Stryker upgrades scheduled for US unit in Europe
I must be out of touch. I didn’t know that there was a version of the Stryker armored vehicle that is armed with only a .50 caliber machine gun. Apparently, that what the US sent to Europe as a sign of commitment to our allies. Now Congress is setting aside money to upgrade the vehicles to the 30mm armament according to Fox News;
The 2nd Cavalry Regiment is requesting that 81 of its 8-wheel-drive Stryker infantry carrier vehicles be equipped with 30-mm. automatic cannons — double the caliber of the 12.7-mm. guns they already carry, the military news website Breaking Defense reports.
The House Armed Services committee is already setting aside money for the upgrade, which the Army approved Wednesday, according to a memo obtained by the website.
The upgraded cannons would give the Strykers added firepower against other light-armored vehicles.
I guess I wasn’t paying attention – I just figured that the Army was through with buying under-armed vehicles for a war in Europe since the Bradley was deployed there in 1984. A Stryker with a .50 cal. seems like a waste of money to me – but what do I know, right? What else am I missing? A Hummer with an M4 on a pedestal mount?
Category: Military issues
I thought the strikers systems are supposed to be interchangeable no?
As far as being armed with .50cals, my guess is that they didn’t want to go in heavily armed and adjust accordingly.
I agree with you (interchangeable). And my guess is, they had so many .50’s in the supply system that it may have allowed them to finish the project close to budget and close to on time. And the possible thought was they had to use up all those weapon systems, somehow.
They did it because the Stryker was designed as a sustainment APC. IE originally Stryker units were supposed to go in after heavy forces had cleared an area to secure it. They don’t have the armor to hang with the heavies so they didn’t give them the armament to do something they couldn’t do. Unfortunately, while that may be how they were designed, the reality of the past 15 years has shown a glaring problem with that thought process.
I’m thinking what they need is some heavy Divisions, maybe a CORPS or two, (V & VII would be nice names), maybe even a pair of ACRs to round things out.
Ooops. Wrong time-frame. Sorry. Everyone knows that Russia no longer poses a threat to Europe. What was I thinking….
Sounds like a job for Europe, not the US tax payer. The EU is larger than the US both in population and economy. Let them defend themselves and bring all our troops home. If they can’t pay for their own defense, let the Russians have them.
Precisely. And if they want us to stay, then it needs to be rent-free.
Pack your bags were off to Graf!
Graf. . . . . Support of the 2ACR (Nurnberg). . . What memories. The land of always white — mud, dust or snow.
The dust at Graf was nothing compared to the dust at Whorenfels during the 70’s/80’s.
Thick, light brown, like concentrated talcum powder that covered everything in a 12-14 inch layer.
But in August, throw in one moderate rain shower, it was hog heaven.
Fun Times.
Graf… Where you can see all 4 seasons in one afternoon
SFC D. And that is no joke….
The primary armament for ALL of the Strykers (minus the MGS 105MM) is either a M2, Mk19 or an M240B.
The new 30mm Stryker is running the weapon system on what is essentially a giant CROW system. So it does not have a turret and can still carry a full squad of troops
Yep. More money for Kongsberg of Norway.
http://defensetech.org/2013/10/21/army-to-test-kongsbergs-new-gun-on-stryker/
The A-10 has a .30 and the Air Force doesn’t want them. Cargo strap some A-10’s on top of them and call it good. #WinWin
If they want an armored vehicle with just a .50, aren’t the old M113s cheaper?
Seriously, they could at least go old-school and quad-mount the .50s.
The M113s are less capable, less armored, carry fewer troops and WAY more expensive in maintenance costs.
Apologies. I forgot the “sarc” tag.
My bad
The M113A4 (stretched version of the M113A3) would have actually been cheaper to procure than the Stryker with similar armor protection and carry capacity.
Of course, it would have just looked stupid for the Army to recreate the pre-M2 Bradley infantry company/battalion without procurement of a new system.
“less armored”
Yeah, that aluminum alloy is tough on a .22LR, or even better all that armor on the “front slope” plywood engine protection.
The M113 is also not part of the TO&E of a Stryker unit.
That would make to much sense… and then we couldn’t spend billions of Dollars.
The phrase ‘polishing a turd’ springs to mind.
Sounds like schizophrenia – is it to be an AFV (Armored Fighting Vehicle)? Or an APC (Armored personnel carrier). Basic Law: Before you can effectively design something to DO something, ya gotta define what it is you want it to DO.
Woah, tight requirements for a limited mission set? Next you’ll want it delivered in less than 25yrs and within a defined budget! Crazy talk.
But will it WORK? remember the SGT York!
Hey, it was nothing that a little bit of radar reflective paint on the drones couldn’t fix. Oh, wait, yes it was…
Where were you when the assclowns in the puzzle palace were spec-ing the F35?
Not unique to the F35, VOV. DoD has collectively been enamored with the “Swiss Army Knife” school of design beginning before Vietnam. I’d put the start with the F111 and the F4.
