It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stryker- the future?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 03:23 PM
link   
The Stryker has survived RPGS, one of them was hit twince and none penetrated because of the slat cage. There was one lost when the fuel tank was ignited, but everyone got out.

The Stryker is a decent vehicle, but I don't know why they just didn't use regular LAVs.




posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 05:07 PM
link   
double post

[edit on 17-8-2004 by wlee15]



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

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.


Although the ground pressure of M1A1 vehicle is relatively light, the amount of contact with the ground is much higher so the damage to road surfaces is greater(and the track). Furthermore half the U.S army's annual maintenance budget is devoted to the Abrams. The fact is the U.S Army probably has more than enough tanks to deal with any threats it faces.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 05:10 PM
link   
The styiker of the future will probably have some new armor to protect better against RPG's. A striker cost that much cuz all of its internal capabilities and technology. But they just have to get better armor not replace the whole vehicle. An A1M2 has great armor all around, just the other day in Najaf the insurgents somehow managed to place a bomb underneath the M1. The outside bags and equipment cought fire but inside there was hardly a dent the crew walked out unharmed.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Buy American Act?



The U.S military has ordered 2,131 Strykers from GDLS at a total cost of $6 billion.

London is splitting the production with a GDLS plant in Alabama.

The London plant, which employs about 1,500 people, is working on filling an initial order for 212 Strykers.

.


A "little" Foreign press


GAO report cited in London

One of the MANY Stryker pages


For a detailed investigation of the Stryker including its shortcomings written by Victor OReilly for Congressman Jim Saxton, Aug 22, 2003 - The issue raised in this report is whether the US Army should be allowed to field the Stryker, a family of vehicles whose extensive deficiencies are comprehensively laid out in the following pages, but which, for technical, bureaucratic and political reasons, has managed to elude the Department of Defenses Operational Test and Evaluation.


Don't know- sure has the same ingedients as Sgt. York



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 08:47 PM
link   
The soldiers using the Stryker love it, it is perfect for counter insurgency operations like what we are doing in Iraq. Of course in a more intense conflict, it would get creamed OLD SCHOO'!!



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Stryker by its self is not that expensive [probably ~ 3/4 million] while MEXAS is 1/4 million.... the rest is Thermal sights and specialize communication devices [netcentric warfare etc].



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 06:34 AM
link   
You are buying "foreign" (GM's?) because they are not out to rip off their own allies like you do. Nothing works as advertised, and in the contract they have all kinds of clauses that permit them to overcharge.
Some countries have built systems you have not made or thought of.

I know...that's buisness.And competition,American style,and no it ain't. The Hurricane victims in the south east are getting gouged by these buisness entrepeneurs.

[edit on 18-8-2004 by stgeorge]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Corruption=Military failure.

Somebody's getting rich off the Stryker. The Abrams tank worked better than anything, yet we're dumping it for a suped up SUV.

The Pro -transformation folks like Rumsfeld want faster depoyment, but who wants to speed into a dangerous battlefield with very little armor?

Someone posted that the military loves the Stryker, well, they're ordered to like it. The deadly faults in the Osprey didn't stop them testing it.

When you base tactical military decisions on corporate profit, soldiers die.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   

I think some Strykers are produced in Canada and the company is Canadian.


errm... yeah but original its name is Piranha III, and it was developed by the swiss, till General Dynamics European Land Combat Systems bought the swiss company Mowag Motorwagenfabriken, in Canada there is also a version produced called LAV III (which is virtually the same as the Piranha III)



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   
btw. in future usa wont anymore use really many MBTs, or need heavy stuff!

the better your recon by elite forces, sattelites, drones, recon-planes get, the less need is for fighters on land for the main battle!

you can destroy the enemy ships and harbours from your battleships, you can destroy their military bases by cruise missiles, their planes by your fighters, their heavy vehicles by your fighterbombers, etc.


on the time you bring strykers into the land, you wont need anymore be good protected against artillery, plane-bombs, 120mm cannons, ....


the only dangers that are still there are:

Assault Rifles/Machine Guns, Mines, Suicid-bombers and RPG's, Assault Rifles/Machine Guns you can prevent with regular Stryker armour, RPGs will be prevented by MEXAS, suicid bombers will mostly be either not able to attack by enough explosives, or be seen fast enough to be destroyed before that happens.


