The Army is working on a new and improved Stryker armored
vehicle variant, known as the Stryker A1, that will boost the eight wheeled
vehicle’s performance giving it a bigger engine, beefier transmission, brakes
and suspension as well as adding new sensors, shot detection gear, a new
communications network and an improved remotely operated weapons turret.
in 2011, according to service budget documents, and nearly $880 million over the
next five years. The designation A then 1, 2, 3 is typically added to Army vehicle names as
they go through various iterations and improvement packages such as the M1A1
Abrams, the M1A2, etc.
The improved Stryker A1 package includes adding armor to the
hull and raising the vehicle higher off the ground so that it’s better
protected against IED blasts. To protect the thinly armored vehicles from
Rocket Propelled Grenades, the Army added “steel cage” slat armor around the
hull, meant to detonate the rocket’s warhead before it hits.
While the steel cages improved survivability against RPGs, the
armor adds nearly 2
{ 40 comments… read them below or add one }
3-D Radar-Data Capture. put this on the Stryker.
see link below for the article
http://www.rfdesignline.com/howto/microwave/222000253;jsessionid=AP3N3N0HQ5CBVQE1GHPCKHWATMY32JVN
3-D radar data-capture innovation makes IEDs easier to spot
Until recently, 3-D GPR data acquisition was a time-consuming process that required multiple survey lines to be collected in a regular pattern. Now, a novel step-frequency GPR (SF GPR) system, using an advanced antenna array for high-resolution three-dimensional subsurface imaging, speeds and simplifies the use of 3-D GPR by eliminating the need for multiple passes while providing real-time visual data that lets the user immediately refine the search area and radar resolution used for searching.
The approach, employing a unique application of radio-wave-based step-frequency GPR, uses a multichannel radar array to enable single-pass 3-D analysis of underground artifacts in real-time, promising faster, simpler detection of IEDs in combat environments. A fielded SF GPR operates with a standoff antenna array to obtain maximum resolution at shallow depths, making the system suitable for detecting land mines and IEDs below the ground surface.
Higher ground clearence = higher center of gravity = poorer off-road performance.
The survivability concerns are old hat. The design had lower survivability than the M2/M3 . The decision was to trade off survivability for strategic deployability. Now who will stand up and say “That was MY decision”?
Rich, you are dead on.
My guess is that you will see a lot of people examining the tops of their shoes, but not too many hands in the air. Besides, I’m sure all those people have moved on to other projects. Rotten engineers always seem to find their way to other projects before the guano hits the fan.
Constructively, how about this: Specify a design criteria that requires both high survivability AND deployability AND it has to have a reasonable per-unit price. Put all those requirements into a relatively speaking, small budget R&D contract. The R&D phase would be competitive. And maybe try not to pick a vendor that’s too big to fail. Instead, pick one that’s too hungry to not succeed.
Why not also make it fly and do laundry too? ;)
Unfortunately, sometimes limits of technology and physics rear their ugly heads.
The Piranha III design was chosen due to the fact that it was already in production and in service with our allies (reducing development costs) and, with appropriate customization, it had the best balance of features, given the requirements at the time.
pretty sure that was shinseki. last i recall, he wanted the 105mm stryker variant to replace much of the m1′s. dumb x-general
WRONG….it was Rummy. His push for lighter more deployable forces moved the Stryker platform up in priority and subsequent deployment. Shinseki was one of the best Generals in the service early in the Bush Admin and was practically run out of town by Rummy. Sad but true.
1.) Put the Bradley’s chain gun on a turret for the Stryker A2.
2.) M1919A2 .50 Cal MG with AK proof shield on top of turret.
3.) Alternate .50 Cal MG with
M-240 Auto Grenade Launcher variant.
4.) Keep the maintenance as durable and simple as possible.
1.) Put the Bradley’s chain gun on a turret for the Stryker A2.
2.) M1919A2 .50 Cal MG with AK proof shield on top of turret.
3.) Alternate .50 Cal MG with
M-240 Auto Grenade Launcher variant.
4.) Keep the maintenance as durable and simple as possible.
how bout put it on an mtvl chassis that actually can pull itself out of a mudhole, or put it on a ripsaw track. tracks are for the big boys, wheels are for going to bars
When they added the Stryker they should have gone for a vehicle BETTER than the Bradley, not gone backwards. Here’s a survivability tip – get off the roads so they can’t know exactly where you’re going. Oh wait…that would require tracks.
They didn't go backwards. The Stryker is intended to fill a different niche than the Bradley. It's lighter, more deployable, and has lower logistics requirements than a Bradley, but it's far more survivable than a HMMWV.
Also, Strykers can carry a full infantry squad (9) in addition to driver and gunner. The Brad can only carry 7 in back.
What I don’t understand is why they don’t use the LAV it has every thing they what and its been around for over 30 years. Drop the 105mm tank on wheels and drop a 40mm Bushmaster in one. That will cut open any tank out there, and yes there is a 40mm out there.
