/k/ I have a question. Why isn't there a prototype for a stryker that can do air defense? While I understand that the US is incredibly unlikely to fight a group or state with an effective Air force but it seems odd that there hasn't been any work to adapt some sort of air defense system to the stryker chassis or the Mowag Piranha family in general.
>inb4 stryker is shit
>inb4 air superiority doctrine
Yeah, also strykers are designed to be modular vehicles. If there is a role that they can be filling, all you need to do is manufacture a module to fit the body. We don't have AA strykers cause right now we don't need em
U.S. doctrine states that there will be unquestionable air superiority in any conflict.
As it currently stands. The U.S. could impose a zero exception no-fly zone over Syria without any real challenge, and it could happen in less than 24 hours.
The political backlash would be huge. But it technically could be done.
as others have said, USA aircraft run air defense
currently stryker brigades use stinger dismounts for low flying air defense
they used to use linebackers but there is no cost effective point anymore
It's not exactly the stryker, but Canada tried to develop an AA system using the ADATS system and an LAV III. Since the ADATS apparently kinda sucked anyways, the idea never really caught on.
>Since the ADATS apparently kinda sucked anyways, the idea never really caught on.
factually incorrect, ADATS was amazing.
Canada just got lazy because "muh Norad piggybacking" and didn't want to spend the time developing air defense after the cold war ended.
We should have gotten it, but our equipment acquisition process is fucking awful. We haven't gotten the new trucks we've needed for a few years.
Canada needs a military industrial complex, its the only way for us to actually have a well rounded functioning military
They have less road march speed and are FAR less reliable. A Stryker BCT did a 200 mile road march after having just completed a deployment with all of two days of notice. Only a single vehicle broke down, and that was towed by another Stryker with no real loss of time. That's fucking unheard of.
simply look at the stats
tracked vehicles roll slower and consume more fuel, they have an advantage off road of course
stryker is designed to run on the highways and arid plains
as far as range stories go the first deployment of strykers which i was involved in started in kuwait and ran non-stop to mosul refueling twice. a bradley would need 5 tanks to do that.
Tracked vehicles tend to have the bad habit of throwing a track if you so much as look at them funny, and they're fucked if it happens. A wheeled APC can afford to lose a wheel or two since its got 8 of them.
stryker: top speed 97 km/h, operational range 500km
hint: by design you cannot find a faster, nor longer ranged tracked vehicle with any kind of track
Because we have three other vehicles that can do air defense.
Because where we will be doing air defense the vehicles that do it don't need to be armored to Stryker levels, and nothing can survive a top hit from a HARM or its foreign equivalents.
Since the airplane has to make numerous trips to deliver what the boat can, it actually takes longer & costs more to deliver the same cargo.
Also it's called prepositioning, and its something they are already doing.
Seems like mostly a meme though, what the devil could they possibly need a force able to rapid deploy for on a moments notice?
Obviously they're not shipping a whole division or brigade over on planes, but a few C130s could carry a QRF anywhere.
Its a tactic for a non-conventional conflict and gives the US military a great deal of tactical mobility to deal with non-conventional threats.
>it seems odd that there hasn't been any work to adapt some sort of air defense system to the stryker chassis or the Mowag Piranha family in general
But that's wrong. The LAV-25 (a Canadian-built version of the MOWAG Piranha I) had an air-defense variant called the LAV-AD that carried a GAU-12 Equalizer 25mm Gatling gun and 8 FIM-92 Stingers.
Mate, you're straight up wrong. You don't have one plane bringing them in, you have many. You can deploy a solid platoon sized combat team in a single C-17. With four of them you have a company. And you get it over there FAR faster than the boat. That's the entire point. You need to bring them over REALLY quickly. That's the entire concept of strategic mobility.
You could deploy a SBCT anywhere in the world by air easily within a week, providing you kept your readiness up.
>Find a modern 20 ton tracked vehicle with rubber tracks,
Remove the governor on these tracked vehicles and they can do 100+ km/h
Range is just a function of fuel size, wheeled vehicles do not magically consume less fuel than tracked vehicles.
And in doing so you vastly increase the fuel usage. That's why they're governed in the first place. I've heard that the gas usage after going up to full speed is DOUBLE what it is at the governor's limit, but I have no idea where I did and doubt I could source it if asked. But, just something to keep in mind.
Tracks have better tactical mobility.
Wheels have better operational mobility.
This was probably big news in the 1970s but it's common sense today, unless you're underage and have no net connection.
With modern rubber tracks
Tracks are better all around, other than maybe taking losing wheels to IED's then driving away.
These 8x8 wheeled vehicles are a meme, then once the MI complex gets going, its impossible to cancel them because now they have workers in every state building parts for them.
>I'm sure any modern light tracked vehicle would have similar speed and similar reliability
That's great that you're so sure of that. Takes some real faith, what with there being no actual facts backing it up.
It's not merely fuel. It's wear and tear and that the chance to throw a track goes up exponentially.
Cool story, bro. Too bad that the sum total of actual, rea-life data does not support it.
The only meme here is your mindless repetition of good ol' Sparky-style bullshit.
I have a question for /k/
If you were equipping a special forces police force which would apc/ifv would you go for?
Mind you the primary objective of the force would be to act as quick response force, so more like a special military forces, with objective of quickly sizing urban environments with 10k-50k people, and operating in forested, hilly terrain, with required operational range of some 150km. and facing an adversary equipped with small arms, a basic anti-tank weapons; few guided ones and you have a force of 400 "officers" at your disposal.
