Stryker Brigade News: Stryker Howitzer Prototype

Stryker Brigade News ^ | 5th April 2004

[Darksheare]

April 05, 2004
Stryker Howitzer Prototype
General Dynamics Land Systems has, as a private venture, developed a 105mm self-propelled howitzer for the Stryker vehicle platform.
General Dynamics is the current manufacturer of the Stryker vehicles.
The company will be test-firing them in Florida this month.
See below for photos.

[Darksheare]

FAMPL listers, here's some info to mull over.
I know, not much info.

[Darksheare]

FAMPL ping, as per Cannoneer's sending of link to the article to me.

[Support Free Republic]

Always Breaking News on Free Republic!
Bring it on!	Take it back!
Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to:         FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 Or you can use:                      PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[68skylark]

Anyone know the range on that baby?

[nuconvert]

Hmmm....how soon can we expect to see those in the Iran/Iraq region of the world?

[nuconvert]

Pong

[I got the rope]

What the ???? I have so many questions I don't know where to begin.

[FormerACLUmember]

Classified but I would guess 11,500 m w/Chg 7 to 19,000 m w/M913 RAP (7 to 12 miles depending on the ammo technology used).

[Darksheare]

Unknown at this point in time.
This is basically a first look deal on it.
It's a 105mm howitzer, so it's probably comparable to the M119A1 howitzer at least with a normal range of roughly 12000 meters, rocket assisted range of roughly 19,200 meters.
(There abouts off the top of my head the stats on the M119A1 light towed. I'm assuming the stats are fairly close.)
I'd make a guess that in the coming days we'll hear more about it.
It's going to be doing live fire in Florida somewhere -porbably Camp Blanding.

[nuconvert]

Should I tell the relatives to duck?

[Darksheare]

Same questions have as well.
Interesting idea, archy and I kicked around the idea last year or so about mating a M119 style h105mm howitzer to, say, a Bradley chasis.
Or, have a light chasis that is air deployable was the main idea.
I was grousing about the M119 being phased out, especially since it is helo deployable and with it's range can drop things in a 400 sq mile (roughly) circle around itself.
Perfect for helobourne raids into enemey territory.
Phase out teh M119, and one loses that ability.

So the idea was to come up with something similar.
What archy and I thought up was something similar to what this article is about.
So it looks familiar to me if by it's basic idea only.

[Darksheare]

Depends on where they are, and if they set up the thing 1600 mils out.(180 degrees out)
And then fire the wrong way.
*snicker*

[Darksheare]

This thing look familiar?
Weren't we brainstorming something like this awhile ago?

[txzman]

LOL..you know what they say. If you have to ask, you shouldn't be fighting one :)

[archy]

Interesting idea, archy and I kicked around the idea last year or so about mating a M119 style h105mm howitzer to, say, a Bradley chasis.

I think we kicked around the possibility of a wheeled version as well, and agreed that it'd likely need a forward-mounted driver's position and engine. WE'll see if a spade or outriggers are eventually required.

The best thing is that the electronic FDC that's replaced two M577s worth of equipment and personell fits in very nicely with the advanced c-cubed gear of the SEP with the embedded version of the US Army's Force XXI command and control architecture.

Or, have a light chasis that is air deployable was the main idea.
I was grousing about the M119 being phased out, especially since it is helo deployable and with it's range can drop things in a 400 sq mile (roughly) circle around itself. Perfect for helobourne raids into enemey territory. Phase out teh M119, and one loses that ability.

It's entirely possible that *IF* successful, the 105/Stryker could be the most practical and useful of the Stryker breed. I wopnder how much of a direct fire capability it retains....

[FlyVet]

That's a howizter? I thought a howitzer was a short-barreled thingie, sort of a cross between a mortar and a long gun. Seems it would be less top-heavy and more mobile with a shorter barrel.

[MindBender26]

Longer tube indicates longer powder burn, ie; longer range than Vietnam-era M101 102

[I got the rope]

Do you think this may be Crusader lite?

[archy]

Looks like there may be a new addition to the Combat Engineer version of the Stryker, too:

COMBAT SUPPORT: Laser Cannon for the Engineers

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1111838/posts

[Pamlico]

I dunno. It seems to me that we have created a big, fat RPG magnet. Maybe they would do OK if they are protected by a fleet of M1A1's.

[archy]

I dunno. It seems to me that we have created a big, fat RPG magnet. Maybe they would do OK if they are protected by a fleet of M1A1's.

You must not have heard. There aren't going to be any M1A1s.

