Stry/k/ers

Because if there was the slightest chance of the enemy operating aircraft they'd be operating under aircraft and SAM coverage

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.

1) US air superiority is based on using aircraft to do it, not ground-based air defenses.

2) I'm sure a module mounting anti-air weapons could easily be added to a Stryker.

>>28728357
This exactly. It's a completely modular vehicle, if we need an AA stryker, it would be relatively quick, easy, and cheap to make an attachment for it.

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

>wheeled combat vehicles

excuse me, I'm about to puke

>Buy wheeled APCs, they are cheaper!
>US produces this monstrosity that costs more than a tank
...

>>28729102
wheels for speed and range
cost half as much as an abrams and less upkeep
>shutup dumbhead

>>28729138
Tracked vehicles have the same range & speed as a wheeled vehicle with rubber band tracks.

File: MMEV.jpg (1MB, 2126x1417px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2126x1417px

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.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-Mission_Effects_Vehicle

>>28729169
>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

>>28729213
The last thing liberals or NDP would want is a functioning military
better to spend that money on muh refugees and muh natives

>>28729154
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.

>>28729213
>We haven't gotten the new trucks we've needed for a few years.
You guys just got that contract finished. Oshkosh is upset because they lost it.

>>28729213
>factually incorrect, ADATS was amazing
Funny how nobody but Thailand bought even a single one, with the US trials revealing it straight up didn't work in shitty weather.

>>28729221
I'm sure any modern light tracked vehicle would have similar speed and similar reliability

And I bet you they had more notice than 2 days.

>>28729285
Nope, they didn't. I can try digging up the interview with the BCT commander if you want. No guarantees I'll find it, as it's been at least 6 months.

>>28729219
Libs want a "functioning" military. But their idea of reallocating funds from one modernization project to another is stupid.

>restricting the weight of your most common combat vehicles because "muh c-130 airlift"

That'll come back to bite them in the ass

>>28729285
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.

>>28729285
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.

>>28729993
Comparing a much heavier old tracked vehicle to a modern 8x8 is nonsense
Find a modern 20 ton tracked vehicle with rubber tracks, it'll do the same as any wheeled vehicle.

>>28729550
They'd rather have a Stryker than nothing at all because the thing was too heavy to quickly transport

>>28730242
No they would have far more because it would get them to stop wasting outrageous amounts of money on airlift, and would buy ships that move 100 times as much for the same price.

>>28730272
Ships can't deliver them in nearly the same amount of time that an aircraft can, which is the point.

Deploy-ability to virtually anywhere in a short amount of time.

>>28728311
I can't imagine that putting Stingers on a turret ala the LAV-25AD would be that difficult. I assume it's primarily a doctrinal thing where it's not needed currently.

>>28730126
>t. soucy-defense
citation needed
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

>>28728311
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.

>>28730299
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?

>>28729221
>tfw those strykers were left behind and were maintained by rear-d during that deployment.

>>28730358
Considering the US has interests all over the planet, having quick reaction forces is pretty damn important.

>>28730358
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.

>>28730358
Justifying budgets

File: LAV-AD..jpg (64KB, 713x523px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 713x523px

>>28728311
>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.

>>28730358
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.

File: Norwegian CV90.jpg (49KB, 600x337px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 600x337px

>>28730126
>Find a modern 20 ton tracked vehicle with rubber tracks,

>>28730413

Perfectly illustrates the doctrinal differences between the USA and our hat.

>>28730455
The AD was sold to the USMC, though, albeit it's been retired now.

>>28730453
>20 tons

>>28730339
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.

>>28730521

I want to see an MBT throw a tread at 100kmh

>>28730521
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.

I think these easy wars have placed too much premium on wheeled AFVs

>>28730659
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.

>>28729285
>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.

>>28730488
So how about you find us that mythical 20-ton rubber track vehcile that can amtch a Stryker for speed and reliability isntead of making empty claims, kiddo?

>>28730552
It's not merely fuel. It's wear and tear and that the chance to throw a track goes up exponentially.

>>28730690
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.

>>28730785
I'm not even that guy. I'm just saying the CV90 is nowhere near 20 tons.

>>28728311
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.

>>28730932
>special forces police force
>apc/ifv

You wouldn't.

>>28730958
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.

>>28731019
Basically I am asking which is better? Stryker, Patria AMV, FNSS Pars, Otokar Arma

File: Delta Force Pandur.jpg (97KB, 900x590px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 900x590px

>>28730932
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

>>28730521
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.

