Le Stryker

[BPCs]

Déjà les grilles font souffrir les Stryker mais, là, le train de roulement doit être sur les rotules.

Que nenni :

"Reactive tiles kits developed by Rafael for the General Dynamics Land Systems Stryker vehicle are providing improved protection to the hull, at weight levels comparable to the Slat kits. However, the use of reactive armor offers better protection, improved stability and maneuverability, compared to the much wider Slat. "

[Tawakalna]

c'est aussi Rafael qui avait monté un kit anti RPG sur un VAB il y a quelques années (au environ de 2005-2006 je crois) et présenté à Eurosatory.

Il y avait eu un article avec photo dans un numéro de Raids et une photo sur ce forum mais impossible de la retrouver !

c'état un upgrade VAB avec remotorisation+kit anti RPG réactif +canon de 30mm téléopéré pour le combat urbain comme le VAB T-20/13 mais surblindé et avec un calibre 30mm.

[Serge]

C'était en 2006 avec un VAB de la STAT.

L'officier de marque avait autorisé la chose mais c'est juste une demo "comme ça" rien de plus. L'idée de la présentation lui semblait déjà absurde.

[Tawakalna]

C'était en 2006 avec un VAB de la STAT.

L'officier de marque avait autorisé la chose mais c'est juste une demo "comme ça" rien de plus. L'idée de la présentation lui semblait déjà absurde.

ok merci pour les précisions ;)

juste un véhicule démo mais ça en jetait quand même !

[Serge]

Un peu plus de puissance de feu :

Army Looks to Mount 30mm Cannons on Strykers

Sep 20, 2013

Military.com by Matthew Cox

FORT BENNING, Ga. -- Lightly-armed U.S. Army infantry brigades need heavier firepower -- that means light tanks and bigger guns on Stryker infantry carriers, say senior leaders here at the Maneuver Center of Excellence.

The enemy's use of home-made bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan forced the Army to make vehicle protection a higher priority than mobility and firepower, MCOE Commander Maj. Gen. H.R. McMaster said.

The Army is hoping to balance that approach with programs such as the Ground Combat Vehicle to replace the Bradley fighting vehicle and the Armored Multipurpose Vehicle to replace the M113 armored personnel carrier.

But maneuver leaders maintain that the Army cannot forget about lighter units such as Stryker and infantry brigade combat teams that currently are not equipped with enough potent firepower to win fights quickly, McMaster said.

"Across all of our formations we need the right combination of mobility protection and firepower," he said. "We need to emphasize what is next. What is the light tank that … we can give our infantry freedom of maneuver in action? And we want to up-gun our Strykers. We can see the enemy; it would be nice to be able to kill them."

Stryker Brigade Combat Teams first saw combat in Iraq in late 2003. The highly-mobile infantry force is equipped with potent variants such as the 105mm Mobile Gun System and anti-tank guided missile.

But most Stryker vehicles are infantry carriers armed with .50 caliber machine guns or MK19 automatic grenade launchers.

This has to change, argues MCOE Command Sgt. Major James Carabello.

"The Stryker needs to get up-gunned; a World War II weapon system on a Stryker? It needs a bigger gun," Carabello said. "It needs something that is a better platform than a MK 19 or a .50 caliber machine gun."

The need is now greater, officials maintain, since the Army is cutting the number of MGS Strykers from 27 to 10 per SBCT.

Currently, Training and Doctrine Command is working with Stryker program officials on a plan that could mean mounting a 30mm cannon on to the remote weapons stations on Stryker infantry carriers.

This would give much greater firepower and still not require a turret be mounted on the Stryker, Army officials say. The plan is to purchase a company set of 30mm cannons, test them, and also try to determine should they be issued for every Stryker of have one per company, officials said.

"Looking at the fire fights we have had on a continuous basis … we see the need to be able to provide an overmatch in the close fight as well for the purpose of ensuring freedom of maneuver and action of our infantry squads," McMaster said.

