The new Stryker vehicle being used by the army is a relative apc that can provide many duties for troops,it is a wheeled apc that can be equipped with heavy machine gun and cannon. Will this be the next wave of design or an unneeded change?

I think these "Stryker" is a good vehicle. The combat performance of these vehicle during the start of the invasion of Iraq were admirable. It fullfil it's role as a support (Infantry carrier) for the American armored divission while performing the modern "Blitzkrieg" tactic. The vehicle it self still need a lot of improvement. Some disturbing news says that these vehicle were very vulnerable against the RPG fired by Iraqian troops. A single hit is enough to kill the entire passenger. Some modifications were made to these vehicle by the army engineer so it can withstand the RPG attack. But still, a lot of improvement were needed. The stryker is still too heavy for just become troop transport, and still too light to become the second line of fire during an operation.

The Stryker is a slightly modified version of the Swiss Mowag Piranha, which I have experience with. The Piranha and Stryker are extremly good for peacekeeping, but in my opinion they are not as well suited for traditionel combat.

During the Isreali/Egypt war, the air defense missile shield of the Egyptians shot a third of the Isreali Air Force out of the sky. Traditional military strategists opined that the era of the fighter plane was over, overcome by the technology of the SAM missile defense.

They were wrong. The Israel's proved it against Syria, when they took out all of the missile defense system in the Becah (spelling) valley, during their next conflict. The Israelis showed that they had learned of the threat, adapted and overcome the problem.

Now in the late 1990's, military strategists opined that the era of armor was past. They assumed that lighter, faster forces with good attack helicopter support would not need armor and in fact, armor would become a hazard for the personnel assigned to it and not much more. To this end, the high brass of the US Army went looking for this lighter faster force.

The striker craft is the outcome of this search for lighter, faster vehicle for mounted units. The striker was a modification of an existing design and they have incorporated a number of different functional designs off the base design for the vehicle. Initially, a brigade at Fort Lewis, WA was equiped with these vehicles to start developing the theory and tactics to be used with these vehicles.

Now, the Iraqi conflicts showed that Armored vehicles still had a very valid place on the battlefield; even though attack helicopters and aircraft took out large quantities of Tanks. The army is looking to equip more of these medium weight combat brigades as rapid deployment, rapid response brigades.

In many ways, they are right in their theories. The tank still has a place on the battlefield and is far more than a hazzard for it's crew. But at the same time, giving the proper weapons, a lighter, faster force can overcome an armored force.

Now with DARPA looking into artifical intelligence driven vehicles and the ever increasing use of remote controlled drones and vehicles, the age of the tank may be past. They have made remote controlled and autonymous vehicles already and will continue to develop this technology. Still, the Abrahms A1M2 is an impressive piece of technology. Like the A10 aircraft, which was to be retired before Operation Dessert Storm, it seems to me there will always be a place for them.

Of course, on a positive note, they have standardized on the striker platform; making multiple types of vehicles from troop transports to MLRS systems on the same platform with over 80% of the vehicle components taking the same parts. This standardizes and allows greater flexibility in repairs as well as limits the amount of spare or replacement parts that maintenance sections must stock and deploy with to service these vehicles.

This is all part of the transition from the industrial age military to the information age military. Like the admirals of the US Navy prior to World War II, not realizing this will leave us left behind.

DARPA is wasting money on AI to drive a vehicle,as recent tests show. Even the stupidest human can solve real world problems better than any computer. They can predict,extrapolate,and react to multiple bad situations at once. AI isn't even to the level of an insect reacting to threat,let alone a human. My dog is pretty smart,but won't be getting her driver's license any time soon. Dogs have specific abilities in combat as may AI.
The stryker was antiquated before it was built.Why doesn't DARPA look for practical advancements?

The Stryker is the updated version of the LAV-25 family of vehicles in use by the Marine Corps, and is developed from a Canadian design of a 4-,6- and 8-wheeled vehicle called the Bison. The Stryker and LAV are manfactured by the same company, and the wonderful part about them is their versatility. The standard turret, which would normaly carry a 25mm Bushmaster automatic cannon, can easily (with the use of a crane) be removed and replaced with a variety of alternatives. The LAV/Stryker can be modified for air defense with the Blazer turret, which houses a 25mm Vulcan cannon as well as two quad stinger launchers, there is a turret that has been developed that carries an autoloading 105mm assault gun (can fire artillary or anti-tank rounds). Both can be converted to be used as an ambulance, a wrecker-type recovery vehicle. The turret can be removed and a large-bore mortar can be put into the cargo/troop compartment. It can be used as a resupply vehicle, or a commander can load his radios and electronics into it and it becomes a mobile comand post.

Really, the possibilties are endless, as you only need to update the turret, and you have a whole new vehicle. The sad fact is, that while the M2/M3 Bradley IFV's are very good, they are old, worn out, and somewhat limited in what they can do. Changing over to a new vehicle is not neccessarily a bad thing, and it does improve the Army's quick strike capability, as the Stryker is much lighter than the Bradley, and easier to move, logistically speaking.

However, the Army will never be able to replace the Marine Corps for quick strike, any more than the Marine Corps can replace the Army's power punch that can only be achieved by an armored division.

people have been predicting the end of tank since 1960s, after invention of ATGMs. Problem is concept of heavily armored vehicle will never go off the battlefield, tanks are a sledgehammer thrown against enemy force.

The stryker is nice but it is kind of weak it can barely take rpgs and dosent have the kind of fire power the bradley does it is fast and can carry two more men then the bradley and is eaiser to maintain due to the weheels instead of tracks but the stryker is really just a marine lav 25 with more advanced technolgy I think that they should just improve the bradley because the stryker sucks the strker has to many variants the tank hunter the aa the regular the mortar and the command and the medic the bradly has two major varionts the regular and the medic because the regular can already be used as a tank hunter

the stryker is a weapon in the wrong place at the wrong time, i don't think it can be used effectively in insurgent fighting, or close quarters combat. The stryker is a great vechile and with a little bit more armor, it could be an insurgent killer.

