You may be familiar with the Stryker Brigade News blog, which covers the activities of the new US Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) units both in the USA and during their deployments to Iraq. DID has covered the Stryker vehicle before, most notably for the unexpectedly positive reviews the nonpartisan Project On Government Oversight received when it spoke to soldiers who served in them and appreciated the vehicles' capabilities and stealth. That DID article also noted a positive review from Russian analyst Vasiliy Fofanov, who wasn't generally inclined to give American equipment in Iraq high marks.
Dan Darling pointed me to a conference call from Mosul that has added more specifics to the soldiers' review of the Stryker. So has a recent article in National Defense Magazine, and of course Michael Yon's body of work with Stryker unit "Deuce Four". DID shares some excerpts from each, then briefly discuss some of the lessons from those experiences.
I am an old LAV crewman from the USMC. These Strykers look alot like them. I have heard they are very similar, but not amphibious. Any word on their relation to the LAV?
More than a few people have had to eat crow because of some of their previous comments concerning the Stryker.
The LAVs you served in would be the LAV-II. Design imperatives seem to merge toward this general shape for 8×8 wheeled armored vehicles, based on what I've seen from all the European offerings out there. Turkey's PARS is one of the few that doesn't.
The Stryker (or Interim Armored Vehicle) Chassis is in fact the LAV-III, which includes advanced communications readiness among other changes. It is also designed to take on a variety of turrets, and has a number of variants for specific functions. The M1126 Infantry Carrier Vehicle is actually just one member of the Stryker Family of Vehicles.
Joe, could you speak a little more about the differences you see in the Turkish offering compared to the others? I'd appreciate the lesson.
One thing I note: It's 8 meters by 3, approximately. Is that commensurate with other vehicles such as the Stryker with birdcage installed? It's always seemed to me that comparative silence does one little good if one can't get in and get out of urban terrain, especially after the noisy stuff starts happening...
Nort
Do any of the Strykers mount the chain gun? Could you drop a LAV turret in?
If the Stryker is a LAV III, are there any common components with the LAV II?
I have seen reports of Marine LAV's in use in Iraq currently. Are they the same as those fielded in Gulf War I?
Off topic, but interesting...War and Dissent
LAV:
Nortius, follow the link in #3 and the picture speaks for itself. It's a clearly different shape than many of the other contenders, or the Stryker. No, don't know why. I assume their engineers had their reasons.
Joe,
The "Stealth" of the Stryker is a relative term.
The Stryker is not quieter than an Abrams. Its engine noise can be heard at a longer distance than the Abrams turbine. When the Abrams debuted in a NATO exercise in 1982 the Canadian Army brigade that it shellacked referred to it as "whispering death" because it was first heard via its track noise and not that of its engine.
The real difference between the two vehicles is the distinctive noise and vibration of the Abrams track.
You can mistake the Stryker's engine and wheel noise for a heavy tractor-trailer truck.
You cannot mistake low level ground vibration of heavy tracked MBT or IFV for anything else. Adobe and brick houses are especially useful in picking up that low level seismic vibration of a track versus a wheel.
The 82nd experimented with the LAV post Gulf War I, after giving up their Sheridans, but didn't take to the LAVs.
Anyone know why the Stryker was made non amphibious?
How's the night vision? We had TOW thermal sights bolted atop our LAVs in Gulf War I. Better than nothing...
The Stryker does have issues with airborne transport by C-130 - while the DID article notes that it has been done, note my caveats therein.
I suspect they weren't made amphibious because the Marines are going with the EFV instead (it will replace the Amtracs, they'll keep the LAVs), so no need.
The 82nd needs something that can hit the battlefield running, and ideally can go in helicopters too. They also need mobility enhancers in order to give them the maneuverability and value they must have on the ground. Not to mention something that could help them carry critical supplies and some heavier weapons (.50 cals, extra Javelin missiles, etc.), without forcing the soliders themselves to hump 150+ pounds of gear each.
I lean toward the BAE Hagglunds BvS-10 Viking myself, or perhaps the Singaporean variant thereof. The BvS-10 is an updated version of the Bv-206, which is very widely used across NATO and beyond (11,000 were built). The Royal Marines quite like their BvS-10s, and as you might guess, they have amphibious capabilities too.
Tiny German Wiesel 2 AFVs don't carry troops and don't have tank-like (more armored Hummer like) armor, but their small size makes them difficult to hit. Their cross-country mobility and .50 cal machine gun, 20mm cannon, anti-armor missile launcher, or 81-120mm mortar sure could be useful to an airborne unit that needs a "go anywhere" light fire superiority option that fits easily in a medium helicopter and can be underslung by a Blackhawk-comparable utility helicopter. The Germans think so, anyway. I tend to agree.
For heavier work, upgraded M113s from storage with appropriate reactive armor, quiet hybrid engines, rubber band tracks, and a BMP-style turret would offer a big plus. You wouldn't put them up against tanks, but the mobility difference, protecton, and support they offer could at least equal the Sheridan's effectiveness in practice and offer a LAV-like, airborne-capable option at low cost.
Having troops with a set of airborne-capable BvS-10s, Wiesels, and M113a4 Gavin IFVs on hand could have changed the game in northern Iraq, for instance, when the US put an airborne division up there but couldn't do much with it.
Brig. Gen. Grange (yeah, the CNN analyst) agrees - check out his ideas for using this combination in Air-Mech Strike
Re: LAV's final qestion, night vision is a bit more integrated in the Stryker, as you'd expect. It even comes with a Protector Remote Weapon Station, which lets those inside look through the sight (optical and thermal integrated) and operate the gun up top from inside the vehicle: 0.50-caliber M2 machine gun, MK19 40mm grenade launcher or MK240 7.62mm machine gun. The gun can also be operated the normal way, if one wishes, and that can be a better approach for situational awareness; it's a trade-off that depends on the situation.
The soldiers themselves also have all kinds of new night vision toys as well these days. The US military has made big investments there.
JK:
Thanks for the discussion. Learned alot.
I disagree about no need for amphibious vehicles in the Army, though. Rivers abound most places.
I wonder what the Stryker does better, having given up the extra weight and complextity of the props, rudders, forward water screen, etc... Just a bit more load capacity?
I bet night vision has gotten better. We still had the green screens inside the LAVs back then.
The LAV always had a simple nature to it. You could see from the driver's pedals all the way out the back door, so open was it. I crawled inside a Bradley once and was stuck how constrained and cramped it felt. You might want that, though, if the armor gets penetrated.