OK, not a regular police force, its more as a limit to what could be found in an arsenal of a ministry of interior, without creating a political shitstorm. I know that there are BOV-VP/M in arsenal now.
This is the only special operations armoured vehicle I've seen, US Delta force use the Pandur 6x6 to let special forces move in high-threat environments
you still have cited what 20ton rubberized track vehicle reaches speeds of 97km/h or ranges of 500km
there is a governor on stryker vehicles as well and while disabled my vehicle was able to do 90mph downhill
on a tracked vehicle such as a bradley or marder the governor is in place to keep the engine and track from malfunctioning so it's feasibly impossible
i'm interested in which tracked vehicle is the most speed and range efficient though. no doubt they don't compare to a wheel axle vehicle in those regards though.
this is the quietest vehicle i've been around
so as far as stealth in mobile special operations
i'd goto this vehicle
speaking of aa vehicles, the swedes made pic related https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Vehicle_90
probably more like $12M
the 2016 Program Acquisition Costs By Weapon System says 62 new vehicles will cost $561M ~$9M
probably just enough vehicles for a new battalion which will have 15% MGS vehicles so around $12M for the MGS variant
my guess anyway
abrams aren't in production anymore but they'd be well over $18M today anyway
imo strykers are best used against an enemy force consisting of infantry and technicals and some dug in reinforced positions (mgs).
attack helos or jet fighters imply a different level of military force than niggers or sandniggers with aks and toyotas. a stryker force will not be sent into that shit.
Having done some reading, I am of the opinion that the RVs will need the 30mm. You can't be a cavalry unit without some major firepower. I think I'll prepare a writeup for next week about the subject.
Economy of scale is visible.
>The compromise goes with the Senate’s higher funding levels: $314 million for modification work and $97 million for R&D.
$314 by 81 vehicles is ~$3.87 mil per.
1. those are not new vehicles that is a refit to 30mm
2. those aren't mgs vehicles that is a refit for ICVs probably replacing the mk19
3. according to the senate bill the proposal works out to $4.6M per vehicle despite what reed says
4. i quoted actual DOD released information concerning new stryker vehicle costs while you posted a senate multi-year budget blurb for a refit.
>budget over quantity isn't how to realize expense per vehicle
that is just how math works despite tooling etc
I imagine it would look similar to this.
Maybe with a 20mm Gatling for good measure.
>1. those are not new vehicles that is a refit to 30mm
Bare flat bottom hulls being recycled is the only part of them that is not new.
>2. those aren't mgs vehicles that is a refit for ICVs probably replacing the mk19
Who said the 30mm guns were for the MGS?
>3. according to the senate bill the proposal works out to $4.6M per vehicle despite what reed says
And the senate bill is not just for the vehicles, which is why dividing the whole bill by 81 is intentionally misleading.
>4. i quoted actual DOD released information concerning new stryker vehicle costs while you posted a senate multi-year budget blurb for a refit.
You quoted a blurb about the total cost of converting 62 flat bottom Strykers to ECP/DVH Strykers, have an actual budget request for the same.
If we develop a new gun based SPAAG it will probably use the 50mm EAPS Bushmaster in development.
What makes me question what that 11B said is why would the RV Strykers need to move the LRAS3 to the rear just for a RWS? I can see it if room was needed for the MCRWS, and there are examples of Strykers with mast sensors in that position.
>Bare flat bottom hulls being recycled is the only part of them that is not new.
your way of stepping around the fact that the money is for the cannon only
>Who said the 30mm guns were for the MGS?
go up the thread
>And the senate bill is not just for the vehicles, which is why dividing the whole bill by 81 is intentionally misleading.
the price tag on the 30mm cannon upgrade is $413M not including "R&D" is misleading actually
>You quoted a blurb about the total cost of converting 62 flat bottom Strykers to ECP/DVH Strykers, have an actual budget request for the same.
the unit costs on these budget sheets are bullshit. there are all sorts of factors no represented. the nearest 'brand new' vehicle cost we have is the dvh build which is a mean cost of ~$9M each
recon needs to be fast and stealthy
before the stryker rv vehicle we used the fuchs
if anything i'd front the atgm as a recon weapon as it has range and stealth
the 30mm will replace the mk19 on the 2nd cavalry regiments icvs i think
>recon needs to be fast and stealthy
These are ideal, but you also REQUIRE strong combat ability. These are the lessons of war. I'll do a writeup on it for next week, as well as providing several places for more reading.
>your way of stepping around the fact that the money is for the cannon only
You mean everything else in the vehicle besides the bare metal hull.
>go up the thread
You appear to be the first to make the assertion.
>the price tag on the 30mm cannon upgrade is $413M not including "R&D" is misleading actually
$413 mil includes R&D, claiming R&D is part of the cost of the vehicles themselves is intentionally misleading.
>the unit costs on these budget sheets are bullshit. there are all sorts of factors no represented. the nearest 'brand new' vehicle cost we have is the dvh build which is a mean cost of ~$9M each
That's fucking hilarious when your numbers had no details whatsoever, you are going to have to do better than stomp your feet and pout when actual budget numbers contradict you.
>We haven't gotten the new trucks we've needed for a few years.
The fuck are you talking about? We've had them for 7 years.
Fuck the natives, all they do is spend the money on booze, snowmobiles, ATV's, and trucks. Then cry for more when they blow it all in a month.
and they get more annual welfare spending than the average canadian
Plus all those fucking development or infrastructure projects canceled because "muh native rights"
Liberal and ndp voters clearly don't understand economics