A .50 caliber machine gun can be very effective, "but you don't get a round that blows up and ends firefights," McMaster said.

Lightly-armed IBCTs also need mobile protected firepower such as a light tank for forced-entry style missions, Army leaders began saying earlier this year.

The conventional Army's primary unit for that mission is the XVIII Airborne Corps' 82ndAirborne Division, "but all of our IBCTs are pretty strategically mobile," Brig. Gen. David Haight, chief of infantry at Benning.

"So in the early hours and days of forcible-entry missions, we need a light-tank force that can facilitate movement and provide those light forces with additional protection and firepower."

The 82nd Airborne Division was equipped with the M551 Sheridan Armored Reconnaissance Airborne Assault Vehicle until the mid 1990s. Developed during the Vietnam War, the Sheridan resembled a light tank and featured a 152mm main gun capable of firing standard ammunition or the MGM-51 Shillelagh antitank missile.

The Sheridan was used in the Invasion of Panama in 1989 and Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1991, but it was considered ineffective since its lightweight, aluminum armor was thin enough to be pierced by heavy machine-gun rounds, and the vehicle was particularly vulnerable to mines.

Army officials were considering the Stryker MGS, but it has proven to be less effective in off-road operations.

Maneuver officials say they would want a platform that could be air-dropped from a C-130 aircraft. It should have a base armor package capable of defeating 14.5mm ammunition. Once follow-on forces arrive, addition armor packages could be bolted on as necessary.

One option could be to take another look at the Armored Gun System, a 105mm light tank that the Army had considered as a replacement to the Sheridan in the mid 1990s.

It met the requirement in 1996 and still does, according to Benning officials, who described the AGS as "old technology that kills T72 tanks."

[Kiriyama]

Le véhicule avait été très décrié au début mais il semble faire sa place dans l'Army.

[alexandreVBCI]

Le Stryker a eu un très bon comportement partout où il a été employé. 

 

Mettre des 30mm à la place du .50 est une très bonne idée. Et c'est d'une certaine manière la validation du concept français du VBCI. 

[TimTR]

Le Stryker a eu un très bon comportement partout où il a été employé. 

 

Mettre des 30mm à la place du .50 est une très bonne idée. Et c'est d'une certaine manière la validation du concept français du VBCI. 

Oula non, en Afghanistan il s'est chopé une méchante réputation de corbillard.

Apparemment il résiste très mal au IED à l'afghane fait à partir d'engrais. Certains bataillons ont en effet subis des pertes terribles avec des groupes de combat entiers mis hors de combat lors de l'explosion de leur véhicule.

Maintenant c'est probablement aussi un problème d'emplois, des brigades qui débarquent d'Irak et qui n'ont pas su s'adapter à l'Afghanistan, mais il était pas suffisamment mobile pour éviter d'utiliser les chemins habituelles et pas suffisamment blindé pour résister aux IED sur ces chemins...

[kalligator]

Ce véhicule est bien un dérivé du Piranah suisse donc légèrement blindé. Pas moyen de le faire résister aux IED d'ou le projet de GCV de 60 ou 70 tonnes.

 

Depuis l'invention du Panzerfaust on sait que les blindés deviennent vulnérables face aux fantassins. A chaque alourdissement/perfectionnement du blindage correspond un perfectionnement des armes anti-chars : augmentation des calibre, double-charge, attaque par le toit. L'épée restera toujours bien moins chère que le bouclier.

 

Même si on mettais en ligne un blindé de 75 tonnes blindage titane-UA-céramique avec tous les systèmes soft et hard kill surmonté d'un CIWS 20mm; resterai le problème des véhicules d'accompagnement/ravitaillement carburant toujours vulnérables.

 

Près de moitié des fameux Tigres allemands furent perdus sur pannes mécaniques.

 

La guerre du Golfe ne doit pas faire illusion : sans protection aérienne, sur un terrain découvert, avec des chars mal pouvu en systèmes de conduite de tir la "4ème armée du monde" ne pouvait que se faire laminer sans aucun espoir.

