rmgill Posted January 1, 2018 Share Posted January 1, 2018 (edited) The suspension height adjustment is part of the air portability design spec. It's a "Height Management System" with hydrodynamic controls so it would seem. Edited January 1, 2018 by rmgill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Tan Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Was part of goofy c130 interim rubbish. Dragoon wont fit. Basic stryker needs the RWS dismounted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Falcon Posted January 2, 2018 Author Share Posted January 2, 2018 What rmgill and Simon said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzermann Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 (edited) Thanks everyone. edit: we have the same idiocy in Germny with the Puma IFV having to to fit the A400M. Which it does just as well as the LAV-III fits the Hercules. that is: not really, but compromises everything else. Edited January 2, 2018 by Panzermann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmgill Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 In thinking about this, is the suspension system actuation fast enough to use the height difference for changing from being hull or turret down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Falcon Posted January 2, 2018 Author Share Posted January 2, 2018 Some video on the Dragoon and the SHORAD Stryker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCpqBJJR9nM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Jones Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Thanks everyone. edit: we have the same idiocy in Germny with the Puma IFV having to to fit the A400M. Which it does just as well as the LAV-III fits the Hercules. that is: not really, but compromises everything else.no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Since the subject is up-gunning Strykers, is there anything new or notable with the MGS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 No it still sucks Actually it's just bad, not stunningly terrible. Would have been better to go with a LP 90mm gun I suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Falcon Posted January 4, 2018 Author Share Posted January 4, 2018 No it still sucks Actually it's just bad, not stunningly terrible. Would have been better to go with a LP 90mm gun I suspect. The problem is that the 90mm is no longer in US service which would have required a substantial amount of additional costs and would have forced the MGS model to jump through a number of additional procurement hoops. The Army wanted to avoid that, preferring 'seriously flawed but available' to 'superlative but canceled'. Right now the Army is looking at light tanks. I don't think that's the best replacement for the MGS, but it may be procured for the role anyways to reduce procurement costs. A 90mm is still out, as the US Army still needs to avoid the costs of adding a new shell caliber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmgill Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 Make it Bradley based, ala the CVRT series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Falcon Posted January 4, 2018 Author Share Posted January 4, 2018 Some (overly dramatized) footage of the M-SHORAD Stryker being tested at White Sands Missile Range: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zwar09qcUAc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzermann Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 No it still sucks Actually it's just bad, not stunningly terrible. Would have been better to go with a LP 90mm gun I suspect. The problem is that the 90mm is no longer in US service which would have required a substantial amount of additional costs and would have forced the MGS model to jump through a number of additional procurement hoops. The Army wanted to avoid that, preferring 'seriously flawed but available' to 'superlative but canceled'. Right now the Army is looking at light tanks. I don't think that's the best replacement for the MGS, but it may be procured for the role anyways to reduce procurement costs. A 90mm is still out, as the US Army still needs to avoid the costs of adding a new shell caliber. For all practical intents and purposes the M68 was not in use anymore with the US Army when the Stryker M1128 Mobile Gun System was put into service. Some M1 and M60 A3 parked in the desert and some old stocke collecting dust in a depot do not count imho. that article about the light tank project. Well i better not hold my breath. M551 was a bad tank and the M8 withered. Feature creep will kill the light tank. This gadget and that additional armour... (and why does the article call the Puma IFV a light tank? MLC48 clearly visible ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellfish6 Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 No it still sucks Actually it's just bad, not stunningly terrible. Would have been better to go with a LP 90mm gun I suspect. The problem is that the 90mm is no longer in US service which would have required a substantial amount of additional costs and would have forced the MGS model to jump through a number of additional procurement hoops. The Army wanted to avoid that, preferring 'seriously flawed but available' to 'superlative but canceled'. Right now the Army is looking at light tanks. I don't think that's the best replacement for the MGS, but it may be procured for the role anyways to reduce procurement costs. A 90mm is still out, as the US Army still needs to avoid the costs of adding a new shell caliber. "Puma light tank"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Falcon Posted January 5, 2018 Author Share Posted January 5, 2018 My own guess is that the mistake in including and mislabeling the Puma is a case of "light armored tracked vehicle with a turret = light tank" media sloppiness. One would expect better from Army Times, but on this occasion they seem to have produced the usual ignorant media mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzermann Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 My own guess is that the mistake in including and mislabeling the Puma is a case of "light armored tracked vehicle with a turret = light tank" media sloppiness. One would expect better from Army Times, but on this occasion they seem to have produced the usual ignorant media mistake. Army Times is a private newspaper/website. Not a Pentagon publication, so you get the usual journalist expertise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EchoFiveMike Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 No it still sucks Actually it's just bad, not stunningly terrible. Would have been better to go with a LP 90mm gun I suspect. The problem is that the 90mm is no longer in US service which would have required a substantial amount of additional costs and would have forced the MGS model to jump through a number of additional procurement hoops. The Army wanted to