Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Registration is free! Calendar Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Search Home

Go Back   BeyondUnreal Forums > Mods > Infiltration > Off Topic

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 7th Jul 2005, 02:02 PM   #1
(un)l33t_1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr. 21st, 2004
Location: Andover, Massachusetts, United States
Posts: 100
Stryker wheeled vehicle

What do you guys think of the new Stryker vehicle and the prospects of the "Stryker brigades"? Personally, I think the Stryker is something we are better off without, what with a 3 million dollar investment per vehicle (the same as a Bradley Fighting Vehicle), lack of cross-country mobility, deficient armor, high center of gravity, excessive weight, etc.
(un)l33t_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Jul 2005, 02:49 PM   #2
geogob
Koohii o nomimasu ka?
 
geogob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar. 11th, 2000
Location: replication{ reliable if( Role==ROLE_Authority ) Tick;}
Posts: 4,148
new? I thought they were out there for a few years now. did a new version enter service recently?

Also by "deficient armor", do you mean like its not working like it's supposed to or that it is not adapted for the kind of engagements it is used or or that it is less effective than other vehicles it now replaces?

It might be less armored than other vehicles, but that much armor is maybe not necessary at all. And on one part you say that the armor is deficient and that it has an excessive weight. You have a tradeoff to make somewhere.

I though the stryker were designed to be carried in C130, so I doupt the weight is that excessive
__________________


--
Intelligenti Pauca

--
Get RealTargets - INF_Loadlim - INF Mod Team addons
geogob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Jul 2005, 04:46 PM   #3
cracwhore
I'm a video game review site...
 
cracwhore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct. 3rd, 2003
Posts: 1,326
It's only a matter of time until somebody posts that 'Link of STFU' macro...
__________________


"Hell, I got chased for half a mile back to my house once by a pack of coyotes that had picked up my scent."-Logan6

"Sigh I wish I could speak holland."-NTKB
cracwhore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Jul 2005, 07:51 PM   #4
(un)l33t_1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr. 21st, 2004
Location: Andover, Massachusetts, United States
Posts: 100
Well, by new I usually mean "within the last few years" =P. Anyway, yes, the stryker (ICV variant) is in fact too heavy to carry in a C-130 with a full fuel load, full armor (cage contraption), fully pressurized tires, full 9-man squad, etc. Of course, no one is saying that the stryker will have to start fighting as soon as it hits the dirt, but it's still an inefficient use of airlift, as the extra fuel, soldiers, and applique armor still have to be carried by another C-130. By deficient armor, I meant that in its air-transportable form (without "cage armor" to repel shape charged rounds and such) it is not capable of taking RPG hits (or 14.5 mm). The newest variant in development is the MGS with a 105mm cannon, but the 105mm is unsuited to such an unsteady frame (and the MGS is not C-130 transportable). Anyway, here is a link: http://www.combatreform.com/strykerprogram.htm
(un)l33t_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Jul 2005, 08:55 PM   #5
chuckus
Can't stop the bum rush.
 
chuckus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep. 23rd, 2001
Posts: 762
Quote:
to such an unsteady frame (and the MGS is not C-130 transportable). Anyway, here is a link:
Actually thanks to General Dynamics Canada, the frame has been redesigned to be able to withstand the blows from the cannon. That's the only reason the US green lighted it's design (thus allowing to piggy back off your order ). Being Canadian and having spoke with many who have USED the LAV III/Stryker, I can't really say I'm against it (then again they went from m113s to LAV IIIs so it's no wonder they thought they were awesome )

. Being a wheeled vehicle does have it's advantages and disadvantages like any change in equipment. The best test will be time.