When the land forces join the foreign country, it is at first a fighter against light infantry, and a bit later it will be a peacekeeping force, the real destruction of heavy enemy forces is done by airforce and cruise missiles!




(you wont ever fight a first world country, if you do, you will destroy eachother by nukes, so regular forces are unimportant)



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wodan
btw. in future usa wont anymore use really many MBTs, or need heavy stuff! the better your recon by elite forces, sattelites, drones, recon-planes get, the less need is for fighters on land for the main battle!


I have to disagree. So called "dumb weapons" fired from ground platforms are far more efficient in terms of cost. Not even America will can expect to ever afford such a tremendous force of airpower and "smart weapons" that it can hope to project unmatched force without the support of cheaper and more numerous "dumb weapons" on the ground.

A predator armed costs 20 million, and Abrams costs 4 million.
Predator fires a 40,000 dollar hellfire missile.
Abrams fires an inexpensive 120mm shell (i looked for the cost but apparently it has been neglected, probably because its, well, negligible).
When predator comes in to support your boys on the ground, it brings a hellfire missile.
When Abrams comes to support your boys on the ground, it brings 40 rounds of 120mm, 12,000 rounds of 7.62, 1000 rounds of .50cal, and in some cases TOW missiles.

An Abrams brings WELL OVER 10 times the killing power for 20% as much unit cost.

The Abrams of course is only part of the picture. The Abrams works as part of a combined arms team with other highly effective "dumb" weapons to make for a cheaper, more lethal, but larger force. It is true that this force deploys slower, but it wins faster. As one Iraqi commander put it, "I started the war with 38 tanks, after 30 days of aerial attack I still had 32. After twenty minutes with the M1A1, I had no tanks." (the numbers might be slightly off.)

The weapons on the ground may get lighter, faster, and more deployable, but their form will continue to be dictated by economy and effectiveness. The triumph of Chad, using technicals (trucks) armed with recoilless rifles over Libyan tanks proves that lighter and more manueverable platforms for firepower employed shrewdly will do the job. This shows why vehicles like Bradley, LAV, and Stryker have a future on the battlefield.
At the same time, heavier forces may remain at least for a little while, because heavily armored vehicles with large main armaments have a considerable advantage in range which can be exploited on the right terrain to create stunning victories such as Desert Storm (the failure of Iraqi tanks was largely do to being outmatched in terms of range. Iraqi guns, especially the 100mm and 115mm versions on the T-55s and T-62s respecitively were helpless against the Abrams unless they could get flank shots at point-blank. (which one smart little Iraqi actually managed to do, claiming two M1A1s as a result).)

So I believe what we may see is a divergence in tactical emphasis in the near future. Some nations, likely those who believe they rely on constricted terrain for defense, those who are strapped for cash, and those who must rely on inferior technology, will rely on lighter, faster, quieter vehicles designed to harass, ambush, and skirmish at close ranges, probably using chain guns to do most of their work.
Most of the candidates for this sort of development don't have the independence to follow such a program on their own. This includes nations like Iran, North Korea, South Korea, Cuba, etc.

Others will take this because it is economical and meets with the requirements they expect to face. Australia may want to cut back on spending for armor while creating a force that Island hop in the pacific and even be transported by air without the benefit or airfields. Most of NATO will probably indulge in this to some degree really because American spending can anchor the program, and America always likes to have it both ways.

Turkey would do well with this because of their geography, providing that they don't have any concern over having to fight a major war in the deserts to their south.

Other nations will opt for heavier forces, believing that a 50 ton MBT that can take out an enemy at 2 kilometers is the only viable base of fire for their offensive machine. America and Russia will be on this boat at least to some extent, although America especially will persue the other type of force as well.
India will certainly be in this camp, considering that their plains in the North are a likely field of battle both against Pakistani tanks and perhaps even against very large Chinese forces. (although those wars aren't really all that likely considering the nuclear issue).



you can destroy the enemy ships and harbours from your battleships, you can destroy their military bases by cruise missiles, their planes by your fighters, their heavy vehicles by your fighterbombers, etc.

