Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG) attacks…In the field, Soldiers say the slat armor is effective against half of the RPG attacks.”

The December, 2004 report was published by the Center for Army Lessons Learned based on a study conducted in Iraq from September 22 to October 19, 2004. Click here to view the report, Initial Impressions Report Operations In Mosul, Iraq which was obtained by POGO earlier this year.

The report said that the 5,000-pound improvised “slat” armor attached to the Stryker is failing to defend against two of the three types of RPG attacks that have been used against U.S. soldiers in Iraq -- primarily strikes by anti-personnel RPGs and anti-tank RPGs. When these two types of RPGs hit the vehicle, “the shrapnel continues to move through the slat and hits exposed personnel,” the report says.

Today’s Washington Post features a front-page story, "Study Faults Army Vehicle," on the report. In recent days, Inside the Army and CNN have reported on the document.

Some of the other conclusions of the study include:
The high-tech Stryker’s computer software is slowing and overheating in the extreme temperatures of Iraq. As a result, the Center said the vehicles need to be air-conditioned. The Army has approved adding air-conditioning to the vehicles, but funding has not yet been approved.


Stryker operators are not, but should be, trained before going to Iraq because the addition of the 5,000-pound “slat” armor to the vehicle significantly increases the circumference and weight of the Stryker, changing its performance. The slat armor also has reduced the vehicle’s off-road capabilities.


The Stryker’s primary offensive weapon system, a grenade launcher, does not hit targets when the vehicle is moving.


The slat armor’s extra weight is causing problems with the vehicle’s automatic tire pressure system, requiring crews to check tire pressure three times a day.


The Stryker brigade’s tires were designed primarily for off-road surfaces, but are often being driven on hard road surfaces. As a result, the brigade has been replacing tires at a rate of nine-per-day.
The Stryker, a $4 million-a-copy, eight-wheeled, 19-ton armored Army vehicle, was deployed in Mosul, Iraq beginning in late 2003, despite warnings by the Pentagon’s top independent tester, Thomas Christie , Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), that it was not thoroughly tested against RPGs. (click here to view the report.)

In January 2004, POGO revealed that Christie warned the Secretary of Defense that the vehicle should not be deployed in Iraq because it is vulnerable to rocket propelled grenades (Click here to view POGO's alert.) At that time, POGO also raised questions about the January 2000 hiring of former Army Lt. General David K. Heebner by General Dynamics Corp., and the subsequent award 11 months later of the $4 billion contract to General Dynamics to build the Stryker.

As a top assistant to Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki, Heebner played a significant role in drumming up procurement funding and support for Shinseki's plan to transform the Army, which included the Stryker. In October 1999, only three months before Heebner retired, Shinseki's "Army Vision" statement called for an interim armored brigade: "We are prepared to move to an all-wheel formation as soon as technology permits." General Dynamics' primary competitor and an unsuccessful bidder for the Stryker contract, United Defense, primarily manufactures tracked, rather than wheeled, armored vehicles.

In meetings and conference calls with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, then Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Steve Cambone, and then Department of Defense Comptroller Dov Zackheim, attended by POGO staff, Rumsfeld and the others made it clear they were not interested in buying more than four brigades of Strykers. However, the Army and Congress were pushing twice that number – eight brigades, they said.

“The Army should not put inadequately tested equipment in the field, as it creates a false impression that the troops are properly equipped to fight in combat. The Army should speed up the process of deploying the proven M113’s armored personnel carriers that are sitting out of harm’s way while the Stryker is being showcased in Iraq,” said Senior Defense Investigator Eric Miller.

POGO investigates, exposes, and seeks to remedy systemic abuses of power, mismanagement, and subservience by the federal government to powerful special interests. Founded in 1981, POGO is a politically-independent, nonprofit watchdog that strives to promote a government that is accountable to the citizenry.

pogo.org LEAKED REPORT: Stryker Armored Vehicle 3/31/2005 Project On Government Oversight