I think the Stryker is better suited to some operations and the Bradley and m1a1 for others. To eliminate one or the other is stupid.
__________________

Quote:
It tastes like burning! -Ralf Wiggum
chuckus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Jul 2005, 09:30 PM   #6
(un)l33t_1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr. 21st, 2004
Location: Andover, Massachusetts, United States
Posts: 100
The trouble is that the LAV III/ Stryker is not meeting all of its professed advantages over tracked vehicles, while showing quite a few disadvantages over tracked vehicles (i.e. -50 ft. turn diameter versus "pivot" turning on newest M113 models or 28-46 ft. turn diameter on older M113 models, lack of mobility in water, sand, mud, and snow, inability to safely take full advantage of speed due to high center of gravity ). It's certainly not worth entirely equipping six brigades with! Wheeled vehicles have a niche, but they definitely can't replace tracked armor (which is what the Army is trying to do). I'm not so much against the existence of the Stryker as I am against too much reliance on a heavy wheeled design (those LAV IIIs with 25mm chainguns look nice).
(un)l33t_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Jul 2005, 09:53 PM   #7
geogob
Koohii o nomimasu ka?
 
geogob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar. 11th, 2000
Location: replication{ reliable if( Role==ROLE_Authority ) Tick;}
Posts: 4,148
Well tracked vehicles can be nice in rought terrain, but a wheeled armored vehicle seems like a better choice to me in an urban environnement. They are really not deisgn to do the same task. You can't really compare them. having this debate (tracked vs wheeled) is just like having a debate whether nails or screws are better. They both do what they are designed for.

Saying that wheeled vehicles has quite a few disadvantages over tracked vehicles but show none of the tracked vehicles advantages tells me you are comparing both deisgn for the task tracked vehicles where designed for, which is not a good idea I would say.

If tracked vehicles where so great, all our cars would be tracked anyways :P j/k
__________________


--
Intelligenti Pauca

--
Get RealTargets - INF_Loadlim - INF Mod Team addons
geogob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Jul 2005, 10:40 PM   #8
DEFkon
Shhh
 
DEFkon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec. 23rd, 1999
Posts: 1,934
If i remember correctly the whole push for those Stryker things was due to change in precived threats. Basically as i understand it, the military went from a stance where the enemy was thought to posses a regular military with advanced tanks and fighting would occure out on the sprawling landscape outside of cities... and changed basically to the preception that the enemy will likely be insurgent forces driving around in pickup trucks with .50's mounted in the back, fighting in urban enviroments.

I suspect they figured the wheeled vehicles would get better MPG on the highways.
__________________
The one who is good at shooting does not hit the center of the target.
DEFkon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th Jul 2005, 01:08 PM   #9
(un)l33t_1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr. 21st, 2004
Location: Andover, Massachusetts, United States
Posts: 100
In WWII the Germans used armored (eight-wheeled, 11-ton) cars for reconnaissance and infantry support. In urban combat a wheeled vehicle might be faster/more mobile, but it can't really crawl through obstacles... and the tires might get punctured... then again, I wonder why no one thought of filling the tires with something other than air (some kind of thick gel, perhaps? running flat in a battle is a no-no). Although wheeled vehicles usually do have better MpG on highways . The stryker costs 3 million a piece (same as a Bradley!), though, so any waste of fuel is negligable after that .
(un)l33t_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th Jul 2005, 01:22 PM   #10
geogob
Koohii o nomimasu ka?
 
geogob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar. 11th, 2000
Location: replication{ reliable if( Role==ROLE_Authority ) Tick;}
Posts: 4,148
Quote:
so any waste of fuel is negligable after that
I know you meant it as a joke, but i have to say that you couldn't be more wrong. Try telling that to Airlines... they pay their equipement over 400 M$, but can't afford to waste any fuel. Of course, the military isn't civil aviation, but they still have a limited budget, although we tend to forget about this.

Also, I doupt that it would be that easy to blow up a LAV tire. And I guess they can still operated on one flat. Also, modern tires design can operate without being presurized. I wouldn't surprised that such tire (which do exist ) are used on armored vehicles. Whether they are used or not on the stryker or other from the same vehicle family, I do not know. I know a mechanic in the CF, i'll ask him next time I see him.
__________________


--
Intelligenti Pauca

--
Get RealTargets - INF_Loadlim - INF Mod Team addons

Last edited by geogob; 8th Jul 2005 at 01:26 PM.
geogob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Jul 2005, 10:53 AM   #11
Crazy_Ivan
KAR whore
 
Join Date: Jan. 30th, 2003
Location: 1,5meters below sea level
Posts: 412
OK it has wheels instead of tracks. so what
Most russian light armoured vehicles had wheels for ages (BMP, BTR)