 

Tout cela pour dire que les blindés souffriront face à un adversaire déterminé et entraîné même les chars lourds; alors les Stricker...il ne faut pas leur demander l'impossible. 

[Serge]

Le Striker est mieux blindé que le char de grenadier 93 mais son but n'a jamais été là. Il n'est pas en concurrence avec le GCV qui lui doit résister aux coups.

Pour le renforcement anti-IED, une nouvelle version avec un planché à "double-V" entre progressivement en service. Les anciens modèles sont retrofités par échange de la caisse. Le reste des organes étant démonté et replacé avec les adaptateurs nécessaires.

[alexandreVBCI]

Army to Test Kongsberg’s New Gun on Stryker

Early next year, Army maneuver officials at Fort Benning, Ga., will test Stryker vehicles armed with new stabilized 30mm cannons in an effort to increase the firepower of the service’s all-wheeled infantry carriers.

 

http://defensetech.org/2013/10/21/army-to-test-kongsbergs-new-gun-on-stryker/

 

[BPCs]

Army to Test Kongsberg’s New Gun on Stryker

Early next year, Army maneuver officials at Fort Benning, Ga., will test Stryker vehicles armed with new stabilized 30mm cannons in an effort to increase the firepower of the service’s all-wheeled infantry carriers.

 

http://defensetech.org/2013/10/21/army-to-test-kongsbergs-new-gun-on-stryker/

 

Une solution basée sur une tourelle controlée à distance , donc sans restreindre l'espace nécessaire à l'emport de personnel et apte à emporter des canons du 25 au 50 mm  et pesant 2t..

Bref, une Tourelle Toutatis ... mais commercialisée...

http://www.kongsberg.com/~/media/KPS/Datasheets/MC%20RWS%20standard%20sept%202010.ashx

[Serge]

Army Will Buy More Strykers with Double V-Hulls

By Matthew Cox Tuesday, October 14th, 2014 3:39 pm

The U.S. Army is outfitting another one of its Stryker Brigade Combat Team with Double V-Hull vehicles to better protect them from enemy bombs.

The Project Manager for the Stryker Brigade Combat Team has received Army acquisition executive approval for procurement of a 4th brigade of Stryker Double V-Hull vehicles. The 360-vehicle purchase is scheduled to happen sometime between fiscal years 2016–2018 if funding is available, Army officials maintain.

This will be the fourth Stryker Brigade to be outfitted with the new hull that’s designed to protect soldiers from powerful improvised explosive devices better than the original flat-bottom hull design.

“Delivery of the 4th brigade vehicles is expected to begin in fiscal year 2017, immediately following final delivery of the 3rd brigade to maintain a steady output of vehicles and avoid costs associated with a break in production ‚” David Dopp, the Army’s project manager for the Stryker Brigade Combat Team, in an Oct. 13 press release.

The DVH is not just a re-designed, unique v-shaped hull; it also includes improved mine resistant blast seating, improved fire suppression features, and a robust suspension system that gives soldiers a smoother ride, reduces shock and vibration and improves force protection.

Currently, the Army has nine SBCTs, six with the traditional flat bottom hull, while three brigades have been outfitted with the DVH models.

The fourth DVH brigade production will maintain and extend the Stryker Exchange Program, initiated by the PM SBCT in 2012, in partnership with Anniston Army Depot and General Dynamics Land Systems, in response to an Army requirement for additional DVH vehicles at a reduced overall cost.

“The exchange program will increase the quantity of DVH Strykers, without increasing the overall Stryker inventory,” said Dopp. “The DVH design is a significant improvement over the flat bottom hull in terms of survivability, and the DVH exchange vehicle is 30 percent less expensive than a manufacturing a brand new DVH vehicle.”

This results in faster production and notable cost savings to the Army. To maximize fiscal resources with respect to schedule, one-for-one exchanges will be made with the fourth brigade to replace the existing flat bottom hull Stryker variants with the improved, more-survivable design. The process includes making use of “like” parts from the flat bottom hulls, refurbishing them, and incorporating them into the new DVH structure alongside DVH-unique components.