The Army is on schedule to meet its goal of standing up the objective force by Chief of Staff General Eric K. Shinseki's target timeframe of 2008 to 2012. According to Army officials, the Army should attain the technological innovations needed to create the objective force as projected. Key among these are the technologies required to produce the future combat system, which will be a replacement for the 70-ton M1 Abrams tank that will have the same lethality and survivability but will weigh only 20 tons. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology, Dr. Michael Andrews, predicts, "By the end of [20]05, early [20]06, we will have a future combat systems demonstration. We're not having to create new technologies out of thin air."

You see any M1A1/A2 tanks in here:

[GeronL]

Looks good. But I will not be happy until we come up with the titanium armored Mech with the 105mm laser-targeted gatlin gun.

[archy]

That's a howizter? I thought a howitzer was a short-barreled thingie, sort of a cross between a mortar and a long gun. Seems it would be less top-heavy and more mobile with a shorter barrel.

Not so much since the South African/SRC development of the 45-caliber tube 155mm G5 series weapons and base-burn ammunition with a range of circa 50 KM. As mortars now reach the ranges previously served by shorter-tubed howitzers and guns, the value of tube artillery at longer ranges takes on more and more importance- particularly if the other folks cannon cockers have it.

[FlyVet]

Not so much since the South African/SRC development of the 45-caliber tube 155mm G5 series weapons and base-burn ammunition with a range of circa 50 KM.

What is meant by "45-caliber", when the bore is 155mm? Is it the tube's wall thickness or what? Also, what is "base-burn"? Is there a website that explains all this fascinating stuff? I have a minor understanding of ballistics, since I reload my own ammo.

[68skylark]

You seem to know what you're talking about.

I got my start in a unit that had at least one M-114 (not an M-114A1). Tells you something about how old I am!

I recently re-joined a FA unit, with M102's this time. We may be converted to MP before long, but in the meantime it's nice to brush up some of my FA skills.

I sure hope (and suspect) that this new Stryker cannon will have a much longer range that a M-119. We'll see.

[archy]

You seem to know what you're talking about. I got my start in a unit that had at least one M-114 (not an M-114A1). Tells you something about how old I am!

I recently re-joined a FA unit, with M102's this time. We may be converted to MP before long, but in the meantime it's nice to brush up some of my FA skills.

I sure hope (and suspect) that this new Stryker cannon will have a much longer range that a M-119. We'll see.

I'd be worried about such a Stryker battery [4 guns? 6?] falling prey not to a hostile tank platoon, which it might at least outrun, but to enemy tracked MICVs or light tank destroyers, along the lines of the BMD-3 or BTR-80 or-90/Kliver turret with quad-tube Kornet-E 9K129 AT-13 missile launcher and 30mm autocannon. Just as bad: the BMD-3 or BMP-3 with missile launcher, autocannon and a 100mm smoothbore main gun, also capable of serving as a launcher for the AT-10 *Stabber* AT missile, range to 4,000m-plus. A security detail of Strykers mounting only .50 MGs is not going to cut it. And the former Soviet vehicles and present Russian upgraded versions are mostly amphibious, as well.

[RedlegCPT]

Throw that straw man away, we have passed that with the UA concept already. 2 Batteris 8 Guns. It has been very interesting at teh NTC this last month.

[archy]

Throw that straw man away, we have passed that with the UA concept already. 2 Batteris 8 Guns. It has been very interesting at teh NTC this last month.

Usable, and easily broken into three six-gun batteries if required, as in two-up/one back fire support bases. Now all they'll need is a rotary-wing lifter that can get them across blue lines where bridges or fords are lacking. I recall a ballpark figure of 19,555 pounds for a CH47, but upgraded models might beat that a bit, and an airmobile model Stryker might be worth consideration.

[archy]

Not so much since the South African/SRC development of the 45-caliber tube 155mm G5 series weapons and base-burn ammunition with a range of circa 50 KM. What is meant by "45-caliber", when the bore is 155mm? Is it the tube's wall thickness or what? Also, what is "base-burn"? Is there a website that explains all this fascinating stuff? I have a minor understanding of ballistics, since I reload my own ammo.

It's the length of the gun barrel in relation to its caliber, therefore 105mmx45, or in the case of the South African G5, a 155x45 caliber-length tube.

The terminology is derived from naval guns, where barrel length was not only a matter of ballistic interest, but also of concern to turret and mount engineers so that a full 360-degree sweep of the turret might be managed without conflicting with other gun mounts or superstructure, or in the case of main batteries, so that a sweeo of 180 degrees or more forward or aft could be maintained for broadside firing.

