I think the Stryker has a role in the whole new smaller lighter faster doctrine of the military. If your a soldier right now and a tread vehicle wont do for what ever reason your really limited to a Humvee and the Stryker might give you a better option or atleast another option.

Is it a cure all I dont think so but I dont think its a waste either

I like their Anti-RPG armour, very simple idea and works a treat.

Well its good for occupation duties and combating light forces like in Iraqi...but way to high tech. A armored car would cost 1/10th of a Stryker with out the geewizbang tech crappola.

Originally posted by psteel
Well its good for occupation duties and combating light forces like in Iraqi...but way to high tech. A armored car would cost 1/10th of a Stryker with out the geewizbang tech crappola.

Funny that, seeing that's what they are designed for. And thats what the US are involved in currently.

Wow the Stryker cost $2.8 million each, Dont M1A1s cost like $2.6 million each? what a scam if that thing cost more then a M1A1 I would rather buy more tanks any day then that thing. It cost too much

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Wow the Stryker cost $2.8 million each, Dont M1A1s cost like $2.6 million each? what a scam if that thing cost more then a M1A1 I would rather buy more tanks any day then that thing. It cost too much

It also uses 15X more fuel than a Stryker vehicle and won't destroy paved roads.

Gee whiz gadgets and a catchy name! Sells you guys everytime!

What is wrong with our lowly Canadian Mowags please? We make them just one at a time (two shifts mind) by ordinary greasemonkeys.
No ,it's not top secret.Would you like to tour our facility? Coffee?

[edit on 17-8-2004 by stgeorge]

Originally posted by stgeorge
Gee whiz gadgets and a catchy name! Sells you guys everytime!

What is wrong with our lowly Canadian Mowags please? We make them just one at a time (two shifts mind) by ordinary greasemonkeys.
No ,it's not top secret.Would you like to tour our facility? Coffee?

[edit on 17-8-2004 by stgeorge]

Well this is exactly the problem...stryker was billed as off the shelf low cost interim until FCS [Canadian version was 1.5m?] . I suspect some one said lets also try out the 'gadgets'...if its a dud , no problem cause its foriegn made[ IE; what did you expect].

BTW current M-1 replacement price is well above 4 million and could hit 8 million if the numbers aquired are low. It requires an order of magnitude more maintenance than a Stryker and this is significant [ Some say the cost of maintinance for these tanks over a 5 year period is equal to the cost of buying the tank in the first place.... ]. THis is why the general trend is towards lighter AFVS since they should be atleast 1/4 the maintenance cost ....there is also a direct relation ship between this logistics requirment and the real cost of overseas power projection.

[edit on 17-8-2004 by psteel]

I think Stryker costs 1.8 mil$ not 2.8 mil. But it's still too expensive. In order to be effective the Stryker needs to cost UNDER 1 Mil.$, otherwise it is just waste of money. I really don't know why it should be so expensive. 4wheel armored truck with 1 light fifty gun and FLIR. Bingo. Maybe some high tech bettlefield internet gadgets, but I really don't know why should it cost that much.

And my second question : doesn't Stryker violate the Buy-American Act? (buing the military items from US). I think some Strykers are produced in Canada and the company is Canadian. This is not a component or something special that USA cannot make. Also the H&K's XM-8 will be produced in USA.
So why it is different by Stryker?

Hmm interesting. My father who works for a payroll company just told me one of the companies based in Hamilton, Ontario that he does payroll for just got an order for 4000 Striker vehicles(EDIT: From the US Army BTW). I wonder if its the same thing. My dad thought it was a troop transport but now I dunno. The name Stryker is a bit different then what he used in his E-mail maybe he was wrong....interesting



[edit on 17-8-2004 by sardion2000]

It's all very well and good to produce high-tech AFV's, but the basic problem remains the same, THE ARMOUR. Until they create a material many times stronger than the steel ( or alumnium ) they use today; they will still be highly vulnerable. THe US Army should invest a few billion dollars in materials science for their AFV's.

This grilled cage which protects the stryker from RPG's is almost no different to WWII vintage armour to protect against the German Panzerfaust.

This grilled cage which protects the stryker from RPG's is almost no different to WWII vintage armour to protect against the German Panzerfaust.

I think the US is waiting for some Kicka$$ nanotech armor. The main issue with armor has always and always will be weight vs. mobility and when we can get the weight down then we don't have to sacrifice mobility for safety. Thats the key.

Originally posted by sardion2000

This grilled cage which protects the stryker from RPG's is almost no different to WWII vintage armour to protect against the German Panzerfaust.

I think the US is waiting for some Kicka$$ nanotech armor. The main issue with armor has always and always will be weight vs. mobility and when we can get the weight down then we don't have to sacrifice mobility for safety. Thats the key.