The problem is that while a Swiss Army Knife will do many things, it does none of them as well as a tool designed for only that purpose. The result is like hammering a nail with a crescent wrench: you can if you have to, but it doesn’t work nearly as well as would a hammer.
Nonetheless, we keep looking to make pieces of equipment of all types do “more and more different things” at the expense of optimizing for a single purpose. Sometimes that makes sense – and sometimes it doesn’t. Figuring out when it does and when it doesn’t is a bit of an art.
I will say one thing about the F4.
McDonnell Douglas did prove you could make a locomotive fly.
If you built a runway all the way around the earth at the equator, McDonnell Douglas would build an aircraft that used every inch of it.
…while they sucked up every last tax dollar they could developing it! 😀
I always figured the F-4 was a continuation of the tried-and-true concept of the old P-40 Warhawk, F4F Wildcat, and P-47 Thunderbolt:
With a big enough engine (or two) strapped to it, a giant, aerodynamically-unsound block of pig steel, guns (YMMV with the F-4 on the guns issue), and all-Americam balls will fly just fine and kick ass.
Agreed, the A-10 was a great design choice for because it really is a device designed to do what it does and not much else. And it’s awesome at what it does…
Ironically, not only do I remember the SGT Yorks, they were tested out fo the next hangar to us at Biggs Arm Air Field at Ft. Blis… we actually used to see them roll out of the hangar (then usually right back in making strange noises.)
The F35 – now that is a great example of something that purports doing everything well that does nothing well. Ain’t no such thing as an “all purpose” ANYTHING in the real world.
Sure there is, David. Various companies sell “all purpose” flour. (smile)
But I it best for ALL flour purposes? Not according to my wife… who is ‘way too good a cook, to which my waistband will regrettably attest.
Damn, and I thought the combo of quotation marks and (smile) gave away the fact I was cracking a joke . . . .
The M1911A1 is an excellent All-Purpose Close-Range Interpersonal Problem Solver.
to belabor the point – i’s a great single-purpose close range bullet launcher. It’s a crappy club, stabs poorly, is ineffective past a couple hundred yards, and makes a hell of a mess when you discharge a magazine into someone. And all you can do is a) intimidate or b) shoot. It works poorly for anything else.
I remember them parked in a lot at Bliss after the project was cancelled – probably waiting to be cut up into scrap. So much for billions…
Here’s an idea: equip the only cavalry regiment in Europe with M1s, Bradleys, Paladins, Apaches and the logistics to support them to be a credible combat force and somewhat of a deterrent.
I wouldn’t pick a Bradley as an infantry fighting vehicle. It is well armed with its 25mm Bushmaster, but its armor is pretty much obsolete, and its bottom is completely unarmored, so do not step on an IED or an old russian landmine.
Not to mention the very limited capacity it have in its rear.
Now, the guy with the highest number of iraqi tank kills in Iraq 2003 was a Bradley gunnner, after the flyboys, of course, but this just means a Bradley can kill russian takns, not that it can operate
The BUSK kit solved a lot of the armor issues
I am shocked by the lack of modern military knowledge in this place.
All strykers are equiped with either M2 .50 cal, Mk19 40mm automatic grenade launcher, or a M240L 7.62mm machine gun.
Stryker Infantry carriers are armed with either a M2 or Mk19 as a main gun mounted on a RWS (Remote Weapon Station) which is the stryker version of the CROW (Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station)that is mounted these days on top of Hummvees and MATVs.
Infantry carries also carry a secondary weapon on the rear left hatch, either a M240 or M249 5.56mm.
Recon strykers carry the main gun on an open turret, and where the squad leader hatch goes, left of the gunner and behind the driver, there is no hatch because the space is occupied by an LRSS (long range surveillance station, which is a fancy day and night surveillance optical equipment. Let’s just say we proved that iraqis did actually have sex with donkeys, and was not just a urban legend or stereotype.
By the way, hummvees are no longer authorized to go outside the wire in Afghanistan. Its been that way for a while. Last time I did a mission in a hummvee was in 2009 Iraq, and even then it was an 1151 uparmored hummvee, not the ones you see in the movies.
(chuckling) I was wondering where the donkey footage that Zarkman was talking about in his commentary on the Iraqi election came from . . . .
LRASSS
Long Range Advanced Scout Surveillance System
I stand corrected.
By the way, do you 19D cav scout guys use the same recon stryker we infantry grunts use, the M1127?
We removed the internal mount for the LRASS and mounted an aditional bench to allow space for a full infantry squad inside. They were originally designed to carry only a 5 man recon team.
Yep. We use either the M1127 RV or the M1126 ICV. They are also giving the Cav all of the M1128 MGS as well and taking them from the 19K.
I’m assuming they are giving us the new 30mm upgraded one as well. The Armor School was testing it back in 2013.
Those doors are heavy.
I am surprised the troops even have weapons.
At the rate the administration assesses credible threats, I figured they would have water balloons.
Leave the 105 on it, and go home 🙂
