Last Stryker variant unveiled - with BIG gun!

[Preacherman]

From Military.com ( http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,96661,00.html?ESRC=army-a.nl ):

Stryker Ramps Up Mobile Gun System

Army News Service | Annette Fournier | May 09, 2006

Ft. Benning, GA. - The newest version of the Stryker vehicle, designed to provide fire power to Infantry units, will be unveiled May 15 at Fort Knox's Armor Warfighting Symposium.





The development of the Mobile Gun System is being managed by Fort Benning's Training and Doctrine Command System Manager-Stryker/Bradley.

The system was developed to meet the infantry’s need for a highly mobile support vehicle to supply rapid, direct fire, specifically during close assaults, said Dave Rogers, a TSM-Stryker senior analyst. The Mobile Gun System will eventually be integrated into Stryker Brigade Combat Teams.

"The Mobile Gun System brings a tremendous battlefield capability to the Stryker formation, providing direct fire support to infantrymen in close, complex terrain," said Col. Donald Sando, the director of the TSM Stryker/Bradley.

The Mobile Gun System's firepower includes a turret-mounted 105 mm cannon, a mounted M-240C machine gun and a pedestal-mounted M-2.50 caliber machine gun for the vehicle commander.

The cannon can blast holes through reinforced concrete walls creating a breach point for infantry, and destroy bunkers and machine-gun nests that typically pin down infantry squads and platoons.

The 105 mm cannon can also take out snipers, Rogers said, because with one shot, it can destroy the entire area where a sniper is firing from. The cannon also fires canister rounds, which are used when confronting large groups of combatants. The canister round sends out a spray of titanium balls, similar to the pellets from a shotgun, which can impact several targets at once.

It's the heavy fire power and versatility that will make the Mobile Gun System an asset in combat, Rogers said.

"People will assume it's a tank when they see it because it has a big gun," Rogers said, "but it's much lighter than a 70 ton tank, making it more mobile. Its primary role is to support the infantry, not to go head to head with tanks."

The Mobile Gun System also features the Ammunition Handling System, an ammo loading device for the 105 mm cannon. With the ammo system, several types of rounds can be loaded in advance, then the ammunition types are displayed on the cannon operator's central control panel monitor. Depending on the mission, the operator can select which ammunition to use and the Ammunition Handling System automatically loads the cannon.

This capability gives the Mobile Gun System an advantage over other Army vehicles, which must be manually loaded with specific ammunition by a fourth crew member, Rogers said. The Ammunition Handling System makes loading and firing on targets faster and more efficient, he said.

"When planning for the 10 variants of Strykers, the Army took into account everything a Soldier could need on the battlefield," Rogers said. "From that, they developed the other Stryker variants, like the Medical Evacuation Vehicle, the Antitank Guided Missile Vehicle and the Engineer Squad vehicles, which are all uniquely designed for their mission. The Mobile Gun System fills a hole, and gives the infantry another capability."

The Mobile Gun System will be the last Stryker variant to be fielded. The Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle, the other new Stryker vehicle, was fielded to the 2nd Cavalry Regiment at Fort Lewis, Wash., in February. Soldiers with the 2nd Cav. Regt. will also be the first to receive the Mobile Gun System. They will receive 27 vehicles from July to August, which will be tested in an operational unit environment.

The Army designated 14 Mobile Gun System vehicles for extensive testing at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Md., Yuma Proving Grounds, Ariz., and White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

Testing the vehicle in extreme climates and terrain helps the Mobile Gun System's designers look for potential problems that may appear in a combat environment.

"People go to great pains to almost abuse the vehicle," Rogers said. "It's tested realistically in harsh settings so we can identify any shortcomings during the testing stage. We don't want to find out about a problem after it’s in combat, so we're not cutting corners. During the tests, these vehicles aren't treated with kid gloves. We want to make sure we don't equip our Soldiers with a weak vehicle."

It will still be a while before the Mobile Gun System will get to the battlefield. The Defense Acquisition Executive will decide if the vehicle should go into full rate production in July 2007.

 

[Daniel T]

I have no problem pleading some ignorance here, but...um...doesn't this seem like the Army is making all the same mistakes with the Stryker that they did with the Bradley? 105mm cannon? Sounds like a lot of mission creep to me.

 

[hso]

I was thinking the same thing.

Big gun, light armor, same anti-tank weapons in the hands of the BGs.