Stryker is based on the Mowag Piranha III platform. The USMC LAV is based on the Mowag Piranha I. So in effect, they are. The Army just chose a more modern version.
The USMC LAV is much lighter, far less well protected and has less interior space.
look I have been here and seen what these IED our doing to my friends inside the strykers. this battle field is rough on any vehicles no matter if it’s on track or wheeled. tracks can be thrown off easy and well we need a better fighting vehicle that can handle any IED strikes and have at least more fire power (mini-gun) instead of .50 cal. just make something that our crews can surive and have fire power that can do damage and put the fear in god in these cowards that fights with HME and then run away. too easy solve this problem now!
Unfortunately it's a problem that can't really be "solved". It's a continuous race between armor and munition. Even M-1s are vulnerable to IEDs. Best you can do is manage it.
The Stryker upgrade will help tilt the balance back our way for a while. MRAPs are a more purpose-built solution, but lack the overall utility of the Stryker in other conflicts.
The Army is working on a double-V hulled version of the Stryker. I'm not sure if that's included in the A1 upgrade though.
I just want to say that these vehicles are doing the job and the crews are suriving but it’s my opinion, we need some sort of v-hulls and strong armor. they are great fighting vehicles but make them beefer.
The weapons systems are fine. The enemy never engages us with small arms, they’re not that dumb. The off road capability is fine. With 8×8, low transfer we can go places Bradleys can’t and we’re super agile. The IED survivability is NOT fine. And even bradley nuts know that when you loose tracks you loose armor. It’s a trade off. I’ve deployed with Brads and Strykers as a dismounted 11B and I have to go with the Stryker.
I agree with Dismounted 11B, the weapons systems are fine. The MK-19 and 50 cal rock and the Stryker can go places that would surprise those who have not been on one. Just a little higher off of the ground and maybe a V-Hull design.
We captured plenty of T54/55 in Iraq. Hire the Israelis to turn them into superheavy APCs. They aleady use T55 conversions to survive in built up areas. They get money and we get a good cheap heavily armored all terrain APC.
The Stryker and similar LAV-25 are meant to be light highly mobile brigades that can be air lifted quickly to the battle front, not meant to engage heavy armored forces. The IED simulates a heavy armored force attack capability. The Army and marines need a new vehicle for this all together.
Has anyone thought about bringing back the horse cavalry? They make very good off the road vehicles and being off the road IEDs are just about useless.
Wonderful, to read about all the new equipment. Still, we are essentially following an outdated warfighting rulebook.
I have always felt that we should have totally taken the bad guys out, using whatever means we have, (short of nuking them,) after we had moved the nonplayers from the area.
Hostilities would be over a long time ago. Rebuilding efforts would have made S.W.Asia democracy’s ultimate showplace.
We would have spent far less money accomplishing what we had set out to do. Plus avoided all the political pitfalls that have beset us thus far. Or suffered the losses of so many of our boys.
Our, and our coalition’s economies would be topping the charts with few throwing roadblocks (or bombs) at us.
No one would dare dispute our ability to right the wrongs on this planet.
It will always be winners take all on this planet. We seem to forget that.
As of now, pitting our guys against their guys – is that not WW-1 and WW-2 stuff?
How about we ditch the piece of crap all together ond go with a proven design out of South Africa? The Wer’wolf is more than capable, but the company does not have the financial profile enabling them to provide bribes to Congress. We could update M113s for that matter. There are many options out there that we failed to take advantage of.
And JJ, we have used horses over there, often. Yup, they work pretty well so long as you can shoot and move when you get off of one of those things.
Here is a WONDERFUL idea US engineers haven’t had a truly GOOD idea designing fighting vehicles I have a REAL idea lets look at the Isrealis and say what would you guys do to this thing their weaponry in the survivability category is unsurpassed why you may ask NOBODY has had more RPG’s shot at them than Isrealis oh and if that don’t convince you it takes a really Kickass military to defeat a military the size of Egypt’s in 7 days think people Isreal Military Industries IS the answer they do it all on a budget and 9 times out of 10 it is using US Military hand me downs.
You guys sound like actors in the “Pentagon Wars” movie. Watch it! It is a true story about the design and concept ideas that went into building the Bradley,
Horses both for moving personnel and as pack animals worked very well in 2001 when we won the Afghan War Part I. Staying off roads whether on foot patrol or in vehicles is the way to defeat the IED threat, the major killer in Afghanistan. I agree that the South Africans and perhaps the Israelis have superior vehicles to negotiate rough terrain. Motorized vehicles that cost many thousands of dollars a copy isn’t necessarily the answer, especially when the bad guys just find another relatively cheap way to defeat a ‘better’ vehicle.
good point but the point is the Isrealis never build a wild new vehicle when they can adapt their older ones to do the job they need the reason why I said lets go to them is they don’t have infinite resources. heck they are still using the M-60 MBT and their air force if I am not mistaken uses F-16 Bloc 60′s the avionics package that keeps the F-16 a viable threat even to our new F-22 Raptor money pit. I am not saying change is bad what I am saying is we are fighting a enemy that is HIGHLY adept at his style of fighting they are quick to adapt WE (US Military) need to be faster and adopt the Isreali mind set do we need something new or can we upgrade what we already have to be more than capable. Walk tall and carry a big stick but do we need to reinvent the damn stick is my point. Hilter was stopped because he had ADHD about the newer bigger gun ant the US and Allies just responed my making what we had available better.