Destroying bases and land forces is far more efficient when done with land forces. Also, land forces do not need to fight by attrition, which is the only thing airforces can do. A ground force can chase you, trap you, corner you, outflank you, out pace you, and in a million ways defeat you by manuever, forcing you to surrender on a much shorter timeline. Also this puts enemy hardware in the hands of the victor instead of senselessly destroying it. The Israelis are very good at that for example- they're so good at it that Russian tanks come with Hebrew labeling on the instruments. Israel still employs some of the hardware they took from Egypt in the Six Day Smackdown.



When the land forces join the foreign country, it is at first a fighter against light infantry, and a bit later it will be a peacekeeping force, the real destruction of heavy enemy forces is done by airforce and cruise missiles!

Besides being a logistical and financial nightmare, it would just take too long. Your light vehicle has to be able to duke it out with the big boys in a pinch. Suppose that America and all of our allies go over to the light vehicles and airpower force and let our tanks just fade away. But suppose that other nations think tanks are still OK. One day Egypt invades Israel with an army that includes 5,000 tanks- mostly older soviet designs, but still a whole bunch of tanks. Israel doesn't have time for an air war. They need something that can stand in the way and trade punches with the enemy tanks. So if they aren't going to have their own tanks, they have to design their light vehicles to do the job instead and they ahve to develop tactics that make it possible.
Now suppose that Israel looses and now Egypt is on their way to Saudi Arabia for the oil. America wants to go in. Well by the time our air war has wiped Egypt's army out, they can be in Saudi and torch the oil wells which could be very bad for our economy. What are we gonna do about that?
Well we already saw that Israel got beat right so we don't just want to throw Stryker in there. We will need at least a small amount of tank forces to deal with other tank forces it seems.
With tanks being such effective killing machines, they'll always be around on some level. They may become a supporting weapon to IFVs like Stryker, but they will still be an important part of the combined arms team to any nation which must be prepared to fight on open ground.


(you wont ever fight a first world country, if you do, you will destroy eachother by nukes, so regular forces are unimportant)


This is a dangerous assumption because it leaves you no way of dealing with things except nukes.

Suppose that you and I couldn't play tug of war over something we both wanted, we couldn't push and shove, we couldn't fist fight- all we could do is shoot eachother. Now suppose that there's only one soda left and I take it. You really want it and you wish you could argue with me over it- but you can't. You either have to get into a gunfight with me over a stupid soda or you have to just let it go. See what I mean?
What would happen if America threw away most of its military forces and just said nukes were our defense. But then Russia attacks some tiny country we're friends with- like Georgia. Well if we still had our conventional military we could go stand in their way and bluff them, or we could go kick their butt and say, "hey, you started it, now are you sure you wanna get crazy over this little thing, or are you gonna back off?"
Vietnam is a perfect example too. Russia's nukes didn't stop America from messing with Vietnam, but Russian rifles, artillery, and surface to air missiles that they were giving to the Vietnamese eventually did the job.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 09:35 PM
link   
The Stryker is not the replace for the MTB though. The Army has plans for new future tanks that weighs around 40-45 Tonnes and are lighter and faster than the Abrams but due to more modern tech the armor will still be as good as the Abrams. And using new and developed systems its gun will be as deadly if not more than the Abrams.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   
We're still choosing to spend 12 Billion+ on a questionable system, which we could've used for body armor, training, or proven tank systems.

We should probably boost Navy and Air Force spending. We have a distinct advantage in those key areas, so we should keep it.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The Stryker is not the replace for the MTB though. The Army has plans for new future tanks that weighs around 40-45 Tonnes and are lighter and faster than the Abrams but due to more modern tech the armor will still be as good as the Abrams. And using new and developed systems its gun will be as deadly if not more than the Abrams.


