What ever happened with these things? They used to be all over

They are nothing special
Just some shitty wheeled apc's

>>30769915
They turned out to be decent vehicles with no critical issues, so the media got bored talking about it.

>>30769969
Pretty much.

They implemented supplemental armor fairly easily and don't really have any serious safety issues.

I have no idea how easy they are to repair or what the logistical chain for them looks life, I imagine it's better than the USMC LAV-25s though.

What kind of engines do Strykers have in them? I know LAVs have a Detroit 6v53T and a Cummins 653.

>>30770004
Whoops, meant Allison 653.

Just googled it, they have a Caterpillar C7 which is fairly common across the DoD

>>30770004
I always hear all the mechanics bitching about them, saying it takes way too long to take out that engine.

File: LF1220-9.jpg (90KB, 640x420px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 640x420px

>>30770033
Kind of looks like a pain, just from a cursory glance. Looks like the engine mount is under the oil filter but maybe it's the perspective.

The LAV has similar quirks. I'm a 2147, I can probably answer any questions you might have.

>>30769915
Just like anything else in the military.

When it's being developed it's either THE HOTTEST THING THAT WILL CHANGE WARFARE FOREVER, Or it's THE WORST THING EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THINGS.

Then it gets into service and it just works. No frills, nig much fuss it just does it's job.

See: F-16, F-22, V-22. Probably the F-35 as well

>>30770149
>Probably the F-35 as well

Kill yourself

>>30770065
Got any neat pics of LAVs and other vehicles?

>>30770170
You first sweetcheeks.

>>30769915
It works well. When they get the RWS-J and 30mm autocannons within the next year or two, they'll be future proofed for the next 3 decades or so other than the addition of an APS.

Drivers love them because they get to live in their little driver hole, the only shitty part of their job is always going to the mopo and having to maintain / PMCS the vehicle. Plus bitchy TC's. Gunners like them because they can take their kit off while in the gunner seat and they get "some" extra legroom.

Dismounts FUCKING LOVE these babies. Most times they're not filled to max capacity, so you get good room, the heater / A/C are the fucking tits. I either hook my rhino mount or my hands in the straps hanging overhead and pass the fuck out - as does everyone. You can also talk over the vehicle and the smell is almost nonexistent.

Sometimes the ramp is a bitch, I spammed the fuck out of the ramp, WHAM WHAM WHAM WHAM WHAM trying to get it to lock and it wouldn't, turned out the sensor wasn't being engaged so we shoved a wrapper into the hole and it worked.

The hellhole will claim the driver's everything, from TM's, to phones, to pocket pussies, to cigarettes there's a fucking boatload of shit down there and you can't ever get it out. I watched my PSG try to unbolt the floor of our Stryker a week and a half into the field of NTC, desperate for cigs.

I'd say the shittiest job would be TC because you don't get to rest, ever. And if your driver sucks, it's lulzy as fuck. I rode in the LT's truck and our driver got pissed at his abusive words so he brake checked at least 5 times and each time the LT smacked the back of his head into his hatch. Funny shit.

The CTIS works well when properly utilized - something most units don't fucking do. It'll explain why your tires will be fucking shredded in a day or two.

All in all, bretty fucking good for training state-side. They got shredded in Afghanistan and consequently you won't see them there anymore.

>>30770215
Unfortunately no. I never take pics at work, it just doesn't occur to me. I should take a bunch before I EAS.

>>30770149
The media has already started to move on from the LCS and F-35 now that they are shaping up pretty good.

File: 7039176b-a824-4a3f-9a06-9464d91afbf2-original.jpg (2MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5312x2988px

>>30769915
They're getting new 30mm remote turrets soonish
Same one as the GDLS Land 400 entry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM_rJTeEUY4

>>30769915
They are pieces of shit, but the reason people stopped talking about them is that they are old and boring.
They are an adaptation of the LAV III, itself an adaptation and downgrade of some other wheeled APC. They lack both tactical and strategic mobility, and do so with less protection than the worn to death, beat to shit M113s we've had since Vietnam, but were very sucessful at their intended purpose of getting GDLS mad do$h.
Some troops trust them, some don't. It really depends on the person and what they've been through.
They are not useful now, and will likely be replaced with another nonfunctional, massively expensive specimen of overweight bullshit some time in the near future because they aren't pulling in cash like they used to.

>>30770951
So many factual errors and so little time, is that you Sparky?

>>30769969
Basically this. My ng unit was starting to get them as I was getting out. Solid weapon options decent mine resistance. Handling leaves a bit to be desired vs hmmve and matv but for civil disturbance and or wrecking a neighborhood it is quite adequate

File: LAV III Mk6 no barrel.jpg (1MB, 2592x1552px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2592x1552px

>>30770215
Here's the new LAV III Mk6. The main difference from the other versions is no amphibious capability.

>>30770984
If you name the part of my post you have a problrm with, we can have a constructive discussion about the topic on hand, instead of you just looking butthurt :)
And I cannot be sparky, because I think that while the M113 was a thoroughly workable vehicle in its time we can do better now, and should, in fact, be using vehicles which more closely resembly IFVs rather than large tin cans with minimal defensive armament and inferior protection.

>>30771227
The only substantive statements you made were poor tactical mobility, poor strategic mobility, and less protection than M113's. None of which are correct.