Jump to content
tanknet.org

$5 Million To Put A 30Mm Gun Turret On Stryker


Recommended Posts

Jane's is reporting that the cost of a proposed firepower upgrade for 81 US Army Stryker wheeled personnel carriers is priced at a whopping $5 million per vehicle. This upgrade would up-gun 81 Strykers for the 2nd Cavalry Regiment based in Germany with 30 mm cannons on remote weapon systems and others with Javelin anti-tank missiles. According to Jane's:

The cost per system appears particularly high (about USD5 million per vehicle), and according to Heidi Shyu, the army's acquisition executive, this is partly schedule driven because it is through an urgent need statement that is seeking the upgrade as soon as possible. It is also for only 81 systems, so the limited quantity drives up per-unit costs. The price includes a design and integration element as well, she added.

These lethality upgrades are not for the heavier armoured Stryker Double-V Hull (DVH) vehicles, and rather are for the original flat-bottom configuration, although a Stryker engineering change proposal (ECP) effort may eventually include a 30 mm weapon for the DVH, Shyu said. "If we want more Strykers to have this capability beyond the 81 [requested in Europe], we will start a programme of record to do that," she said, noting that the cost could be lower with a procurement of thousands of units.

 

Pricing on modern armored vehicles can be a bit hard to pin down, being influenced by factors such as exchange rates and production volume. That said, most modern MBTs range anywhere from 4 to 10 million dollars (or more) each. Using this metric, $5 for an upgrade to a Stryker does seem rather on the high side. Of course, this is not the first time the Stryker program has drawn criticism for fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the US Army. Thoughts?

Edited by Walter_Sobchak
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 419
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As it says, though, it's an urgent need for forces in Europe. New turret and probably around the clock workers.

 

Kinda see the logic in it. 30mm is a lot better to have around [than a .50] in case of conflict with Russian forces.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As it says, though, it's an urgent need for forces in Europe. New turret and probably around the clock workers.

 

Kinda see the logic in it. 30mm is a lot better to have around [than a .50] in case of conflict with Russian forces.

This might be a dumb question, but if the US is putting forces in Europe to counter Russian heavy armor, perhaps they should send over units equipped with Abrams and Bradleys? Why send a wheeled APC to do a tanks job?

Edited by Walter_Sobchak
Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK the Cavalry is to act as, well cavalry. That is quick reaction force. And for that wheeled is faster than tracked. Depots of heavy armour are to be prepositioned in Poland. And I guess if the situation stays for longer regular armour brigades are to going to be stationed in middle eastern Europe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure they have M1s and M2s there.

 

The Stryker brigades probably would come into contact with Russian AFVs if combat started, and 30mm at least lets you punch a BMD/BMP-1/2 with authority in a tactical situation (and you can't call in immediate support).

Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK the Cavalry is to act as, well cavalry. That is quick reaction force. And for that wheeled is faster than tracked. Depots of heavy armour are to be prepositioned in Poland. And I guess if the situation stays for longer regular armour brigades are to going to be stationed in middle eastern Europe.

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK the Cavalry is to act as, well cavalry. That is quick reaction force. And for that wheeled is faster than tracked. Depots of heavy armour are to be prepositioned in Poland. And I guess if the situation stays for longer regular armour brigades are to going to be stationed in middle eastern Europe.

But the 2cav is a infantry bde (in this incarnation).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

AFAIK the Cavalry is to act as, well cavalry. That is quick reaction force. And for that wheeled is faster than tracked. Depots of heavy armour are to be prepositioned in Poland. And I guess if the situation stays for longer regular armour brigades are to going to be stationed in middle eastern Europe.

But the 2cav is a infantry bde (in this incarnation).

Sure. Mounted infantry to be deployed fast.

 

The heavy armour is for other units of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Training and doctrine has to be rewritten for a new vehicle. That'd cost more in the end. Blame the idea of a Stryker brigade in the first place (ok, it came in handy for peacekeeping, and it also comes in handy for carrying the flag through cities).

 

30mm APFSDS will still punch pretty much anything out there short of the highest tier gear. .50 SLAP, not so much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is, it wont be enough. They are not pre positioning a Brigade in the Baltics. IIRC, they are spreading a battalion over 4 different nations, IE Latvia Lithuania Estonia and Poland. If im right that would be about 7-9 Bradleys per nation.

 

One battalion across the Baltic States, at least another in Poland - maybe two, there was talk of a second base there, though I'm not clear what it's going to house. One or two battalions farther south in Romania/Bulgaria; there were also plans for Hungary, but they seemed reluctant, so maybe that's where the possible second battalion for Poland came from.

 

[...]

 

As the proposal stands now, a company’s worth of equipment — enough for about 150 soldiers — would be stored in each of the three Baltic nations: Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Enough for a company or possibly a battalion — about 750 soldiers — would be located in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and possibly Hungary, they said.

American military specialists have conducted site surveys in the countries under consideration, and the Pentagon is working on estimates about the costs to upgrade railways, build new warehouses and equipment-cleaning facilities, and to replace other Soviet-era facilities to accommodate the heavy American weaponry. The weapons warehouses would be guarded by local or security contractors, and not by American military personnel, officials said.
Positioning the equipment forward saves the United States Army time, money and resources, and avoids having to ship the equipment back and forth to the United States each time an Army unit travels to Europe to train. A full brigade’s worth of equipment — formally called the European Activity Set — would include about 1,200 vehicles, including some 250 M1-A2 tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, and armored howitzers, according to a senior military official.
[...]

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/world/europe/us-poised-to-put-heavy-weaponry-in-east-europe.html?_r=0

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

AFAIK the Cavalry is to act as, well cavalry. That is quick reaction force. And for that wheeled is faster than tracked. Depots of heavy armour are to be prepositioned in Poland. And I guess if the situation stays for longer regular armour brigades are to going to be stationed in middle eastern Europe.

But the 2cav is a infantry bde (in this incarnation).

 

 

Technically yes but not doctrinally. Stryker BCT which is doctrinally different from Infantry BCT.

 

Of course in it's original incarnation the Stryker was left with just a .50 cal for a reason. It was meant strictly as an APC. The ATGM and AGS versions were supposed to fight AFVs.

Edited by Paul G.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The price is ridiculous but it's not just slapping on a new turret, these vehicles are essentially fully rebuilt.

 

Yes the hull roof has to be redesigned and rebuilt to handle the weight.

 

 

This in combination with what was mentioned on the previous page, i.e. that this is an urgent purchase of a limited number of MCT-30 turrets (the U.S. Army is probably its first customer) and that it may also include additional remote weapon stations (CROWS) with Javelin Vehicle Launchers, explains why the price seems so steep.

 

Edited by Laser Shark
Link to post
Share on other sites

But then, I felt for a long time that the lack of an IFV version of the Stryker was a problem.





I can't help wondering why something in the range of the Bradley turret wasn't included in the design scope for the Strykers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...