I am aware of this and I'm looking forward to seeing how America's next generation tank shapes up. The brunt of my last post was meant for Wodan who seemed to be advocating the stryker as the staple ground forces for a new air-dependant force. I believe that the key to America's continued viability abroad is going to be a combination of several factors in an attempt to take combined arms to the next level. We're going to need to advance the design of IFVs further and revolutionize the equipment and doctrine of our light infantry forces- especially the Marine Corps. The USMC is going to have to fall into a new role to compliment our Navy- they must be able to secure or infiltrate strategically vital areas and employ countermeasures against enemy air and missile threats to our Navy, especially in situations where our Navy must operate in constricted and dangerous geography, such as vital straits, canals, and narrow seas which may become compromised in the future.
To back up our revolutionized light forces though, we're going to need new more deployable armor and artillery that can get there not far behind them and deliver the knockout punch.

Behind that we're going to need to work on missile defenses, new aircraft technology, and finally next generation naval forces such as DDX, submersible aircraft carriers, etc.

Long story short- I'm big on combined arms. I don't like seeing any part of the equation underemphasized. It takes away versatility and potency when you do.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   
seattletimes.nwsource.com...

as you can see it depends how the stryker is used, it is a good vehicle but it still has problems, but at least we learn from those lessons of course i prefer that we learn it in tests instead of real combat where soldiers died because of this problem or that problem on the stryker. we need to develop more advance stronger but lighter armor not depend on 20th century technology existing armor.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
as you can see it depends how the stryker is used, it is a good vehicle but it still has problems, but at least we learn from those lessons of course i prefer that we learn it in tests instead of real combat where soldiers died because of this problem or that problem on the stryker. we need to develop more advance stronger but lighter armor not depend on 20th century technology existing armor.


Maybe it will be not necessary, because the future tactical transports will have 30 tons payload capacity.



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
US Army's Stryker
Vehicle Faulty - Report
3-31-5

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A new U.S. Army troop transport vehicle in Iraq has many defects, putting soldiers at risk from rocket-propelled grenades and raising questions about its $11 billion cost, The Washington Post reported in its Thursday edition.
 
The vehicle is known as the Stryker, which is made by General Dynamics Corp., according to the newspaper, which said it reviewed a classified study by the Army in December.
 
The report, drawn from confidential interviews with operators of the vehicles in Iraq in the last quarter of 2004, lists complaints about the vehicle including design flaws and maintenance problems that are "getting worse not better," the paper said.
 
The Army report makes clear that the vehicle's military performance has fallen short although many soldiers in the field say they like the vehicle, the Post said.
 
For example, an armoring shield installed on Stryker vehicles to protect against unanticipated attacks by insurgents using low-tech weapons works against half the grenades used to assault it, the newspaper said.
 
The shield, installed at a base in Kuwait, is so heavy that tire pressure must be checked three times daily and nine tires a day are changed after failing, the paper said, referring to the Army document.
 
"The additional weight significantly impacts the handling and performance during the rainy season," the Post cited the Army report as saying.
 
The paper listed other complaints such as slow and overheating computers and a $157,000 grenade launcher that fails to hit targets when the vehicle is moving.
 
The Army report said its laser designator, zoom, sensors, stabilizer and rotating speed all need redesign; it does not work at night; and its console display is in black and white although "a typical warning is to watch for a certain color automobile," the Post reported.
 
Army figures show 17 soldiers in the Stryker combat brigade have died in Iraq in 157 bomb explosions. But whether the deaths occurred outside or inside the vehicle has not been specified, the Post said.
 
www.reuters.com...


- IMHO, its been a waste of money. When I was in the marine corps, we used the LAV, and it did the job just fine. Why not upgrade those, or even the Armys Bradleys, they sure need it...



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   
I think its good to have a combination of the Abram’s the Bradley's and the Stryker, all have their pros and cons depending on the situation. Just having one type of system is going to get you nowhere.





West Point, Out.



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 11:41 PM
link   
The stryker isn't still supposed to be the "one fits all" it was meant to be. I think they were planning on over a dozen varrients of it, all with different configs, but it kinda got pushed aside some when the Army wanted the FCS (Future Combat System). I like the FCS, although (as everything) the military doesn't seem to understand what a budget is, you think its first price tag of 92 billion would do it...but no, there predicting that its overall budget will exceed 145 billion.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join