Hey, your preaching to the choir, nicely said.

Originally posted by sardion2000
Hmm interesting. My father who works for a payroll company just told me one of the companies based in Hamilton, Ontario that he does payroll for just got an order for 4000 Striker vehicles(EDIT: From the US Army BTW). I wonder if its the same thing. My dad thought it was a troop transport but now I dunno. The name Stryker is a bit different then what he used in his E-mail maybe he was wrong....interesting

Yes it is General Dynamics Land Systems Canada. The strykers should be produced in Ontario and Alabama.

Originally posted by longbow
I think Stryker costs 1.8 mil$ not 2.8 mil. But it's still too expensive. In order to be effective the Stryker needs to cost UNDER 1 Mil.$, otherwise it is just waste of money. I really don't know why it should be so expensive. 4wheel armored truck with 1 light fifty gun and FLIR. Bingo. Maybe some high tech bettlefield internet gadgets, but I really don't know why should it cost that much.

Everything is so bloody expensive that it threatens to get us beat in a major war. What Saddam should have done (considering his extremely limited options) was commandeer vehicles of every type and arm them with any and all available heavy weapons which may be able to penetrate IFV armor at close range. You throw them at us in huge numbers, say 10:1 against our forces, with the mission of destroying american IFVs. We can't replace them that fast, so you've slowed America's tempo by eliminating high-speed/high-mobility combined arms ability.

What the hell is so hard about an armored truck with a Ma-Duece and a couple of gun-ports? Not only are they cheap, but when they're outdated you can sell them to Brinks! If you need a bigger main armament I've got an answer for that too (in fact I think it's a good idea either way). They need to work out a 25mm cannon variant which can be broken down and carried by a weapons company.
1. You get a new infantry weapon which plays hell with most vehicles and at close range has been successful against Iraqi tanks (i think up to 64's, but there's a slim chance it was 72s)
2. You have brought the effects mass production to an otherwise expensive weapon which you want to use on your new low-cost urban IFV (aka armored truck).
3. It would certainly be a real bear to carry, and it would shut the 0331s up about how bad the Mk19 is.

No TOWs, No reactive armor, no microwave communications and digital battlefield BS. Just a truck with enough metal to bounce off a .50 cal, RPG, or mortar. If you want "digitized forces" then get it from GM and ask for OnStar- I bet the boys in Mogadishu would have loved that, if you've seen Black Hawk Down. This is a -truck- it's for taking people places. It doesn't have to fill every role because it's going to be surrounded by other vehicles which have their own roles!

And my second question : doesn't Stryker violate the Buy-American Act? (buing the military items from US). I think some Strykers are produced in Canada and the company is Canadian. This is not a component or something special that USA cannot make. Also the H&K's XM-8 will be produced in USA.
So why it is different by Stryker?

I wasn't even aware of such a rule. I'm pretty sure that the Germans make our tank and artillery barrels. (Actually I think Rhinemetal provides cannons for 3 or 4 of Kozzy's top 5 rated tanks. It should be 4 for sure once Chally gives up HESH and gets a smoothbore. Merkava 4 will be the only holdout.)

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I wasn't even aware of such a rule. I'm pretty sure that the Germans make our tank and artillery barrels. (Actually I think Rhinemetal provides cannons for 3 or 4 of Kozzy's top 5 rated tanks. It should be 4 for sure once Chally gives up HESH and gets a smoothbore. Merkava 4 will be the only holdout.)

The tank gun is a German design ( M256 I think ? ), but it is produced under licence in the US. I'll say one thing for the German's, they've led the field in tank guns for the last 70 years.

Originally posted by wlee15

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Wow the Stryker cost $2.8 million each, Dont M1A1s cost like $2.6 million each? what a scam if that thing cost more then a M1A1 I would rather buy more tanks any day then that thing. It cost too much

It also uses 15X more fuel than a Stryker vehicle and won't destroy paved roads.

Yes the M1A1 is a gas hog, but inside a M1A1 is about the safest place for a person to be during combat. Its battle tested a proven safe and it works.

The M1A1 doesnt go along ripping up pavement as it goes, though it weighs alot it has a large surface area to spread out all that weight it produces something like 14psi which is not alot at all. If you put chains on your car during the winter your doing more damage then a M1A1 will ever do to a road.

I love the orignal idea of a Stryker type vehicle . We need something better then the RPG magnets that HMMWV have become they were not really designed to be combat vehicles they are light trucks.

We need something between the 25 ton Bradley and the 5,200 lbs HMMWV. But I dont think the Stryker is the answer at least not yet.

They should build lighter 6x6 vehicles for 8 man, not the 8x8 ones for 9. All the weight problems would be solved and the vehicles could have better basic armor.

[edit on 17-8-2004 by longbow]