1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

Stryker wheeled vehicle

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by (un)l33t_1, Jul 7, 2005.

  1. (un)l33t_1

    (un)l33t_1 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  2. geogob

    geogob Koohii o nomimasu ka?

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2000
    Messages:
    4,148
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  3. cracwhore

    cracwhore I'm a video game review site...

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's only a matter of time until somebody posts that 'Link of STFU' macro...
     
  4. (un)l33t_1

    (un)l33t_1 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  5. chuckus

    chuckus Can't stop the bum rush.

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2001
    Messages:
    771
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  6. (un)l33t_1

    (un)l33t_1 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    0
    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).
     
  7. geogob

    geogob Koohii o nomimasu ka?

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2000
    Messages:
    4,148
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  8. DEFkon

    DEFkon Shhh

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 1999
    Messages:
    1,934
    Likes Received:
    0
    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. ;)
     
  9. (un)l33t_1

    (un)l33t_1 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 :p . The stryker costs 3 million a piece (same as a Bradley!), though, so any waste of fuel is negligable after that :lol: .
     
  10. geogob

    geogob Koohii o nomimasu ka?

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2000
    Messages:
    4,148
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 :p) 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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2005
  11. Crazy_Ivan

    Crazy_Ivan KAR whore

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  12. DEFkon

    DEFkon Shhh

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 1999
    Messages:
    1,934
    Likes Received:
    0
    "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. :p
     
  13. chuckus

    chuckus Can't stop the bum rush.

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2001
    Messages:
    771
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeh you guys are crying cuz they're using them as APCs.

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

    geogob Koohii o nomimasu ka?

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2000
    Messages:
    4,148
    Likes Received:
    0
    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).
     
  15. U/D/T/SNAKE

    U/D/T/SNAKE Only partially annoying now

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  16. DEFkon

    DEFkon Shhh

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 1999
    Messages:
    1,934
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  17. flamingknives

    flamingknives New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  18. U/D/T/SNAKE

    U/D/T/SNAKE Only partially annoying now

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    0
    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".
     
  19. geogob

    geogob Koohii o nomimasu ka?

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2000
    Messages:
    4,148
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 :p). 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).
     
  20. U/D/T/SNAKE

    U/D/T/SNAKE Only partially annoying now

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     

Share This Page