avoid that, preferring 'seriously flawed but available' to 'superlative but canceled'. Right now the Army is looking at light tanks. I don't think that's the best replacement for the MGS, but it may be procured for the role anyways to reduce procurement costs. A 90mm is still out, as the US Army still needs to avoid the costs of adding a new shell caliber. He's probably talking about the Cockerill 90mm Mk3 low pressure 90mm, not the US M36. It's a HE/HEAT thrower, which is suitable for 7-10t vehicles. I'm thinking a 120mm mortar would be more useful, vice the 105mm high pressure gun. Something like a Falarick 120mm GLATGM would also be highly useful. The atrocity that is the US procurment system needs to be purged with fire. It's a greater enemy to the US than any foreign nation state. Not even joking. This is what happens when you let managerialists with nothing at stake have decision making authority. It's like the helo mechanic being on the first flight after a repair, if you're not the guy using the gear, you don't have a say in the selection of the gear. S/F....Ken M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonJ Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 The 30mm variant doing some shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzermann Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 that's an unboxing video (starting at !:41) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Werb Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 that's an unboxing video (starting at !:41) LOL!!! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 DOT&E report: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2017/pdf/army/2017strykericvd.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Falcon Posted February 11, 2018 Author Share Posted February 11, 2018 Canada presents LAVs on Ice: The combat variant was also at the event and is here seen behind the scenes in the arena: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 The Dragoon looks so top heavy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 The Dragoon looks so top heavySpeaking of that, I cant find anything on the MCT-30 weight....that would be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Falcon Posted February 12, 2018 Author Share Posted February 12, 2018 (edited) New Stryker ECM vehicles have been deployed to Europe: U.S. Army's new electronic warfare capabilities hit the ground in Europe GRAFENWOEHR, Germany -- Soldiers with the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, 173rd Airborne Brigade and 2nd Armored Brigade, 1st Infantry Division are the first to receive new electronic warfare, known as EW, prototype systems that enable the U.S. Army to contest and challenge near-peer adversaries in this critical domain.Delivery and training for the integrated package of mounted, dismounted, and command and control EW systems began in January and concludes this month. Soldiers can use the equipment to implement electronic protection for their own formations, as well as to detect and understand enemy activity in the electromagnetic spectrum and disrupt adversaries through electronic attack effects."This equipment will provide additional sensors on the battlefield to contribute to the commander's common operating picture, and assist in driving the targeting process," said Capt. Sean Lynch, Electronic Warfare Officer for the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, or 2CR. "By continuing to contest and challenge NATO adversaries within the electromagnetic spectrum, it forces our adversaries to rethink their strategy and reinforces our ability to support the alliance."Provided in response to an Operational Needs Statement from U.S. Army Europe, the technologies are interim solutions designed as a bridge to enduring EW programs of record that are still in development. The Army Rapid Capabilities Office and the Project Manager for Electronic Warfare & Cyber teamed with 2CR and other receiving units on a rapid prototyping approach to drive system design, performance, functionality and training to meet operational needs in the near- and mid-term.This approach -- which adapted existing systems and incorporated emerging technologies to provide new EW effects and meet the emerging threat -- enabled the Army to move faster than traditional acquisition methods have allowed in the past, delivering needed capabilities into the hands of Soldiers approximately a year after they were first envisioned."The arrival of these electronic warfare systems in Europe demonstrates how the Army can act rapidly to meet a combatant commander need and provide an important deterrent against a quickly modernizing, near-peer threat," said Doug Wiltsie, director of the Army Rapid Capabilities Office. "We will continue to rely on Soldier input to improve the capabilities through phased upgrades, while reducing risk for enduring acquisition programs of record."In Europe, where Russian aggression, tactics and capabilities have demonstrated the ability to use the electromagnetic spectrum to affect military operations, the impact of the prototype capabilities could be significant. Because the systems are ground-based and fielded at brigade and below, they provide commanders additional ways to influence and shape their areas of responsibility with EW assets that can be seamlessly integrated within their formations, rather than relying on air support."Having electronic warfare capabilities at lower echelons is not just important, but critical. This capability would be able to move and transition at the speed of combat, and provide immediate effects, whether geo-locating enemy emitters or denying tactical communications," Lynch said."Freedom of action in this domain is critical to ground maneuver operations in Europe, and throughout the Operational Force, because so much of the equipment and vehicles Soldiers have come to rely on to complete their missions emit, receive on, are connected into, or are otherwise networked back into the electromagnetic spectrum or cyber domain," he said.The delivery of the integrated prototypes is part of a phased fielding approach that enables the Army to incrementally build EW capability as new technologies become available. Last spring, the 2CR received an EW system for dismounted Soldiers, as well as improved counter-unmanned aerial systems (C-UAS) capability mounted on Stryker vehicles. The new package of ground-based mounted, dismounted and command and control capability that is fielding now will soon also be supplemented with aerial systems and other improvements. The ability of the Stryker to be updated is going to be key to its success in an EW role. That field is evolving rapidly and any vehicles deployed to fill that role will have to be upgraded as the situation warrants. A long procurement process will not be possible. Note: photos were from here. Edited February 12, 2018 by Dark_Falcon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now