[SAMWolf]

Gee, all that work to go to tracked SP artillery and we go back to wheels. :-(

[archy]

You seem to know what you're talking about.

I got my start in a unit that had at least one M-114 (not an M-114A1). Tells you something about how old I am! I have been at this racket for some time, and have been accused of having been a dining room orderly at the Last Supper. I was also once informed by a a fella who I found was a pretty good and perceptive NCO that *Sir, you're the oldest second looey I ever seen...you must have really ####ed up.*

Did your M114 have the GMC 283-V8 engine? The first two 2404-9 suggestions for vehicle improvements I submitted as a young tanker were for the M114; I found out the Marines had replaced the 125HP GMC engine in their M50 Ontos recoilless rifle tracks with the Chrysler V-8 318 and asked *why not*? And a Diesel would have even better, providing fuel compatability with our M60A1 tanks and M113A1 tracked ambulances.

The 20mm gun for the M114A1 mount was something less than a screaming success and was usually more commonly seen with a M2HB TT in place instead, no real great improvement over the M2 mount of the M114, and a headache in that forward-area tank crews had their .50 ammo issued in links for the M85, different from the M9 links for the M2, which prevented resupply or cross-leveling ammo between FEBA tanks and scouts. Since the M85 had a lo-hi selectable rate of fire up to 1000 RPM per gun, I suggested a twin-gun M85 mount for tank battalion M114A1s instead, later fine-tuned to a 3-gun mounting that with all 3 guns in hi-rate mode offered more firepower than the M55 quad .50 of the Korean and Vietnam wars. We built 4 units for our battalion's M114A1s, drove to Graf for a firing test that was filmed and studied to death by ordnance and Seventh Army, and which was still under consideration when our recon platoons got Diesel engined M113A1s instead. Oh well.

I recently re-joined a FA unit, with M102's this time. We may be converted to MP before long, but in the meantime it's nice to brush up some of my FA skills. I sure hope (and suspect) that this new Stryker cannon will have a much longer range that a M-119. We'll see.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

My wife took one look at the pic and said "Is that real? It looks like an abortion."

When I got done laughing I had to admit that turret and gun tube look extremely unwieldy on that chassis. I wouldn't get near any river banks with it.

[muleskinner]

I think GDLS came up with this because they can't get the original Stryker 105 to work properly. Why a 105? Don't think that ammo is being made anymore. Is that a green canvass covering the "secret" turret? Or the usual GD quality of workmanship on display for all to see?

[Cannoneer No. 4]

AMOS mortar turret with double barrel 120 mm mortars.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Sisu AMOS

[archy]

Hmmmm. Weight? And will either fit in a C130 aircraft?

[Cannoneer No. 4]

[muleskinner]

Oh wait, GD went to a 105 'cuz the chassis and suspension may be unable to handle the larger recoil forces of a 120. Firing a 155 raised to, oh 45 deg or so, would bottom out the suspension on the 2 rearward sets and get the 2 front sets of tires airborn. Major E ticket ride for the crew, prolly dangerous.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

The turret alone weighs 4400 kg

Do you think the Stryker Howitzer will fit in a C-130?

[muleskinner]

You have 112" vertical and about 98" of width for a C-130. Max pay load is 44K, but your range suffers proportional to the weight you carry. They prefer 38k-ish.
The vehicle on the right-the drivers window looks to be near 8' off the ground. So that one's too high. The other is lower, but hard to tell how much. Both are prolly too big and fat.

[archy]

The turret alone weighs 4400 kg Do you think the Stryker Howitzer will fit in a C-130?

I'm thinking along the lines of a field removable/replacable turret, with the C130 load being either the Stryker, or a pair of turrets on dollys or skids. It might even be possible to build a removable lifting frame for removal and installation of a turret in the field by a single vehicle.

Given the electronics and systems necessary, it may not be possible. But the C130 requirement may not be as critical for the artillery suppurt Stryker, of which far fewer would need to be carried, and could be moved in pairs aboard a C17 instead...though that's the same number of 155mm gun Crusaders that could be cartried on a C-17, one reason given for the Crusader program cancellation.

[archy]

You have 112" vertical and about 98" of width for a C-130. Max pay load is 44K, but your range suffers proportional to the weight you carry. They prefer 38k-ish.

So two 4400KG turrets x 2.2=9680 pounds, x two turrets= a 19,360 # load, meaning that 3, possibly 4 turrets could be so carried, or maybe 3 plus the equipment required for reinstallation. That's referring to the double-barrelled *Elmer Fudd* mortar installation, of course, but I bet a songle tube-and-breech 105 arty piece is in that same ballpark.