For urban combat you need an open backed truck with a ma deuce on each corner and a grenade launcher or 4 barrel ZSU-like AA gun on a pivot. Plain armoured vehicles have too much uncovered corners, and don't look intimidating
__________________
The world is a mess, get used to it




Jognt getting pwned in computer knowledge: ik dacht dat ik iets van computers afwist...
Crazy_Ivan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Jul 2005, 07:36 PM   #12
DEFkon
Shhh
 
DEFkon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec. 23rd, 1999
Posts: 1,934
"The Stryker has four-wheel drive full time, and eight-wheel drive on selection. The tires can be inflated or deflated from inside the vehicle to adapt to surfaces ranging from deep mud to hardtop. It can even be driven on flattened tires, if the tires are shot out, due to hard inner rubber tires within the main outer tires."

So says the mighty google.
__________________
The one who is good at shooting does not hit the center of the target.
DEFkon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jul 2005, 05:53 PM   #13
chuckus
Can't stop the bum rush.
 
chuckus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep. 23rd, 2001
Posts: 762
Yeh you guys are crying cuz they're using them as APCs.

Canada's gonna use them like MBTs. now THAT"s Ghey.
__________________

Quote:
It tastes like burning! -Ralf Wiggum
chuckus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jul 2005, 08:26 PM   #14
geogob
Koohii o nomimasu ka?
 
geogob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar. 11th, 2000
Location: replication{ reliable if( Role==ROLE_Authority ) Tick;}
Posts: 4,148
euh? did the other MBT got dropped for some reason? Or they are just too expensive to deploy where we need them...? Sometimes I feel that the CF could really use some more ressources (and less political nonsense).
__________________


--
Intelligenti Pauca

--
Get RealTargets - INF_Loadlim - INF Mod Team addons
geogob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jul 2005, 08:42 PM   #15
U/D/T/SNAKE
Only partially annoying now
 
U/D/T/SNAKE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr. 7th, 2004
Location: In an old ZZ top song called "beer drinkers and hell raisers"
Posts: 241
There was just a show on the discovery channel about them and all the sophisticated technology for mapping, communications etc. They had these mesh cages around all of them. Does anyone know if that was just a retrofit of sorts just for iraq and the ever present roadside bomb or is that stansard on the vehicle. it looked really strange.
U/D/T/SNAKE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jul 2005, 10:05 PM   #16
DEFkon
Shhh
 
DEFkon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec. 23rd, 1999
Posts: 1,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckus
Yeh you guys are crying cuz they're using them as APCs.

Canada's gonna use them like MBTs. now THAT"s Ghey.
Eh, nobody needs tanks anyhow.

They're just bomb & missle magnets these days. I don't know the actual numbers but i'm willing to bet that the majority of MBT's killed by the US in the middle east were done by airborn resorces. Between attack choppers, fighter bombers, b52's with those tactical mirv thingys where one bomb can take out like 20 something tanks spread out over a battlefield.. I think that the current thinking is that enemy tanks are just targets to be picked off from the air, and to let our own tanks pretty much shoot at buildings and the occasional technical. I'm not really aware of any tank vs tank battles occuring lately.
__________________
The one who is good at shooting does not hit the center of the target.
DEFkon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Jul 2005, 02:54 PM   #17
flamingknives
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct. 23rd, 2004
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by U/D/T/SNAKE
There was just a show on the discovery channel about them and all the sophisticated technology for mapping, communications etc. They had these mesh cages around all of them. Does anyone know if that was just a retrofit of sorts just for iraq and the ever present roadside bomb or is that stansard on the vehicle. it looked really strange.
The mesh is anti-RPG7 armour. It takes advantage of a peculiarity of the PG7 fuse to mess it up. British Warriors in the Northern reaches of their zone are fitted with it too.
flamingknives is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Jul 2005, 03:54 PM   #18
U/D/T/SNAKE
Only partially annoying now
 