“We’ve also accelerated the Stryker Engineering Change Proposal program, a modernization effort to address current space, weight and power-cooling (SWaP-C) deficiencies within the platform and lay the foundation for the success of future improvements, for integration into the 4th brigade,” said Dopp.

The production line will be adapted to incorporate the ECP at the same time to prevent bringing vehicles back to Anniston Army Depot for upgrades following the DVH exchange process. This will allow the Army to save nearly $232 million in cost avoidance.

The effort has the side benefit of extending the exchange program and supporting the combat vehicle industrial base. “Sustaining that industrial base supports future readiness and protects Army buying power,” said Brig. Gen. David Bassett, the Army’s program executive officer for Ground Combat Systems.

[Serge]

Grace aux russes, la course aux armements est relancée :

The 30 millimeter solution: Army upgunning Strykers Vs. Russia

By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. on April 23, 2015 at 2:35 PM

Stryker vehicles from the Army’s 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Romania.

Amidst rising anxieties over Russia, one of the last US combat units still based in Europe, the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, has asked for bigger guns. The House Armed Services Committee is already setting aside money for the urgent upgrade, which the Army staff officially approved yesterday in a memo obtained by Breaking Defense:

In brief, the 2nd Cavalry wants some 81 of its eight-wheel-drive Stryker infantry carrier vehicles fitted with 30 millimeter automatic cannon. 30 mm is more than twice the caliber of the 12.7 mm machineguns those Strykers currently mount. It’s actually a bigger weapon than the notoriously destructive 25 mm chaingun on the much heavier M2 Bradley infantry carrier.

Adding a 30 mm weapon won’t make Strykers into tanks: An M1 Abrams’ main gun is a whopping 120 mm. But there are physical limits on what a 20-30 ton wheeled vehicle can accommodate. The Army spent years trying to fit a 105 mm cannon on a Stryker chassis, the Mobile Gun System (MGS). By contrast, 30 mm is a manageable size that would give the Strykers significant killing power against other light armored vehicles, such as Russian BMPs.

“MGS was a failure, which is why they stopped producing them,” one Hill staffer told me. “That said, MGS is better than nothing in terms of fire support. These [proposed] 30mm remote weapon stations help quite a bit.”

The 2nd Cavalry wants the weapons because it’s the Army’s frontline force in Europe. There are only two US combat brigades still based on the continent, the 2nd Cav in Vilseck, Germany and the 173rd Airborne in Vicenza, Italy, a light infantry formation with very few vehicles of any kind and nothing as heavy as a Stryker. The Army has no heavy tank forces permanently stationed in Europe anymore, which the House Armed Services Committee has decried as “short-sighted.”

Since Russia seized Crimea, both the 2nd Cavalry and the 173rd Airborne have deployed to the Baltic States to deter aggression and reassure those small, exposed NATO allies. (The 173rd has even trained some Ukrainian forces). Just a month ago, a 60-Stryker task force of the 2nd Cavalry conducted an 1,100-plus mile “dragoon ride” back from the Baltics to Germany by way of Poland and the Czech Republic. The maneuver showed off the Stryker vehicles’ impressive mobility: As wheeled vehicles, they do better on long road marches than tracked tanks, although their performance is worse off-road. But clearly the Army thought they were lacking in lethality — and that’s what this upgrade is intended to correct.

The bigger question: Will the Army stop at upgrading 81 vehicles in Europe, or will it eventually seek funding to install the 30 mm weapons on Strykers in other theaters such as the Pacific. The memo pledges that the powerful Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) will study “potential application… across the broader Stryker force.” With the national strategy emphasizing crisis response and “expeditionary” forces, the Army is increasingly looking for armored vehicles light enough to rapidly deploy by air — but still heavily armed enough to fight on arrival.

[Kiriyama]

Étonnant aussi que le Stryker ne s'exporte pas. 