If there's a hole in the roles that need to be filled perhaps they need to just make a light tank that has the armor to survive the anticipated man portable anti-tank weapons that it might face and leave the main battle tank role for the heavies.

 

[Devonai]

I agree. All that firepower is nice but who wants to drive it if it can't take an RPG-7 upside it's head?

 

[Preacherman]

Don't forget that the Strykers are designed to be air-carried in a C130. To do that, you have to reduce size, bulk and weight - i.e. no armored, tracked jobbies. Given that restriction, a big-gun version of the Stryker makes sense, to provide some heavy firepower to back up the other versions of the vehicle.

 

[El Tejon]

Artillery on an IFV???

Where does one put the ammo for it??? Tow a flatbed trailer or have the soldiers carry extra rounds on their gear?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

First there was the Infantryman, running along under fire.

But the Infantryman had no protection, so then there was the tank.

But there was no room in the tank for the Infantryman, so he ran along behind under fire.

So then there was the half-track. But that had no overhead cover.

So them there was the Armored Personnel Carrier. But that had no cannon.

So then there was the Bradley. But the cannon wasn't powerful enough.

So then there was the Stryker.

But there was no room in the Stryker for the Infantryman, so he ran along behind under fire.

 

[Stiletto Null]

Merkavas FTW?

Seems like a decent idea to me. Is the 105mm the same 105 that used to be on M60s and the M1 prime?

 

[panzermk2]

worthless pile of crap. But then thats what the DOD does with our money.
As if the stiker already wasn't tall enough on the battle field screaming shoot me. With that gun it's got to be at least 5ft higher than an MI.

If they wanted wheeled heavy weapon support they should just by a
South African Rooikat. Faster, more armor and not as tall as the striker (according to specs in Janes book)
Also I bet alot cheaper to

 

[Dannyboy]

Looks like they're doing with the Stryker what they did with the Bradley/MLRS chassis. There are about 6 different models based on the Bradley chassis right now. The only one I think they're missing there, is one with a big gun.

It might not be the best design but anything that provides direct fire support for the infantry is probably a good idea. Especially if it can move in tighter ares than an Abrams, which, if I read that right, this can do.

 

[Mannlicher]

we never did learn the 'keep it simple' idea.

 

[carebear]

South Africa? I don't think we buy weapons from communist countries.

Part of the deal was commonality of parts and maintenance which purchasing the "best" of each type of vehicle wouldn't get us. So they get one platform and mod it into functional variants.

Heck, the Marines may still be toying with making a LAV-based Armored Gun for the same purpose.

The AGS isn't ideal but "firstest with the mostest" doesn't work real well with 1 Abrahms per C-5.

My question is why are we paying for titanium shot in the canister rounds? Concerns over third world waterfowl? Couldn't we just use steel shot?

 

[Owen]

Yeah, I was surprised by the titanium shot too. maybe they meant tungsten?

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

Questions!

1. Why did the Army develop this at all when there are so many armored cars that fill the same role already available? That's what the Marines did with the LAV. I swear, 1/2 of Jane's Armored Vehicle Recognition Guide is filled with armored cars with turrets and 90s/105s...

2. Why can't the M113 fill the Stryker's role? Serioiusly, how hard is it to air-transport M113s? Are wheels better than tracks?

3. If the auto-loader is so much better than a manual loading, then why has the U.S. Army been using manual loading on their tanks when the Russians have been using auto-loaders for 40 years?

4. Why are they using pellets instead of flechettes in the cannister rounds?

I hope this thing can take applique armor, with all the RPGs in Iraq.

If I ran things, I'd give the Army a bigger budget, refurbish all the old M60 tanks gathering dust, and send those things into Iraq.

 

[Jim Watson]

Reporter probably couldn't tell the difference between tungsten and titanium. I don't know what tungsten shot will do that steel wouldn't have for less money unless they have a Polychoke on the gun.

I just wonder if the big gun version will fit a C130.

 

[hso]

Pretty sure it's Tungsten and not Ti since you wouldn't get a fraction of the penetrating momentum with Ti as W.

 

[Langenator]

Yes, the MGS version can take the same slat armor (reactive still in development, IIRC) as the rest of the Strykers.

