US Army refused to accept Stryker M1128.

Its official, M1128 was just dropped.

www.lenta.ru...

One of the main problems is the 105mm cannon which proved to be just too big to be mounted on a Stryker.

Upon firing electro-optical targeting sensors of the FCS are blinded by the flash of the 105mm cannon which throws of the targeting and repeatedly resulted in high civilian casualties.

Upon firing Strykers filtration/ventilation system proved unable to cope with cannon gas spillage, and could not clear the crew compartment leaving the crew to choke on the gas from their own gun. In my opinion that’s simply because it was not designed to do so in the first place.


Previously General Dynamics was given an ultimatum by Pentagon to fix problems or $484 million contract would be canceled.

Jan. 28 (Bloomberg) -- General Dynamics Corp. won't get a contract worth as much as $484 million for the latest version of Stryker wheeled combat vehicles used in Iraq until the Army shows Congress it has fixed reliability issues found in Pentagon tests, according a defense bill that's about to become law.

The Army can't spend the money approved in a new defense policy bill until service Secretary Pete Geren certifies the Stryker Mobile Gun System is reliable and effective for combat. The requirement is contained in the $696 billion defense policy bill that has passed the House and Senate and is awaiting President George W. Bush's signature to become law.

www.bloomberg.com...

Apparently those problems were not fixed and continue to plague the failed project.

According to Christian Lowe’s “New Stryker Faring Poorly in Field”, a computer system that consistently locks up is the beginning of the trouble. “Blue screen of death” jokes aside, this is a serious issue in a heavily computerized vehicle like the Stryker. To add to the platform’s woes, a shortage of spare parts in the system is apparently creating low availability rates, and an inadequate cooling system is a serious handicap in the Middle East’s withering heat. In order to keep the crew from heatstroke, special suits must be worn that circulate cold water underneath the garment’s surface. Aside from the accompanying mobility and maintenance issues, crew members are complaining that they’re becoming chilled rather than cooled.

www.defenseindustrydaily.com...

So with 105mm Sryker out of the picture, previously cancelled Crusader and no officially planned replacement for the Abrams, it looks like US Army of the 21st century will be with out a next generation mobile gun platform of any kind.

Heh, no, the AGS was canned for another reason as well...

It's called the Mounted Combat System, this IS the replacement for the M1 Abrams series of MBTs.

We simply dont need another AGS we all know that every attempt at an AGS has resulted in miserble failure, first he Sherridan and Stingray and now naturally the Stryker based AGS.

reply to post by GrOuNd_ZeRo

It's called the Mounted Combat System, this IS the replacement for the M1 Abrams series of MBTs.

Unfortunately I’m aware of that. I’ve mentioned it in another thread, and sadly most simply didn’t even understand the nature of my grief;

And we’ll have a puny 105mm gun slapped on 8 wheeled ATV, which is over TEN FEET TALL.

Personally I see Russians using the Mobile Gun System as a gauge to judge just how drunk they actually are.

If you can’t see it coming – the buzz is on, but not there yet.

If see it and can’t hit it with a gun tube launched ATGM – doing better but still need more vodka.

When can’t hit it with a 155mm cannon, relax, take a breather and have another shot.

When that itsy 105mm finally fizzles back and tickles you awake, then you’re just right!

Seriously, how drunk does one have to be to not see THIS coming?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Even though I’m glad that will finally do away with such travesty as 105mm gun mounted on an APC, this reality is more then concerning;

Saudis again test T-95 for a 300 unit MBT contract.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We simply dont need another AGS we all know that every attempt at an AGS has resulted in miserble failure, first he Sherridan and Stingray and now naturally the Stryker based AGS.

How true it is. Putting aside the fact that AGS repeatedly proved to be a failed concept, mounting tank cannon on a soft chassis is simply ludicrous. After that apparent failure, attempting to re-label it as some sort of infantry support vehicle in order to push it in Iraq is plain insulting.

Using 70 ton Abrams in urban environment is just plain silly. They don’t provide effective fire support and make big targets that suck up fuel. Conventional use of such fuel hungry beast is a logistical nightmare, and if used in areas other then an open desert, they are vulnerable to cheap and numerous ATGM platforms.