>>28731081
They're all effectively the same

File: fuchs_pioneer.jpg (2MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1536px

>>28731081
this is the quietest vehicle i've been around
so as far as stealth in mobile special operations
i'd goto this vehicle

File: CV90-40MM-AAV.jpg (156KB, 907x600px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 907x600px

>>28730413
It's...beautiful...
>>28730453
yay norge
speaking of aa vehicles, the swedes made pic related https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Vehicle_90

>>28729102
The most expensive version of a Stryker, the MGS, cost ~$3.5 mil.

>>28731429
stryker mgs is pure sex

>>28729550
You meanlike the 10 ton M113 it replaced that is susceptible to HMG fire?

>>28728509

American dick measuring, forever and always.

gawd bleyss aMeyrikuhh.

>>28731429
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

You could just ducttape an underpaid slav with an old stinger missile to the top for a lot less.

>>28731692
The 81 new Strykers that will have a 30mm gun cost ~$3.8 mil each.

Try actually reading budgets instead of dividing the cost of everything by the number of vehicles.

>>28731889
Did we ever figure out what exactly the 30mms are going on? As in, where do they fit in the organization?

>>28731910
They're just taking the part of the troop transport. Supposedly the Kongsberg turret doesn't take up anymore space than the current CROWS does on the inside.

>>28731692
>abrams aren't in production anymore but they'd be well over $18M today anyway

top fucking kek, that is a massive steamer

>>28731926
81 vehicles is only 2/3 of that units ICVs, it is more likely they will be placed on the RVs.

>>28728311
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.

>>28731951
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.

>>28731120
SOCOM had various MRAPs (RG-31 among others) and the SAS (Australian and British) used Bushmasters

File: stryker family.jpg (253KB, 1035x740px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1035x740px

>>28731429
Economy of scale is visible.

>>28731889
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/10/strykers-hill-oks-411m-with-a-warning/
>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.

>>28731889
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

>>28732062
Consider adding your writeup to our forum please, it'd be a good discussion piece. I'm also paying for articles or information pieces.

www.civilianwarcollege.com

File: image.jpg (1MB, 3000x1972px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x1972px

I imagine it would look similar to this.

Maybe with a 20mm Gatling for good measure.

>>28728311
Why isn't there a Stryker variant that can fire anti-ship missiles?

>>28732643
a loud ass 30mm cannon for recon vehicles
>great idea

File: fy2016 stryker upgrade budget request.jpg (279KB, 1130x803px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 1130x803px

>>28732616
>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.

>>28732866
>whut r cavalry scouts

>>28732866
Let me put it this way- History does not look kindly at reconnaissance with no bite.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

Dumping US AD vehicles.


M247 Sergeant York

File: image.jpg (276KB, 1024x867px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1024x867px

T249 Vigilante

>>28733065
IIRC the Stryker RVs will be armed with Javelin launchers.

File: image.jpg (235KB, 1004x800px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1004x800px

M24 duster

>>28733119
>>28733107
>>28733097
Fucking stop spam

File: image.jpg (170KB, 690x536px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 690x536px

MIM-46 prototype

>>28733143
How are those not related?

If they ever develop a AD module for the Stryker it might be based on old designs.

Hopefully a giant 37mm Gatling like on the vigilant!

File: 50mm cartridge.jpg (207KB, 700x656px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 700x656px

>>28733210
If we develop a new gun based SPAAG it will probably use the 50mm EAPS Bushmaster in development.

File: stryker_mms.jpg (72KB, 300x376px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 300x376px

>>28733111
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.

>>28733051
>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

>>28733111
Which is good. I'd prefer a mix of 30mm and Javelins. Or ideally both on the same mount.

>>28733254
They are. The thing is supposed to shoot down UAVs.

>>28733065
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

>>28733463
>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.

File: ladder.jpg (191KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1280x720px

>>28733404
>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.

>>28733463
>before the stryker rv vehicle we used the fuchs

an NBC sniffer =/= recon

>>28733601
literally a NBC recon vehicle = recon
as fielded by the 1-14 cav in the 3rd stryker brigade

>>28734031
Incorrect. NBC recon vehicles are not for traditional reconnaissance.

>>28734031
So are you equating the M93 Fox with M1127 Strykers or M1135 Strykers?

>>28729213
>Canada just got lazy

Naw senpai, the government just decided it made more sense to just use the aging F-18's for air defense and nothing else to save shekels.

File: MSVS.jpg (302KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 640x480px

>>28729213
>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.

File: native boy waking drunk father.jpg (121KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1024x768px

>>28729219
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.

>>28735561
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