The vehicle on the right-the drivers window looks to be near 8' off the ground. So that one's too high. The other is lower, but hard to tell how much. Both are prolly too big and fat.

Looks like the big question will be whether or not a field-removable/replacable turret installation and the necessary support equipment can be worked up. But it's at least a possibility.

[archy]

Oh wait, GD went to a 105 'cuz the chassis and suspension may be unable to handle the larger recoil forces of a 120.

The problem with the 120mm was with fire with the turret turned 90º to the side, I believe, less of a problem with an artillery piece, whose recoil forces are somewhat less as well. The Czechs mounted guns up to 152mm on 8-wheeled DANA/SKOT chassis platforms, so a 105 on a Stryker would seem do-able.

Firing a 155 raised to, oh 45 deg or so, would bottom out the suspension on the 2 rearward sets and get the 2 front sets of tires airborn. Major E ticket ride for the crew, prolly dangerous.

Outriggers and a hydraulic blade or spade could cure that at the cost of another couple of tons of weight. I think some of the South African G6 155mm wheeled SP guns were fitted with a hydraulicly-deployed blade in the vehicle's rear that when lowered, absorbed most of the firing stresses from the 155mm gun.

[archy]

I think GDLS came up with this because they can't get the original Stryker 105 to work properly. Why a 105? Don't think that ammo is being made anymore. Is that a green canvass covering the "secret" turret? Or the usual GD quality of workmanship on display for all to see?

Well, if the Stryker 105mm AGS is a lemon, let's see if some lemonade can be made of it.

As for ammunition, there's plenty to be had for the M119A1 light Gun, also used and loaded for by the Canadians, Brits, and many other NATO partners. And the Brits field a antitank HEAT round with an accurate range of almost 1km for direct fire applications, with a replacable barrel suitable for use with the M1 ammunition of the old U.S. 105-mm M1 and M101 howitzers. It takes around 2 hours or so to so changeout a barrel.

The other advantage of a 105 over a 120 or 152/155mm howitzer is in the number of rounds of ammo that can be carried aboard, more critical with an SP gun, whether wheeled or tracked, than for a towed piece being pulled by a truck that can be used as an ammunition hauler as well.

[Redleg Duke]

I have seen the improved ammo for the 105. It is said to be as effective against troops as the 155mm. I have always had a soft spot in my heart for the "Oh-5" since I was an XO and BC of a battery of 'em!

[Redleg Duke]

The whole idea behind the light force is improved ISR, C3 and manuever. Armored forces are the 800 lb gorrilla, looking to knock heads toe-to-toe. The light force must find first, kill first and use long range, BLOS fires to kill unseen.

It is a new paradigm.

[Darksheare]

The turret would definately add more weight to the backend of this puppy, it will need spades, and outriggers if it can fire broadside.
Unless they unrealistically restricted the turret traverse like in the older M109's.
Charge 7 direct fire is possible, the tube sleeve looks like it will allow some slight depression of the barrel past 0 mils.
Thinking back, yes we did kick the idea of a wheeled SP around.
We pretty much thought that the suspension would have to be modified to absorb the shock of high angle firing plus max weight and ammo.

The tube looks like it will depress only -10 mils, but with the right position and emplacement that won't be a problem.
But we both know about 'ideal emplacement' and how that never really ever happens.
Have to admit, that's a heck of a remote weapon station.
*chuckle*

[Darksheare]

*shaky hand motion*
Yes and no, if it fired like a tank gun, it'd be a cannon, if it fired a high lobbing arc, it's a mortar, if it can do both, it's a howitzer.
But, the tube length makes it a gun -if it's longer than 15 foot or so on the tube length or some such.
The howitzer tube itself doesn't ad much weight, it's the turret itself and the shock of firing that may tip it over.
Archy and I kicked a similar idea around last year.
We figured using the Stryker body would require and necessitate the use of outriggers and spades mounted on teh chassis somewhere.
Outriggers especially if they plan to be able to fire broadside and do "360 degree artillery ops" without having to reposition the vehicle for the next fire mission.

[Darksheare]

Possible.
If it's got a 105mm version of the weapon mounted on the Crusader, as well as scaled down versions of Crusader's other internal equipment modified to support the 105, then yes.
Currently I haven't heard much on it other than what is in the paragraphical article.
So we have educated best guesses at this point in time.
unless they give a press release on it within the next 24 hours or so.
Depends on if it's electronics suite is of the Crusader's class or not.