I love this approach to providing security for an MBT;

Tank assistance combat vehicle - BMPT.

The task of BMPT (in the constructors’ assumption) is not safe transport of infantries in the terrain threatened by direct enemy anti-tank fire or in areas where operations of typical infantry transport mediums are impeded (urban area, mountains). It is meant to provide fire support to the tanks. The experience gained from post War II conflicts showed, that the tank crews are forced to locate and engage too many types of targets – not only other tanks and armored vehicles, but also light field fortification, fire position, even single soldiers armed with light anti-tank weapons. All these have a negative influence to the accomplishment of the major task – engage enemy tanks and fortification. BMPT vehicles, moving along with the tanks, are to combat secondary targets like IFVs, armored transporters, infantries and other weapons that could post threats to the tanks – and therefore it is named: Tank assistance combat vehicle.

www.hudi2.republika.pl...

www.armyrecognition.com...



Putting MBTs aside and going back to big gun APCs, take a guess who got it right back in 1984?

Here it is, 120mm 2S23 Nona-SVK Self-Propelled Gun-Mortar;

In 1984 on the base of 2S9 was developed, and adopted in 1990 120-mm self-propelled gun 2S23 "Nona-SVK".

SPG is intended for suppression of artillery and mortar batteries, missile launchers, armoured targets, destruction of firing means, control posts and enemy manpower, as well as smoking, blinding and illumination of district.

The chassis of the amphibious armoured wheeled personel carier BTR-80 is used for SPG 2S23.

SPG 2S23 can follow tanks, freely cross pits, trenches and water obstacles.

The SPG 2S23 exhibits the destructive power of high-explosive projectile at the target compared with the effect of 152-155-mm high-explosive projectiles.

www.artillery-mz.com...

www.janes.com...

www.janes.com...

It really gets me. Amphibious, 120mm gun that shoot shells with equivalent power to 155mm HE shells, and so forth.

It gets worse. Since 1996, they naturally had to up it, and came up with tracked amphibious BMP-3 based design with a 120mm gun.

120-mm Self-Propelled Artillery Gun
2S31 "Vena"

The 2S31 is fitted with 2A80 120-mm rifled gun. It is a further development of 2A51 Combined Artillery Gun used with 2S9 Self-Propelled Artillery Gun. This gun features semi-automatic lock, recoil absorbers and sector inclination devices. The main "Vena's" 2A80 artillery gun's difference from it's predecessor is longer barrel providing greater range of fire using the same projectiles intended for the 2A51. "Vena's" combined artillery gun is completed with pneumatic load assistant and integral powder smoke blowing equipment. The main gun is inclined from -4º to up to +80º in elevation, furthermore it is completed with a tracker, automatically re-establishing sighting line. In traverse range the main gun is turned with the whole turret.

Vehicle combat load also includes new "Kitolov-2M" laser guided artillery projectile.

"Vena's" full ammunition load consists from 70 rounds placed in mechanized combat loads. Furthermore it executes fire by loading projectiles from the ground. For this purpose on the right side of vehicle there is projectile hatch with armored lid.

Artillery unit's combat compartment can be mounted not only on BMP-3 but also on other chassis types including BTR-80 Armored Personnel Carrier's wheeled chassis.

www.enemyforces.com...

www.defense-update.com...

It is assumed that 21st century combat will be the type which we seen in current day Iraq/Afghanistan, which are guerilla wars of attrition.

Such wars typically last no less then a decade, and usually stretch out to well over 2 decades.

Fighting such wars from the air is impossible, and boots on the ground are simply a necessity. Those boots require fast, reliable, cheap yet effective fire support.

So as it stands, here we are.

M1 Abrams was not designed to fight such wars, and is not equipped to do it. TUSK will not help, but at least after half a century our tanks will finally have their APUs under main armor, and by God the MG is finally remotely operated, all while as it stands the Abrams will be the last American MBT made.

M1128 was just dumped, and even if it wasn’t, it could not provide effective fire support in the first place, because its gun is an obsolete tank cannon which simply blinds the targeting system.

Crusader was canceled a long time ago while Paladin is completely obsolete.

