Okay, I'll be honest right here at the beginning: I was wrong.
To my friends, you know you don't hear that very often (not because I won't admit when I'm wrong, but because I rarely AM wrong ;-).
As I've mentioned before, I'm an ex-tanker, and back in the day when they first announced the Stryker, I thought that some folks up on high were out of their collective minds. Turns out, they got it exactly right. The Stryker is EXACTLY what we needed to add to our TO&E, and the Bradley and Abrams were not the end-all, be-all armored vehicle combo for every situation.
Not to demean the M1- and M2-families of vehicles. The Abrams is arguably the premier tank of the world, and the Bradley is an extremely capable vehicle as well. Both proved their worth beyond a shadow of a doubt in ODS 1 and 2. Simply put, they slaughtered the enemy. Perhaps this is what colored my thinking when I expressed disbelief that the Army was introducing a
Said upper-echelon brain trust had the foresight to see the flavor of future conflicts would revolve heavily around COIN and similar environments. They also saw that we did not have a family of vehicles optimized for that environment. Enter the Stryker. Perfect? No (plans are in place to go to a more V-shaped, MRAP-style hull, and it is still too heavy to be airlifted by helicopter). But pretty damn good, nonetheless...
Two interesting features that I really like:
- The vehicle has training software built into the vehicle, so every team can simultaneously train, and train IN THE ACTUAL VEHICLE. No more waiting to go into a mock-up trainer that only approximates the system...it's the actual vehicle. The training value of this can not be over-stated.
- The digital networking capability is integrated into the vehicle from the get-go, and is not an add-on package. The ability for EACH VEHICLE to see a clear picture of where they are in relation to other friendly vehicles as well as to known enemy positions, as well as enabling FRAGO's on the fly, is a major combat multiplier.
Relatively light (critical in under-developed areas) and agile, the Stryker can go most anywhere, and it is versatile enough to be configured for a myriad of applications.
The Stryker has the following configurations, with more planned (thanks wiki!):
- M1126 Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV) : Armored personnel carrier provides protected transport for 2 crew and 9 man infantry squad, and supports dismounted infantry. Weighs 19 tons, communications include text and a map network between vehicles. It can be armed with M2 0.50 machine gun, MK19 40 mm grenade launcher or M240 7.62 mm machine gun.
- M1127 Reconnaissance Vehicle (RV)
- M1128 Mobile Gun System (MGS) armed with 105 mm overhead gun for direct fire
- M1129 Mortar Carrier (MC) armed with 120 mm or 81 mm Mortar
- M1130 Command Vehicle (CV) provides commanders with communication, data, and control functions to analyse and prepare information for combat missions; can also link to aircraft antenna/power for planning missions while enroute aboard aircraft. Situational awareness helps commanders to coordinate widely dispersed mobile units against decisive enemy points. Deployed as 3 vehicles per brigade HQ, 2 per battalion HQ and 2 per infantry company.
- M1131 Fire Support Vehicle (FSV) is organic to maneuver companies and provides surveillance and communications (4 secure combat radio nets), with target acquisition/identification/tracking/designation being transmitted automatically to the shooting units.
- M1132 Engineer Support Vehicle (ESV)
- M1133 Medical Evacuation Vehicle (MEV)
- M1134 Anti-Tank Guided Missile Vehicle (ATGM) is armed with TOW missile.
- M1135 Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBC RV)
- Mxxxx Self-Propelled Howitzer (SPH) This was a prototype vehicle with turret and ammunition developed by Denel Land Systems. Work stopped after the successful Nov. 2005 demonstration of the prototype.[23]
And back by popular demand, that annoying, whispering ex-SEAL:
By: Steve
1 comment:
Yeah, about the stryker, it needs a LOT of work. Although the US produces fine military vehicles, the stryker is not one of them. It is too lightly armored, too heavy, and is not amphibious. The original MOWAG and the LAV were far superior.
Post a Comment