[Serge]

??

Le Stryker est un Piranah-III.

[Sovngard]

Grace aux russes, la course aux armements est relancée :

 

 

Ils veulent lui mettre quoi, du Bushmaster II ?

Modifié le 24 avril 2015 par Sovngard

[Serge]

S'ils passent au 30mm, il y a de grandes chances que ce soit le Mk44.

[Sovngard]

Et le XM813 dans tout ça ?

 

Modifié le 24 avril 2015 par Sovngard

[Serge]

Pourquoi pas ?

S'il est validé pour les Bradley, il n'y a que des avantages.

[Serge]

Une vidéo des tests :

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zcBYTOp2gfc#

[Serge]

Russia Threat Boosts Stryker Upgrade Budget To $371 Million

By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

on June 05, 2015 at 5:13 PM

VIDEO: https://youtu.be/6nGHIKgvKjE

WASHINGTON: Between fear of Russia, urgency from the Army, and lobbying from General Dynamics, funding to upgun the Army’s GD-built Stryker armored vehicle has grown 350 percent in three weeks.

In mid-May, the House approved a $79.5 million addition to the administration’s budget request. Yesterday, the Senate, not to be outdone, voted $371 million — four and a half times more. The House Appropriations Committee has actually approved $411 million on Tuesday, but that hasn’t passed the full chamber yet.

Why does Stryker have such momentum? Some of our sources cynically pointed to General Dynamics’ lobbying operation, which is one of the defense industry’s most aggressive, even ruthless. GD publicly took on the Army over the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) contract when it felt the terms of competition were unfair, and it stealthily tried to get competitor Harris excluded from a critical radio competition.

But in this case the Army itself was leading the charge, with General Dynamics scrambling to keep up. It was the Army that asked the House to add the $80 million in the first place, and it was the Army that then revised its requested figure upwards to $411 million, forcing GD to hastily revise its briefing slides to catch up.

“Unlike in the case of AMPV, General Dynamics is basically doing the Army’s bidding on Stryker,” said Loren Thompson, a well-connected consultant and analyst at the Lexington Institute. “Its numbers match what the service thinks needs to be spent to improve Stryker firepower in Europe.”

That the often-lumbering Army is moving out fast indicates its whole-hearted commitment. “If the Army is ambivalent about something, it can take a long time,” Thompson told me. But when the Europe-based 2nd Cavalry Brigade submitted the original Operational Needs Statement for heavier weapons, he said, “Army headquarters turned the approval around quickly” — in about a month.

So what does the Army want so urgently?

What The Army Wants

In fact, the Army’s interest in an upgunned Stryker predates the war in Ukraine. An earlier attempt to equip a Stryker with a 105 mm tank cannon, the Mobile Gun System, crammed too much weapon in too little vehicle and was only purchased in small quantities. Many Stryker relatives in foreign armies have unmanned turrets with medium-caliber weapons, and General Dynamics had shown the Army a prototype of such an upgunned Stryker back in 2010.

But the service wasn’t really receptive until the hard-charging H.R. McMaster took over the Maneuver Center at Fort Benning and asked for a live-fire demonstration.GD was already test-firing a prototype in February 2014 — just before Putin’s “Little Green Men” took over Crimea at the end of that month — and had it shooting at Fort Benning in March. The 2nd Cavalry submitted its Operational Needs Statement a year later, this past March, and now the project is enshrined in the 2016 budget.

So what are we paying for, precisely? It’s a 30 mm quick-firing cannon, significantly heavier than even the famous 25 mm chaingun on the M2 Bradley, let alone the 12.7 mm machinegun most Strykers currently carry, but far short of a traditional tank main gun. (The prototype weapon was built by ATK and integrated by Kongsberg, but GD emphasizes it could install other vendors’ hardware just as easily). That’s enough to ravage troops in cover, buildings, and light vehicles, but not heavy tanks.