A-10s will are no longer produced, and even with life extension programs considering their heavy use they will burn their life span with in the next decade.

Same thing with the Cobras, the airframes are simply aging.

AH-64, same thing, the airframes are beginning to age, while maintenance becomes increasingly heavier.

All of this is really strange.

reply to post by iskander


www.abovetopsecret.com...

why make another thread when this very same thread , with the same info and same sources allready exists?

It would be neat if the US came with a Stug lookalike.

Yeah a stug is not that good in urban combat due to its lack of a turret but it just was a awesome platform on the eastern front in WW2.

But still they can look at making at a vehicle based on the Stug. Of all modern vehicles the BMPT reminds me the most to the Stug.

reply to post by Harlequin

why make another thread when this very same thread , with the same info and same sources allready exists?

Because it is a different topic. It’s not about how M1128 is faring in the field, it’s about it being rejected after a firm “fix it” ultimatum.

In fact, “the same info” does not yet exist in English text, meaning that so far Western media is holding back on the topic, or the article is just bogus.

This is the original source;

www.altair.h2.pl...

If anybody can find a confirmation of this news in English, please post it.

Yet another issue, is why ever since 1984 Russians managed to successfully mount and use their 120mm gun on the wheeled and amphibious BTR platform, while our Strikers are breaking down, much less being able to accommodate a 105mm gun.

Yet again, nice to see our tax dollars hard at work.

the M1128 or MGS has not been dropped - and as i said the christian lowe article (and follow up which is on defence tech) i have allready sourced days ago in the other thread.

reply to post by Harlequin


Well, this is from 19.02.2008;

США отказались от мобильной артиллерийской установки M1128


Командование Сухопутных войск США намерено отказаться от закупки мобильной артиллерийской установки M1128 в связи с низкой эффективностью ее применения в Ираке, сообщает издание Altair. Ранее Армия США планировала в апреле 2008 года заключить контракт с компанией General Dynamic. Стоимость контракта оценивалась в 484 миллиона долларов.

www.lenta.ru...

Run it through a translator, it states very clearly that Stryker is being dropped, and if they are wrong, they are wrong, but they do list their source;

www.altair.h2.pl...

Canadians repeatedly reported problems with their Strykers in Afghanistan, the main one being their inability to handle the terrain and frequent breakdowns.

canada don`t use the stryker MGS - the order from 2003 for 66 stryker MGS , was cancelled in 2006 in favour of more leopard 2 tanks which are being bought from the netherlands.


as for LAV III - i have found 22 incidents since deployement to afghan , of which 6 are roll overs , the remainder are as a result of direct enemy action

www.sfu.ca...

now , it could be said of the design and of course there are 2 camps on wheeled vs tracked - but when looking at stryker you must compare it to russian wheeled apc`s and sadly you`ll find comparable incident rates , being wheeled will mean whilst great for 1 thing not so great for another - and ask the russians , afghanistan is not nice on any equipment!

[edit on 19/2/08 by Harlequin]

Already a thread on this, but the soldiers are complaining about the MGS, not the Stryker itself which is pretty popular in the field. It was never meant to be a fighting vehicle, and the physics of mounting a 105 on a vehicle like that is just not good. It is a good idea, giving direct heavy fire support to infantry in the ICV variant, but is also a failed concept in my opinion. As I said in the thread I will link below, the MGS variant is the problem, not the Stryker itself. The stryker ICV can do the job it was designed to do perfectly well, bring troops to the battle quickly, and even though I have never been a huge fan of wheeled armored vehicles with their limitations on certain terrain, the ICV and Mortar Carrier variant are solid vehicles that recieved high praise from troops.

Other Thread

These two were linked in the other thread, but the links I put up to the military science forum appear to be off line at the moment.

Problems with the MGS

MGS: Pros and Cons
Like any vehicle, some soldiers will love it, and some will hate it. No vehicle is perfect, but I do believe the MGS was of flawed design and those who designed it set their sights a little high in terms of firepower. In my humble opinion, the ATGM variant should be sufficient in the direct fire role as opposed to having an actual cannon mounted on the vehicle.

There is realted thread on this already here at ATS:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please post your thoughts and comments in the exisitng thread

thanks
Fred