A low tech, intelligent enemy that is sufficiently motivated will (almost) always adapt faster to a high tech challenge than the high tech challenge can evolve to stay ahead. It is very difficult to R&D and implement high tech answers at fast enough pace to keep one step ahead or even maintain equity with a determined low tech enemy. This is the advantage that a foe that is inferior militarily has over a modern, western military; which is why asymmetric warfare is so difficult to wage for a militarily superior power.
Why not make the cage out of Aluminum slats to reduce weight, it would still detonate RPGs. Chicken wire might be as effective as the steel slats and could be easily repaired. It looks to me that the cage would serve to hold thrown devices on the vehicle inside of rolling off.
The slats deform the RPG, and catch it, usually without tagging the detonator (which is small,and on the center line for RPG). Aluminum slats wouldn't be as stiff, letting the RPG through, and that would often permit the deformed RPG to detonate against the side of the stryker. The cage has an open bottom, so if a thrown bomb hit the side it would either bounce off, or skitter between the slats and the solid side armor, and drop. How far can they throw the bomb? Tough to get that close, or to get away after throwing it.
It amazes me how many “experts” don’t know what they are talking about:
“the Army added “steel cage” slat armor around the hull, meant to detonate the rocket’s warhead before it hits.”
NO THEY DON’T, the last thing you want to do is detonate a shape charge 2 feet from the armor, it actually makes the charge more effective. Slat armor is designed to misshape the warhead before it detonates ruining it.
uh wow !! theres alot of haters !!! must be tankers!! it was not to be made to replace the tank!! but u know it all !!! pile of crap ? the mgs stryker will beat the bradley hands down! produced by the same company that must in your eyes built the very best tank in the world !! bring it dont sing it!!!!
the 113 funny yeah thats a great pile of yuck!! maybe 40 yrs ago!!
if we want to seriously get off the roads then the army needs to invest in more blackhawks and have more air assault brigades. period. plus youd have overhead coverage with a better view of the battlefield, get out injured soldiers faster by helo then on the ground out to a safe area where the helo can land. these cowards are afraid of our helicopters anyway. and yes i know they have to refuel alot faster then ground vehicles but they can easily rotate out to re-fuel once Soldiers are dropped at the LZ’s.
as long as we drive on the ground we will hit IED’s, no matter how well the vehicle performs in rough terrain, like here in afghanistan, or how much armor the vehicle has, thats supposed to protect its occupents.
the more armor we add the enemy will know, so they just build bigger bombs. until we can stop them from building the bombs we need more UH-60′s. the srmy should spend some money doing research on ways to improve helo’s.
i know the haters will say that the enemy have rpg’s. but the threat of getting shot down is alot less then being blown up inside a vehicle. either way there will be casulties and death. its war, its the way it is.
It gained 2.5 tons and the engine and transmishion is over taxed who aproved this,My pick up truck has caryed 2 tons
Check it out. I was at the 113 vs. LAV III (not LAV 25) tests in 2000- 2001 when they were held at Ft. Lewis when trying to decide what vehicle to use as a stop gap until the Army designs and fields the FCS. The reason the Stryker is a LAV III hull and not a 113 is actually pretty simple. They did all test equally well until one mobility test in which the 113 threw track and didn’t finish the test. It was that close. Also it has been my experience in 9 years in an SBCT that the only people who talk trash about this vehicle have never been on one. They typically are the type to use a chainsaw to do a job that requires a scalpel as well.
why can’t the army say that this was not the best for this war or are they going to do like they did in the vatnam was, and cover there own ass,not the troops.
The Stryker is an awesome vehicle when used for the purpose it was built, It can bring more ass to a fight faster than any other vehicle and quietly. It is used as a fast deploying troop transport that can act as a C2 hub to pass information to dismounted Infantry as well as provide support through fires and mobility. As far as IED’s and HME’s there are so many varients it is hard to defend against them all. Like all military vehicles it has a shelf life and eventually a new vehicle will replace it. But for what it is it allows Infantry to cover more ground and inflict more damage than any other Brigade. Its not perfect but right now the SBCT’s are about as lethal a combat team as you get. Soldiers who have been in a Stryker understand, and if you havnt you wont.
how about a vehicle with a truly modular suspension system? One tall suspension for IED resistance and urban over-watch and another lower lighter suspension designed for non built up fighting…