U/D/T/SNAKE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr. 7th, 2004
Location: In an old ZZ top song called "beer drinkers and hell raisers"
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by flamingknives
The mesh is anti-RPG7 armour. It takes advantage of a peculiarity of the PG7 fuse to mess it up. British Warriors in the Northern reaches of their zone are fitted with it too.
I figured it was some anti-rocket or explosive device protection. Do you know if it was something that was retro-fitted on as a need or is it some sort of attachment option the vehicle has? It would be a shame if yet another armer vehicle entered service not up to spec and then gets enhance to the bejesus as opposed to designing and developing a vehicle that is prepared. I do know these things take years to develop and probably by the time its in production its already outdated, but I know that even thenlast minute design changes based on need can be introduced and implemented unless this was another case where its "lets just get it out there to justify all the damn money we've spent so far".
U/D/T/SNAKE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Jul 2005, 06:17 PM   #19
geogob
Koohii o nomimasu ka?
 
geogob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar. 11th, 2000
Location: replication{ reliable if( Role==ROLE_Authority ) Tick;}
Posts: 4,148
It is impossible to design a vehicle with every situation in mind. You design for the most common task and modify them as needed to adapt or optimize them for specific situations. Else you'll get a piece of equipment that performs poorly in every situation.

And that's true with a lot of things. Not only military vehicles.

Adapting a "general purpose" vehicle for specific condition of operations can be done very easily if the vehicle is well designed. That being said, your money (and time) would be put to much better use in designing a vehicle easy (and cheap) to adapt for various conditions.

Here's a quick example. You could have helicopters that are used in various operations around the world. Now, if you operate them in Middle east, you might need special air filters at the intakes for the jet engines (jet engines do not like sand ). On the other hand, this kind of filters is expensive and reduces the efficiency of the engine, raising fuel consumption (and operation costs). For this reason, you do not want to use filters like that in situations where you do not need them (e.g. no sand in the air). If you construct them with filters built-in, you'll be adapted for Middle East operation, but if you have to use it in the Balkans, operation are going to be very expensive for no reasons. Worse, in icing conditions, you might get other type of problems or even risk loosing engines, grounding your fleet. On the other hand, if you have an helicopter with no filters, it will work pretty well everywhere, but you'll have major troubles in the middle east, with loss of engines and rapid aging of all mechanical parts.

The best solution would be to have a helicopter where the filters can be removed or placed in depending the current situation. If you have a design where you can do that, you'll have a fleet 100% operational in every condition. Agreed, the air filters that are "removable" might be less effective, but still more than none and removing them would sure be better than leaving them on all the time.


I do get your point though, but I only partly agree with it. The process of design such a vehicle is not an easy task. One of my colleagues is part of the team in charge of upgrading the CAF F18 to current standards. That gave me a little insight on that kind of projects and the complexity of it is impressive. There a lot of choices and decision to make and it is not surprising that during the process some adjustment needs to be done. To me, the fact that adjustments are made is even a good sign, not a sign that somebody wasn't doing his job.

Also, production wise, it's not always possible to hold a production line to make adjustment to it while it's on the run. One side you are pushing to make changes, which take time and adjustment to the production of the products (and if it needs changes to the already finished products, it's even worse), but, often, you cannot afford to push back the production deadline (for whether reason).
__________________


--
Intelligenti Pauca

--
Get RealTargets - INF_Loadlim - INF Mod Team addons
geogob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Jul 2005, 07:46 PM   #20
U/D/T/SNAKE
Only partially annoying now
 
U/D/T/SNAKE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr. 7th, 2004
Location: In an old ZZ top song called "beer drinkers and hell raisers"
Posts: 241
Interesting points. I do believe that its always cheaper and easier to stop development for a redesign than to implement (and this goes for anything) something that needs large amounts of modifications or especially rework. Now, Im not really sure for military vehicles at what point do you call it rework but I was just curious if the vehicle was in fact designed for such upgrades ie: it was designed with the knowledge that the possiblity might exist for that type of need therefore the vehicle itself is amenable for easy adaptation...it was designed that way...or was it designed in a fashion that exludes that thought process and the upgrades are basically reworking and working with a design that was not intended for such upgrades. (im pretty sure that I just confused myself there). This is just the project manager in me coming out.
U/D/T/SNAKE is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Copyright ©1998 - 2012, BeyondUnreal, Inc.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
Bandwidth provided by AtomicGamer