Stryker

NousDefionsDoc · 04-08-2005, 23:31

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/...2004101123.asp
Check it out

gits · 04-08-2005, 23:39

NDD The link did not work for me would this be the picture you were trying to link?
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/...2004101123.asp

I think your link has a bad URL

NousDefionsDoc · 04-08-2005, 23:51

Works fine for me, you sure you were holding your mouth right when you clicked on it?

aricbcool · 04-08-2005, 23:59

What was that? Air-drop mishap? --Aric

gits · 04-09-2005, 00:41

Wierd... I had my cursor over the url and it showed it as. http://www.strategypage.com/gallery..._2004101123.asp instead of the
strategypage.com/gallery/articles/military_photos_2004101123.asp at the end.

My computer must be playing tricks on me.

Hooahman · 04-09-2005, 03:40

I can see it now. I am gonna have to put a band-aid on it for you T. while were going through the Q Lol!!!

(TAKE CARE OF THOSE FEET!!!!!) j/k

Thank god that Stryker got 'em all home!!! Hooah!!!!

JB

uboat509 · 04-09-2005, 07:52

I was on another site recently and I read that they have added some type of new armor to the Styker that makes to large to fit into a C130. If that is true then it will be a big problem for the program. If it doesn't fit in the C130 then it does not have the rapid deployment capability that they wanted it for. Has anybody here heard anything about this?

SFC W

Brother Rat · 04-09-2005, 08:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by aricbcool

What was that? Air-drop mishap? --Aric

Vehicle-Borne IED.

rubberneck · 04-09-2005, 08:20

I don't really know much about the striker but it seems to me that in order to survive and blast like that it ought to be one tough vehicle. I remember the strikers detractors being highly critical of its survivabilty. I guess stories like this can lay that one to rest.

sf11b_p · 04-09-2005, 09:08

Quote:

I guess stories like this can lay that one to rest.

Not if it only survived the blast. Direct hits by anti-armor rounds are a little different from a blast wave, even though it looks like the vehicle took a wallop. An immovable object taking the force of the blast may have been damaged far worse, but the Stryker was moving at 60 mph and rolled by the blast. If you stand back against a wall and take a punch the effect on you is worse than if you'd had a chance to move away from the blow.

The added armor is fitted after arrival. The cage you see in the photo is also added after arrival, something like reactive armor it's supposed to force the explosion of an RPG before it contacts the vehicle.

There's a number of things that have to be done to a Stryker after it rolls off an aircraft and before it's ready to fight.

NousDefionsDoc · 04-09-2005, 09:15

My understanding is that it will fit in a C130, but it has to be stripped down.

Is the C 130 now the largest A/C in the inventory for RDF?

http://www.strategypage.com/the_war_...s/20054520.asp

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...stryker06.html

sf11b_p · 04-09-2005, 13:06

There's a number of issues with airlifting the Stryker, C-130 has the most problems, it can carry one Stryker-. From memory it has to have the remote viewer for the external gun lowered and stowed, the tires had to be deflated some (vehicle too tall), the gun has to be removed, it can't have full fuel, cant be in the same aircraft with it's full crew, spare tire/s, armor, crew baggage, or ammunition load due wieght restrictions for the C-130 to take off. For long flights the C-130 has to be fueled soon after take-off.

There's the C-17s, C-141s and C-5s but to lift one of the Stryker Battalions I remember there's a problem with the number of aircraft required vs available for an RDF lift, I'd have to find the articles again for those details.

There's a big argument the M113 Gavins could have done the job better and cheaper and the Gavins were air-drop capable. There are modifications that make M113s faster and quieter.

The Stryker was done on another forum is why I commented.

CALL report Stryker Brigade CT 1
http://www.pogo.org/m/dp/dp-StrykerBrigade-12212004.pdf

But hey I was all about the M-151s until I drove a HMMV. It just seems for a interim light armor vehicle the modifications needed to make Stryker capable of what it was supposed to be on 0-day will be completed about the same time as it's projected replacement.

uboat509 · 04-09-2005, 14:55

I used to be in the 2ACR back in the early days of the light cav concept. We were told that the light cav concept was General Sulivan's baby and it was extremley unpopular in the armor community (naturaly) and we were told to expect that after he retired we would either be transfered back to heavy cav or outright disbanded. Back then everything was about C130s and in fact our primary mission was supposed to be airland after an airfield siezure and expand the lodgement. Just after I left there in '95 they deployed to Haiti and apparently some people higher up were impressed with how much cheaper, easier and faster it was to deploy couple of Squadrons of HMMWVs vs. a squadron of tanks and bradlys this saving the light cav concept, or so I have been told. My point is that even back then they were searching for a replacement for the HMMWV that would have greater crew protection but still maintain the HMMWVs rapid deployability. The thing about the HMMWV is that we could role right off the bird and straight into the fight. I believe that that was the capability that the infanty community was hoping to to give to the light infantry units when they started the Stryker program. If that is the goal then they have missed the mark. Yes, the Styker provides better crew protection than the HMMWV but that was not the point. How long does it take from when it hits the ground until it is ready to go into the fight? What type of equipment, facilities and personnel are needed to get it ready? There is no question that the Stryker has performed well in Iraq but I wonder how well it would perform in its designated role as an RDF into an area where there is not time, personnel or facilties to get it ready.
I'll get off my box now.

SFC W

04-10-2005, 19:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

My understanding is that it will fit in a C130, but it has to be stripped down.

This is correct, I left 1/25th a little over a year ago. We had many problems with them (most of which are not written about in all the fantastic write-ups). The good majority of the men don't care for the vehicles, but some do (mostly the die hard mech guys).

sf11b p- you are also correct, the vehicle isn't close to combat ready when it hits the ground due to the reasons you stated. The only exception being you dont deflate the tires, they are on a hydraulic type set up and the vehicle has to be completely lowered.

I don't care much for due to those facts AND the fact that I feel helpless riding around inside a tin can(and a number of other reasons I wont ramble and list on here), and the enemy is only stupid for so long when they realize that the soldiers WILL come out of the back ramp. I lost one of my best friends from back at Lewis due to this very reason. They just waited for him to come out the back door.

AP

24601 · 04-13-2005, 15:28

From what they guys have said after they got back from Lewis, a lot has changed in a year.