General Dynamics calls the gun mount a Medium Caliber Remote Weapons Station (MCRWS) — GD dislikes the term “turret” because it implies there are crewmen inside, which there aren’t: It’s remotely controlled from inside the vehicle. Containing only the gun and ammo, the system takes up less room than a manned turret, so the Stryker can still carry the same number of troops, which was a critical consideration for the Army, said Tim Reese, a GD spokesman (and a retired Army tanker himself).

Other than the not-technically-a-turret itself, the only necessary modification is to the top of the Stryker’s hull, though GD and the Army want to upgrade the vehicle’s suspension to better handle the additional weight. The upgunning should add about two tons to the basic 19-ton Stryker, Reese said. (The heaviest Stryker variants, with extensive uparmor kits and v-shaped hulls to resist roadside bombs, weigh 27.5 tons). The exact weight depends on how heavily armored the Army wants the gun mount to be: True, there are no humans inside to protect, but it’s still inconvenient to get your main gun shot off.

All told, it’s a modest modification, one that can be done to surplus Stryker vehicles current sitting partially disassembled at Anniston Army Depot in Alabama.

“Where the Army tends to go wrong is when it starts from scratch,” Thompson told me. Part of the problem, especially in times like these, is fiscal: New start programs cost much more than off-the-shelf technology. But another part of the problem is institutional indecision, he told me: “New starts take a long time and the Army tends to change its mind.” By contrast, when the Army goes for an incremental upgrade, like adding a 30 mm gun to the Stryker or modifying the M2 Bradley into an Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, he said, it tends to get good (if not revolutionary) results on a timeline and at a price it can afford.

But why bother upgunning the lightly armored Stryker when the Army already has much heavier war machines, the M1 Abrams tank and the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle? Indeed, until recent years the Army had heavy brigades permanently based in Europe. Since the Crimean crisis, the Army has sent heavy units into Europe, but only on temporary “rotations.” Restoring the permanently based brigades would send a major signal that the Cold War was back — without necessarily being enough to shift the balance of forces against the heavily armored Red Army.

Let’s face facts, Thompson told me: “The Russians are the dominant military power in the theater.” For any move we make in Europe, they can easily make a counter-move: After all, their entire army is already there. So any steps we take have to tread a fine line, he said: “What we want to do is send a signal that we’re going to protect our allies but not provoke the Russians” — for example, by upgunning a Stryker unit already in Europe. Then the next step is deciding whether to invest in upgunning Strykers worldwide.

Modifié le 6 juin 2015 par Serge

[Sovngard]

Juste une question : pourquoi tant de haine envers le Stryker ? Je ne vois que ça en surfant sur la toile.

Modifié le 14 juin 2015 par Sovngard

[TimTR]

Juste une question : pourquoi tant de haine envers le Stryker ? Je ne vois que ça en surfant sur la toile.

Son premier déploiement en Afghanistan a été accompagné de pertes humaines importantes, avec des groupes de combats entiers KIA par des IED. ça a pas du aidé en terme de réputation. Mais bon en même temps la majeure partie de la toile ne comprend pas qu'un véhicule est le fruit d'une série de compromis. L'idée que le véhicule était peut être plus adapté à un théâtre comme l'Irak mais pas tellement l'Afghanistan dépasse la plupart.

[Espadon]

Il y a un article intéressant sur le Stryker dans  magazine champs de bataille.

 

D'après ce que j'ai compris, ce véhicule est l'ossature principal d'un concept de brigade légère rapidement déployable.  Le soucis visiblement, c'est qu'ils l'ont utilisé comme, ils utilisent les M2Bradley. Et un engin à roue ne s'utilise pas de la même manière qu'un engin à chenilles. Ils n'ont visiblement pas de doctrine d'emploi correct pour ces véhicules, d’où un alourdissement pour coller à ce qu'ils savent faire. Si vous mettez des français dedans, je suis sure qu'ils sauront en tirer la quintessence. Bref, ces brigades stryker ne sont là que pour assurer les premiers jours d'un conflit, après il faut passer à quelque chose de plus lourd.