Currently fielded Stryker variants:
Infantry Squad Carrier
Recon/Scout
Mortar Carrier
Engineer
TOW Carrier/Launcher
Command
Medic
NBC Recon
Mobile Gun System

They all use the same drive train and automotive components, which greatly simplifies the parts supply chain. That's why they didn't use some other light tank/cannon carrier vehicle. Up to this point, MGS platoons have been using the TOW vehicles in lieu of the cannon vehicle.

 

[Owen]

This is keeping it simple. I'm guessing 90% of the components are common between the stryker variants

 

[CAS700850]

What I keep thinking of is a little situation in a place called Somalia a few years back. Locals armed with AK's, some heavy MG's, and RPG's. Of course, Americans were superior, because we controlled the skies, flying blackhawks everywhere. Don't need any armored vehicles, as we'll fly anywhere we need to go. Right up until the locals figured out how to air-burst the RPG's, and turn them into Anti-aircraft weapons. Then, we send in the Rangers and Delat boys to get the crews out, only to find out that the Hummers aren't the same as armored vehicles, and the boys were driving through a shooting gallery.

If the powers that be in the Pentagon will actually allow for the proper use of these vehicles, instead of worrying that if they get used, it might look bad on the evening news to have a "tank" rolling down the street, it will serve a purpose. If they put these on a line somewhere so they look pretty, forget it. So, it all boils down to whether the C.I.C. and the Joint Chiefs have the guts to send in a tank and allow them to shoot that big gun at poor insurgents, or if it's bad P.R. to use a cannon to take out a sniper (and maybe the whole building he's sitting on).

 

[mete]

The photo shows a rather crude recoil system ,do they tow it behind the vehicle ??

 

[pcf]

Some of you been reading Mike Sparks' web page?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

General Bob Sunnell was tasked to do a study on the "assault gun" concept. He concluded:

1. You need a big gun. Little guns are fine for little things, but for serious gunnery, you need a big gun.

2. A big gun requires a big chassis.

3. Might as well add a fire control system that allows you to maximize the effectiveness of the gun.

4. A turret increases flexibility and adds crew protection.

5. Big guns draw fire -- so better armor it.

6. Congratulations -- you've just re-invented the tank.

 

[YellowLab]

Wasn't the M2 Bradley supposed to solve all these problems?

Or does the Army want another toy?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Wasn't the M2 Bradley supposed to solve all these problems?

The Bradley is an Infantry Fighting Vehicle (in fact, it's official nomenclature is "Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle" or BIFV.) It carries an infantry squad in addition to its on-board weapons systems (the 25mm Hughes chain gun and the "strap-on" TOW.)

The Soviet BMP -- their equivallent -- boasted a turret-mounted 73mm high-low pressure gun and a rail-mounted AT-3 Sagger anti-armor missile. When we put the National Training Center into operation and pitted US units against a "Soviet" Opposing Force (OPFOR), we lost all the time.

I remember discussing it with Colonel Larry Word (probably the best tactician the Army has produced in a long while) sometime around '81. Larry's comment was, "We ain't got the systems." In other words, we didn't have enough weapons systems capable of killing armored vehicles. Our M113s, with ring-mounted M2 Browning .50 caliber machine guns couldn't compete with BMPs -- and one had only to go through a few battles to see why.

The M2 Bradley was a leapfrog ahead of the BMP in every way and gave us a decisive advantage.

 

[mdao]

1. Why did the Army develop this at all when there are so many armored cars that fill the same role already available? That's what the Marines did with the LAV. I swear, 1/2 of Jane's Armored Vehicle Recognition Guide is filled with armored cars with turrets and 90s/105s...

2. Why can't the M113 fill the Stryker's role? Serioiusly, how hard is it to air-transport M113s? Are wheels better than tracks?

3. If the auto-loader is so much better than a manual loading, then why has the U.S. Army been using manual loading on their tanks when the Russians have been using auto-loaders for 40 years?

4. Why are they using pellets instead of flechettes in the cannister rounds?

1. The Stryker is supposed to be a better, more survivable LAV than all that came before it. (Translated: The Pentagon suffers from "not made here" syndrome.)

2. Upgraded M113s were considered, but lost out to the Stryker FCS concept. I'm guessing because M113s don't exactly look like new tech and people would laugh if you called the upgraded M113 family the "Future Combat System".

3. The Stryker uses an autoloader instead of a human because of space requirements, not because autoloaders are better.

4. Pellets are used instead of flechettes to get a better close range patterning. You get more pellets in a given canister than flechettes, and it's not like the person on the other end is going to know the difference.