Still my question is what ever happened to the M2 Bradley? The Bradley is fast like the stryker, can pack a punch like a tank with its TOW missiles and has heavy armor protection. Yes it has it's critics, some say it's a hazard to the troops. If you were in Iraq what vechile would you rather be in a stryker, or a bradley? i agree that they should just make the bradley better.

The US is trying to develop a rapid deployment force able to fight terrorists and other hotspots around the globe. The stryker in my mind is just another test vechile and the brass is looking at how it performs to thereby create a rapid deployment military doctrine.

DARPA is doing the right thing by investing in AI production, okay a computer is more expendable and could go into the most dangerous areas without human lives being at stake, a whole list of UAVs are being made. UAVs will be the way of the future.

The tank will never be replaced, it will be used again when a major conflict arises again.

Bullseye,

The stryker has actually been very effective in Iraq.

First, the rubber wheels mean that it can sneak up on residential areas with out the clank-clank sounds that the Bradley or M113 would give off.

Second is mobility- tracked vehicles cannot match it on or off the road.

Third, if you are caught in an ambush/IED attack- you want mobility to get out of the area as soon as possible. Styker has also shown higher survivability than comparable tracked vehicles

Fourth,
If a tracked vehicle gets an IED blown off near it, and the tracks are damaged, the vehicle is basically immobile until its track is repaired. The stryker can limp away with its other functioning road wheels.

There is no replacment for a MBT, but the Strkyer has proven its worth. With slat armour, its virtually impervious to RPGS. Strykers don't really have to face ATGMS- but I doubt the Bradley offers significantly better protection.

Bradleys were equipped with ERA to protect against HEAT warheads, same could be done to the Styker- in addition to the slat cages.

I would trust my life with the Canadian LAV-3 before the Stryker anyday.

socomseal,
bradley has a 25 or 30mm chain gun i can't remember which.
stryker has a variant with a 105 mm mbt gun. i personally would prefer the 105 after all it is just a wee bit bigger.

someone please outfit stryker with v shaped hull, please!

whats wrong with the current hull?

V shaped hulls are standard in mine protected
vehicles. The v shape allows a deflection of the mine blast-


[link]http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1085/1249387375_4462ac55ea_b.jpg[/link]

it would have been nice to roll into Iraq with a couple hundred cougars/copies of other MPVs instead of unarmored hummers. This is not a new concept- the South Africans came up with the bush-master mine protected vehicle and used it for counter-insurgency operations, way back when they fought soviet/cuban backed guerillas.

The new big threats are shaped charged IEDs-

[link]http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/09/mrap-v-superbom.html[/link]

The stryker has actually done pretty well with the IEDs. It has shown to be more survivable than tracked vehicles. Nothing, not even a MBT can survive heavy road charges or heavy shaped charge explosives-


[link]http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/04/inviolable_tank.html[/link]

For everyone that thinks tanks are invincible

A v hull does not mean that you are invincible-

Even tank crews need to be cautious of roadside bombs:

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/04/inviolable_tank.html

its flat

The Stryker concept is very old, actually. It goes back to the half tracks of WWII which were adapted to fulfill many roles. Light armored vehicles may have limited uses in rapid deployment and counter insurgency but they stand little chance against heavy armor or in heavy combat. Light tank destroyers are very limited in roles and and have poor survivability. That was one reason the US abolished its tank destroyer branch following WWII. The Stryker reminds me a lot of the failed developments back in the 60's, 70's and 80's when tanks were repeatedly declared "obsolete". The Stryker will eventually go out of vogue and the tank will still be here.

don't think so wicingas, every army needs to move fast and the stryker is a great tool for that. The best reason for it is that you can trasport the guys and gals with their stryker faster then the slower transported tanks. That means we have a heaver force on the ground fast to help the lightly armed airborn forces and supply a great amount of firepower before the tanks can get their. If you remeber many battles were lost because of slow movement. Every army needs to move out or be outmanuvered and crushed. The stryker allow are men and women to get in, surprise the enemy, and take care of the job. If an army didn't nead to move fast, the cavalry would not have been created or kept on the field for so long.

To clear up what I was saying, yes tanks will be here, bradly and other tracked APC will to. The Stryker will still be with the army as will as other wheeled APC as well.

As I said, I do see the Stryker having limited uses in matters of rapid deployment (cavalry and what not) or counter insurgency. It is also true that armies have been beaten because they moved too slow, but they have also been beaten because they moved too fast with insufficient power. Lightly armored forces have low stamina and survivability. Against well armed foes they tend to get chewed up. There are roles for both light and heavy armor. The problem is that some genius will get some stupid idea into his head that his Strykers are tanks and then you will have a lot of dead GI's who will probably be the scapegoats for bad planning.

True, that is why comander want diffrent things for diffrent situations. Bringing tanks to an all out chase is not the best option and sending the stryker into an all-out slug feast of armored units is not a good idea as well. It may have a 105mm gun but I would rather us it like the old tank destroyers like my favorite the M18 Hellcat. I don't think they would try and make that mistack because tanks and Strykers are ment for diffrent jobs. The Stryker would be use for quick deploment to give a great amount of firepower on the field and be able to hold back the tanks if it had to in a tank destroyer role (using the old tank destroyer method of hide, shoot, then get out of their)as the tanks move in to take care of them outright and make the slegehammer attack to make the offensive a reality. I think of the Stryker as a rapid movement tool in the field commander's toolbox.