• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

New STRYKER mobile gun platform

#2
It's crewed by tankers in the US. (It's actually not really an unveilling, by the way, they've had prototypes undergoind testing for about the last five years)

Fills a greatly needed spot. Sometimes you just need a little more bang than a 40mm grenade launcher will provide.

NTM
 
#3
Are the crews fully integrated into the Inf TF / Cbt team, or are they task-org'd as and when?

As for the extra bang, no Infantryman is going to turn that down, especially if guns cannot be guaranteed. Seem to recall that we thought that assault guns were pretty handy in the last really big scrap last century.....
 
#6
I think you'll find we are following the 432 upgrade programme - we will be getting an upgraded version of the Abbott with a Ford Capri engine - complete with a refurbished Wombat in a Saracen turret! 8)
 
#7
TheSpecialOne said:
I think you'll find we are following the 432 upgrade programme - we will be getting an upgraded version of the Abbott with a Ford Capri engine - complete with a refurbished Wombat in a Saracen turret! 8)
I heard they scrapped that and decided to go for a ferret MK1 (cheaper tyres cos their smaller) mounting a gat gun and a large sack of King Eddies!
 
#8
dogmonkey said:
Are the crews fully integrated into the Inf TF / Cbt team, or are they task-org'd as and when?
Last I checked, there was going to be a light platoon of 3 MGS vehicles to each rifle company, so 12 per infantry battalion. I guess they could be split one per platoon, or kept together, depending on the company/Team commander's preference at the time.

NTM
 
#9
That looks useful. Would that even remove the need for our l118s or is the stryker not air portable?

Have to admit when I saw the strykers at Fort Lewis in summer 2004 I wasn't too impressed with what they could do, but the upgrades and using the platform like that does seem to vindicate their choice.
 
#10
crabby said:
That looks useful. Would that even remove the need for our l118s or is the stryker not air portable?

Have to admit when I saw the strykers at Fort Lewis in summer 2004 I wasn't too impressed with what they could do, but the upgrades and using the platform like that does seem to vindicate their choice.
From here:

Design
They have a maximum speed of 60 miles per hour and a range of 300 miles on a tank of fuel. The vehicle are swift, easily maintainable and include features designed for the safety of soldiers. The LAV's tires can be inflated or deflated from inside the vehicle to adapt to surfaces ranging from deep mud to hardtop, and it has run-flat tires, a built-in fire-suppression system and self-recovery winch. The vehicles run quieter than the current armored personnel carriers, increasing their "stealth." They will also give the new brigades a reduced logistics footprint, and make the units cheaper to operate than today's heavy brigades. The Interim Brigade Combat Team should be about 25 percent cheaper to operate than today's heavy brigades.

The LAV engine is a Caterpillar engine, which is common to the Army's family of medium tactical vehicles. That means some of the same repair parts can be used. Commonality of equipment reduces the brigade's logistical footprint and support costs and makes the entire vehicle fleet easier to maintain. This will allow the use of the same support structure for all of a unit's vehicles, including mechanics and parts.

Reducing its weight is a modification the Stryker underwent before the vehicles arrive in May at 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division and 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, both located at Fort Lewis, Wash. The Stryker was reported to be 4,000 pounds more than the 38,000-pound requirement. However, officials expect that the vehicles will meet weight limits, which will allow them to be loaded and transported on a C-130 cargo plane.

For vehicles weighing 10-20 tons, tracked vehicles have better cross-country mobility in sand, mud and snow than wheeled vehicles, while wheeled vehicles have much better speed and ride quality over primary and secondary roads than tracked vehicles.
I've never seen one fly in a C-130 - way past my time, maybe some of the RAF lads who look in here can confirm.
 
#11
I thought the concensus was that the basic stryker was air portable. But the Styker presently in use in Iraq - with "armor," cages, plates, and associated gubbins, including fuel, is too heavy for airlift.

(handy for rapid deployment provided you dont get deployed quickly to somehere with angry people, or a forward section of fitters to bolt on your protection!)
 
#13
Older_by_the_day said:
TheSpecialOne said:
I think you'll find we are following the 432 upgrade programme - we will be getting an upgraded version of the Abbott with a Ford Capri engine - complete with a refurbished Wombat in a Saracen turret! 8)
I heard they scrapped that and decided to go for a ferret MK1 (cheaper tyres cos their smaller) mounting a gat gun and a large sack of King Eddies!
Don't joke. Check this lash-up out, used by SA 44 Parachute Bde in the 80s

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=15846
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#14
baboon6 said:
Older_by_the_day said:
TheSpecialOne said:
I think you'll find we are following the 432 upgrade programme - we will be getting an upgraded version of the Abbott with a Ford Capri engine - complete with a refurbished Wombat in a Saracen turret! 8)
I heard they scrapped that and decided to go for a ferret MK1 (cheaper tyres cos their smaller) mounting a gat gun and a large sack of King Eddies!
Don't joke. Check this lash-up out, used by SA 44 Parachute Bde in the 80s

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=15846
Both the Ferrets and the Jakkals (with loaded trailer) were part of 44's heavy drop using cardboard wedges.
A very welcome firepower and mobility att, especially as the Jakkals mounted twin M2's

Jakkals & trailer.
 
#15
It's a nice idea but the execution is - to my eyes at least - unnecessarily complex. Just as the Stryker seems to be winner of a competition to build the world's most expensive BTR-80 this seems to be the world's most expensive armoured car. Only not as capable as something like the Rooikat, for instance.

The cheapest way to get a 105mm gun mobile would be something that looked like a WW2 STuG or SU - no turret, low profile. Use modern powerplants and rubber tracks and it should work quite nicely. Ot look at the Russian Sprut-S, a 125mm gun on an air-droppable chassis.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#16
I think the value of wheeled AFVs is often underestimated.
With the exception of the Olifant MBT, all armour used by the SADF was wheeled and performed admirably.
On those few occasions that problems were encountered, tracks would not have been a significant avantage.
 
#17
dogmonkey said:
Not in any plan to, although we seem to be having some difficulty in designing FRES.....
there used to be a version of the CVR(T) with a 76mm on it called 'scorpion', it was a great bit of kit, small, highly mobile, resonably well armoured, perfect for fire support. :roll:
 
#18
OoTS, the problem with that idea (and the M-8 Buford would have about fitted the bill nicely, it had even been type-classified by the Army) is that it adds yet another chassis to the logistical mix. If you're already flying all the spare parts around the world to keep the air-deployable units running while you're waiting for ships to show up, there is much to be said for having exactly the same power plant, wheels, suspension components, whatever amongst all your vehicles, even if the MGS isn't -quite- as good when taken individually.

NTM
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#19
DrStealth said:
dogmonkey said:
Not in any plan to, although we seem to be having some difficulty in designing FRES.....
there used to be a version of the CVR(T) with a 76mm on it called 'scorpion', it was a great bit of kit, small, highly mobile, resonably well armoured, perfect for fire support. :roll:
I seem to recall some problems with the turret not being strong enough for the 76.
Cracks in the welds anyone ?
 
#20
Cutaway said:
DrStealth said:
dogmonkey said:
Not in any plan to, although we seem to be having some difficulty in designing FRES.....
there used to be a version of the CVR(T) with a 76mm on it called 'scorpion', it was a great bit of kit, small, highly mobile, resonably well armoured, perfect for fire support. :roll:
I seem to recall some problems with the turret not being strong enough for the 76.
Cracks in the welds anyone ?
Yeah - that and the distinct lack of a fume extractor - meant fire on the move - gave everyone inside lung cancer. a minor problem :)

Rincewind
 

Latest Threads

New Posts